civilized ku # 132 ~ Made in China

Chinatown seafood market ~ NYC • click to embiggenOn our walk through Chinatown I told Hugo that he should get a souvenir.

He didn't object so we spent some time browsing in a fair number of large and small souvenir stores. He loves to browse and weigh decisions about what to buy and is capable of spending hours doing so if left unchecked. In any event, after considering many "Chinese" items, he decided that a white Lamborghini car toy was just the thing - as long as he could also get a NYC Police SUV toy car that I could use to chase his Lamborghini and give him a ticket. Even though it didn't seem very "Chinese", I made it a done deal.

Later on, it occurred to me that both toys were Made in China so what could have been more perfect?

civilized ku # 131 ~ a little bit of irony

Georgia Pacific paper mill # 2 ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 130 ~ just an idea

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?

Update on Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 02:18PM by 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.

civilized ku # 129 ~ keep your eyes on the ball(s)

Hugo keeps his eyes on the ball(s) • click to embiggenLast Friday, the day after Aaron's opening in NYC, Hugo and I spent the day seeing some sights.

We strolled through Chinatown absorbing all the sights, sounds, aromas, and general goings-on. For whatever reason, Hugo has recently been fascinated by China, especially by the fact that "it is the farthest place away in the world", so he was soaking it all up like a sponge. The highlight was when a Chinese gentleman stopped us on the sidewalk and gave Hugo an intricate origami airplane that he had just made. It was a genuinely touching cross-cultural moment.

Then it was a cab ride to Battery Park and from there
Statue of Liberty and Staten Island Ferry from Battery Park • click to embiggenout to the Statue of Liberty where Hugo distinguished himself by climbing all 200+ steps in monument base (the elevator was broken). While standing at the base of the statue and looking up, he declared it to be "totally awesome".

After the ferry ride back to Battery Park, we walked our way up to the bottom of Wall St. looking for a cab. Upon approaching the Wall Street Bull, from about a half a block away, Hugo blurted out, "Look at the bull's butt. He's got big balls." It's worth noting that, in addition to China, Hugo has also been quite fascinated by his balls recently (Mom says he's right on schedule, child development, genital awareness-wise). We proceeded to the front of the bull and while I was futzing with my cameras in order to picture Hugo and the bull, he drifted off to find a resting place - he was very walked-out at this point - with a view of, as you can plainly see, the bull's balls.

Somehow, I resisted the urge to explain to Hugo what kind of a problem those balls have gotten us into at this point. Although, I did consider the possibility of trying to hack them off.

In any event, I have to wonder, of all the things we'd seen and done that day, what he will remember most.

moose # 1

A cow moose eating lunch • click to embiggenAaron called at around 11:30AM and basically said, "Meet you at the moose."

When I arrived in the vicinity, there was neither a moose nor an Aaron to be found. However, the story that has been making the rounds is that a cow moose was hanging out in the area so I grabbed my gear and headed into the woods. About 100 yards in I came across her bed. I stop for a few minutes listening for any sounds but nothing was happening but some bone-chilling wind.

I moved on through the brush and some pines only to discover another bed about 50 feet from the first. There were fresh droppings on the ground. Again I stopped and listened, but again, nothing. With just a very light snow cover on the ground, I picked up her prints and followed them a short distance to a ski trail where, once again, I stopped and listened. Again, nothing.

I moved a short distance down the trail, farther into the woods. Again, nothing. I stood around
moose eating lunch • click to embiggen for about 5 minutes and still it was still. So I figured I'd head up the trail towards the road and maybe Aaron might be around. Less than 20 yards up the trail, there she was just off the trail in a small clearing, munching on some lunch. We were separated by about 15 feet.

She glanced my way for a few seconds then when on about her business. I hung around for 10 minutes or so making pictures and just watching her. She was quite a sight. It took all of my wilderness ethics in order to resist the temptation to put on a wide angle lens and walk right up to her and take a close up of her nose. She was incredibly unfazed by my presence.

Which actually got me to thinking that maybe she's ill - there's some kind of brain worm disease
Looking up a moose nose • click to embiggen that they can contract. But, to be honest, I have never encountered a moose in the flesh prior to today so I have no idea whether this one looks healthy or not. She seemed very alert and focused.

