More business or art

[ebyelyakov]

Hi All, just curious to get your perspective about the business of photography. As a source of sustainable income bringing 300k pa or more, with a view perform along the lines of Andres Gurskys of the world. Is it only me who sees that amount of info noise and straight rubbish related to photography business?

Essentially, it boils down to Product vs Process. Not as a mix of supporting and well-aligned (congruent as they like to say in business schools) activities but just one. And it is not photography.

My style of writing this post, somehow came as a mix of sarcasm and irony that probably an indication of how perplexed I am. All the brands and other references are rather random.

There are lots of ideas out there, in the wild, such as groups on the Facebook that really advertise the idea of marketing, business first etc. And at the same time, the attention given to the actual photography, as an element in the whole sequence of producing appealing visual art is pretty much secondary. A simplistic analogy can be made as if an aspiring Chinese car manufacturer, a new name, just picked up a factory on an auction, who is focused on spending minimum on design, engineering and manufacturing (they just bought the factory!), was given an advice to beat the Benz by simply upping the marketing game (here goes a set of tricks varying from cheap to dirty) and focusing on "your client" and staying "not your client" like hot potatoes. Photography? Nah. Just sell your talent. ..outsource your post and focus on "core business" - which is sales and marketing. and terrible, awful, atrociously bad images.

However, it is Visual Art that sells. And photography, and other steps make it. Before it is available for sale. And, as business pundits of the world tell us, unless there is a product, there is nothing to sell, or market to the targeted clientele.

As I encountered it, the widespread opinion is rather focused on tricks... And prints. Essentially find a lab and get them printing "archival fine art heirloom pieces of work that will outlive generations since the digital is not going to exist".. written in Comic Sans.. next to the image of an VHS tape. Sometimes a 5.25" floppy, the same I used to carry my Kings Bounty game 27 years ago, across two disks, that today, will take me 2 minutes to find and download from the Internet. Ironically, when a screaming question comes along the lines "no way, prints and screen don't match" the offered solution -- find another lab. Understanding colour, running a CMS and etc -- is really not important and not core. If it is good on my $150 Aker that it is the lab responsible. Sure. Ever noticed what happens when something is brought in a room lit with magenta neons?

I find it difficult to locate a justification or substance any of that trickery will work if not for some occasional "15K sales to a family who came to my complementary session after winning a $70 voucher at a local charity auction". Well, I still reckon such just lies. When I see those images I keep asking - would I buy those? No way.

And well, who makes money? People selling the subscription to these courses on how to get rich on the budget. $35 per month, take 10% off if paid annual... I'd live with that if I could get 10,000 bodies. Napoleon Hill was born in a wrong time -- just think what he could have achieve if FB was available to him.

The way, I believe a successful photography business should be built is that it should focus on producing pleasing art, people want to have. On their wall, or as a licence. Charged at a minimum $200 per hour if measured in labour cost plus expenses, taxes and whatever value add but really moving into selling the intangible artistic style that deviates from the effort alone towards the desirability of the author's work.

And the congruent business model, where pleasing visual art is the product, at its core should maintain a number of processes, which is really the whole sequence from "I've got an idea" to " here is the result". Outsource - website. Maybe calibrating the monitor. IT systems. Marketing.

Specific to outsourcing the post I do not believe it works universally. To explain, I'd like to draw parallels to painters of the past. The painting was a representation of the painter's vision of the reality. A picture (or an abstract idea) was created in their brain and then put to canvas. Did the painting depict what the eyes saw? Nope. Only important things and details to explain the feelings the painter had because of what they saw.

Photographers use cameras, that do not see the world as our brains do, with the lenses not working like our eyes.

