civilized ku # 128 ~ the Art world explained
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 02:04PM 
Mural and red moving truck~ East Village, NYC • click to embiggenRight from the get-go, let me be perfectly clear - I can no more define / explain the Art world, Photography Division, any better than the next person. Considerable caution should be exercised in attempting to use this brief treatise as a basis for cracking into the Art world. However, that said, I have had some inside-the-ropes experiences and peeks into that world from which I can proffer a few accurate observations.
First, a definition - by Art world - Photography Division, I mean the NYC version of that world (and its derivatives throughout the rest of the planet), some of which is closely aligned with the Academic Lunatic Fringe. Most of the photography-only galleries in the city are part of this Art world as are the many museums that have Photography Departments. It is not unreasonable to say that NYC is the birthplace and epicenter of photography-as-Art thanks in no small measure to Alfred Stieglitz and his efforts through various enterprises - the New York Camera Club (now, The Camera Club of New York) and its newsletter Camera Notes, American Amateur Photographer magazine (as editor), the invitation-only group Photo-Secession, and his gallery - the fabled 291.
That said, this entry is in response to Matt's persistent questioning, re: "...how does one do that? I mean in terms of finding others who find your work interesting, along with the gallery representation?". A question that was spawned from my answer to his intitial question, re: catching a collector's interest enough to keep them coming back for more prints. I stated that to do that is simple - just make interesting pictures and have really good gallery representation.
So let's talk about the Art world, Photography Division.
1.) making interesting pictures - The Art world, Photography Division, is interested in many types / genres of pictures as long as they are "interesting", by which they mean conceptually interesting. Visually interesting is good but not necessarily a prerequisite and, by itself, visual interest is not enough to raise a picture to the status of Art.
Most often, I have no real problem with this except, of course, when a picture is entirely concept-driven and has no visual interest. What I have noticed relative to this is that most of the pictures that make the grade tend to be both conceptually and visually interesting, a duality that I have been calling illustrative and illuminating for quite some time - a quality that I try to vest in my pictures.
BUT, here's the rub -
2.) getting good gallery representation - Let's assume that you are making pictures that many find "interesting". The fact remains that the "many" are not gallery directors, AKA, the Gate Keepers. What one needs to do is to find one Gate Keeper who finds your pictures interesting.
While that doesn't seem like such a daunting task, in fact, the hurdles are many because the Gate Keepers rarely tend the gate. They are most often well hidden behind the gate, walled-off by minions and attitude. They never answer their own gallery phone or open their own gallery mail. Forget getting yourself through to them, it's your portfolio that needs to get in and in most cases portfolios are accepted by invitation only.
How to get an invitation? What it basically comes down to is the age-old who-you-know.
Ever notice that in the bios of most of the "chosen ones" there is a long list of academic achievements and credits? Without diminishing the value of those credits too much, it really is safe to say that the primary benefit of that education is "contacts", AKA, who-you-know. Remember that aforementioned Academic Lunatic Fringe? Many of the chosen ones - and a liberal sprinkling of those who wish they were - are in fact teaching photography in various towers of higher learning (don't give up your day job).
So, if an enterprising student polishes enough apples, a phone call here - a named dropped there from a professor to a Gate Keeper or one of their minions is the ticket in. That is not to imply that there is no other way to get your ticket stamped - tireless schlepping and self promotion (not for the faint of heart or weak of will and self-confidence) have been known to work - BUT, once the portfolio is in the door there is absolutely no guarantee, even with an invitation, that the work will penetrate the attitude(s) of the Gate Keeper.
Now, to be fair, not all Gate Keepers are ruthless self-serving, pompous, jaded, and arrogant assholes. Some seem to be reasonable human beings. Some do not. Again, to be fair, they have reputations to build and protect so they are, one might say, rather savage and ruthless in their judgment. Most seem to give a portfolio about 20 seconds to capture their interest or else it's "next". BTW, the last thing you should expect in the event of a rejection is any feedback.
Gate Keepers are, in fact, very important people, especially so to those clients who spend outrageous amounts of money on pictures based on the word/nod of the Gate Keepers. As one ascends to the upper reaches of the Art world (any division), the prices one needs to fetch for a piece rises dramatically. So, the Gate Keepers not only hold the key to the gallery representation, they also hold the key to the money.
The truth of the matter is that it is hard to imagine just how many pictures a gallery director can sell, sight unseen, to clients with just a phone call but, suffice it to say, it's a lot. Just think of this as another higher-up-the-ladder example of who-you-know. These sales are made possible based on the reputation of the Gate Keeper because, ironically, so many of the buyers are not buying just Art, rather, they're buying investments and status symbols that they can hang on their walls.
I know that in addition to the irony that statement sounds rather cynical. I don't mean it to be so. I'm just trying to tell it like it is. Many gallery clients do buy Art, Photography Division, because they like what they see (literally and figuratively). The Artist who uses photography has genuinely connected with an audience.
BUT, there is no denying the fact that Art, Photography Division, is BIG business. And much woe will be unto those who attempt to crack it while thinking it is something else.
Reader Comments (3)
Mark,
A very interesting post; thanks for spelling out the the inside-the-ropes version. After reading what you had to say, one thought immediately came to mind. Given that it is so damn hard to get representation from those high-and-mightly NYC galleries why would any sane person attempt to get there directly. Wouldn't it make more sense to first try and obtain representation elsewhere (surely other cities such as Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Melborune, Tokyo, and a countless others have some form of a photographic art culture) and build up a reputation first. Then those very same snobbish NYC gallery directors might just come (running) after you.
Is there a middle ground? It seems that an artist might be able to make a living if he can tie into the "Art World" you describe. Or, he might be able to make a living in the pretty picture calendar market. But what if he doesn't fit into either? Is there somewhere to make a living if you're somewhere in between? There has to be a market for something else, doesn't there?
Bill, it's called wedding photography. Or if you want to be generous, portraiture. Personally, I think the best advice Mark has given here is his parenthetical remark "(don't give up your day job.)"