I don't know how correct this is to continue on in the [public] forum; and
the first thought to be respected is that we all have valid points of view.
The question was about a piece of art and it's graduating into a discussion
of personal promotion.
Just to be clear. Ansel, EW Weston, Brett Weston and even Morley Baer loved
their photography. It was the doing it. Ansel liked doing his commercial
work. Anything with the camera. Like all of us, if it wasn't what he
liked, he'd charge more.
There is no difference between what it was like then as now, as you say in
the 21st Century. You are certainly not going out making pictures to feed
your family. You are probably getting clients to pay you and make the
pictures they want, to feed your family.
Adams started out giving his pictures away, after some time he got a
business manager; and before that -- because he had friends in the Sierra
Club administration because of his family cabin in Yosemite -- he got a job
with the National Parks Service photographing all the National Parks. The
project was interrupted by WW II and he got to keep his negatives.
It was his fear of failure that he kept copious notes on that Parks project
that he saw relationships between light and film that he came up with the
Zone System; THEN he lectured on it and because what was simple to him was
complex for many he began teaching. BUT his commercial work took him away
from teaching.
What's peculuar that you didn't know, was his pictures sold for big bucks on
the secondary and third hand market WHILE he worked for $175 a print. He
never saw any of that money come to him. Some of my friends who bought
pictures from his Carmel shows paid $125 and sold them for $70,000 DURING
HIS LIFETIME. He had no regrets.
EW Weston's notes told us he only made 29 photos, reprints for sale on
request druing his lifetime. He was a happy person. He'd sell portraits,
but once a week put a 'view' for sale at $5. Of course that was a weeks
groceries then.
The point is, in the arts, you do it for the love of doing it. You value
your work at a price that will get you to do it. When it's done, move on.
If you sell a print for $100 to one person, and $5,000 to another you can
surely sell yet another for $100 and not offend the person who paid the
$5,000.
I have a series of Cirkut pictures of which I made three prints each. I
keep one and sold some for $1,500 out of a gallery. I priced them at what I
got at an auction to support the Carmel orchestra. Now, some are at another
gallery and some will go on sale in December at a local gallery during the
Art Walk for $99.95, which is the price all the artists will have work for
sale.
It's like that. Sometimes the value is in the collection and not the money.
Kostas has a chance to place a piece in the hands of somebody for whom this
picture should have some value. If not, so . . . If so, maybe something
will come of it. But, you never lose by giving.
If that picture is worth so much to you, don't give it. I keep stuff and
have turned down sales because the price isn't right. I turn down jobs
because I don't want to photograph what they want. I have lost jobs because
of my honesty about ulterior motives; and gotten jobs because the people
were nice to me and that generated participation; participation which in
fact generated sales for other artists. People who came to shows knowing
me, and bought other people's work. But, I always get invited.
You know, you can only be used if you're useful.
Steve Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: <fotofx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Would you give away a print to a prospective client?
Hi Steve,
As always I respect your opinion but I must on a professional level
disagree. Using Adams may not seem like a good idea at first but in a way
you have made my exact point.
Yes I understood that Adams gave away his art. But in the cold light of
the 21 century that was as bad for business then and even worse now. If I
have images that were even one fifth as wonderful as his, how could I hope
to feed my family if I give them away? I am not sure if you use the camera
as your sole source of income but I have.
And there are literally millions more photographers now in our time as in
his. He was trying to be kind, I undestand that. And I am also sure that
his patrons were equally pleased. But he hated commercial work, we both
know that. I really do feel that all art work now has to be looked upon
with a commercial eye. Many more millions will be made using Adams images
than he will ever know. Someone like Bill Gates will get the commercial
value and none of the pleasure you insist = a free image.
Whenever a valuable object is given away it makes it that much tougher for
the next photographer to charge a living rate. Most teachers never will
get this. That is why I used him as an example. Adams made a small
fortune off of teaching. His skills were top notch and second to nobody,
but I ask you what would do today to compete?
Instead of a few hunderd photographers suppose he had to compete with
70,000. Some consumate pros, some very good rookies and even worse retired
IBMer's who can afford the latest gear which does everything for you.
Do you think he would survive, by giving away images? Any look into the
phone book or on the web can come up with untold numbers of photographes.
Labs have died, nobodys uses an enlarger anymore, Kodak has ceased
production of it's staple B&W paper.....
You want millions of people to have your work, and my heart hears you well
and it likes that thought. But we live only an hour or so apart and I
cannot afford to buy a home in San Jose because they are too expensive or
even worse the price changes as I walk in the door. Adams did not have
that type of issue to deal with. Do you own a home in Carmel? The average
home in your community goes for 900-1mil there are several that cost tens
of
millions. So if you bought that property 50 years ago it is worth 100x
what it was originally. A second mortgage could buy a mansion in two
thirds of the US and a damn island in central america.
So where are we? Kostas has two ways he can go. I say send a professional
sample kit along with a personal invite. The gentleman is well to do. Your
story from Adams has him trading images with other photographers, not
giving away images for others to turn around and sell at Sothbys or some
other auction house.
It could easily go either way, but if the patron is a business man first
he will have no respect for Kostas' business skills. He could end up
getting all 5 paintings and cherish them even more knowing he got them for
a song. Kostas meets and untimely end in the distance future and his
children see the images come up for sale at 100x the value he placed on
them. Each of you had better wake up and smell the coffee your work has
value NOW.
All of our art work has what others see as either no commercial value or
see it as great potential value. even your
beloved museums of which I am fantastically envious place a dollar value
on your work. I wish I could say the Smithsonian had some of my image but
the truth is they pay very little and take donations freely. I just met
with some of their staff this year. They will willingly take my aircraft
images and properly scan, and file them. After which they wuill make post
cards and maybe a buck .50 <vbg> I would be proud to know that i had one
of my images hang in that space.
If you make a living with a camera and you want to eat, you can't give
away your work to those that can afford to pay for it. Art teachers are
great at showing students the fantastic world in which they live. But they
don't make their money in its purest form competeing with others that
create, they are paid to teach.
Art schools, colleges and high schools, graduate talented photographers
each spring. Each has his portfolio tucked under their arms and off they
go. The next they know they get an image published in a news paper
and....... collect $15
Respectfully,
Les Baldwin