There is a long list of topics we could discuss covering works and theories by David H Hubel, David J.C. Briggs, Helmholtz and Kohlrausch, Ewald Hering or Beau Lotto to include someone still alive... But I'd rather not - it is a long and painful read of geeky, technical stuff and unless you're familiar with some proven science, there is not much debating, But if you're on board with it -- you are... well on board.​

Whatever triggered a desire to pick up a camera has happened in my brain. Whether spontaneous or an elaborate, tediously prepared and executed shot. Whatever I saw, was an image assembled in my brain constructed from information delivered to it via the optical nerve after careful massaging and filtering by the brain based on its own algorithms that are hardly explained by today's science. Say when working on a landscape image, there are no cigarette butts or signs, or environmental/urban noise making it into the images stored in the brain... The colours of the moment, the completeness of the image and depth, thanks to the eye DR and adaptive contrast capability. The feeling being part of that. Who else can ensure everything that happened in my brain will happen in an observer's, when they see the image.. encouraging them to buy.

It is the post process that transforms the snap into the final piece of art.. Can these be split across two separate brains? I doubt it since post processing has become more involved compared to D&B marks used by the great of the past.. But even then - it was the photographer telling in a direct way what to do, where and by how much... Portrait retouch -- do I mark the pimples using the annotation tool or hit a healing brush?

Well it has been a long post and my writing isn't the easiest to read... Thanks for your time and keen to learn your own perspective.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I think that it's a basic mis-conception of many aspiring photographers who equate the quality of art with it's value, as if people will recognise *real* art and it's value is increased because of this.

Is a Van Gogh worth $39.7m? Not as a piece of artwork, no. In his time Van Gogh failed to sell anything other than for scraps, people simply didn't understand him or his painting. It went against the sensibilities of the time and was seen as garish and un-attractive. It was only with the benefit of education and time that we begin to understand it and can appreciate it because it now falls within our boundaries of common experience and knowledge rather than where it was at the time, which was edgy and mis-understood.

Is it now worth $39.7m because we understand it? No, as a painting it is an irreplaceable one-off that linked to the mystique and story that is Vincent Van Gogh that fires our imagination in a way we can relate to, he is what we perceive artists to be. Partly because of this to an investor it is worth $39.7m because he/she can sell it a few years later for $50m. They can then trade bragging rights because they now own a painting that's worth $50m, "wow, a painting worth $50m, that must be good!"

Not really, it is only because we equate value to monetary worth that we think that the quality of the painting is measured by how much you have to pay for it. How many people who view the "Mona Lisa" really understand it? Without the historical context, without a knowledge or understanding of just how different and new it looked to the audiences of the time, how to view it in the context of the 15th century rather than one based on your own personal and very modern experience, it's difficult to see past it's faded colours.

How many would pay $m's for a Giampietrino? An yet he was the apprentice of Leonardo who painted the copy of "The Last Supper" by which we can understand the original, which was a monumental fail. Not because it was a bad painting but because the time honoured tradition of painting frescos was to paint on *wet* plaster and so paint quickly. With his new technique of using oil as well as tempera Leonardo decided to paint on dry plaster so he could take his time and blend colours *on the canvass* as the oil allowed. That the other side of the wall was a steam filled kitchen is why the painting is in such a poor state and we look instead to the Giampietrino copy.

Yet it is Leonardo who is the historical figure.

How much would you pay for an antique naval officer's dress tunic? How much if it had been worn by Nelson?

A paper napkin containing a little sketch and the letter "P" in the corner? What fires your imagination, an understanding of the intrinsic value of the art or is the intrinsic value of the art fired by the possible monetary value of the napkin if it should have proved to come from some little Tapas bar in the late 60's?

And this is the great contradiction, the big paradox. Art only has a monetary value when it becomes mainstream, when it is appreciated and bought by the masses. But the masses generally have poor taste, generally follow fads and fashions like sheep, appreciate value by simple labels such as "how much is it worth?", and will normally buy pictures of puppies and kittens to hang on their walls and not the masochistic homosexuality of a Francis Bacon. Art itself only has value when it asks something new, something awkward, reveals a truth we often don't want to see let alone hang on our walls...

