# What Fine Art Photography Really Sells



## Pag (Feb 23, 2015)

I was thinking about those fine art photographs that no one seems to really understand, yet sell for ridiculous sums of money. The work of Andreas Gursky comes to mind, but there are other. I was trying to figure what it is that made these pictures worth so much money, while a very similar picture taken by a nobody would sit unloved in a Flickr account.

And then it hit me.

The artists selling these pictures don't sell beautiful pictures. You can buy plenty of beautiful photos for a few bucks -- that's nothing special. What they sell is a way for the buyer to feel and (most importantly) show that they are:

Superiorly rich
Superiorly refined
Superiorly intelligent

Essentially, they are selling to a small niche of super-rich buyers who want to show how wealthy they are and how refined their taste in art is. It's a bit like buying a Ferrari: you don't buy it because it's a very convenient car, you buy it to impress people around you.

The fact that the image is extremely expensive and that it's very hard to understand what makes it special is precisely what gives it its value. If the photo was affordable, they owning it wouldn't showcase the buyer's wealth. If the photo was easy to appreciate, then it wouldn't showcase the buyer's superior refinement for understanding it (whether the buyer actually understands is mostly irrelevant, it's all about perception).


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 23, 2015)

You should be an art critic.

Also if I could afford to buy a Ferrari it would be because of a need for speed.
Forget impressing the neighbors, they are only going to see me for a couple seconds when I pass them.
Do Ferrari's come with good attorneys? With all those speeding tickets I will need one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 23, 2015)

Ok, Pag, we'll see you with all the VIPs at your gallery opening.


----------



## Pag (Feb 23, 2015)

Do you guys have any argument about why you think I'm wrong? I was hoping for some actual discussion of the business and marketing of fine art, not some vague whining. It's no wonder photographers are all broke if that's the level of business talk going on...


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 23, 2015)

I guess that is why some rare art is sold without disclosing the buyer.
Then some hide it and never show it to anyone, keeping it only for their self.

Not all people buy sports cars to impress others. Some buy luxury cars because they are more comfortable.

I found your arguments limited. They do not acknowledge the work a artist may put in to be noticed. The discipline he has to have to present a vision of his work. Many never achieve fame in their life time, only after they are gone and they make no more does there work really become valuable.

Your arguments devalue artist to nothing more than trophies for rich individuals to show off.

I suppose museums main function is to display the person donating a work of art, the art is meaningless and only a statement of the wealth of the donor.


----------



## Pag (Feb 23, 2015)

If the value of a work of art comes from the work of the artist, then it makes no sense for it to gain value after the artist's death when he can do no more art or any effort to be noticed. There has to be something more to it than that.

I'd love it if artists sold their art at a price that was directly related to the quality of their work, but it's obviously not the case. Many hard working, talented artists die poor, while some talentless hacks become rich. There has to be something more than artistic skill and hard work involved.

A few years back, a painting initially attributed to a German painter was attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. The painting's value multiplied by several orders of magnitude. If it turns out it's not by da Vinci after all, the value will go down. It's the same painting, so why does the value change? It's not because the painting becomes better or worse.

Like it or not, there are market forces that influence the value of your work that have nothing to do with artistry, "the discipline to present a vision of his work" or even the artist's work to be noticed. Understanding those forces can mean the difference between being poor and being rich, doing the same work. I have no interest in being a starving artist, so I'll keep trying to understand those forces.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2015)

Pag said:


> Do you guys have any argument about why you think I'm wrong? I was hoping for some actual discussion of the business and marketing of fine art, not some vague whining. It's no wonder photographers are all broke if that's the level of business talk going on...



Let's see. You make an ignorant, broad-brush assessment of art and then wonder why no one bothers to argue with you. Perhaps it's because your post is so dumbfoundingly uninformed and misguided that there is really no point to furthering the discussion. 

Some great artists are financially successful. Most are not. Some great artists are very popular. Most are not. 

Many would argue that great art should be intellectually challenging. Clearly, simply producing something that is pleasing to the eye is no guarantee of greatness. That does not mean that art cannot be beautiful, but that beauty alone is no guarantee of art.

