As a teacher, I always ask my students on the first day of class what their photographic goals are. Nine times out of ten, their goals are getting into a gallery and having a solo exhibition. I would have to say that that is probably the case for all of us. I am throwing this out for discussion because after an intense photographic period last month, it's got me thinking a lot about the path of a fine art photographer in today's economy. I am not complaining, just giving this some real thought.
I had work in 8 shows in April, 54 framed pieces in total. All framing and shipping costs incurred by me (with the exception of one or two situations where return shipping was provided).
Also included were some additional costs of one exhibition where we rented a gallery space for two weeks--costs split by the 5 participants. We also covered the costs of the opening, announcement cards, and various odds and ends. Another exhibition incurred the additional costs of a MagCloud and announcement card.
I travelled to San Francisco and New York for openings, included were airfare, hotel, and food costs.
I attended Photolucida; the cost of the review, airfare, hotel, food and drink, costs of printing (needed lots of paper and new inks), a new portfolio box, and leave behinds came to at least $3000.
It's difficult to face the credit card bill.
We are functioning in a climate where online sales have lowered the prices of photographs and created a massive inventory for the buying public. Sales are not what they used to be--and it appears to me that there is a wide gap in the range of consumers: those that want to purchase images for $20-50-100, and those that are real photography collectors. And I'm thinking that both categories have slowed down considerably.
I know that galleries are struggling, but when I make sales, I have to wait 45 plus (still waiting for months on some) days for payment. I am very sympathetic as they are doing the best they can in this economy, but it's hard when I have had to outlay monies upfront. When I started out as a photographer, all galleries had an inventory of frames. All that was required was to send matted prints to the gallery and they popped them in their frames. The costs of shipping and flying the artist in for the opening were also absorbed by the gallery. Digital imagery (and the economy) changed that system, as prints became large scale and no longer uniform.
We are also functioning in a world where book publishers are asking photographers to find their own monies (around $30,000) to publish books, and the day of getting something published outright is pretty rare.
Today a photographer is not only responsible for photography equipment, but most of us own printers, scanners, and many other tools of the trade. We need to be marketers, promoters, and navigate through social media. We are required to wear many hats and be capable of many tasks, and still have a creative voice, and find stillness in the chaos to make work.
Something is wrong with this template. In addition, this enormous expense put onto the photographer narrows our community, narrows who can participate. I don't have the answers, but it's time we figure it out. Otherwise, we won't be able to afford our own success.
75 comments:
très bel article.
Si la photographie est une conviction, si elle est un engagement, si elle est un art, elle est pour faire (sur-)vivre ses auteurs un marché. Et le photographe n'est, très souvent, pas très doué pour se faire valoir à sa juste valeur...
Je suis le premier à déplorer que toute pratique artistique ait une "raison économique", mais c'est un fait.
Sigh, deep breath...I hear you Aline. I work harder and am busier than I have ever been before and basically work for the recognition but feel the lack of enough income coming in and the amount of income going out is something I am always struggling with constantly with the hopes that one day that will change. I get so much out of the things I do , work on and produce but with out the income I need or should be getting. I always wished photographers had a union like the film industry so we were not constantly being taken advantage of or continually being asked to work for free or worse a credit. I am struggling at the moment with how to continue my work towards a book which I have been working on for almost 4 years but I continue because I am driven...but I just hope its not to the poor house:-)) I wish we could do something and I think it would have to be in alliance with all of us as groups or an industry.
I've been wondering about this lately, after having my first image chosen for an exhibit in DC. I had to may for the print, framing, shipping and return shipping and thought "Is this how it is done?" I didn't even go to the opening because of the additional costs there.
That was my first taste, a small one, but after reading this post, Aline, I have my doubts about ever branching out beyond internet or local galleries, at least not on my budget.
Thanks for the wake-up call.
I've taken photos over the years that were not marketable at the time I took them because there was no historic interest in the subject. But there is interest now. Places/galleries/museums want to exhibit the work, so when I contract with them I let them know in no uncertain terms that I will produce the prints for them AFTER I receive monies to cover the cost of printing and framing. When I make a sale of a print over the internet (from my website) I ship the work only after payment has been made (either via paypal or a check mailed to me). Do I get complaints? You bet!
But it all depends on how hungry we are as artists to make the sale or do the show. I want the money more than I want the 'exposure'. So pay me. I'm willing to lose a customer or a chance at exhibiting rather than strap myself financially. Many artists are not so willing. So there's a price to pay. Make a choice and stop whining.
I don't want this article to discourage anyone. If nothing else, we need to focus our choices, and where we put our monies and efforts. I think that is one reason on-line competitions like IPA, PX3, and the Gala Awards are doing so well--no shipping and framing costs!
I appreciate your comments!
Thanks Gene.
I am not whining...I stated that in the first paragraph. I simply think it's time we talk about this and your insights are appreciated and worth considering.
Aline, great post.
Valery, a union is a cartel designed to control the supply, and therefore price, of a high-demand, limited-supply product (e.g, oil) or service (e.g., skilled labor.) Neither high demand nor limited supply exist for the vast majority of photographers working in the fine-art photography marketplace. Do you think for a moment that, in a world drowning in images, the consumers of those images won't find cheaper alternatives than a guild of overpriced Teamsters toting Hasselblads? Cartels never work, long-term; above-market pricing and artificially-created "shortage" always stimulate production of cheaper alternative sources of supply (e.g. microstock.) If OPEC can't enforce price discipline among its members, do we really think a photographer's union can do so?
In times past, the technical difficulty of making extremely high-quality photographic images was so high a barrier to entry that photographers at that level were a de facto cartel. No longer; technology has destroyed that entry barrier. Placing your hopes in a union is not a long-term strategy (q.v. UAW.) Now, everyone is a photographer; and for many image consumers, "good" is good enough, and "excellent" is too expensive. We've been pretending for decades that photography is the same as painting or sculpture for the purposes of selling it; the falsity of that pretense has now caught up to us.
It seems to me the only way to keep from being "taken advantage of" is for fine-art photographers to rethink their work and, frankly, their lives, so that they are not in a position of dependency. This starts with the realization that, for the vast majority of fine-art photographers, there is no living to be made solely making fine-art photographs. I wonder if MFA students are hearing this in the classroom?