You can of course create your own *cult of personality*, you can lead where others follow. Something Warhol made a subject of and successfully lampooned. Art can be the perception of value, what you think it is rather than the object itself. You can do something that is fresh and new but just gels with the mood of the time with a public in social turmoil and looking for a direction or vehicle to identify with, as per Jean-Michel Basquiat. If you then, sadly and regrettably, mirror Van Gogh's turmoil and die of an overdose your art will appreciate in value. But only because of your recognisable fame and the value of *unique* single paintings on canvass. Desirability, buying into the idea, belonging to the perceived idea because of your purchasing power. Back to Warhol again...

Of course photographers have taken advantage of these perceptions. Tried to give the impression that their work can be invested in by fake auction sales, created a cult of personality that mimics promotes them into the public domain, trading on the perception of, "wow, a painting worth $50m, that must be good!". But their popularity is manufactured by careful flooding of social media, they create the impression of *trending* and therefore perception of value. Which in reality is as false as the HDR and has little or no artistic value. There is good marketing in remembering most people have poor taste and generally follow the easier path that tells you rather than asks you. They are looking for wall decoration and buying into the idea of art and taste, (back to Warhol...)

The problem with photography is that not only are there infinite copies possible, (nothing is a one-off), but that it is accessible as a pastime to everybody with little or no training. It, as an art form, is a purchasing choice. You can buy into being an artist simply by owning a camera.

This idea that you can produce fine art that will be recognised as such by enough people as truth and bold statement, honest and conceptual, loaded with meaning, and bought because it's so good?

It's false. It never existed. Even Basquiat created the cult of his own personality to propel himself towards an audience that was eager to accept. You can create a *new look* for an audience eager for another fashion to be a part of, but in these days of social media these are of those that glance before looking for the next. And you still need to *get lucky*, there are thousands with talent who have failed to *trend*.

So if you want to sell you have to establish a name, you have to sell to a small, targeted and local audience. You have to do it well, offer something that's desired. So for fine art sell through a gallery but you will only sell a few. For landscapes sell through local shops where holidaymakers want to take the scenery home and the more accessible, or mainstream the images the more you will sell. For portraits through a local studio, or create a look for someone else eager to catch the mainstream.

Or sell photos of puppies and kittens.

 

[ebyelyakov]

Tim, that's insightful! And deep. Thank you! You've ended any self-doubts I had for not being able to understand why Gursky sells

 

[smoke665]

But the masses generally have poor taste, generally follow fads and fashions like sheep

I can't help but recall the phrase attributed to P.T. Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute", when looking at some of the prices people pay for what "they" believe is art. Google is full of the macabre works that fetched millions, like this one, The Painting That Sold For $46.5 Million At NY Sotheby's Auction the description is almost hilarious, in it's spreading of BS - “A glowing aurora of shimmering color and light, the present work confronts us as the summation of its creator’s deeply philosophical practice, wherein he staged some of the most moving, transcendent, and simply breathtaking unions between material and support ever realized in the grand tradition of oil paint on canvas.”

 

[ebyelyakov]

But the masses generally have poor taste, generally follow fads and fashions like sheep

I can't help but recall the phrase attributed to P.T. Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute", when looking at some of the prices people pay for what "they" believe is art. Google is full of the macabre works that fetched millions, like this one, The Painting That Sold For $46.5 Million At NY Sotheby's Auction the description is almost hilarious, in it's spreading of BS - “A glowing aurora of shimmering color and light, the present work confronts us as the summation of its creator’s deeply philosophical practice, wherein he staged some of the most moving, transcendent, and simply breathtaking unions between material and support ever realized in the grand tradition of oil paint on canvas.”

It is a Ukrainian Flag upside down. ffs!

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Tim, that's insightful! And deep. Thank you! You've ended any self-doubts I had for not being able to understand why Gursky sells

Of course I'm not trying to suggest that there isn't a social, historical and artistic value in photography, or that it shouldn't command a realistic monetary value. Just trying to explain that the high prices, (and sometimes the fame as well), aren't always driven by merit, there is a good deal of luck and often *marketing*...

“A glowing aurora of shimmering color and light,

Damn!!! I deleted one of those only the other day, thought it was just over-exposed...