Much of Gurksy's work is aesthetically appealing, intellectually challenging and requires great technical virtuosity. Read up a bit about his technique and vision before you spout off. But, more importantly, attempting to judge all art photography by the market's fondness for Gursky displays incredible ignorance. 

Art collecting has become big business and has driven up prices for certain artists' work based on market forces that are likely to be transient. Only time will tell if some of the artists selling today will stand the test of time. 

For the most part, photography remains a great bargain in art collecting. I did a quick internet search and it looks as though you can buy a photograph by Robert Frank (arguably the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century) for as little as $3,500. Imagine being able to buy a Picasso for that.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, or if you are just trolling. It sounds as though you want to know some secret to becoming a financially successful artist. Well, being talented and visionary is no guarantee of financial success, but you certainly won't become successful as an artist if you don't start there.


----------



## Pag (Feb 23, 2015)

So I go in the business forum and start a thread about what the motivation of high value art buyers might be, and I get called a troll. Then every single reply focuses on the artists and what drove them to make their art, without a single consideration for the buyer's motivation.



> It sounds as though you want to know some secret to becoming a financially successful artist.



I'm trying to understand the market, and that includes the buyer's motivation. What could possibly motivate a person to spend more on a single photo than most people make in their entire life? Why not buy a Robert Frank for $3,500 as you say? There has to be a reason.

This thread isn't a critique of art, it's about the business of art. There's a million other thread talking about how to take great photos, but very few about why people would buy those great photos.

I try to understand the market and I get insulted and dismissed without anyone even considering the question in return. You talk as if you think wanting to become a financially successful artist is a bad thing -- it's not. If nobody is willing to talk honestly about why art sells, it's no surprise that most art doesn't sell well or at all.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Pag said:


> This thread isn't a critique of art, it's about the business of art. There's a million other thread talking about how to take great photos, but very few about why people would buy those great photos.


Pag, that is the secret to selling anything - knowing your buyers. Alain Briot wrote about this on Luminous Landscape several years ago and I'd share the link but their site says I'm unauthorized to view the page. Since I don't like posting non-public links, I'll summarize. He started out by selling prints to tourists. He knew tourists liked certain views so he captured them, to the extent of booking rooms with certain views and capturing the view they had of the sunrise. These sold very well, so he continued to learn more about his buyers and tailored his work to them.

In certain art circles, creating work for your customer or selling pretty pictures (alone) is considered heresy. Okay, I'm being a bit overly dramatic, but that same group also believes that the work needs some deeper message. If you can convince people of the message or meaning of your work, you will attract more serious art buyers. For example. photos of polar bears on ice floes = global warming. If you look at most of Gursky's work, I believe (or at least his buyers believe) that he is making a statement on modern culture and consumerism. How the river photo fits, I don't know - but it's printed large and large prints are naturally more expensive, right?

Finally, going back to your original point - high prices sell. When Smirnoff vodka was introduced to the US, it was cheap and was perceived as poor vodka and did not sell. When they doubled the price, the perception changed and sales of it took off like crazy. It's now considered a cheaper vodka compared to the expensive stuff, but this was many years ago and it's still considerably more expensive than the off brand plastic 1.75L bottles... Anyways, you get the point - perception is reality, and expensive is better.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 23, 2015)

Pag said:


> The artists selling these pictures don't sell beautiful pictures. You can buy plenty of beautiful photos for a few bucks -- that's nothing special. What they sell is a way for the buyer to feel and (most importantly) show that they are:
> 
> Superiorly rich
> Superiorly refined
> Superiorly intelligent



You discounted the artist as having no real worth other than to fill one of these needs.

If you want to find out why people buy certain pictures from certain photographers and ignore all the pretty ones on flicker you should look at what gives an artist worth, not what motivates the seller.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Finally, going back to your original point - high prices sell. When Smirnoff vodka was introduced to the US, it was cheap and was perceived as poor vodka and did not sell. When they doubled the price, the perception changed and sales of it took off like crazy. It's now considered a cheaper vodka compared to the expensive stuff, but this was many years ago and it's still considerably more expensive than the off brand plastic 1.75L bottles... Anyways, you get the point - perception is reality, and expensive is better.