Aline has laid it out beautifully; if you went to a bank with the gallery-sales model as the basis for a business loan, you'd likely be hauled out in a straight-jacket amid peals of laughter.
Ha! maybe that is why they really serve cheap wine during an opening?(we are all whining about the costs ,and the audience is whining about the costs too?) Personally, I have issues with the Judges and the elites that we have to be "in" with to get into shows. It's like a bad country club that i have to belong too. Same with contests...it's many of the same snobs. yuk!
Nobody has any money these days. The magazine,publishing, and stock industries are 1000% smaller than 5 years ago.
I have some ideas....that will help everyone(artists,musicians,photogs) I just have to figure out how to create this "thing" i have in mind.(and soon) I'll check back.
I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a substantial amount of cost in time, money, and emotional strength in getting work noticed and sold.
I have been doing this as a work of love for a long time. I hope to recoup costs but find that that is not always the case. I have defined the market space in which I operate and it helps me direct resources to accomplish my goals. This has helped me to define what success is to me. Admittedly, I would keep producing work regardless of me making a sale, it's what I do. I know there is this is the heart of every artist. I simply have found that if I need to work in another field in order for me to keep producing work, I am willing to do so.
Thank you for your post.
@Chip
"The magazine,publishing, and stock industries are 1000% smaller than 5 years ago."
That's a bit of a hyperbole. While budgets have been slashed as of last fall everything has swing a major up swing. Not quite where it once was but nice to be busy again.
The realities are certainly a challenge, thanks for opening the discussion Aline. Most artists can only wish for your level of exposure and success, and it's valuable to get a sense of what that really requires.
Thank you Aileen for giving us a fairly accurate picture of how things work. I am often telling myself that I have gone as far as I can afford to go and need to stop. Although I do realize the importance of 'showing up' for portfolio reviews, etc., my insecurity makes me question if I have bought myself the 'fame' that I've received. Thank you for your post.
Wonderful article Aline. I have learned a lot in a few minutes of reading.
I am very new to photography and am, in fact, still a student so the way things are now is how I thought it always was. And in answer to the question asked in another post if MFA students are being warned about not making a living as a fine art photog alone, I can answer yes to that. At least at my school they are.
But I didnt know that photographers used to only have to pay for the print when they got into a show. Better days indeed!!! When I go to a solo show and see all those images in all those frames I usually see dollar signs before I see the images themselves. I enter a lot of online contests and those fees alone are killing me, but I refrain from entering too many contests that, if I were to get in, would require me sending in a print or two or three. I cant afford it. I am a film photographer, hopelessly addicted to Impossible Project and Polaroid film so all of my money is spent on that. I have sold 3 prints to date (in about 3 years of working seriously as a photographer) but the proceeds all went to charity, a fact that I love, but my point is, all my money is going out and none is coming in. I work full time as a computer tech and that's what pays for my photography expenses, though it doesnt cover them most of the time so my credit card balances are higher than they ever have been before and that terrifies me.
I am now considering Etsy and that worries me. Im afraid I wont be seen as a serious photographer putting my work up there so I am limiting what work I do put up there. I have seen other online artist sales sites, like Red Bubble, but that never helped at all. It seems that print on demand is the way to go these days and maybe that could pay for show costs, but how do you attract buyers to your site when there are so many others out there. I think the creator of HotShots has an online gallery dedicated to fine art photographers and it does fairly well. Maybe that is the answer?
So glad to see this addressed "out loud". I don't consider it whining at all to have open honest discussion about this elephant in the room. There are costs like never before in moving a photography fine art career forward, and more photographers than ever. The photo reviews start to look pretty essential in getting work in front of the right people. We are paying for access - and that system cuts out a huge population of talent. Artists are driven to create their work, even when it makes no economic sense. The work is continually devalued - especially with the internet, where people view an image they like for a second or so and then move on, or save it to glance at, but don't buy the object or collect it. Paintings are seen more as objects, different and separate form the digital representation, whereas people view images on the internet by the thousand and don't see them as that different from the real photo. At the reviews I see a real trend towards "object" photography - the alternative and antique process pieces, photos on boxes, plates, blocks, fabric, etc. Some way of making the object more precious. Again, no answers here, just musing...
Aline,
Thank you, thank you for being open, honest and for starting the dialog about the costs associated with being a fine art photographer these days.
I think something to add to all of this, is we also, in thinking about sharing our work, need to calculate the cost with actually producing the work, which for me include separate bills for travel, film, processing, etc. Not that I would expect any gallery to cover that, but I think there's a perception that the work is magically completed and there isn't at least any acknowledgment of what was involved in creating it.
I think the important thing, and I've written about this too, is to encourage our community to talk about this more openly, in forums such as this. The more we talk to each other, the more we may see that certain shows, or certain competitions, or certain "opportunities" may in fact be detrimental to what our goals might be as individual artists.
I recently posted something online, for example, about forming local communities of photographers that all put their frames together in one 'rentable' pot so that we wouldn't each need to reframe every time we have a show, local community members could simply borrow the frames for 30-day group or solo shows.
The more open dialog we have, the greater the chances of improving efficiency, lowering costs, and ultimately, being able to focus on what matters, creating more work.
Thank you again.
I used to be a musician facing the same struggles. Now I do med school and take photos on the side. Making a living from art is real hardship.
The other question that must seriously be asked is how valuable is a gallerist beyond opening night, and is there a limited-time engagement to be considered. Why not use a "four-wall" model, which means rent your own space, and the gallerist participates on a sliding scale based on time. If the usual split is 50/50, let that split exist the first week, then 40/60 to the photographer, then 30/70, and so on each week. That's not based on clients brought, but pieces contractually sold.
I think my earlier comment regarding unions was mainly focused on commercial photography because I shoot both commercial as well as fine art ...I do find it hard to have a job as well as being a photographer because there is that much less time being devoted to producing, etc. As far as producing and exhibiting Fine Art I have found that it is something not really ever done for money but instead its something you have to produce for yourself.
Others have already said it, but thank you for being so open here. You have basically validated every feeling that I have ever had with respect to trying to "make it" as a photographer and the cost of doing it. I'm self-taught so I wouldn't know what if it's addressed in a classroom setting but I've learned it the old-fashion way - through experience.
