Becoming an 'artist'

[table1349]

i thought all you had to do to be a artist was quit your job, pick up at least a mild drug to do, and mooch off all your family and friends.

No that is how you become a looser son.

 

[BrickHouse]

I thought they were called 'millennials' or whatever?

 

[rexbobcat]

I thought they were called 'millennials' or whatever?

Um, I, in fact, have a part time job in retail. I work acceptably hard most of the time occasionally so that I may wear my suspiciously well-styled hobo garb.

I mean, do you know how much effort I have to put into styling my whole aesthetic to look this bohemian? I don't have time for a 9-5 with my fast-paced, chain-smoking-outside-coffee-shops lifestyle.

 

[BrickHouse]

My brother just taught me the term 'Lumbersexual'. People.

 

[rexbobcat]

My brother just taught me the term 'Lumbersexual'. People.

I'm not a lumbersexual. I'm more normcore. Normcore Fashion for One in 7 Billion -- The Cut

Then again, I don't really believe in labels.

 

[minicoop1985]

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an arteest aren't I?

If both at the same time... Yeah. Sorry. Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%. On principle, of course.

Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an arteest that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an arteest aren't I?

If both at the same time... Yeah. Sorry. Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%. On principle, of course.

Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an arteest that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.

Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..

People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..

As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?

Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.

And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.

 

[bribrius]

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an arteest aren't I?

If both at the same time... Yeah. Sorry. Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%. On principle, of course.

Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an arteest that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.

Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..

People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..

As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?

Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.

And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.

Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an arteest aren't I?

If both at the same time... Yeah. Sorry. Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%. On principle, of course.

Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an arteest that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.

Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..

People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..

As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?

Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.

And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.

Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.

It's kind of something you can hope for as an artist but not something that you can bank on as a career path. You either have to be extremely dedicated and work in a more profitable area as well or be lucky enough that once you get exhibited there is a craze over your work to the point that you can make a living off of it.

 

[minicoop1985]

No offense taken. I understand your point. I was simply being sarcastic and making a point about the idiots who take one photo with total cost of about $5 and decide it's worth $130,000. Things that make absolutely no sense. Calculating actual costs and seeking to recover them, that's a completely different realm.

 

[bribrius]

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an arteest aren't I?

If both at the same time... Yeah. Sorry. Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%. On principle, of course.

Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an arteest that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.

Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..

People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..

As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?

Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.

And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.

Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.

It's kind of something you can hope for as an artist but not something that you can bank on as a career path. You either have to be extremely dedicated and work in a more profitable area as well or be lucky enough that once you get exhibited there is a craze over your work to the point that you can make a living off of it.

First step might be finding a gallery that cares about photos to start with. Lot of them seem to concentrate on oil painters, sculptures, and if they are willing to take photos they shove them on the back wall like it is a "discount rack". Space being a premium.

 

[Forkie]

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an arteest aren't I?

If both at the same time... Yeah. Sorry. Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%. On principle, of course.

Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an arteest that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.

Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..

People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..

As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?

Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.

And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.

Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.

I think it also depends on where you live or market your art. In London, a lot of people wouldn't think twice about spending £4000 on a piece of art. Even a photo.

I have no idea where you live Bribrius and I'm making a sweeping generalisation here, but I suspect the majority of small towns in the US would contain very few people with a mindset to spend so much money on a piece of art. It is much more likely and commonplace in places like London, New York, LA, Paris and Milan where art is much more commonplace and accepted as a valuable asset.

 

[Dagwood56]

You will find that your high end galleries are primarily paintings and sculptures, but many of the smaller galleries that you'll find outside of major cities, tend to display more of a variety. Several near me not only show photos, but also textile art as well. It all depends on how big one's ego is when they go looking to have their work displayed, how easy or difficult it is to find the right gallery.

 

[bribrius]

You will find that your high end galleries are primarily paintings and sculptures, but many of the smaller galleries that you'll find outside of major cities, tend to display more of a variety. Several near me not only show photos, but also textile art as well. It all depends on how big one's ego is when they go looking to have their work displayed, how easy or difficult it is to find the right gallery.

yeah, i can get into a local gallery here if i want to try to sell a hundred dollar prints. Another i am talking to IS primarily paintings and sculptures but more $$$ (in which i expect a flat out NO). I probably won't end up showing anything i tend to go down these roads and change my mind. The inquiries are fun though.

 

[bribrius]

When you look at some of the galleries. They establish there own reputation on limiting what they show. For instance if they list as "one of a kind, no prints or copies" you can pretty much count photography totally out.