My gosh how old are you mackguyver. Smirnoff has been around a long time.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 23, 2015)

There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to be financially successful. And there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out "the rules of the game." That said, it is somewhat as if you are trying to find an analytic solution to a problem that is sensory in nature - emotion and feelings. Kind of a left-brain approach to a right-brain problem. There is no magical script to follow other than perhaps to win over their hearts and minds and their check books will follow. Talk with dealers to see what is selling, read critics commentaries and seek out a style that elicits emotion and response. If you hit it right success will follow.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> My gosh how old are you mackguyver. Smirnoff has been around a long time.


It's a _classic_ business case used in MBA classes, including some I teach. So yes, I'm old enough to have an MBA + many years of business experience to qualify as an instructor. 

I would use more modern examples, but they tend to rile up the people that buy them


----------



## Pag (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> If you can convince people of the message or meaning of your work, you will attract more serious art buyers.
> 
> Finally, going back to your original point - high prices sell.



Those are the basis of my two main points. To attract high-end buyers, you have to convince them that there is a very deep meaning behind the picture. But to attract the very highest-end, it might even be better to have a picture that appears like it might have a deep meaning, but that nobody actually really understands. That way, the buyer appears superiorly smart when he shows it to visitors of his personal gallery -- essentially saying "I get it but you don't, so I understand art better than you do."

The high price further limits access to this art, further showing that the buyer is part of an elite club.

This is a cynical point of view, I'll grant you that, but one I think has some validity. I don't think it applies to most purchases of fine art photography (most people just buy pictures they enjoy looking at a moderate price), but it's the best explanation I've found for the stratospheric height of value for some pictures. I'd like to hear alternate points of view about the motivation of the buyers of these pieces (and _for this discussion_, I don't care about the artist's motivation or hard work, this is all about the buyer).


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 23, 2015)

Early this morning I read this on PetaPixel -> http://petapixel.com/2015/02/22/photographer-peter-lik-has-sold-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-in-prints/
Might have some clues on what goes on inside a potential buyer's head.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 23, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Some great artists are financially successful. Most are not. Some great artists are very popular. Most are not.



At least not until they are dead


----------



## Arnoldvb (Feb 23, 2015)

Some people sell, because they make a really fine product. Check out: Joel Tjintjelaar at: http://www.bwvision.com


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > My gosh how old are you mackguyver. Smirnoff has been around a long time.
> ...



 I was riled. I thought Smirnoff was the good stuff.
But then I haven't bought Vodka in 40 years.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 23, 2015)

Yes, rich people buy things to show off how rich they are. Nothing new there. Yes, much of modern art in the 20th century and today has little to do with talent or wide appeal. This is a generality, of course, and definitely nothing new there. My guess is most of the artists themselves believe in their work and their popularity is created by the art elite - the critics that want to make a name for themselves. Name recognition is always the number one priority when it comes to price - so a Da Vinci is worth millions and the same painting painted by me would be lucky to sell for $200.

However, the "elite" market is such a small part of the business, that it doesn't apply to any of us here on the forum, I would imagine. If you are doing fine art photography, then strategies for selling in the elite market is of no real concern - or any help. Aside from making a name and establishing a solid reputation. I belong to an art forum and people often ask about pricing their paintings. The answer always is - if you are unknown you have to start low. The more you sell, the higher you can charge. Sell enough to become well known - then the prices go even higher. Become famous and then you start to attract the rich buyer! Not sure if that is the path of the fine art photographer, but I would imagine it is.


----------



## sanjosedave (Feb 23, 2015)

In Carmel, classic B&W images sell to collectors and tourists.

In galleries in the Southwest, where gallery owners/photo tour guides/photographers work, classic Cibachrome-like photographs of red rocks sell to visitors who want a good image to bring home from their trip to the Southwest. 

Museum-blessed photographers sell work, usually quietly, unless you are in the Super A-list category like Cindy Sherman. 