I'm learning more every day and figuring out (trying to, at least) what is best for me and my career as a photographer and reading something like this, and all of the thoughtful and insightful comments that accompany it make me feel more like part of a community. Thanks, again.
The funny thing about this situation is the role of the artist and the arts in society; quite simply, it's backwards. Many things are backwards and it begins with our values and beliefs systems. Believe me, I was once incredibly angry over this very thing you're writing about, but once I changed my priorities around and opened my mind-that anger just floated right out the window.
My new perspective might incur me fewer shows, smaller dollars for my work-so be it. I'm totally ok with that! Because it is the act of creating that is more fulfilling than any recognition I've ever received or not received. So much of our personal worth is laid on the table for others to deem good or bad when we fixate on what's happening "out there" with our career.
If we are working, working, working our tails off for recognition...is what we're doing considered art anymore? The MOTIVE behind art is incredibly important, at least, this is what I believe.
Part of an artist's role is irreverence to what society is saying or doing. It is the artist that defines the future of society and the vision for the new world we want to create. If we get caught up in dollars, well that just doesn't make any sense.
Most important here is the value of money. If we value money, then that is all we will fixate on and desire. If, however, we want to express our perspectives on life, the world, and whatever sort of thing you can pull from an artist statement-then we can clearly see that money is the lowest rung on the values ladder.
Yes, we all deserve to survive, and right now that mode is via money. But it's kinda like religion and politics. They're supposed to be divided, but people like to mingle them and it just makes a mess. Money and art can get messy in just the same way.
In short, art is more valuable than any dollar. And it is each individual's personal choice to take responsibility for how they choose to emote. Ego is the biggest thing in the way of realizing personal success and making peace with how things are, so we can focus on what we truly want them to be.
Also! Aline, you do not come off as complaining. Your article is intelligent and definitely worth deeper discussion! I'm so happy you're bringing this situation to light!
And Lauren, bless your heart! I'm with your 100%. How you say, "I think there's a perception that the work is magically completed and there isn't at least any acknowledgment of what was involved in creating it," is just brilliant!
Art in general and art photography has too long been considered a mystical act. As artists-we need to communicate our efforts more candidly-which is happening right here! NEAT! :)
Chip's comment is a bit hyperbolic but I did read a story in a biz mag that quoted a survey claiming the advertising business is half the size it was a decade ago.
And with new tech and stock agencies on a race to the bottom there really isn't as much cash to go around and a lot of shooters realize it. - I just bought a beautiful B&W contact print of a nude with cat shot on 5x7 film - price $3.30 + 6.95 shipping.
As for my shooting - I refuse to deal with stock agencies and just shoot my art for my satisfaction. It if sells then its fine with me.
I was only in one show last year and to frame them I took some other prints out of frames and used those. Luckily it was local so I was able to deliver and pick up.
I've refused to enter contests that charge entry fees (Have you noticed; they ALWAYS extend the deadlines for more entries.) the best thing I did was shoot a series of images pro bono for the local hospice which went into ads on saturation rotation-with a credit line. Everyone in the county now knows my name.
The truth is: if you want to be an artist you'll have to finance your work and the odds are stacked against you regarding sales - getting a show is easy (except for a "name" gallery). Hell, I'm still seeing work from photographers I worked for in Manhattan 40 years ago!
I'm appalled to read (although I do know it!) that there are galleries out there that make artists wait for their money/payment! This money, or at least 50% of it, is not theirs to keep or use, and should be sent to the artist immediately. I do it and always have done it and receive immediate acknowledgements from my artists because it's so rare. I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for not paying the artist, tout suite!
Right on, Aline. What bothers me is that to support work as a documentary (or fine art) photographer requires not just any old day job, but a pretty lucrative one. Thus, the photographic art we see is almost always produced by a limited (well-heeled) segment of society. One of my favorite photographers, Pentti Sammallahti, was able to make his gorgeous work because he received a 20 year grant from the Finnish government which, sadly, is no longer awarded. As I understand it, this grant had no strings attached and was enough to allow him to devote full time to making images. I'm surprised nobody here has suggested such a thing. Our schools, our government, our country, should be supporting the arts to a much greater extent. Art by the people and for the people -- all people, not just those with deep pockets.
phew-what am important conversation to be stimulating. thank you, aline! i appreciate how clearly you laid things out. it does seem a bit daunting & i'm trying not to let the current state of things discourage my efforts. having said that i've had to turn down 3 opportunities for solo shows due to lack of financing for mating & framing. deeply disappointing, to say the least. i don't know what the answer is but grateful we are having the discussion.
ok, i am a fine art photog as well....i agree about almost everything that you said here...my own personal final thought is this....if your work is GREAT, UNIQUE, PERSONAL, COMMING FROM THAT PRIVATE PLACE....you will make it...you will touch people, you will be sought out, GREATNESS ATTRACTS PEOPLE JUST LIKE A MOTH IS ATTRACTED TO A FLAME....need i say more...look inward and go deep....
I'm so glad you brought up this subject Aline, as I was about to broach something related on FLAK - that is, the escalating cost of entry fees and the fact that some galleries/publications seemingly cover their operating budgets with fees of rejected artists - & if one is of the fortunate ones to be accepted one still, as you pointed out, has to cover the expense of framing, shipping and attending.
I've been a "self employed" photographer for the past few years and though I love the luxury of free flowing time to ponder and test out my ideas and work at my own pace - in order to make it work I have to be pretty frugal. So I don't accept to be in shows where they don't cover return shipping and framing and I'm applying to fewer calls for entry that charge fees. Therefore most of my exhibitions are at university and other non profit settings where their budgets include honoraria and support for artists. But I do believe that if one does meaningful work it will be noticed & discovered and these days with the internet,blogs & FB it's possible to present ones work to the arts community in more far reaching ways than ever before...
happy mothers day to all!!
About a year ago I shifted my creative focus from music to photography because music had become a pay to play market. You play the show and after everyone gets their cut you're left with less money than when you woke up that morning. I'm afraid photography is becoming the same. We have more tools at our disposal than any other time period but we have to deal with the negative repercussions of expansion.
I think producing prints will be something we're always emotionally/financially invested in but we're all going to have figure out a way to support ourselves without losing the love for the craft.
