I know there are many more places to buy fine art photography but I
frequent guild.com. I was at one time invited to sell my work there,
but didn't at the time. I had gotten a letter in the mail. I don't
remember what their financial arrangement is, if anything. It may be
just self-promotion....(?)
I read that Lenswork issue with great interest...the brundt of the
article was that he (John Wimberley) had been cheated so many times by
gallery owners, he didn't have much good to say about them, and goes
on to recount some of his horror stories. He recalls that out of about
40 dealers he's dealt with, he can only claim 10 treated him honestly.
Not very good odds, huh?
Cathy
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas"
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> Harvey,
> I agree totally with your post on editioning. Nothibng to add!
>
> The dealer thing is tricky - dealers/ galleries can only take on a
limited
> number of photographers. So there are always people - like me -
spending a
> small fortune on portfolios, building up images. It would be really
nice to
> be able to increase sales without relying on the whim of a third party.
> Maybe cooperatives, web sites, are a way forward?? BTW I'm crap at the
> commerce side, I have no interest in it. It feels like I've spent
the last 2
> months doing nothing else.
>
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SKID Photography" <skid@b...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lenswork issues
>
>
> > Julian Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > I've just received two copies of Lenswork - issues no 36 and 37.
If no
> one
> > > has seen this magazine it is a must. it is very well written,
aiming at
> an
> > > intelligent audience (one issue even has an article by Tolstoy!)
with
> > > well-presented photography - almost like an academic journal but
more
> > > readable!
> > > I ordered these two issues because of two articles - one by Brooks
> Jensen
> > > on editioning, and one by John Wimberley on 'dealing with
dealers'. Some
> of
> > > you know that I had an unpleasant expereince at a Gallery where
I was
> told
> > > that I could only make 4 copies of an editioned print 'for it to be
> art',
> > > and that I had to 'make it big'.
> > > Brooks makes the valid point that editioning is solely a
marketing ploy
> and
> > > that it is better to sell more prints at a lower price than
artificially
> > > limit the sale to an arbitrary number of prints.
> > > John tells a number of horror stories and then advocates
breaking the
> > > dealer's monopoly by photographers contacting collectors directly.
> > > Now this last point, to me, is the crux of the problem, if
editioning
> only
> > > benefits dealers, then in order for the photographer top
benefit, one
> needs
> > > to sell directly to collectors. But HOW?? Has anyone any thought on
> this?
> > > Some people use the internet http://www.davebeckerman.com/ for
example.
> > > Anyone else do this?
> > >
> > > Julian
> >
> > Julian,
> > I should start by saying that I have not read the articles you
mentioned,
> but am commenting just on your post.
> >
> > In my opinion, this concept of cutting out the 'middleman', (the photo
> dealer, or gallery owner) is a little
> > short sided and unfair. Think about it, (and I am talking *only*
about
> reputable dealers), selling art is a
> > *business*, it has *nothing* to do with art, the quality of said
art, or
> making art...it is commerce. Do not
> > confuse art and commerce! (I know I keep on harping back to that
line,
> but is *SO* important!)
> >
> > Yes dealers get 50%, but if they do their jobs properly, they
deserve it,
> the same as any retailer. They have
> > overhead and need to invest time and money in your work, in order
to sell
> it. Most times, in the beginning, a
> > dealer cannot get a lot of money for an emerging artist's work,
they need
> to work their connections and
> > collectors to 'brand' you, in the same way Epson has branded
themselves as
> a company that makes good inkjet
> > printers. If you turn around and go to the collectors that have
already
> bought your images (through a
> > dealer), then you are stealing the dealers hard, honest work. Also,
> collectors go to dealers because they
> > trust the dealer's taste, opinions, and ability to find new talent.
> >
> > You ask how to get to the collectors? That *is* the big
question...And
> that is where the galleries and
> > dealers come in. It is *their* job to find those people.. They have
> galleries, which they advertise and
> > promote, in order to get collectors interested enough to come in.
They do
> press releases, maintain and send
> > out mailing lists, schmooze with art critics etc. Yes, we might
be able
> to do that part ourselves, but then
> > it takes away from the time we want to use making art in the first
place.
> Some people enjoy it, some are
> > terrible at it. The choice is yours, but still remember, do not
confuse
> art and commerce.
> >
> > Editioning:
> >
> > If you recall, I posted that the whole modern concept behind
editioning
> was purely a commerce/marketing
> > issue. Originally, etchings were editioned because the etching plate
> literally wore out, and the earlier
> > prints were a higher quality. There really was a finite number of
prints
> that could be made from an etching
> > plate. With modern steel plating techniques that is no longer true.
> >
> > Yes editioning now is usually a marketing ploy. I think it was Brett
> Weston's son, but it might have been a
> > Brett Weston sibling, who was (I don't know if he is still doing this)
> making one print from his 8x10
> > negative, and then dry mounting the neg. to the back of the print. I
> guess to him it was the initial
> > 'concept' that was important, and he never wanted to revisit those
> thoughts...I find that limiting.
> >
> > Ansel Adams did at least one 'portfolio' in the 60's where, after
printing
> the initial portfolio edition,
> > (which might have been as high as 100) he put the negatives through a
> Pitney Bowes 'cancellation machine' (it
> > punches holes through them) so that he could never make any more
prints.
> It was a marketing ploy that Ansel
> > lived to regret, and said so. Years later, he felt he could have done
> more with the images, but couldn't
> > because he had destroyed the negatives...So much for the initial
> 'previsualization' (and this is from the
> > originator and master of the concept).
> >
> > You have to decide if you want the initial money for limiting the
print
> run, or you want the freedom over the
> > long haul to be able to revisit those images. Again, while I know
that
> dealers *claim* that they need to get
> > the photographers to limit the editions to get 'prices', history
has shown
> us that it is just not true.
> > Edward Weston's 'Pepper #40' has the most copies in circulation,
and still
> goes for the most at auction. It
> > is sort of a 'catch 22'...If you are famous, it's ok, if you're
unknown,
> you *must* follow the rules...Just
> > like with print quality or originality. Michael Stipe of REM can
get away
> with publishing books of photos
> > that look exactly like student work, but students could never get
the same
> deal....Go back to the 5 rules of
> > success. ;- )
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
> resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Show quoted textHide quoted text