The State of the Market for Contemporary Photography

[faberryman]

I saw this link to an article on the state of the market for contemporary photography on RFF and thought that it might gain better traction here on Photrio:

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/opinion/contemporary-photography-market-down-1234672389

The author notes a marked decline in prices and characterizes the decline as an overcorrection in the market. The thing about overcorrections is that they are corrections, and corrections are reassessments of value, financial and otherwise.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I imagine with signs of a recession; people may be conserving their money lowering prices on all art. Who knows what causes these things?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since I do not sell my photographs for multiple millions of dollars, I will not be loosing any sleep over this.

 

[Pieter12]

I imagine with signs of a recession; people may be conserving their money lowering prices on all art. Who knows what causes these things?

The income levels of those who buy art at the prices mentioned in the article are less concerned with inflation, but might be interested in acquiring collectable photos at current prices for investment purposes. There is a shortage of super-yachts right now so they have money burning a hole in their pocket.

 

[Pieter12]

A salient (though extraneous) bit from the article brings out a good point:

"...Ansel Adams had it right when he said, “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” Our pictures were clearly just taken, rapid-fire on our phones, happy accidents rather than painstakingly planned compositions or evidence of some kind of singular spontaneous vision.

While the number of photographs on our smartphones rises (I have 13,000 and counting) as the prices at auction for masterworks of contemporary photography fall, too many of us are missing the thrilling exploration through this medium that is happening right before our eyes."

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Supply and demand. The demand for “ one of kind” or art that only “i” have possession of, is in my mind, on the decline in the market place . It seems to me, people can view “art” for free via instagram. There is so so much supply of art, it’s out of control . So many artist want attention, that they give it away for free or next to free. Buyers are savvy. Either free for the real thing if I want to take the effort. Or free on line if I’m lazy. Art is ubiquitous in our society, like chewing gum on concrete. No body pays attention.

 

[faberryman]

Or maybe buyers now think the photographers and photographs in question do not have the long term significance they originally thought they had. Maybe at the time the people who asked "Why in the world would anyone pay $1,000,000 for that photograph?" were right.

 

[MattKing]

Or perhaps this has nothing to do with photography itself, but rather to the vagaries and cyclical nature of the high value art collectors' market.

 

[faberryman]

Or perhaps this has nothing to do with photography itself, but rather to the vagaries and cyclical nature of the high value art collectors' market.

Just last year Man Ray’s Le Violon d’Ingres sold for $12.4 million, a record for a photograph, so given the right photograph, there appears to be money to be spent (invested).

 

[Pieter12]

Supply and demand. The demand for “ one of kind” or art that only “i” have possession of, is in my mind, on the decline in the market place . It seems to me, people can view “art” for free via instagram. There is so so much supply of art, it’s out of control . So many artist want attention, that they give it away for free or next to free. Buyers are savvy. Either free for the real thing if I want to take the effort. Or free on line if I’m lazy. Art is ubiquitous in our society, like chewing gum on concrete. No body pays attention.

Collectors need to own the art, either to display as part of a collection or to hold on to as an investment. Viewing art of any sort on a computer (unless it was made to be displayed on one), much less on Instagram, is nowhere near the experience of seeing it in person.

Furthermore, if nobody pays attention, why are there galleries, museums and public art?

 

[logan2z]

Photography is not the only thing in a slump...

Christie's 20th/21st Century Sale in London Pulled in an Underwhelming $81 Million, Signaling a Market Correction | Artnet News

The sale achieved a high sell-through rate but many lots went under hammer at prices below the lower end of the presale estimates.

news.artnet.com

 

[faberryman]

Photography is not the only thing in a slump...

Christie's 20th/21st Century Sale in London Pulled in an Underwhelming $81 Million, Signaling a Market Correction | Artnet News

The sale achieved a high sell-through rate but many lots went under hammer at prices below the lower end of the presale estimates.

news.artnet.com

Your article represents a snapshot. The contemporary photography article looked at a trend over time.

 

[ic-racer]

I always wanted an original Avedon, Friedlander, Winogrand, HCB and Brandt. Maybe this is a good time to buy. I like dogs, so this has been one of my favoritres. Going for about $7000 which is still pretty expensive.

 

[Pieter12]

You could have bought a small Crewdson recently for $250 from Aperture for a fund-raiser.

 

[logan2z]

Your article represents a snapshot. The contemporary photography article looked at a trend over time.

True, I guess we'll have to wait and see what the next set of auctions look like to see if this is a trend.

 

[Pieter12]

I really have

True, I guess we'll have to wait and see what the next set of auctions look like to see if this is a trend

I really have to laugh at this discussion! Who on this forum buys or sells in those markets and at those prices?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photography is not the only thing in a slump...

Christie's 20th/21st Century Sale in London Pulled in an Underwhelming $81 Million, Signaling a Market Correction | Artnet News

The sale achieved a high sell-through rate but many lots went under hammer at prices below the lower end of the presale estimates.

news.artnet.com

You can buy any one of mine for $500 including full rights to the copyright. Contact me early before Christies calls.