Aline, a very thought provoking post. Thanks for opening this discussion. I enter exhibitions and reviews on an occasional basis but have recently had a string of rejections. While the fees have added up the real cost has been the emotional one. At this point I would appreciate the difficulty of having to print-on-demand an all that comes along with acceptance. I can only hope that someday my photographs will have a life beyond the virtual world. Meanwhile, I'm taking a break from the madness of applying to refocus on what is truly important to me - - creating the work.
Wow, I have been thinking the exact same thing. I actually went into the professional market a few years back but I still dabble my toes in fine art. The thing is, it IS expensive, and the harder I work for my money, the more I have resistance to spending it. I want to support galleries and the like, but when you are trying to be seen by curators and spending $25-$75 for the privilege, it gets pricey. Should you be accepted, then you have to spend another couple of hundred framing and getting it there....and then if you go to the show....yeah.....I think my last Solo show probably cost me about $800 total and I was actually sharing the space with one other person. This was also using IKEA frames...But I like to produce work, so I start new projects and continue on....I still love it :)
Thank you so much for your contributions...I need some time to digest all the comments, and so appreciate your taking the time for share your perspectives.
I had a nice conversation with Robert Glenn Ketchum a few years ago. He explained that success as a fine art photographer does not mean money in the bank, no matter how much money you earn in sales (except the golden few)
The higher you climb up the ladder, the more shows you mount, and then more at the same time. He said you are never ahead.
And that was before the digital revolution, economic crash - back when publishers still paid for the production of books.
I hate the frustrations of not being able to fund all the projects and travel that I want to do(or buy an IPad2), but I have managed to find ways to fund most of what I conceive and am thankful to be able to live the creative life.
On that note, off to my studio to make some art...
These thoughts have been nagging at me as well. Between framing, entry fees and portfolio reviews it's really easy to spend thousands of dollars with little to show for it. Let's face it, art making as a whole does not have a history of making artists rich, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the work. There are so many examples of really great photographers who constantly had to struggle financially on each project they did - so maybe that's just the reality of it.
My recent choice has been to cut back on juried shows and reviews, to put more energy into spending time in the studio (or on location) and to discipline myself and develop a consistent and very focused marketing approach that will explore a wider variety of venues and funding.
Aline, you are so right on the money with your cautionary tale of success. It is best to be independently wealthy if you want to be a professional artist.
I for one have opted out of the chase for a gallery, or anything really. I can't afford to do the circuit of reviews and the endless submissions to "contests" anymore. I'm done. My debt limit has been exceeded. So, I just can't participate anymore. If someone sees my work and wants to put it in a blog (thank you Aline and David) I am thrilled beyond words that more people get to take a look.
The pay to play system seems more like scheme to bilk the people who make the art with hopes of fame and glory. To me, it's like the lottery, and there's something about it that leaves me unsettled and wary. It makes me feel as if my pockets have just been picked.
Welcome to the photo-industrial complex!
I got a call the other day from a magazine asking me if charity auctions help a photographers career. I said maybe it does if it's at MOMA, otherwise "no." In LA this month there are several art auctions (I am doing one myself!) and looking at the crowd at the one I attended last night it was obvious to me that for many people these actions are the ONLY place they are buying art. So no, charity auctions do not help photographers. Which isn't to say you shouldn't do them. But donate work as you would donate money, to something you believe in. And don't allow work to sell for less than 50% of the retail.
Aline you are spot on and very relevant for today.
Being a fine art "documentary" photography that is passionate about social issues - sales are few and far between... I write grants, but they are so hard to get.
I've been freelancing for over 12 years.
We don't travel as much as we use to when I had a real job.
I love what I do, so I am going to believe "love what you do and the money will follow"...
Thanks for the post.
Aline, it takes someone like you to lay out the dismal facts, so that we can brain-storm about how to cope better with these difficult circumstances. You work very hard and on the surface are succeeding in spades, but at what cost? My work is in respected private & public collections hard won over many years, but am shut out of many competitions and portfolio reviews because I'd rather use my dollars/credit to make new work. What is the answer? I'd like to see this conversation you started become a catalyst for new ideas about how to handle these problems.
Thank you for saying it like it is, Aline. Personally I avoid submitting work to shows that would require printing/framing/shipping my work simply because I can't afford the expense.
My biggest expense is printing copies of my Blurb book to be sold at festivals or exhibits. I don't make a cent on these sales and just hope to break even...or close to even, but I want the work to get out there.
Sure am grateful to live in the digital age. Most of my work is seen online and that's fine with me. Selling prints is not really my thing. I learned during decades as a visual artist that the minute I get into the "business" of art I lose my creative fire. It works for some but not for me.
Alene, you said that the market may be slowing down, even for affordable photos, but I must disagree. My friend sold out his edition of small prints on 20x200, and is very happy about the money he earned. Some of the public wants to buy things that are not sky high in costs. THe founder of that company has probably become richer than most gallery owners. You mentioned success at the end of your article, but this depends on how this we understand it. Another discussion in itself. Thank you for posting this, and I agree that there are heavy expenses for most all shooters.
To add to the other comments, I appreciate your bringing this topic out into the open. All of the comments point to the dichotomy of fine art photography in the current economic climate--making money and success don't necessarily go together. It appears that it costs to be successful. For me, making the work is what is important right now. Perhaps a listing of "free" places to post work would be a good start to encourage us to put our energy into less costly alternative exhibition locations.
This is a fantastic discussion and one that I've been having with myself for years. My 'impressive' resume stopped in 2006 when I decided not to pay for shipping or entry fees anymore. I am more selective in where I submit, only show if at least 50% of shipping is covered, and stopped going to reviews (going in to more debt wasn't worth it).
I am enjoying the online communities and possibilities, though miss exhibiting my work and seeing my it in frames on a wall.
Thanks Aline for being so bold and honest.
Lauren Henkin also has a thought provoking post on her blog:
http://www.laurenhenkinblog.com/2011/03/hoping-for-open-honest-dialogue/
Now just imagine to live in the country which does not have any photo gallery, especially not collectors and minimal market. Distressing and depressing? Yes, sometimes. "Art is work." I read somewhere.
Good discussion here, but one that really isn't all that different from many others, where small businesses try to figure out how to compete in the marketplace.
I moved into academia as a means to support myself after leaving an unfulfilling commercial career. I thought that would be the answer to get support and have the time to create. Well, I was wrong about the time, but I have gotten some support from a few (3) internal university grants in the last eleven years.
