Fine art photography

[hawkeye]

I write for a magazine about business for visual arts here in the States. They want to devote an issue or a large part of an issue to "fine art" photography. So I'm looking for some ideas for everyone so that I'm not just "opinionating."

If you sell prints through galleries and such can you give me an idea of what your experience is like. What the market for print sales like? Can you live off of sales? What sort of problems have you encountered?

I'd appreciate any views and if I want to quote you will get back to you for permission and will credit the writer.

Thanks,

Steve Meltzer

[feenej]

Lousy sales for my group in Milwaukee, The Cream City Photogs. We have no problem getting gallery gigs (four in the last year), but sales are terrible. I'm not sure we can keep it going. We even threw parties at two of our gigs with beer food and wine, and we were top pick in the Journal Sentinel Newspaper, Milwaukee Magazine, and the local radio station for our first, but still had abysmal sales. People like to come out and see our shows. They really seem to enjoy it, but we loose money each time.

http://www.creamcityphotogs.com/

[retnull]

I am not a pro fine art photographer, but I know some people who are. My impression is that income for fine artists is distibuted as unevenly as elsewhere in the economy. It could be diagrammed as a pyramid: a small number of very successful artists at the top, extending to a large number of artists making tiny sums from their art.

[Roger Hicks]

Does 'Fine Art Photography' actually exist?

If so, how does it differ from 'good pictures'?

Sorry to be so populist. It's a question I've addressed a couple of times in my columns in AP magazine in the UK, and also on the site in

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...#37;20art.html

If there are any ideas there that are useful, and you want to steal them, the fee is a cross-link to the site...

Cheers,

R.

[JFH]

I'm just a lowly amateur so please don't be too hard on me, but as I see it:

If I "take a picture" and I like it, then that's OK.

If I like it and you like it (for whatever reason) then it's probably a reasonably good picture.

If perhaps 6 of the "right" people like it, and maybe it "conforms" to some previously set rules or expectations, then it's "art."

The decision rests with the beholder. Whether something is actually "art" or not is a very subjective thing. I guess I tend to be a "mechanic" more than an artist... so for me I often cringe when a mechanically terrible.. out of focus, not properly exposed, odd composition, etc... photo is explained as "art." But then I don't have a fine arts degree or training, so I expect that explanations are often lost on me..

Then of course there are the commercial aspects, as stated above... rather "iffy."

[35mmdelux]

if your looking for so-called fine art photog you might be better served by talking with landscape photographers.

I observed some photogs calling themselves "fine art photogs" and I wonder if they even know what this means? To me, everyone is basically a photographer -- it is the viewing or buying public that filters out the fine photographers from the "amatuers."

We all might be better served by first defining what fine art means..

[J. Borger]

Originally Posted by 35mmdelux

I observed some photogs calling themselves "fine art photogs" and I wonder if they even know what this means? To me, everyone is basically a photographer -- it is the viewing or buying public that filters out the fine photographers from the "amatuers."

We all might be better served by first defining what fine art means..

Well stated. "Fine art photograhy" to me is just a hollow concept .... just like the concept of pro vs amateur photographer..... it says nothing about the quality or content of the photographs.....

[tmfabian]

Originally Posted by photomoof

"Pro," as I have argued unsuccessfully elsewhere on this forum -- does not in any way mean the "pro" is a good photographer, or even has a broad based knowledge of photography, it simply means that is his job.

Pro is only an IRS definition, with no relevance to quality or knowledge.

aye, it's true, the exact definition of a "pro" photographer is anyone who makes greater than or equal to 50% of their income from being a photographer.

"Pro" means nothing of quality.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm always amazed at these discussions and how dense some people appear to be. Is it REALLY that hard to understand what art is?

Here, some examples:

Not fine art photography. This is commercial photography.


More commercial photography


This is fine art.


This is also art.

Like others here have said, the definition of art has been in place academically and in the marketplace for a very long time now. It isn't rocket science.

[Thardy]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I'm always amazed at these discussions and how dense some people appear to be. Is it REALLY that hard to understand what art is?

Here, some examples:

Not fine art photography. This is commercial photography.