Large format landscape images that are quiet and peaceful are often found in hospitals.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2015)

Pag said:


> I'm trying to understand the market, and that includes the buyer's motivation. What could possibly motivate a person to spend more on a single photo than most people make in their entire life? Why not buy a Robert Frank for $3,500 as you say? There has to be a reason.
> 
> This thread isn't a critique of art, it's about the business of art. There's a million other thread talking about how to take great photos, but very few about why people would buy those great photos.
> 
> I try to understand the market and I get insulted and dismissed without anyone even considering the question in return. You talk as if you think wanting to become a financially successful artist is a bad thing -- it's not. If nobody is willing to talk honestly about why art sells, it's no surprise that most art doesn't sell well or at all.



Perhaps because no one knows the answer to that question or even to the question of what constitutes art.

Here's a few tips: 

Be born wealthy. It's not a requirement but it helps. Cartier-Bresson was born into a wealthy thread-manufacturing family. That wealth allowed him to avoid the family business and study art at the one of the leading academies in France, where he was introduced to the groundbreaking trends at the time, such as cubism and surrealism. If you study the history of photography, you'll find more than a few great photographers who had the advantage of family money to support them in their pursuit.

Alternatively, marry rich. It worked for Alfred Stieglitz. And, you can always divorce your first, wealthy spouse and take up with a younger, poorer lover after you've made it. That also worked for Stieglitz. 

Study under one or more photographers recognized as artists by the critics. You mentioned Gursky. He studied under Bernd and Hilla Becher. Someone mentioned Cindy Sherman. She studied under Les Krimms. The community of photographers recognized as true artists is relatively small and like anything else, connections matter. You'll be accepted more readily as a serious artist if you studied under serious artists.

Get a critic or curator to buy and promote your work. Many of the works that are considered icons of photography today were selected because Beaumont Newhall was the curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art and when he wrote his history of photography he naturally selected works that were in the collection of the museum. Why would he want to promote the collection of a competing institution. The result was self fulfilling: The greatest photographers were represented in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art because the Museum of Modern Art collected works by great photographers. 

Make sure your art is in style and beware of changing styles. William Mortensen was a leading practitioner of the manipulated image but his vision conflicted with that of "straight" photographers like Ansel Adams. The f64 school decided that only straight photography was legitimate, so Newhall trashed Mortensen and effectively wrote him out of the history of photography. Similarly, Les Krimms was a cutting-edge photographer in the 1970s, until feminist zealotry pushed him out of favor with the art critics and displaced him with his student Cindy Sherman.

Ride the investment wave. Many art buyers today are buying primarily for investment purposes. They buy works in the hopes that they will escalate in value and allow them to make money on the investment. For some of these buyers, it's no different than investing in real estate, except that you get the added benefit of being considered sophisticated. If the investment community decides your work will increase in value, your images will sell. Not that you will ever see any of the money, because most of the sales occur in the secondary market -- one collector buying from another, long after the artist sold the image for a fraction of its current value.

Finally, and most importantly, get lucky. Think of it like becoming a rock star or a movie idol. At any one time, there are millions of talented people all trying to hit the big time. The world has only so much time, space and money for the stars of any field. For every one person who succeeds, there are thousands who never will. They aren't less talented or less deserving or less hard working, they just aren't as lucky. Life is random.


----------



## sgs8r (Feb 23, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> Early this morning I read this on PetaPixel -> http://petapixel.com/2015/02/22/photographer-peter-lik-has-sold-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-in-prints/
> Might have some clues on what goes on inside a potential buyers head.




The PetaPixel piece is based on (and links to) this past weekend's excellent NY Times piece on Lik, which was very interesting and gives a lot of insight to the fine art market in general and Lik's approach in particular. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html?_r=1). 

It's clear that fine art prices are mostly influenced by fashion, psychology, marketing, etc. and these forces can be manipulated by key critics and tastemakers (and savvy artists like Lik). Most buyers are not "experts" (whatever that means) and are substantially influenced by those who supposedly are (experts). And there's a significant herd mentality that often enables one such expert to to start a stampede. Over the long term, price can change dramatically as artists fall in/out of fashion or are discovered/rediscovered. 