But in the last twelve months I have spent roughly $20K on promoting and exhibiting my work as I work on getting promoted to full professor. Those costs are not covered by grants since they aren't "research" projects, yet I am required to pursue this path as part of my employment. I attended Fotofest and Review LA, plus applied to twenty-two juried exhibitions. The exhibitions are chosen for the jurors and their reputations. The same is true for the two portfolio reviews.... it's about getting your work in front of the right people AND FOLLOWING UP. It really never ends. The book market is crazy and scary. Everyone of my friends who are "published" have contributed hefty sums to make that dream come true.
I'm interested in maintaining a fine art career, so I'm very interested in how the market is changing. The internet is now a powerful force, and it is absolutely a requirement in order to appear as a viable artist, but I'm dubious as to how much it can contribute unless it drives potential buyers to see the work in the "flesh." Galleries appear to be selling more vintage work than contemporary at the art fairs. Is there a clue in that trend?
I'd recommend "Seven Days in the Art World" by Sarah Thornton to everyone for a glimpse into the upper layers of our art markets... were really talking about the entry level (bottom) of the marketplace here. It's is always the toughest thing to accomplish -- getting visibility and recognition.
Thanks so much, Aline. What I was writing about, hoping for open and honest dialog is something you and I talked about a bit when we met last month, but it's also exactly what you've done here. I'm so happy that you've written this and provided (a much larger) opportunity for people to talk about our successes and failures. The chance for learning has greatly increased because of your post.
I think something for all of us to think about in the future, is beyond just having events and gatherings where reviews take place, or education, say at SPE, that we should consider having 1 or 2 day events where we artists can get together and just talk and share what's really happening in our small worlds, leaving the need to constantly display our successes at the door.
At least even, maybe having an online forum without gallerists, without curators, without reviewers, and without collectors, where for example, instead of only creating lists of artists creating work about a certain topic, we could create something far more valuable (at least to me), like a list of gallery experiences without being worried about repercussions...
THANK YOU ALINE!
Hi Aline, I think all fine artists are going through this and one has to ask themselves, is this all worth it? And, I have to say, it is only worth this angst because you have the passion to create something so beautiful or thought provoking that gives your spirit the will to continue. Right now, I have to contend with over mats on many prints and then ship them to Europe and I don't even have the monies to be at the reception because of the substantial costs incurred. I mean to say, do you this for money or for passion...? It would be great if all artists had a union that would fight for their rights because as a profession- this has to be the most underrated of all and many people take advantage of us. Susan
I used to think of my photography career as being like trying to start my old VW beetle. I figured if I pushed hard and long enough, it would eventually start and I could jump in and enjoy the ride. I eventually realized the only engine was my legs - and they are getting kind of old now.
Since most juried exhibits make so much money from entrance fees, I would love to see at least some acknowledgment of appreciation in the form of those chosen get their fees refunded. Usually, only 4 or 5 photographers receive any compensation. The rest get a print into the exhibit - and have to pay all the expenses for the privilege. Would it hurt to refund the entrance fee to those selected? I realize these ventures are often the main fund raising source for the organization, but there should be a bit more of a payoff for the photographers.
On another note, I think photographers need to look to other sources for exhibiting work. I am not above putting up work in cafes and such from time to time. I still have to cover my own material costs, but sales are virtually all mine and exposure is great. This may fall in the realm of lowered expectations, but it also earns income.
Excellent topic, and so many thoughtful truths in the replies. I agree 100% with what Rachel Wolfe wrote. I'm creating images because I have something important to say. The rest is just trying to make sure my voice is heard. And it is in getting it heard that the difficulties present itself. It is hard, and expensive, but discussion can only lead to good things.
In Canada we have the artist's organization CARFAC (Canadian Artist's Representation), which lobbies government and mediates with galleries to create better working conditions and rights for artists. Part of their work involves artist fees paid by galleries for artists to exhibit. Not all galleries pay them, but most public galleries do. The fee's aren't huge, but do help a bit.
Determination, dedication, motivation, creativity....that is the road to success and what will determine who is still around in 20 years and who isn't.
Aline,
Very interesting conversation. As someone from the photographic organization side, I have the same concerns as many of you. We go after as many grants as we can to help pay for the cost of solo shows in our space. We use many methods to display work that save artists money and still look professional. Brick and mortar galleries are expensive but there is nothing like experiencing the work in person. So, how do we all work together to make alternative spaces available? I for one would be very interested in suggestions/solutions to the issues addressed here.
One thing we haven't really talked about is "What is Success"? The answer is very individual. For me, the recognition is nice, but what I really want is enough income so that I can continue the creative life, continue making my art and enjoy all the exploration and discovery that is behind that. I feel very successful in certain ways. I feel wealthy in that I have a passion, and have developed the skills needed to express myself in a way that feels true and unique to who I am and that communicates with others. Many (maybe most) people do not live with that in their lives. I am wealthy in that I am surrounded by an intelligent, thoughtful, expressive, entertaining, and inspiring community. As far as I'm concerned this is The Life! I just don't want to worry about my bills! So, yes, income supports it and is needed.
This is an excellent and much-needed discussion. We make art because we are made to do so—we love it—but at the same time, we do have to find a way to make it sustainable and rewarding for ourselves.
Lauren Henkin, Ray Bidegain, and I put together a workshop a couple months ago titled “The Artist’s Job: Making a Life and a Living as an Artist,” in which we tackled these issues. There is no easy answer, but there are perhaps new ways to think about our art practice.
One thing Ray noted was how few fine art photographers think of their art practice in a business-like manner. This is not necessarily to say you ‘sell out’ and simply make easy art that people will buy (although there are successful photographers for whom this is their business model). But it is to say that we have to find a way to make our art-making financially sustainable, and sale-able.