 

[logan2z]

I really have to laugh at this discussion! Who on this forum buys or sells in those markets and at those prices?

All of the money I save by switching from Kodak to Ilford film is going straight into my Joan Mitchell fund

 

[faberryman]

True, I guess we'll have to wait and see what the next set of auctions look like to see if this is a trend.

I think you would need to see more than just the next set of auctions to see if this is a continuing trend.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Collectors need to own the art, either to display as part of a collection or to hold on to as an investment. Viewing art of any sort on a computer (unless it was made to be displayed on one), much less on Instagram, is nowhere near the experience of seeing it in person.

Furthermore, if nobody pays attention, why are there galleries, museums and public art?

There are less and less people who agree with “ experience in person” or this was made the artists hands as being high value. High value today is the talking point that I own “xyz” artist. It is to show others you have taste or money. Not that you understand “Aura” or appreciate “Aura” of the art work. ( Walter Benjamin) Most people don’t care.

Go to any museum on “free night” you will clearly see vapid consumerism at its best. It’s social hour with a twist of “ can I meet someone here tonight that’s artsy?

Galleries ( brick and mortar) are in decline. Yes, they are still there, but less than 40 years ago. And not making money. Auctions houses are making money, only because they know how to leverage the market, most galleries do not!!

Go on line now, and see any piece of art you wish “ for free” and read about quickly to gain the talking points. In 5 minutes you can move on to something else, or another idea, website, etc. see it ! Throw it away! See it , throw it away! Repeat until you have consumed the world . In between martinis! Cheers!

 

[Pieter12]

Wow. Very fluent gibberish.

 

[jvo]

A musician can buy a really great song by a famous singer/band - every day without breaking the bank.

Can a photographer/hobbyist afford a really great photograph by a famous artist, or even a modest one? It's not new technology, lack of film, and chemistry that will kill photography. It is high prices, galleries, photography as art mystique, and unaffordable exorbitant prices that is killing photography. The accessibility of images is increasing - books, galleries dying. The same 10,000 photography collectors in the world will dwindle. Less prints.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Wow. Very fluent gibberish.

If you’d like, your more than welcome to call what you like. Point is there is more and more “ on line galleries than ever before where you can view for free images! Why buy something when you can view for free when you like! Ultimate consumer experience!!

Maybe these ideas of reality break your romantic idealism of “ great art “ or great artist” they are all a dime a dozen! Get over it!!

If it wasn’t for the collusion between printing houses and museums one hundred years ago of “ who’s who” you nor anyone else give a damn , because you wouldn’t know artist from reptile. Now go one step further with digital “ we are all artist” no need to distinguish. We are all awash from the onslaught of 1 billion images uploaded everyday for people to view for free. There are way too many suppliers of images. And not enough demand. Hence, free !

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are less and less people who agree with “ experience in person” or this was made the artists hands as being high value. High value today is the talking point that I own “xyz” artist. It is to show others you have taste or money. Not that you understand “Aura” or appreciate “Aura” of the art work. ( Walter Benjamin) Most people don’t care.

Go to any museum on “free night” you will clearly see vapid consumerism at its best. It’s social hour with a twist of “ can I meet someone here tonight that’s artsy?

Galleries ( brick and mortar) are in decline. Yes, they are still there, but less than 40 years ago. And not making money. Auctions houses are making money, only because they know how to leverage the market, most galleries do not!!

Go on line now, and see any piece of art you wish “ for free” and read about quickly to gain the talking points. In 5 minutes you can move on to something else, or another idea, website, etc. see it ! Throw it away! See it , throw it away! Repeat until you have consumed the world . In between martinis! Cheers!

Reminds me of a true story that happened to me a few years back. I attended the Association of International Photography Art Dealers, or IPAD, as it's more commonly known, held at the Park Avenue Armory, in NYC. Dealers from around the world meet there and set up sales booths of their photos. There were lots of Ansel Adams B/W prints. Many dealers apparently sell his stuff. I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another at $115,000 and the last at around $140,000.

So I'm standing at the last dealer, the one with the $140,000 edition, when in flows this attention-grabbing couple. He, a rather ordinary fifty something year old dressed to kill, and she, a knock-out blond about half his age. So I overhear him telling her, "This is nothing. My Hernandez cost me $180,000." As they drifted away, he had a smile on his face. And she, well, I think she was impressed. I was. But not about the $180,000. Or that he had an Adams's Hernandez. I was impressed that he had such a young, hot girlfriend. Even the dealer selling the Hernandez seemed impressed as he winked at me in agreement.

Seems to me he made a good investment.

 

[VinceInMT]

…saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another at $115,000 and the last at around $140,000.….

Back in the 70s I saw Moonrise at the Adams gallery in Yosemite for $14,000. Using a future value calculator, that $14K put into an index fund back then would now be worth a bit over $300K. I’m glad I didn’t buy the photo.