In any event, it's great to verify in person that the moose are back. I turned back onto the trail and walked by her on the way out. At that point we were separated by only 6 feet and the bush she was munching on and I couldn't resist making a few more pictures.

night light # 1 ~ using my new $20,000 tripod

Under One Roof Video Store ~ Plattsbugh, NY • click to embiggenI have always been fascinated with urban / suburban night pictures.

My primary activity in making night pictures in the past was limited to the time about 15-20 minutes after the sun had set and there was still a glow in the sky. What I like about that time is the nearly equal balance between natural light and artificial light. At that time, both light sources are about of equal intensity but of differing light temperatures which results in some interesting color qualities which accentuate what the eye usually does not detect or is only dimly aware of.

With only a few exceptions, I have not pursued making in-dead-of-night pictures like the one posted with today's entry. For the most part that's because doing so would fall under the like-I-need-another-project scheme of things. But, due in no small part to The Nocturnes - who invited me to be the judge for their annual competition/show - and their great online gallery, my interest in the genre has been fanned to the level of starting to take night pictures.

However, one of the obstacles I face is the fact that, as I mentioned, I like making night pictures in an urban / suburban because of the quality of artificial light that is found there and we ain't got much urban in these here parts. Contrary to my normal M.O. of grabbing gear and going out to make pictures without any preconceived idea of where I might end up or what I might be picturing, it would seem that, if I am to be successful with night picturing, there will be some scouting involved in order to locate and make a list of suitable locations.

Last evening's location - Under One Roof Video Store in Plattsburgh - was stumbled upon in a completely serendipitous fashion. Late yesterday afternoon, I was returning from Vermont via the Plattsburgh ferry when the wife (her firm is in Plattsburgh) suggested that I kill an hour or so and then meet her for dinner. I agreed, in part*, because earlier on my way to the ferry to Vermont I had spied a location that I wished to picture, a day light picture, and even though it would be dark by the time I arrived back in Plattsburgh, I thought that it might also be suitable for a night light picture as well.

Alas, when I arrive at the scene, the night light was entirely unsatisfactory. So I just moved along looking for something else to picture and, viola, there was the video store. My only problem was the fact that I was traveling sans tripod. I knew that the scene would require at least 2, maybe 3, separate exposures (in precise registration with one another) for blending in order to achieve the results I wanted.

What to do?

Well what I ended up doing was to park my car, AKA - my $20,000 "tripod", on the sidewalk, positioned at an a angle at my desired POV. That allowed me to "mount" my camera on my "tripod" by squeezing it firmly between the rolled up passenger-side window and the door frame (door closed). I aligned the window and door frame with the knurled rubber zoom ring on the lens. It worked perfectly. I sat in the passenger seat and bracketed away to my heart's content.

FYI, the final image required a blend (done manually) of 3 separate exposures - 1 for the overall scene, 1 for the store interior, and 1 which included the arrow sign, the store sign, and the light on the far left side of the building facade. I also dialed back on the ultra-blue color saturation in the cloud covered sky.

Even though there was no apparent blue visible to my eye, I left some blue in because, well, that's what seems to happen with skies when they are pictured at night. I am not certain how I feel about that photo-specific characteristic of night light pictures. I tried totally eliminating the blue in the sky and it didn't look "natural" even though it did match what I saw on the scene.

IMO, the reason that it didn't look natural is because I been have conditioned to seeing ultra-blue skies in night light pictures. Maybe it's time for someone to start making night light pictures with more natural looking skies.

BTW, I should also mention that this picture is a demanding test of your monitor calibration. There is detail aplenty in the dark and highlight parts of the picture. If you're not seeing the subtle blue in the sky, the separation between some tress and the sky above the white house on the left, detail in store sign on the right, and all the individual light bulbs on the arrow .... you're missing a lot of what this picture is about.

*PS Just in case, I should cover my ass by mentioning that the primary reason I stayed in Plattsburgh was not to picture something but rather to spend time with my lovely wife.

picture window # 17 ~ Brooklyn brownstone picture window

Bedroom window ~ Brooklyn, NY • click to embiggenIn case anyone was wondering, I have not stopped making pictures for my Picture Windows or Decay series. For no particular reason, I just haven't been posting any pictures. That's about to change, especially now that cold weather is upon us, which for some reason is my prime "decay" picturing time.

civilized ku # 128 ~ the Art world explained

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.