We also have to fashion our lives in such a way that makes artmaking possible. Whether that involves working part-time in order to have time for art, or simply marrying well—there are many ways to go about it—we have to value our time so that we have enough of it to put into our art. Lenswork published an article of mine on this issue last summer, titled “Buying Time: Balancing the Fine Art and the Financial”. (LensWork Issue 89: http://fritzphoto.com/blog/2010/07/buying-time-new-article-in-lenswork-magazine.html)
We also need to respect ourselves and the value of our work. I completely agree with those bemoaning the entry fees now standard for every competition entry. I simply don’t enter competitions with fees (unless I’m supporting a non-profit photography space such as Newspace with my entry fee, the fee is reasonable, and I care about having my work seen by the juror). I understand that often times those charging the fees are just trying to stay in business, but I hate to see artists—once again—carrying the brunt of the financial burden for helping other people succeed. I protest. The same applies to art auctions. Unless you actually care about the issue/entity being supported by the auction, value your work enough to say no. Why should collectors be given the opportunity to buy your work for cheap, when you get nothing? (And as Paul Kopeikin said, unless it’s for a really well-known and publicized venue such as MOMA, the promises of free exposure are mostly bogus.) Once again, the artist takes the hit so that others can profit. We have to respect ourselves and the value of our work enough to know when to say ‘no’.
I also agree that galleries could make some simple changes that make the artist’s life more sustainable. For one, they could do what’s already been mentioned: keep stock frames on hand. It’s a simple idea, but would be quite revolutionary. In the past year alone, I’ve had three shows at galleries that did this, and it saves the artist hundreds of dollars in framing and shipping fees per show (not to mention the cost of damaged frames). Two galleries had stock frames that they put my standard-sized matted prints into, and another simply hangs artists’ matted prints under glass, adhered to the wall. And work sells. Here in Portland, Blue Sky Gallery also offers the brilliant option of showing completely unframed/unmounted prints, utilizing their magnetized hangers. Absolutely brilliant. I have to think twice when invited to show work that I have to print/mount/mat/frame/ship. Sometimes I decline. With one of my series, I charge the venue (usually universities) a fee plus shipping both ways in order to show the work. This is part of what it means to think of your art career like a business person.
No easy, quick solutions. But as Lauren and Aline mentioned, I believe that having open, honest discussions like this between both artists and gallerists/curators will help us all to grow, and find a way to make this life we love more sustainable.
I think this problem is a familiar one to other types of artists as well. The "pay to play" model is everywhere (just ask actors) and should be unsustainable but is fueled by something more powerful than simple ambition or a desire for monetary reward. The system is perpetuated by an artist's calling and desire to have his or her work seen and enjoyed by others.
Aline,
Thanks for opening up the dialogue and lines of communication. It is something I never really gave a lot of thought to, until I started entering exhibitions myself recently. The fees can be a lot to begin with and when one of my photographs was chosen for a group exhibition I realized quickly how much time, effort, and $$$$ behind it all is involved. I don't know how many times I will be able to afford to enter, it may limit me a bit. But, I'm thinking of other photographers/artists who really can't afford to do so. The ones who have no extra funds to even enter an exhibition but who are amazing artists. As a community of artists, we are missing out on them, and their art is being missed!
Funny no one mentions the actual quality of the work
So called fame is just another way of locking oneself in a box and not being allowed out. Art done because the artist feels compelled to make similar things they are "known" for is mind numbing factory work. It is good the fame chasers are being chased out. True artists are free birds that dare to keep exploring. Once they get really good at something, they are not caged but free to move on to new challenges.
Folks unfortunately this is the true nature of the beast. Photography has turned into a highly competitive field and there is thousands of photographers out thee trying to even make it to a group show. Expensive, yes! Exhausting Yes! Not Lucrative at most times, Yes! Worth...mmmm..sometimes!
Unlike painting and most art media , photography can have multiple editions, a reason why the market is sooo saturated with them now at all kinds of price range.
One thing that a photographer must do in order to avoid this marketon going saturation will be by editioning the photographs as smaller as posible.By doing so, you avoid being in a market where everybody has a single image at an edition of 50 +.
Real Art Photography Collectors like work that is not in large editions (no more than 5-7 per image) Make your work special!
Also, there is all kinds of tiers in the food chain of the photography world. Meaning yes, they should be people and businesses that cater to the masses at affordable prices and the more exclusive and elitist ones that can pay thousands of dollars for a single Fine art photograph.
The whole process of getting work ready for a show, It is a real gamble. Just make sure that your contract (you must always obtain one) cover all your needs or at least meets your needs half way...
Interesting question, and I agree with much of what you post.
However, one way you could have saved yourself some money-- and we all can do this-- is to stop being sucked in by these portfolio reviews. You could have saved yourself $3K by avoiding Photolucida. And did it get you anywhere, really? You know-- except a trip to Oregon. That's a serious question. Did that review make a difference in your fine art career, or your career trajectory, do you think?
I have never met any photographers who have been to one of those portfolio reviews (wherever they're held), where doing so transformed00 in any meaningful way-- their photographic career. I believe the only people those reviews actually serve to help are the host organizations and the reviewers, who all stand to make $$$. I really believe, for the most part, they are not much more than scams, seemingly targeted only to photographers. We must be the truly desperate artists. I know of no sculptors, painters, writers, or textile artists who consistently choose to travel to portfolio reviews and actually shell out hard-earned money to have someone sit there and talk at them for 20 minutes about their artwork.
And I would never, under any circumstances I can imagine, would I pay for a venue to show my work and pay for the catering and the announcement cards, etc. I just wouldn't.
So while I think we have to be good promoters and marketers of our work, we also have to be good business people, We have to pick and choose wisely how much money we're willing to forfeit for that. I think there are many avenues one can take, that doesn't cost a fortune- but gets the work out there and seen. Instead of traveling to a portfolio review, for instance, try hitting the pavement and to talk to some curators directly. You might find their accessibility surprising. Start on the local level to save yourself some money. And making a few books, via a local publisher or Blurb, for instance, would be cheaper and ultimately do you more good than flying to faraway cities to attend what are (presumably) not solo shows-- but group shows. Attending those probably does nothing for you, either.
I could go on and on, but-- yes-- "affording success" is tricky, but you've made it far more expensive than it needs to be.
Thanks Diana:
You have some interesting points, but I have to completely disagree with you about Portfolio Reviews. I get so much out of them--going to reviews has resulted in having exhibitions offered to me, getting work published, and receiving incredible opportunities, but the best part is establishing relationships with significant people in our community. I applied for a grant this year, and many people wrote for me that I had met at reviews...I look at it as part of my education and my marketing, and the experiences have been invaluable. The key is that you have to be ready.
