civilized ku # 130 ~ just an idea
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 09:45AM 
Georgia Pacific Paper Mill ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenOn my recent the Art world explained entry, Bill Gotz stated/asked: "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 has asked a question that has been on my mind for the past few years. On the face of it the answer is simple - forget trying to make a living (with no other means of support) from selling photography as Art unless you can crack the big-time. And, even then, it seems that only the superstars - those selling prints in the $10,000 - $20,000 range - can actually make a living at it. Many of those in the big-time have real jobs, especially in academia. There are also a few who have made beaucoup bucks in the commercial photo world before "retiring" at a young age (35-40ish) to delve full-time into photography as Art.
That said, I would dearly love to be part of giving birth to "something else".
As I have opined previously, one of photography's characteristics that has been ignored or, in fact, actively avoided like the plague is that of its ability to reproduce pictures endlessly. Economic theory-wise, that should make the medium ideally suited to selling Art to the masses at very reasonable prices. But, real-world practice-wise, that theory has a couple critical things working against it.
The first, and most forceful thing is simply the fact that there are so few of "the masses", AKA - the potential "market", who consider photography as Art. Everybody has a camera. Everybody makes pictures. Everybody has family / personal pictures all over their houses - guess what ranks right near the top of the list of things people would save in the event of a fire?. And, most important, everybody knows if there is picture that they like, they buy it as a postcard, a poster, or a calender - not as an original print.
Frankly, it has yet to be demonstrated that this "market" will purchase - in quantity - an original print at any price, much less at a price that would enable an Artist who uses photography to make a living.
There are a very few notable exceptions to this state of affairs. As I have mentioned before, there are a tiny handful (counted on one hand?) innovators like 20×200 that have discovered a market for reasonably priced photography as Art. But even that venture helps the gallery make a living more than it does individual artists - they feature a new artist every week and to my knowledge they do not represent them in any real depth beyond that single print edition sale.
As an example, this week's featured print edition has generated $5,760 worth of sales in 7 days. The artist, Dorthe Alstrup, has also generated an additional $18,000 of sales on 20×200 from 2 other editions. What that most likely means to the photographer is about $12,000 in net income (minus her overhead costs). Now, I don't know about you, but I couldn't "make a living" on that amount of income.
It must be said that I have no idea how much other income she generates from her pictures, but the point is this - if you want to make a living from sale of photography as Art in either the Art world or in some other segment thereof, you probably have to generate at least $150,000 in gross sales. Assuming that a gallery was involved (and I can't imagine how one could generate that number without representation), that might net you $75,000 before expenses - things like equipment, costs of prints, and, unless you're making pictures in your backyard, auto expenses, etc. At the end of the day, you might be netting $50,000.
Does that amount constitute "making a living" for you?
In any event, as I stated, I would dearly love to be part of an effort to create an alternative outlet to the NYC / big-time Art world for the sale of photography as Art utilizing the medium's capability of delivering reasonably priced prints to the market. With the web as the primary marketing venue, it is possible to reach a wide enough audience to make it an attainable proposition.
IMO, for it to work really well for everyone involved (not just a gallery owner), I believe it needs to be organized and run as an artist's cooperative. Each artist would contribute a relatively modest fixed amount to the gallery overhead thereby eliminating the need for the gallery to take the standard 50% cut right off the top. The gallery might only require a 10% cut thereby returning 90% of print sale income to the artist.
I'm not going to do the math but it doesn't take a genius to understand that 90% is way better than 50% and goes a long way towards reducing the total amount of gross income needed to "make a living". In the aforementioned example, Dorthe might have received closer to $21,000 in income vs. the $12,000 she would in the standard gallery world. The added benefit of an artist's co-op is that the gallery could represent an artist in depth, not just on a few editions.
Anybody interested?
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: relative to Joe Reifer's comment that "[T]he best way to be a fine art photographer is to be a dilettante, retire from a high paying job with a pension, or have a spouse that's a lawyer." Bill Gotz asked : "By the way, where is a good place to meet single female lawyers?"
my response: I am certain that every city / decent-size town in America has at least one attorney hangout, many of which can be found close to civic buildings which house various courts. However, my guess is that a photographer on the hunt would stand out like a sore thumb in such a place.
I know I would. That's why I picked up mine at a small out of-the-way blues bar, Moondog's (subsequently to be the name of our family dog), in Blawnox, PA. where I had gone with a good friend to see Keb Mo' (back when he was playing in bars).
We didn't have tickets but were informed by the doorman that he had a number of comp tickets in his back pocket which, if the designated recipients thereof did not claim by showtime, he would gladly sell to us. We decided to hang and after a while a few others - including a long-hair almost-hippy-looking chick - did the same.