More commercial photography


This is fine art.


This is also art.

Like others here have said, the definition of art has been in place academically and in the marketplace for a very long time now. It isn't rocket science.

yep, this is discussed weekly on photo.net .

[amateriat]

"Fine Art" photography is often used commercially, as Fred illustrates. I refer to most of what I do as "Fine Art" because that's how it starts out. How it ends up, usage-wise, I can't predict.


- Barrett

[rolly]

For forty years I have been a writer. For thirty of those years I wrote poems; lately fiction. I never made money from poetry; I did make money, because I was seen as a "serious" writer from readings, teaching, workshops, residencies, book contracts, ghost writing, magazine articles, tutoring, editing. Through it all, I wrote the poems and fiction that not only mattered to me, in a practical yet mysterious way I had to write them, all the failures and the few really good poems, it was as if the work itself was as important as the product, the art or the artifacts. This kind of work has nothing directly to do with making money or having a career as an "artist." If I were a religious sort I would say it has to do with stepping away from myself, and taking a step towards something more genuine. And I certainly don't think the IRS is qualified to tell me what art is. They aren't collecting art. They are collecting taxes. Yeats admonished Irish poets to learn their trade-- be part of a tradition and master a craft. But artistry is more than tradition and craft.

I don't have the history with photography that I have with writing. So I don't call myself a photographer and mean that I am an artist with a camera. But the same impulse I have when I write a story or try to find the way to get a character to talk like himself and not like I personally talk-- to get beyond me-- I am working in the same spirit with film. I shoot photos because it seems to take me somewhere that is at once closer to the real world "out there" and at the same time is like a blueprint of what is not exactly visible, but can be felt.

In that sense I completely agree with the examples given above of the four pictures. The latter two, as opposed to the commercial shots, whether they are great art or failed art, they aspire towards seeing the world as it is and in seeing truly, showing the spirit and feel of that moment and place.

There are many people in this forum who, even though they never call themselves artists, nevertheless, when I see their work, I would say they are doing art. Some of our work falls below a kind of threshold and it's not so good; some work rises above and it is good. There is a quality of having captured more than the sum of the parts of the subject matter in the photo. And there is persistence. Doing something because one has to.

The photographer Philip Perkis (book: The Sadness of Men) once said he had been trying for twenty years to take a good photo of some crates by a field of potatoes. That is art-- to come back year after year to try to see and make a picture of those crates, and to not be satisfied until one gets it right. So a lot of failure is built into making a thing like Perkis was trying to make but there is no way to measure it by some set of external guidelines or standards or tax codes. Doubtless even an exuberant shooter like Winogrand knew that most of what he was shooting wasn't what he was looking for.

[newspaperguy]

Thank you, rolly.
Well 'said.'
As someone who has been paid for words and pictures for more than 50-years,
I seldom think of myself as a fine artist, or even an artist... a cartoonist - maybe?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by rolly

For forty years I have been a writer. For thirty of those years I wrote poems; lately fiction. .

Dear Rolly,

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must.

(Edit: Oh: and the IRS does not distinguish between art and journalism. Been there, taken the deduction on that.)

Cheers,

R.

[Migracer]

Fine Art is what the FINE people who have unlimited amounts of money and want some exclusivity by discovering a "new artist". This action elevating their stature among their peers. Andy W painting a can of soup is an example of being in the right place with the right people and was declared a fine artist. That was dumb luck! Ansel Adams spending hundreds of hours on an image from acquisition to final print was a fine artist. Repeatability and the consistency to make images that are considered desirable and sold only in limited signed numbers has to be recognized as a fine art. Luck, hard work with talent and consistency. Take your pick. Non of my pictures I consider art have ever sold the ones that have been paid for are just illustration in my eye.

[gns]

The op was pretty clear in his request. Looking for first hand info regarding selling your work through art galleries/dealers. Ever since post #5, it has morphed into a dialogue of just what is "Fine art photography". Anybody here have gallery representation? I'd be interested to hear about it myself.