After looking through the work of a lot of the posters, one thing I can say is that most of it is mediocre, totally average photography with no real point or substance. Most of the work is fine as decorative art, and should probably be marketed as such, which would probably lead to more $$$ than you realize.
This is not to hurt anyone's feelings, but does the world really need your photography?
I know a professional writer who recently got $400,000 for two novels, yet to be written. Why, in this world of plummeting ad rates, e-books, free content, etc., why was a publisher willing to pay her that amount of money? Because she's worth it. Are you worth it?
There is no reason for fine art photography to make you go broke. You can still shoot film and process it for $5 a roll. Film gives you a more thoughtful, considered image. A decent flatbed film scanner is under $200.
Think about how you can work in photography and make money doing commercial work, portraits, weddings, whatever. Then use that money to allow yourself to have a lifestyle that most other people with regular jobs take for granted. Then worry about "fine art" and really think about what it means to you. Is it just the idea that you will have work on the walls of a gallery and that people will be impressed by your talent? Great. You can enjoy the accolades, but they won't pay the bills.
I am so much happier being paid for my commercial and portrait work, and letting "fine art" be whatever I want it to be, without worrying if gallery XYZ loves it. The photo business is hard enough when you get paid for it; doing it for nothing isn't even an option.
Thank you Parker...
I think you have some valid points, but passing judgement on other photographer's work is a bit harsh and simply your perspective. The important thing is to learn from each other, not diminish our efforts. The fine art world is looking for a completely different than from the commercial world. I just want to bring this subject to the table so we can have a constructive dialogue and be supportive.
I've been a professional photographer for almost 15 years. In the past two years I've not only seen a decline in jobs but a decline in what I can charge the client. I know that our current economic state has hit everyone in the pocketbook but their are larger forces at work than the economy. Technology and the lack of barriers of entry into our field has increased the number of photographers while the demand for quality images has decreased. I think the question we all have to ask ourselves is weather or not photography is a viable and profitable business model. I spoke with my brother who is an accountant and very non-emotional about money and business and I laid it all out for him and he basically told me that from an accountants point of view, photography was not a profitable business model. This doesn't decrease my love for photography but I have to take emotion out of the equation and be honest with myself and the future of my family.
It's certainly hard in photography, music too. Things are shifting around pretty radically. But it's not true that there's no money to be made as a photographer. Weddings, portraits, editorial, teaching, etc. I've done all of the above for almost twenty years, and still somehow manage to pursue personal long term projects which I use as my calling-cards. Never been remotely close to rich, but I own a home and can (usually) pay my bills. I think making a living from selling prints, doing exhibitions is total fantasy except maybe for the rare few.
Especially as it becomes easier to for anyone to be (or at least imagine they are) a 'Photographer', I think you have to focus relentlessly on being good. Ok, of course it's subjective, but not totally subjective. Unfortunately not everyone's work is genius, or even worth paying for. Not to be mean, it's just true. Many photographers are not self-critical enough. Don't forget you are up against the best in the world. Look at what you do, then look at books by your role models. They are your competition.
And equally true that there are amazing photographers who can't quite put it all together to make a living.
As I tell my students, there are more than enough photos in the world. We don't need any more, certainly not just something expected or merely competent. The only reason for making photos at all - and the only way, I think, for getting ahead - is to make YOUR photos, whatever that means. You have to be a photo-author, with pictures that make your sensibility visual in interesting ways. That also requires having a sensibility and being in touch with it. Not just quivering with vague desire to 'make it'.
It still may not make you rich, or even middle-class, but such is an artists' lot.
In the end maybe it boils down to what a unbelievably great (and almost completely unknown, by choice) photographer once said - Do you want to *be a photographer*? Or do you want/need to make photographs?
The first is hard but doable for anyone with persistence and reasonable talent. The second is often thankless, with no promise of reward or recognition of any kind. Ultimately that's often where the important work comes from, what you shoot for yourself, market be damned. But there's always the risk of self-delusion.
I wanted to add, if you want to make a living from images it helps to be a shape-shifter in today's economy. When editorial started tanking I started doing more weddings. When that crashed somewhat in the 2008 crisis, I lucked into a teaching job. You're never really safe.
Excellent points Bill...but the subject that I'm continuing to explore at is what happens when we are offered opportunities that we work so hard to create, and can't afford them? A friend was just offered 2 solo shows, and can't afford to mount them...it's a loss on many levels.
"Unfortunately not everyone's work is genius, or even worth paying for. Not to be mean, it's just true. Many photographers are not self-critical enough. Don't forget you are up against the best in the world."
I think Bill nailed it here. As a painter, you have to compare yourself to the Velazquezs, Ingres, Rembrandts and Vermeers and ask yourself if you are good enough to be in that crowd. Many fine art photographers -- perhaps because of the ease of image generation, compared with painting -- never seem to ask themselves if they are as good as (or have the potential to be) Avedon, or Callahan or Siskind, etc.
Add to that the general numbing effect of the billions of photographs people encounter in this modern world. It's a huge barrier to grabbing someone's attention, even for a tiny moment.
Aline commented that people can't afford to mount shows they have been selected for.
The pay to play model is totally counterproductive, both for the photographer and the viewer: it breeds mediocrity, because the artist is never challenged. They pay some money, a "juror" selects a few pieces (often with the directive that they try to pick a little something from each artist, in order to keep everyone happy and paying those entry fees) and art is mounted on the wall, most of which never sells or even has a chance of selling.
You can see this here in Atlanta at any Atlanta Photography Group juried exhibition. Celebrate mediocrity!
The point is, if the work were worth the gallery's time and money, they'd pay the costs of production. In the book world, they call this self-financed publishing, which mean that you are so desperate to have your book published that you will pay all of the costs to do so.
True artistry and finance don't always meet, at least during the life of the artist! Many painting galleries change what they show and -- most importantly -- sell based on the changing tastes of their clients. That is, they find out what their clients want to spend money on, and they deliver it to them. Pretty smart, eh?