Nowadays, all artists know that an essential component in marketing any work is "the story" behind it (and behind the artist themself). These have become such a cliche that the bombastic bios on some photographer websites can provide great comic entertainment. (See http://www.ruvenafanador.com/ for a great example.)


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

unfocused, thanks for sharing - those are all very good and realistic points.


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Pag, that is the secret to selling anything - knowing your buyers. Alain Briot wrote about this on Luminous Landscape several years ago and I'd share the link but their site says I'm unauthorized to view the page. Since I don't like posting non-public links, I'll summarize.



LuLa just redid their site, so a lot of the old links are dead. Was it this one?

http://luminous-landscape.com/how-photographs-are-sold/


----------



## sgs8r (Feb 23, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to be financially successful. And there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out "the rules of the game." That said, it is somewhat as if you are trying to find an analytic solution to a problem that is sensory in nature - emotion and feelings. Kind of a left-brain approach to a right-brain problem. There is no magical script to follow other than perhaps to win over their hearts and minds and their check books will follow. Talk with dealers to see what is selling, read critics commentaries and seek out a style that elicits emotion and response. If you hit it right success will follow.



On the other hand, many people have driven themselves crazy (and broke) trying to predict the taste of the buying public. I draw inspiration from one of my favorite quotes:

"I don't worry about what other people will like. I have a hard enough time figuring out what I like." - John Huston


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Pag, that is the secret to selling anything - knowing your buyers. Alain Briot wrote about this on Luminous Landscape several years ago and I'd share the link but their site says I'm unauthorized to view the page. Since I don't like posting non-public links, I'll summarize.
> ...


I think it was this one:
http://luminous-landscape.com/of-audiences-and-best-sellers/ - specifically what he says under the photo captioned:
*Indian Gardens, South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park *


----------



## Freddie (Feb 23, 2015)

*Every frame I shoot is...*

pretty much like buying a lottery ticket.
So far, I haven't hit any sort of big payoff. I get lots of small paybacks but never enough to be included as a winner. I could play scratch cards with about the same amount of payback but photography is more fun.
Peter Lik admits that he's pretty much into photography to further his own fame and fortune so he has taken careful stock of what is needed and proceeded to market himself into success. His fame will fade. If he invests well, which I think he will, he'll probably end up a very wealthy man. His strength is not in his art but in his marketing. Internet sites are loaded with images that put him in the shade. I can't make myself resent his abilities in photography. I do admire his marketing skills and singleness of purpose greatly.
Hitting the art market big is like hitting any other market. You must be totally dedicated and determined to succeed. All else in your life has to go away and leave you alone. It takes a certain amount of dysfunction to narrow your focus and go relentlessly towards a goal like that. I'm no guru but what I have seen is those who want it the most and have an adequate amount of artistic ability get what they want, with a lot of luck involved as well. Having the necessary artistic ability is very easy actually. Lots of us have the eye, not including me, but how many are driven beyond reason to succeed like Peter Lik? Given at least a modicum of talent, those with the most drive to succeed will be those who DO succeed.


----------



## Pag (Feb 23, 2015)

That turned into a great discussion of the realities of the art market after all. Thanks all for the insightful comments.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm neither an art critic, an art dealer and even less a recognisex artist, but yet, here is my point of view. I would think there is a great distance between art and the art market. Art, I think, should be 'autonomous' and 'self-consistent' if that means anything. I doubt that a performance that would be thought solely with the goal of being sold at great profit would be likely to succeed. All the artist can do is express is own vision. As for talent, I'm not sure it is easy to identify who's got it and who does not. The 'beauty' of an art piece is likely to not be evident at first sight. As far as I know, many artists perform 'for themselves' instead of for others. Being seen and appreciated is only incidental for them. That might be why most are not commercially successful.

As for the art market, well it is just that, a market. Art does not have a use value, all it has is a market value. I think that when a very high price is given for an artpiece, it has a lot more to do with speculation than with the real worth of the work. Trends and fashion might have a bigger role than the artistic essence of the work. Moreover, it is likely that there are many markets with different requirements.


