Article in Lenswork Re: Pricing Photos

[megan]

Has anyone read the article "Trolling for Fools" by Brooks Jensen in the Jan-Feb issue of Lenswork magazine?

I won't retype it, but the basic gist is that photographers (who sell their work as fine art) in general are demanding prices that are too high, are not selling their images, and doing harm to fine art photography and theirselves because of it. I've got a mixed reaction, and I'll go in depth, but before I get up on the soapbox, I thought I'd see what others might have to say.

Megan

[mjs1973]

It sounds like an interesting article Megan. I will have to see if I can find it online, or try to find a copy of the magazine.

[adina]

I haven't read the article, but from what I've read about him online (granted, it's not much) he tends to cause an uproar with the film bunch freqently.

Personally, I think if you can sell at what you charge, you're doing great. If you can't sell, either your work isn't interesting/good/thought provoking/whatever or you are charging too much.

You need to find your own market, and decide what you can live with. If you can sell something once a year for $1000 and you can live with that, then more power to you. But if you can sell 10 pieces a year at $200 each, you may want to reevaluate.

All comes down the percieved value you want on your work, I guess. I'd love to say that I can sell a print for $1000, but if I could only do that once a year, I'd rather sell my 10 for $200 each.

[mtbbrian]

I think art should be affordable!
But of course the photographer should make some money.
Brian

[drg]

I finally found the issue under one of the Must Do Next piles. I had read and wanted to reread the article.

Jensen's article make too much of a point in comparing things I think of as disposable income items like entertainment with the topic in question. I'm not sure the amount of time one spends in a gallery necessarily in itself qualifies or disqualifies one from the ranks of the photographic cognoscenti.

Artwork I purchase isn't acquired based on cost alone. I don't 'invest' in art. I may invest in the artist or the gallery/agent but the art damned well better stand on its own or it is going to stay on another's wall or in the bin. Part of the problem he is commenting on is the overhead that the artist may have little control over. Though the large mural or however big, piece he mentions may not 'work' in the format he saw it in. On the other hand it could be blatant opportunism and unrealistic greed. That can be damaging for a long time to a group or in an area. The community may not stand for it or demand just evaporates when one has to pay a $1000 dollars for a piece or two of leather glued to a piece of tree bark that has been labeled "modern southwest primitive expressionism". I'm not kidding, I saw that alongside a bunch of bad jewelry a few years ago.

Art pieces don't get priced the same way as volume work. They are or should be priced based on the time that went into them as well as costs. Certainly those shooting film whether miniature, medium, or large format may have a huge amount of time and film/darkroom/printing costs, to say nothing of matte's, frames, and what I call view time. View time is simply letting the work sit until the artist make's their decision as to whether it works for them or is what they want to show. Some do it quickly, others well, I've got a great chalk work that took the artist years to finally hang.

I wonder who Brooks thinks ought to price these items? A simple wedding portrait sells for far more than he advocates for an image that if it speaks to the purchaser has at least as much worth or probably should.

Jensen may be right in that too much decorative work is being sold at terribly unrealistic prices, but he doesn't exactly say that. On the other hand I hang dog calendars in the office. Right next to the Dali prints. I'll stop for now, but will continue. Don't wish to completly hijack the post.

[megan]

"Part of the problem he is commenting on is the overhead that the artist may have little control over. Though the large mural or however big, piece he mentions may not 'work' in the format he saw it in."

I agree. For example, the costs for my piece in a recent show:
C-Print, 30" on long dimension: +/- $175
Framing (professional): $125
Show entry fee: $40
Shipping to show: $35
So I start $375 in the hole. I listed the framed print for $900.
That's quite a profit, you say?
Not really. If the print sells, the gallery gets 30%. That's pretty standard, or even low. So I have to price the print to cover my costs, cover the gallery's cut, and then maybe - if I'm so arrogant - make a profit, which isn't really a profit when you take into consideration the film, contact sheets, etc etc. According to his theory, I probably should have priced it lower. Had I priced it lower, I had a better chance of getting compensation. But realistically, at a base price of $375 + commission, anyone who can and will pay for my piece can afford what I'm asking. Maybe I'm wrongheaded in this. I'm not asking that much out of arrogance. I honestly don't expect to sell it.

I've sold prints to friends. And I usually give friends a discount. Or if I don't, I throw a freebie in. I don't overprice my work.
So often in the arts we are encouraged to be proud of our work and to not *undersell* ourselves. That's one reason my freelance "career" was an utter failure - I could never get myself to ask for more money. But at least with commissioned work, you're getting some compensation. In fine art, there's no guarantee that you'll get paid for your efforts. You can't *give* it away. You should be proud of your work and ask for compensation.

It's hard to strike that balance between the two.
Thanks for reading and responding!

[mtbbrian]

You should be proud of your work and ask for compensation.
It's hard to strike that balance between the two.

Well said Megan.
I definately price up my photographs when I have shown them at a place that "takes" a commission.
But again, I think art should be affarodable and not over priced.
Brian

[megan]

This is true. But what's overpriced? To the viewer, the $900 might be considered overpriced. but to me... When you look at how much I shoot, the cost of film and developing... the work, dedication, the vision... you feel devalued when people say it's too expensive. Maybe that's ego. I don't know... I guess it's about perception and reality on both sides of each inidividual artwork.

[darkman]

I just spent $400 on an unframed watercolor. It'll probably cost me another $400 to have it framed. It's near poster size and not standard. And, this was from a deal from a friend who has her painting in shows traveling around the country and being shown in very respected venues.

The problem, as I see it, is there's a huge difference between galleries (and shows) that sell $1000+ photos verses art shows where you rent a booth (art shows) or lower key shows (or stores that sell art verses fine art art galleries), where $200 and framed is of the order. Even less for unframed. I'm not saying there isn't some nice work being shown that I would want to own at these lower tier shows. Or, you may get lucky and buy something from a rising star. I will say however, that overwhelming majority of the work at these lower shows doesn't stand up to the work shown in a good gallery where the commanded prices are much higher.

I will also add that viewing images on the web, or in a publication doesn't do justice to them. It's often hard to tell the great from the good here. But when we go a higher end gallery, my wife will just stare at photos for a long time. At the lower end galleries she'll just kind of walk through. And if she notices a difference......

my $0.02.

Mike

BTW, I found that I sell more at a higher price than I did when I asked low prices. It seem if you ask too little people assume it mustn't be good

[adina]

This is true. But what's overpriced? To the viewer, the $900 might be considered overpriced. but to me... When you look at how much I shoot, the cost of film and developing... the work, dedication, the vision... you feel devalued when people say it's too expensive. Maybe that's ego. I don't know... I guess it's about perception and reality on both sides of each inidividual artwork.

I think if you hit the right market, price isn't going to be an issue. There are people who value art, and there are people who don't understand the concept. It's very similar to people who say "oh I just got my dslr for xmas, and am going to open a studio. How do I make the flash go?" Some people don't understand that there is more to it than just that final print.

I think some of it's about ego, but I think that if you don't have some ego, you're not going to make it. If you fold the first time someone says oh thats to expensive, you're not going to be sucessful. You have to know the value of your work before you can expect others to.