ku # 498 ~ the real 99.9995 problem
Friday, January 18, 2008 at 08:56AM 
A light fresh snowfall in color • click to embiggenIn his commentary in the current issue (No. 74) of LensWork, Brooks Jensen laments the fact that 99.999% of the general public lacks appreciation / understanding of most contemporary Fine Art photography because contemporary photographers spend too much time gazing into their own navels and consequently they create pictures that too are 'elitist' for the general public to care about. IMO, there is more than a grain of truth in that assessment, but only as far it goes.
I think Jensen stops far short of the mark if his intention is to address why 99.999% of the general public not only doesn't appreciate / understand contemporary Fine Art photography but also doesn't acquire it. While Jensen never directly addresses in his commentary the idea of selling contemporary Fine Art photography, the idea kind of lurks between the lines. At least for me it does but perhaps that's because that notion as been on my mind of late.
The idea of selling contemporary Fine Art photography is on my mind for several reasons, not the least of which is my previously mentioned intent to open a photography gallery. Relative to this intent, I have been pondering the whole model of contemporary Fine Art photography as a 'limited edition', high-priced commodity versus the medium's ability to create and endless number of 'originals'.
It seems to me that a reasonable number of the general public do, in fact (and contrary to Jensen's notion), appreciate / understand a lot of what contemporary Fine Art photography has to offer. As just one example, just visit the Chelsea art district in NYC on a Saturday afternoon and witness the crowds that cruise the photo galleries. And while you're at it, try to count the sheer number of photo galleries in Chelsea and NYC, most of which are displaying 'elitist' contemporary Fine Art photography.
IMO, the real problem is not a lack of appreciation / understanding of contemporary Fine Art photography amongst a reasonable segment of the general public. The problem is getting that photography into the hands and on the walls of those so interested. The obstacle to that goal? One word - cost. If one is not prepared to drop, at the very minimum, $2,000 for a print, you're out of luck. Additionally, prints in the $5,000-$12,000 are the norm, not the exception and many photographers are successfully selling prints in the $18,000-$25,000 dollar range.
I appreciate and understand most of this contemporary Fine Art photography and would dearly love to hang some on my walls but the best I am able to do is acquire books of contemporary Fine Art photography. They are nice enough but viewing a Burtynsky in a book is a very different experience from viewing a 6'×8' Burtynsky on a wall.
All of that said, here's another fly in the ointment relative to getting contemporary Fine Art photography in the hands and on the walls of a reasonable segment of the general public. My experience tells me that many of those who appreciate / understand contemporary photography are not seeking out and acquiring much more reasonably priced yet very good stuff created by 'unknowns'.
An example - I sell my work, primarily 9×12 and 12×12 prints (editions of 50), at well below NYC gallery prices - typically $250-$350 for a matted print, $450-$550 framed. These are my regional gallery prices of which the gallery typically takes 40-50%. On the other hand, Aaron sells his Cinemascapes on the national / international market at $1,800 a print (editions of 8).
In the 6 months or so since Aaron emerged onto the world stage, he has eclipsed my entire life's total of print sales income. While there is a danger inherent in extrapolating conclusions from a small sample and applying them to a broader realm, IMO and broader experience, this example does lead to some valid conclusions about the contemporary Fine Art photography market.
Caveat - please keep in mind that I am writing about the contemporary Fine Art photography market, NOT the contemporary Decorative Art photography market.
The one conclusion that most interests me is that, once one dips below the bottom end, price-wise, of the 'big time' contemporary Fine Art photography market, the market is very 'soft' to say the least.
Why? Well, IMO, one very important reason (and to use a sports analogy) is that there are very few 'minor league' photo galleries devoted to showcasing the work of, if not up and coming, very accomplished contemporary Fine Art photographers whose work might not or will never make the 'big time'.
Why is that? Many reasons, no doubt, but foremost amongst them are the cost of gallery overhead v. the volume of product that must be sold to pay the piper. This is further complicated by the fact that little has been done to determine what price the market will bear for 'minor league' contemporary Fine Art photography. Will the established gallery marketing modality of very limited editions work in the 'minor leagues'?
Unlike the rest of the world, market-wise, it seems that contemporary Fine Art photography sells well only at the very high end of that market - unlike car, home, and other retail commodity markets where the largest market segments seem to sit somewhere in the 'middle range', price-wise. A 'middle range' where low(er) margins and high(er) volume are keys to marketing success.
Photography, unlike virtually all the other visual arts, is perhaps uniquely situated by its inherent ability to create 'unlimited' originals to explore and maybe establish a new marketing modality for contemporary Fine Art photography.
Maybe. Maybe not. It would be nice if someone gave it an honest shot.
My brain continues to grind on.
Reader Comments (3)
This notion of saner prices seems to be getting more popular. Brooks Jensen has talked about it himself quite a bit (either in his writing or in his podcasts) and seems to be striving towards it.
There's also a few people at least selling through cheaper online venues, avoiding the required gallery mark-up
Consider this post by Sarah Sudhoff or these trio of posts on Paul Butzi's blog
Print Pricing
Print Pricing Redux
Print pricing and Ego
There's a lot of vanity involved as well, fake limited editions of 250 that'll never reach print 10, inflated prices in the hope that a big fish or a big idiot will come along.
Some certainly are in this market to make a living - I'm not certain that high prices and low sales is really the way to maximise revenue, but it seems to be the only real model being explored. More sales at a lower cost may well be a higher overall profit - but the concern I suppose is that the images aren't actually interesting enough for many people to want to buy.
I've sold a few images for hundreds and thousands (well thousand) of dollars. I've come to realise I'd prefer to sell 10x as many for less money and have more people enjoy and own the pictures - even if they throw them away in year.
While I agree with much of your post, I have to take issue with your conclusion in the fourth paragraph regarding the general public.
Keep in mind that the crowds that fill the Chelsea art galleries are not necessarily representative of the entire general public. By definition, they are the subset of the general public that may be interested in fine Art photography. Specifically, I think the only thing that you can conclude from that observation is that the crowds that fill the Chelsea art galleries appreciate art. And that many not even be true... I don't know what percentage of gallery goers are going because they're either interested in art or are planning on buying any... does anyone go to art galleries just because it's a cool place to hang out?... I know they sure do here in San Francisco.
Regards,
Andy Frazer
Hey Andy - I think we are actually in complete agreement - your "subset of the general public" and my "reasonable number of the general public" are essentially one and the same. At least, that's how I meant it even if I didn't make that clear.
As for gallery posers and time-killers, I am certain that your 'subset' and my 'reasonable number' have both.