----------



## tculotta (Feb 24, 2015)

This is a fascinating topic. I, too, have read much of what Alain Briot has written on the subject and he makes great points. It's almost unfair to distill it into a few nuggets, as he does an excellent job of presenting almost all of the germane points. There are a lot of talented photographers. To succeed you must market yourself and your work. That's the part that many miss as there is a presumption that great work will sell itself. That's just not so unless you are very lucky. Be a good photographer and market your work successfully and you'll do well. Do all that AND get lucky and you just might become exceedingly wealthy. Also, most luck is directly proportional to work.

I highly recommend reading Alain's writings. If you want to succeed selling fine art photography, he covers it from the nuts a and bolts up to the abstract elements.

Cheers,
Ted


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 24, 2015)

One "artist" (art faculty at some German place) really ticked me off. Comes to my institution, and wants to use our scanning electron microscope for some art project. Sure, why not. I'm the nice fellow. As things come closer, I look her up. Turns out she takes the most mundane samples, NaCl-salt (yawn), prints 'em on an inkjet, pardon me: giclée, and sells them for 1-5 grand. Salt prints? Nope! Any sort of manipulation? Nope. Just a straight print off a digital file. Doesn't even know how to run the instrument, that's the lowly "technician's" job. Paying for usage, or getting commission on sales? Most certainly not. — F that.

If I try to publish an SEM that actually shows something, has a story, takes some advanced prep. (e.g. teeth of a 0.6 mm snail; there are about 5 people on the planet who can do that, I know all the others), I have to pay to get it published, aka page charges in scientific publishing. 

Fortunately, that weekend some driver working on self-preservation with generous internal application of ethanol, plowed over the utility pole (that "jumped in front" of his car), so "sadly" nothing came of it. 

So in many instances, the art is how to sell it, not the actual piece (Damian Hirst?). Picasso-Braque is a good example where the lesser known is actually better (IMHO). Art available in multiple copies is much cheaper than unique pieces, that is why photos are relatively cheap. I got a nice Mark Tobey lithography for about $1,800, but his paintings go for 50-100K. Another case where the poor imitator (Pollock) sells for way more.

And before anybody wonders, no, I won't quite my science job to become an art critic. ;-)


----------



## Mr Bean (Feb 24, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> One "artist" (art faculty at some German place) really ticked me off. Comes to my institution, and wants to use our scanning electron microscope for some art project. Sure, why not. I'm the nice fellow. As things come closer, I look her up. Turns out she takes the most mundane samples, NaCl-salt (yawn), prints 'em on an inkjet, pardon me: giclée, and sells them for 1-5 grand.


That's the beauty of "art". There's a market for everything. Well, that's what I'm relying on


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Feb 26, 2015)

So we're still calling photographs "art", are we?

_Lordy..._


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 26, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> So we're still calling photographs "art", are we?
> 
> _Lordy..._


Considering the other stuff they call art, I don't think there's any reason not to, but I agree, it rubs me a bit wrong when I hear photographers calling themselves artists, or worse, photographic artists. I dipped my toes in the art world and found it to be a very ugly place filled with insecure people, so it wasn't for me.


----------



## Pag (Feb 26, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> So we're still calling photographs "art", are we?
> 
> _Lordy..._



Before we go further into a _very productive _online argument about whether photography is art or not, I have to ask for your definition of "art". Everybody seems to have a different definition, so until this is clarified, any argument is pointless.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 26, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> So we're still calling photographs "art", are we?
> 
> _Lordy..._



Sure, in the same way Nascar drivers and Golfers are athletes.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 26, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> So we're still calling photographs "art", are we?
> 
> _Lordy..._



The great majority of photographs are, of course, not art - nor intended to be art. But that does not preclude that some photography is art - or intended to be. If you don't think someone like Ansel Adams or Horst (among many others) was a photographic artist then you are missing the boat, in my opinion.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 26, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > So we're still calling photographs "art", are we?
> ...