Cheers,
Gary

[back alley]

Originally Posted by hawkeye

I write for a magazine about business for visual arts here in the States. They want to devote an issue or a large part of an issue to "fine art" photography. So I'm looking for some ideas for everyone so that I'm not just "opinionating."

If you sell prints through galleries and such can you give me an idea of what your experience is like. What the market for print sales like? Can you live off of sales? What sort of problems have you encountered?

I'd appreciate any views and if I want to quote you will get back to you for permission and will credit the writer.

Thanks,

Steve Meltzer

seems like lots of replies but not really any answers.

i was talking to a photographer the other day, he was selling his images at the annual local fringe theatre event- a combination of plays, street performers and arts & craft sales tents. after my asking he said that he usually sold a few thousand dollars in print sales over the 10 days event. his average price was $45. per small print.

joe

[Dektol Dan]

Help me! I can't catch my breath! Ha Ha Ha!

[back alley]

what are you laughing at dan?

[MickH]

Can someone explain to me the difference between Art & Fine Art? Is it just the price-tag?

[retnull]

The fine art marketplace (paintings, sculpture, photography and other forms) was estimated at upwards of $25 billion per year, internationally (in an article in Art News magazine, a few months ago).

Here in New York City, there is less confusion about what fine art is: you're a fine art photographer if you're represented by a gallery. If you're not part of the system of galleries, curators, museums, fine art press, then you're an amateur who may or may not make some money from their art. The "Art World" is a definable, finite thing, and it exists because of its exclusivity. Think about it: the things in museums are special, extraordinary, and expensive because of all the stuff that wasn't allowed into the museum.

Andreas Gursky, Edward Burtynsky, Jeff Wall, Wolfgang Tillmans, Thomas Ruff, Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, Nan Goldin -- these people don't have day jobs because they are part of the Art World.

I guess my real point is: you can debate about how much art is in a particular photograph, but that's completely subjective. The economic activity occurring in the art world is an objective thing. For example, look here:
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pa...graph/4/lang/1
http://www.findartinfo.com/search/li...?keyword=85808

[rolly]

I disagree. The dialogue IS about what constitutes FINE ART. The OP may have asked several questions about business; but he says the magazine is about fine arts and the business of fine arts. So one should know what is meant by "fine art." Is "fine art" a euphemism for "what sells big time?" Maybe to some. But if you are going to use the word "art" then you should be prepared to hear that for some people, "fine art" goes beyond money. There's room for a lot of diversity in how people approach photography and "art."

Or isn't there?

[Damien Franco]

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

[Migracer]

Originally Posted by Damien Franco

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

Having lived and worked in New York for many years. I had the myopic view of the world too. See Saul Steinberg's New Yorkers Magazine cover. http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_d....asp?sid=50326
I worked with my father at his 5 Ave studio during his "Gallery Days" and there is no question That the definition then was, if you were represented in a gallery you were a fine artist. But I completely agree with Damien that the definition has changed. I work at roughly 30 automotive events per year and at many of these venues there are many Fine Artist that make a very comfortable living working these events and internet sales. Google John Lamm, he is my example of what I would like to acheive with my fine art.

[retnull]

Originally Posted by Damien Franco

I think that right now we live in an age where the definition of fine art in general is changing. The advent of the internet certainly allows that many artists are able to make a living without having any representation (or want) in the "Art World".

If you define Fine Art by representation you miss one thing:

The artists needed that representation for monetary reasons. They needed gallery owners and curators to accept their works so they would sell.

Now a good marketer can make just as much, if not more, money by selling to the masses directly.

This is where the "Art World" is heading. IMHO

In a practical sense, yes.

But there's important differences between the inside and the outside of the Art World. For example, painter Thomas Kinkade probably makes a lot of money, by massive volume of sales. However, he has zero credibility within the Art World. Compare with photographer Andreas Gursky, a fixture within the Art World, who can sell single prints at $2 million to $3 million each.

But money is money, right? Does it matter if the money comes from volume of sales, or through carefully orchestrated inflation of value and artificial scarcity? Well, one difference is that Kinkade is unlikely to be remembered 50 years from now, while Gursky will definitely be in all the art history books.