 

[ebyelyakov]

@Tim Tucker 2 - Mate, I reckon I got your message that really made me to reconsider a lot of stuff. Balancing income (be it puppies or kitten) vs an opportunity that generations are able to spell (or maybe even pronounce my last name -- even Gauss didn't succeed in this regard) is lot to think about... And thanks to your feedback, I've got a few nuggets for my early (sigh) retirement. Thank You.

 

[pocketshaver]

its a market system based on fraud and delusion. You own a van gogh, its ugly, its not worth the money you spent on it at all. Its only valued that because other people are paying that much for his work. In other words if no one paid more then 10$ or even 10 yen for a Vincent van Gogh, THEN ALL OF HIS PAINTINGS WOULD HAVE THAT VALUE.
Its sort of like the stock market, the stocks have NO value until sold.

 

[Soocom1]

Being an Alberjerky native, I was at the first balloon fiesta in 1972.
I was 4-1/2 years old and was complaining because I wanted to watch Scooby Doo, not balloons.

The fact that I attended the first 25 fiestas and then gave up, was mostly because at the first 10 or so fiestas, it was a growing industry still in the toddler phase. The early fiestas also had the early special shapes and so the 'special" aspect was very new and exciting. Photographers went nuts.

Around 1985 or so I started chasing the balloons after they took off and tried to shoot under the gondola. There were a few other folks who did the same and could catch the balloon directly under the basket with the rest filling fully the frame of the picture. within 3 years it became a constant and normal image. Taken world wide by literally tens of thousands if not millions of people.
It lost its luster.

There were at first a few high end professional photographers taking photos of the fiesta. Then Kodak got involved and it became the Albuquerque Kodak International Balloon Fiesta.

Kodak made a killing!

Then in the early 2000's digital hit and all was lost for film.

Photography before social media had a special aspect and moreover, when a pro level photographer got really great shots of such things like balloons which were out of reach of the average person, it had substance.

Apple killed that. Now literally every Tom, Dick, Harry, Susan, Mike, Pat, Fran, Frank, Aditya, Koichi, Abdulaziz, Svetozar, Bao, Adelheid, Gotthard, Vicente and Adilah can take a photo with a cell phone and post it world wide.

But here opens up a new opportunity like one not seen in 30+ years:

Because the photos are in most instances of such poor quality, eventually folks who want something special will reach out to the artisans who can do such and hire them to do just that.
Pro end photos that don't look like they were processed through the Zombie App on Google Play.

 

[smoke665]

Its sort of like the stock market, the stocks have NO value until sold.

Actually it's not. The value of a painting is almost 100% perceived value with no underlying asset. A stock is a small piece of ownership in the underlying company and it's assets and has an asset based value. The "Book Value" of a stock is equal to a company's assets minus its liabilities divided by the number of outstanding shares for a company. The "Trading Price", is a combination of factors that may be above or below that "Book Value", that's where the speculation comes in.

 

[pocketshaver]

Its sort of like the stock market, the stocks have NO value until sold.

Actually it's not. The value of a painting is almost 100% perceived value with no underlying asset. A stock is a small piece of ownership in the underlying company and it's assets and has an asset based value. The "Book Value" of a stock is equal to a company's assets minus its liabilities divided by the number of outstanding shares for a company. The "Trading Price", is a combination of factors that may be above or below that "Book Value", that's where the speculation comes in.

A stock has no value until you sell it to someone else. That's the issue that gets a lot of people in trouble. I have managed to get bankers mind humped by making them realize this fact.
Sure you can have a stock that you bought for 10.00 but even if the current price on the stock market is 15.00 a share, you have worthless paper until you sell it for 15.00 and have actual money in hand. Until you sell it, its at best worth 10.00

Art is the same way, most of the artwork, statues, engravings, etc. only have value BECAUSE and ill quote the antiques roadshow "ill put the value of your mint condition Renoir engraving at 10,000 because the last auction price for a Renoir engraving was 10,000"
Standard way they appraise the value of just about every damn thing on antiques roadshow. "oh your original condition highboy by this maker,,, last known similar condition by this guy sold 10 years ago for 20,000"