Makes me think of this clip from Kingpin:
http://youtu.be/6Srm21isYMs

Also, don't forget about the _World _Series (between US & Canadian baseball teams) or the _World _Champions of the NBA Championship and NFL Superbowl played by, um, all American teams


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 26, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



Seems I forgot bowling.

I do go to a few NBA games, I have to say those guys are athletes.
Now if the NBA finals are rigged, or if it is a set up for show is a different conversation entirely.
How about this, is Pro Wrestling a Sport?

Back to Art.
Here is a thought for a definition of art;

If it looks like something your 5 year old produced, and if you would have found it worthy to put on the refrigerator. It is Art.

It is a low standard.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 26, 2015)

Pag said:


> I was thinking about those fine art photographs that no one seems to really understand, yet sell for ridiculous sums of money.



Its really simple (seriously). The value is all about the narrative which the picture communicates. Thus it can be taken by someone special, somewhere special in a special way or time etc. etc.

The more people with money the narrative resonates with = higher value of the art. This is also why some well-known artist's work add in value when they die (but actually the opposite is far more likely). 

Its the same with paintings. Picasso had an incredibly strong narrative and was a master at self promotion just like Salvador Dali (and no; Van Gogh was not unknown and mis-credited, his works got lots of praise at exhibitions. So his dramatic life story easily boosted the value of his paintings a lot).

If that Afghan refugee girl had been a Peruvian no one would care about her portrait today...but back then the Afghan conflict was at the centre of world politics. The D-Day landing pictures are actually bad. But the narratives are strong. 

You want to be a high paid photo artist? Communicate, communicate, communicate. 

Try this test. Take snaps of the labels of 5 bottles of wine with different prices at your supermarket. Google the names and you will see how the manufacturers story line develops for each $ extra you pay for the bottle. People buy crazy expensive wine, jewelery, car etc. for the same reason. 

People do not buy a Ferrari to go from A to Z but to buy into a story line to say something to the world about who they are.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 26, 2015)

Honestly, Zeidora, doesn't your core EM facility have a use fee? X Euros/hour machine time, y Euros to prepare/vacuum coat the specimen, lower rates for in-university or in-department users, higher rates for commercial users? Waivers ("scholarships") for junior faculty doing "unfunded" (by outside grant) pilot project. You just have to have such a policy to prevent people from booking and not showing, from wasting time and getting in the way of others waiting to use said instrument, if doing the prep, learning to do it well rather than throw a half-assed prep on the machine. Or maybe your colleagues are more polite than American biomedical researchers. :-[ I have had experience with imaging and flow cytometry and hybridoma facilities run by my department, both as a user and as a sympathetic ear when the Ph.D. running the core lab bitches about inconsiderate clients.


----------



## infared (Feb 26, 2015)

Its mostly marketing!


----------



## Xyclopx (Feb 27, 2015)

Pag said:


> The artists selling these pictures don't sell beautiful pictures. You can buy plenty of beautiful photos for a few bucks -- that's nothing special. What they sell is a way for the buyer to feel and (most importantly) show that they are:
> 
> Superiorly rich
> Superiorly refined
> ...


I think you have some elements of it in the first part. I don't know if the second part is as important though--for sure rich people want to show off, but in that stratosphere I think everyone kinda already knows you're rich.

But taking it down a notch... like $0 photos vs $1000 vs $10k photos instead of $100k to $1mil+... like maybe what we can strive for:

For all those amazing photos on flickr that never ever sell, well, I think in those cases it's purely marketing.

And compare that to $1k range, for those buyers they might be willing to pay for just something they have a connection with, or just simply looks good, and they were able to see the piece in some gallery where they could be impressed with an actual physical object in front of them.

For stuff in the $5k+ range I think the primary determinant of the ultimate price is pedigree--it's how famous the author is, and speculation of how much the piece will appreciate. These authors have paid their dues in some way, worked to advertise and put their name out, displayed their works in shows and galleries, made friends with gallery owners, built up a portfolio that overall is impressive, and ultimately reached a point where people know their name.

That's how it appears to me.