The l-h-a-h-c and I eyed each other up a few times, once or twice simultaneously, a few times surreptitiously, but nothing transpired until we were inside and elbow-to-elbow at the bar in a jam-packed (legal occupancy 100) funky "room" for music. True be told, she picked me up with the line,"Great seats for not having a ticket, huh?" I should have immediately answered, 
Keb Mo', the (now) wife, and I • click to embiggen"Yes. Will you marry me" but I didn't know yet that she was my marry-a-lawyer-ticket to being a fine Art photographer.
It took me/us a year or so to get around to that part, whereupon we returned to Moondog's and an yet another Keb Mo' appearance. We informed him that we were about to be married that he was the one who got us together. Moondog's owner took a picture and Keb signed his CD for us with the inscription, "Nice work yawl".
The rest, as they say, is fine Art photographer history.
Reader Comments (10)
Let me boil the answer down for you Bill: No. There is no middle. You need a teaching job. Even the famous photographers teach. Or do commercial work. Or have a day job. A friend made a great analogy recently about making a living as a fine art photographer: it's like playing in the NBA. Every kid who loves basketball dreams of playing in the NBA.
The best way to be a fine art photographer is to be a dilettante, retire from a high paying job with a pension, or have a spouse that's a lawyer.
I guess this where 20 people will say they are interested and in reality the bullsh*t starts.
After all, in your last great idea about POD books, how many were interested? How many completed it? I probably know the answer to this one. ONE. ME. It was one of the greatest learning experiences that I have had recently. So much that it allowed me to complete the book and get rid of all of the second guessing and fear associated with it.
So at least thanks for that Mark.
I've stop thinking about making a living from selling art prints a long time ago.
At best it can only be a supplementary income to cover expenses likes photographic equipment,travel,and print making expenses, plus a few dollars to make you think that it's worth keeping at it.
You can spend all your week-end travelling to art shows to sell art prints but at the end of the year, you'll probably have little to show for it, especially if you are into black and white photography.
Oh sure, they are some who succeed big time. But if you study their business model, you'll see that it involves selling information: teaching, workshops, how-to's and the like.
How many have been under the illusion that the internet could provide that conduit to art sales? That after a few years their web sale were actually nil?
Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting during his life time. Most of the french impressionnist painters were dead poor, save for a few that were able to get commisionned work. But for most, their love for the art and I must say, the life style, was like a magnet.
That being said, there are a few photographers whose work will catch on. They have that special something that makes them unique.
Are you talking of an online only gallery or a physical location gallery with a strong online presences?
One of the things Jen Bekman does for the collectors at 20x200 is to give a stamp of approval, both for the arty-ness of the work and the quality of the prints. I question that someone should need to be reassured that some thing is art, but at least some people seem to want to be told their making the right choice. It's also a bit of a leap of faith to buy something like that on the net. You can see the image but not the quality. Will it be a quality print or poorly printed? Things like that. The limited editions of 20x200 also add an air of scarcity, even if it is affordable. How does it affect the psychology of it all if the run is not limited? Could one think of the prints more like high-end posters? I suppose it would be a good Idea to do a full cost analysis to see what profit points would be.
How could an artist co-op guaranty the quality of the prints? Would There be a board of directors that chose the participants? Would it be open to any one willing to pay their share? Would there be some method of curation, or is it a free for all? How could it be run for artist across the country, or the world? How would orders be taken and filled? I know there must be some models on the web that could be copied, at least in part. How could it be marketed so buyers find the online gallery?
This is an interesting idea for conversation. How could this be worked out? What are the problems? what are the potential solutions? Do you have some ideas?
By the way, where is a good place to meet single female lawyers?
Nice looking couple and a great little story.
Mark - great story!
Bill - my day job is at a photography e-commerce company that works with 800+ different businesses. If you have questions about the economics of selling photographs online feel free to email me. But the short answer here is: high volume.
I'd certainly be intersted in joining an initial conversation about this, especially as I too fall into the not-pretty-enough-for-calendars-but-too-pretty-for-Art bucket (or should I say, my pictures do. Hey, maybe I do too... but I digress).
For me, it partly depends on how much of a physical (vs. online) presence would be required, since I'm over in England, and I guess this would be primarily U.S.A. based?
All the best,
Paul.
Mark, yes my wife and I are interested, we are both retired and need sommething to do and also find a market for our images.
Yes Joe, I think volume is the first question. I brought this idea up to my brother, also Joe and the first thing he wondered was what volume you would need. He figured if you cleared $10 per picture, to make $50,000 you would need to sell 5,000 pictures, that's 417 per month, which is a lot of packing and shipping, and orders don't come in an even stream. What net profit would you have to make per picture so you could actually take more pictures and not just be a packer and shipper? And at what total cost could you still sell enough to make a living but not sell so many as to not have time for a life?