Digital BW, The Print

At 12:59 PM -0700 10/18/02, HPA wrote:
>The people who put prints in windows are your most important customers, they
>are the art galleries where your work will be displayed and sold.  The
>inability of gallery owners to display digital artwork because of the
>humiliation of them fading right before everyone's eyes has led to severe
>local marketing problems for digital artists.  Most students with digital
>portfolios are now unable to even book coffeeshop shows in the art gallery
>district. 
>IMHO, the permanence issue is killing sales left and right.  Once the
>customer has bought the art, permanence is the only issue.  can a gallery
>owner afford to put your art in a quality frame job and have it turn brown
>before they even get the bill for the framing?  From the customer's point of
>view, is spending money on artwork a potential investment or a sure-fire
>loss?  As an artist, is it acceptable to you for your work to be considered
>disposable?
>
>As far as marketing goes, the people who are making money with digital in
>this area are the small print for $10-$25 crowd.  Business is very good for
>them. If a digital print is priced at $10-$25 per print, galleries are
>having no problem selling them, it is ok if they are made with disappearing
>ink.   As far as large format prints go, there was a huge demand for them
>last year, but that evaporated about five months ago.  I thought I was going
>to have to close the archival printing part of my printing business, but
>orders since then are back up to 2000 levels.  I attribute the 'comeback' in
>archival fiber prints to be a reaction to a general fear of digital in the
>marketplace.  Permanence is the only reason that digital is not doing better
>as a medium in the marketplace today.  every disappointed customer will lead
>to bad PR for digital artists every time the casual conversation turns to
>art buying experiences.  It will be a long time before these buyers (or
>their friends) get taken again.
>
>Art gallery owners are loathe to have their reputation for integrity and
>quality (which is their only real asset) hurt by digital art.  They are
>better off selling sculpture, oil paintings, or archival fiber.  The way
>things are going, that would be the most prudent choice for them to make
>now.
>
>Tom Robinson
>

Tom,

While I have to assume your comments are well intended, I think they 
are a bit overstated.

Just for starters you haven't qualified just what kind of inks these 
"students with digital portfolio's" are using. There are all kinds of 
inks and paper combinations out there...if you mean dye inks on 
typewriter paper or newsprint, maybe I would understand your 
comments, however most serious professional players are using pigment 
inks on archival paper. That is what this forum is all about. We 
don't want them to fade "before the customer gets the bill for the 
framing."

Also, who in business today can deal with the $10-$25 print price?. 
My absolute minimum would be $100 for a small unframed print sold 
through a gallery...for which they would collect $180-$200.  I sell 
40x60 prints direct from my studio with no middle man for $3500-4500 
mounted on canvas.   Professionals in this business aren't dealing 
with swap meet art. Also, clients are buying the image and the 
reputation of the photographer...the media is part of it, but 
certainly a smaller part.  When I was in art school students would 
sell drawings that took several hours for $10...they were happy to 
make some money for beer or art supplies.  Their overhead is not the 
same as someone trying to run a profitable business.  Many live at 
home or are subsidized by parents..

I certainly agree with you that some people have given digital a bad 
name.  I have seen people selling color xerox prints mounted on cheap 
mount board and telling people only that they are "photographs", 
thereby leaving the impression that they will at least last for 15-20 
years as today's "C" technology is able to deal with.  But haven't we 
seen some sloppy/ill-informed/unscrupulous photographers selling the 
sacrosanct silver gelatin prints that were not washed or fixed 
properly?

Truth in labeling is the only way to go.  I use the Wilhelm estimates 
when representing my own work.  I also tell people that fine art 
cannot be displayed in direct sunlight. More than that I can't and 
won't do.

I could go on, but I think you can see that you were discussing 
apples and I am discussing oranges.

Bill Agee

-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com