----------



## TeT (Feb 27, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> One "artist" (art faculty at some German place) really ticked me off. Comes to my institution, and wants to use our scanning electron microscope for some art project. Sure, why not. I'm the nice fellow. As things come closer, I look her up. Turns out she takes the most mundane samples, NaCl-salt (yawn), prints 'em on an inkjet, pardon me: giclée, and sells them for 1-5 grand. Salt prints? Nope! Any sort of manipulation? Nope. Just a straight print off a digital file. Doesn't even know how to run the instrument, that's the lowly "technician's" job. Paying for usage, or getting commission on sales? Most certainly not. — F that.
> 
> If I try to publish an SEM that actually shows something, has a story, takes some advanced prep. (e.g. teeth of a 0.6 mm snail; there are about 5 people on the planet who can do that, I know all the others), I have to pay to get it published, aka page charges in scientific publishing.
> 
> ...



You could sell prints of snail teeth. Bank on it...


----------



## AmselAdans (Feb 27, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> If I try to publish an SEM that actually shows something, has a story, takes some advanced prep. (e.g. teeth of a 0.6 mm snail; there are about 5 people on the planet who can do that, I know all the others), I have to pay to get it published, aka page charges in scientific publishing.



A week ago or so, several german newspapers published a story about "the most firm natural material", which stems from snail teeth. I bet you know the authors. And I bet the newspaper stories reminded you of this: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
;D

Sorry for the offtopic. Back to the thread:

The nice thing about art is the complete subjectivity. If anyone declares something to be art - why not. That does not derogate other artwork. And the quality of art is not defined by the amount of work put in it.

However, as soon as it comes to things like copyrights, there is indeed the question, what is to be defined as art and, thus, as being protected by copyright laws and not. In Germany, there is the beautiful word "Schöpfungshöhe", which defines whether something is ..um.. artsy enough to be art. This sometimes has to be decieded by courts (obviously we rely on the view that judges are true connaisseures of art...)

Nevertheless, the "art world" itself reminds me of the "The Emperor's New Clothes" tale, where everyone is to bigoted to admit not to understand or not to like an artwork. And I can imagine that many people, e.g. photographers, who spend days and days to get his one shot with perfect lightning, colors and subject are then frustrated, because their effort isn't regarded in the same amount. But which inherent law is there, which ranks some artworks over others? There is none. Again, it's all pure subjectivity. And this subjectivity may be influenced by the community in which you are (the "art world", photographers, working men, ...)

To sum up: If anybody for any reason buys something like the "salt picture" (reasons include: "I like it", "I lack self-confidence", "I have to pretend to be sophisticated", "I feel sophisticated", ...) and pays a lot of money... why not? As long as I am allowed to not share the same opinion of this artwork, I am fine.

I think, there is a sort of envy, that the "art world" penetrates the richer social classes, which are willing to pay more for artworks than other people. Photographers most often do not have this standing within these social groups with thick wallets.


----------



## jwilbern (Feb 27, 2015)

There is an excellent article by Ian Cameron in Landscape Photography Magazine Issue 1 where he discusses the difference between the photographs that people find to be "amazing" and "stunning," and the photographs that they actually buy.
"Of these images I was quite surprised at the two approaches, men were much more drawn to the dramatic, wide angle and often the darker, moodier image, their reactions to the pictures struck me as quite odd. I noticed that they would actually reel back from the picture to admire it. I also observed that having apparently enjoyed it, that not a single one of this style of image sold. The pictures that sold best were universally mid to short telephoto images, pastel in colour, generally light or high key and compositionally composed in horizontal layers." He goes on to say that that the latter kind of image appealed more to the woman of the house who made the purchasing decision, even if it was for his workplace.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 27, 2015)

"Let's see. You make an ignorant, broad-brush assessment of art and then wonder why no one bothers to argue with you. Perhaps it's because your post is so dumbfoundingly uninformed and misguided that there is really no point to furthering the discussion."

And then ........ lots of further discussion ensues - I like CR for the humour or humor or just to satisfy my sadistic side!   Required reading for Psychology 101. 

Jack


----------