Fine art is a true struggle for so many artists. Photography is wonderful in that it can be monetized in many ways. When you have some money in your bank account, it's amazing how much better you feel about your art! :-)
Aline, yes that's definitely a dilemma (sorry if I got a bit off-topic). On one hand, there is such a degree of buy-in required now, for portfolio reviews, exhibitions, books, etc, as others have noted. At the same time we have the ultimate democratizing tool for reaching the masses, the internet. Which sounds great until you realize that most people are content to post their hard-earned work online as free slideshows/galleries, and for what? So you can get an exhibition you can't afford? Or the assignment that never comes in a dwindling market? How does that lack of a positive outcome affect your mentality the next time you start a project? Tough one.
I agree with almost all of you.I certainly appreciate Aline, Lenscratch and all who post on this site. I learn so much from all of you.
I am continuing to find my vision in Photography and it has been a loooooong time coming! I have joined a few Photography Meetup groups in the LA & Southbay areas just to get myself more disciplined to make images. The more I shoot, the more I get to know other people, the more of other's work I study, the better my vision.
I shoot to express myself and illustrate my vision of the world. I would love to be an Art Wolfe, a Clark Little, Annie Liebovitz, or Dorothea Lange. One of the main aspects these folks share is their passion: their photographic subject. But if I were any of them, or any of you, I wouldn't be me would I? We each bring our own process and unique vison to our Art.
My greatest reason for not entering is not only the cost, but the possibility of rejection. I have fear.
We do need more collectives like f9; the photographers need only want to express themselves and show their work. Let's continue these discussions openly, honestly, and OFTEN. The more we share the more we understand.
Thank you all for being part of my vision.
I am posting this anonymously so I don't suffer any "repercussions".
The reality is that there have been more and more perceived layers put in between you and making a living. All of these layers are designed to make money for the people who promise you that you will be discovered, only if you give them your money! Portfolio reviews are a huge scam. Many contests cost you a fortune and do nothing for you. It is all smoke and mirrors. For every photographer that has a career doing fine are work, there are a thousand who are delusional in thinking they can, and are preyed on by the people who understand that they will pay for the chance. It is unconscionable. People are so hungry and confused they will grasp at any chance they perceive could be a step forward, and the vultures are waiting for it. There are quite a few people making a very good living off of your dreams. I propose that in fact participating in these demeaning "exposure" events dilutes the perception of your work. Do you really think a curator that sees your work among a couple of thousand other works will be so blown away that you will be offered anything? What impression does that leave on the curator? (who is being paid by the way, to use their title to get more people to enter the contest.) Nothing special I assure you.
This is a great article because it opens up so much debate, and there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful responses.
Why should an infinitely reproduced photograph cost $500 or $5,000 or $50,000? What exactly is so special about the 99,000th version of the same image?
I am not saying that I don't appreciate and love certain photographs. But in an era when anything can be found online, and later printed up by stealing it, why should certain photographs remain high priced?
Supply and demand. Supply is in the billions. Demand is in the thousands.
And on a related matter, social media and photography:
How to Succeed Without Even Knowing: http://t.co/gJByWWR
I think only one person posting here mentioned anything even close to perhaps the most important reason why making a living in photography is so hard now, so much harder than ever before. And this is applicable to fine art, editorial, commercial, weddings, all aspects of the industry. There is no barrier to entry to this career. And it's not just because everyone has access to good equipment now. Think about it. First, for just a couple hundred dollars, anyone can buy equipment that does 90% of what just a few years ago you had to be a professional to know how to do. That's just one part of it - you are no doubt responding in your head - "but I have an eye, I have vision like no one else does! That's what makes my art worth looking at!" Guess what, no you don't, and no it doesn't. Culture today is so advanced, and most people out there are so visually sophisticated, that what you think is your unique vision and your special art, is shared with a very large percentage of the population. There is hardly any really creative work being done now, you just don't know it because we all live in our own little bubble.
If you go out and teach workshops, and any one else who teaches can confirm this or you can participate in a group salon showing (like the nyc photo salon or slideluck potshow that many cities now have) there are one or two people who are not professionals, whose level of creativity and vision puts everyone else there to shame. Get out a bit, look at the photos being done by people who live down the street from you (and their teenage kids too!) and you will see why no one wants to buy your photographs in galleries. It's because they can do better themselves.
The mention of flickr being so indefinable also alludes to this - you can see alot of amazing work there.
Photography?
1. Diminishing barriers to entry.
2. Rampant pay to play.
3. Lots of people with no business acumen taking a stab at it.
4. Accelerating barriers to earning a livelihood from working at the medium.
If it isn't already obvious - more people earn their livelihoods in photography by helping others follow their dreams in photography than they do from creating/licensing their photographs.
Hello. What better http://google.com or http://yahoo.com ?
The pace of change in the last 15 years has changed so much.
Photography faces similar challenges to the music industry. Selling individual items doesn't seem to work anymore because many people have easy access to vast valts of items for free or for using a model of all-you-can-eat style service's.
I think its time to leave behind the old way of doing things (exhibitions etc) and begin to use our creative minds to test new ways of doing things that leverage the power tools like the internet can offer.
I dont think those answers have arrived yet for photography or the music industry. But bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have shown that turning things on their head and trying something radical can really pay off right now.
Maybe a one-model-fits-all way of thinking will never arise for music or photography, but we are all creatives right? We can do things anyway we like and I think the distribution of artistic work should be a central part of the work (think bansky) Artistic Photos can make money and change things without getting a gallery and sticking them on a wall, thats the old way, theres many other ways, we just haven't found them yet.
When photography Impressionism arrived in the 19th century, people thought art was over. But it simply changed into something very different, something on one at the time could have seen coming. The same will happen with photography and music.
Aline,
You've acquired a real harvest of comments, many valid ie Rachel Wolfe..
I'm commercial but have followed various art photographers' work over the years. First, an observation; over the last month in Sydney has run 'HeadOn', exhibitions all over the city by many photographers, talks, shows, a portrait prize. Some good work, however standout work by Tracey Moffatt, for me just made everything else simply pale, deeply thought out, emotional, highly affecting work I'd pay to have, and the price would be high. It's rare work from unique thought, the only work worth attempting.
Second, maybe people need to look to the wider world for opportunities, Asia, even here as the Moran prize is the highest awarded globally I think, at A$100K first prize.. now worth more than USD.
This web site has a series of interesting posts about this same topic:
http://www.fototazo.com/2013/04/on-money-part-i.html
http://www.fototazo.com/2013/04/on-money-part-2.html
Part three is still to be published.
Post a Comment