If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to
put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have learned some interesting things. Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting, "Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is inherently valuable. A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary. It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination to produce it.) However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard it is to get the truly great shots. I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl would. I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art." A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair. Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of these two art forms? - Alan Justice |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
On 5/26/04 3:04 PM, in article
.net, "Alan Justice" wrote: I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have learned some interesting things. It is a hard market to make a living at. If I did it again I would figure out the very best seller I had and make a limited edition print or a poster out of it and market that to art and frame shops. A great Trade Publication for the Art & Frame market is Decor Magazine. http://www.decor-expo.com/DECOR/home.htm And another one is Art Business News. http://www.artexpos.com/ That is how most painters I know, make their money. They make prints and sell them. Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting, "Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is inherently valuable. Yes but sometimes when a photograph looks like a painting a "real" painting will win out. A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary. It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination to produce it.) I don't think they think that much about it. I think is it just that everybody has a camera and because of that they have a much more familiarity with photo taking. Painting for them is a much less understood medium. I believe "beauty' helps but I believe the real seller is "emotion." If your photograph can produce a "emotion" in a person then you have a much greater chance of selling to that customer. All my best sellers and constant sellers had emotional triggers to them. However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard it is to get the truly great shots. Yes I used to hear all the time "My brother is a photographer he can take a picture like that." Don't let it get to you, sometimes even those people will end up buying a smaller photo. I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl would. Again Emotions might have something to do about it. When they get home and see the photo of the "Rhododendrons in the Redwoods" that brings back their emotions of the visit they had to that place. It is a connection with emotions. If they went to a bird rehab place that had a "spotted owl" and they held it, then they might be more connected to it. I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art." A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair. Yep! Fine Art shows officials are real bad about this. They think Black & White Photography is real photography. Color Photography is below that and Wildlife & Nature Color Photography is wayyyyyy below that. No matter the quality of the wildlife and nature photography. That is just they way it is. Doing Fine Art shows and Wildlife Expositions is a great way to learn this field real quick. And I don't mean craft shows, yech, but real Fine Art Shows where customers have disposable incomes. After a few weekends of listening to all the people who come into your booth your whole perspective will change, unless one isn't very observant. -- PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
On 05/26/2004 03:04 PM, Alan Justice said:
I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have learned some interesting things. Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting, "Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is inherently valuable. A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary. It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination to produce it.) However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard it is to get the truly great shots. I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl would. I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art." A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair. Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of these two art forms? A few of my thoughts - which echo yours: There is a feeling that 'anyone can take photographs'. Even if a person knows they can't take photographs as good as the one hanging in the gallery, there is still a feeling that if they were in the right spot at the right time, maybe they could have gotten it. There is another perception that paintings are a one of a kind. (I would debate that, just look at Franz Kline's paintings). And with photographs, the photographer can just print as many as he wants from the negative, so why should they cost as much as a painting. Oil on canvas paintings have a long history which gives them more credibility. It's almost the historical definition of 'art'. Oil on canvas paintings have a certain mystique. Everyone has taken photographs - it's easy. (I didn't use the word 'good' photographs.) But most people wouldn't know where to begin with a painting - ok, I drive to the art store, now what... That sense of the unknown has some influence on the perceived value of an object. -- Joe http://www.joekaz.net/ http://www.cafeshops.com/joekaz |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
In article k.net,
"Alan Justice" wrote: I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art." A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair. I think you need to visit a high-end photo gallery, such as Etherton in Tucson, or Andrew Smith in Santa Fe. Prints by famous photographers routinely sell for 5 figures, and lesser-known (but good) contemporary photographers easily command 4-figure prices. At retail, of course. It's certainly true that there are far more art-galleries than photo-galleries. But photography as fine art is well-established now. Any working artist finds it tough at the start. Usually forever... G Cheers -- Pete Tillman |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
"Peter D. Tillman" wrote
I think you need to visit a high-end photo gallery, such as Etherton in Tucson, or Andrew Smith in Santa Fe. Prints by ... lesser-known (but good) contemporary photographers easily command 4-figure prices. Only if the photographer is dead. I have contemplated identity theft: take a name from a tombstone and sign it onto my photographs. Photo by a dead photographer. No chance of the value going down 'cause he printed up another dozen. I should be able to get 2-3 times the $$. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
In article k.net, "Alan Justice" wrote: I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art." A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair. I think you need to visit a high-end photo gallery, such as Etherton in Tucson, or Andrew Smith in Santa Fe. Prints by famous photographers routinely sell for 5 figures, and lesser-known (but good) contemporary photographers easily command 4-figure prices. At retail, of course. It's certainly true that there are far more art-galleries than photo-galleries. But photography as fine art is well-established now. photography is also so very new when compared to painting. we'll only know the real masters in a couple of hundred years... Any working artist finds it tough at the start. Usually forever... G while i'm not one, this certainly appears to be the case. Cheers -- Pete Tillman -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. Value is
in rarity. I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have learned some interesting things. Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting, "Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is inherently valuable. A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary. It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination to produce it.) However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard it is to get the truly great shots. I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl would. I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art." A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair. Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of these two art forms? - Alan Justice |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
On 9-Jun-2004, GW wrote: Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Many types of art come in multiples. Cast sculpture and etchings, for example. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. overstated but certainly large numbers can be produced. Value is in rarity. Rarity does increase value, but it's not the only factor. If it were Polaroid shots would be very valuable. Rarity can be created by the death of the artist, the destruction of the original negative, or creation of limited editions. -- Tom Thackrey www.creative-light.com tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:37 -0400, GW wrote:
Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. The masters of darkroom technique and chemical post-processing might disagree with you! Sometimes I wonder how they can make two prints look alike. Possessing the negative doesn't necessarily give you the means to create duplicate prints. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Photos vs. paintings as art
Not really, most artist who make a living off of art every day, make much
more money off of Prints, ie Limited edition prints, then originals. Case in Point: nationally known Award Winning, Nationally Published Artist sell prints Originals for around $5000. He also prints and sells Limited Prints (1,500) at retail for $80. Now lets see even if they average out selling at half price (Some sell at Retail, many Wholesale, and some at distributor prices) and some "Artist Prints" sales. OK 1,500 times $40 equals $60,000 from prints alone. Value in artwork is totally a perceived or hyped up value. The bigger name you can make for yourself, anyway you can, the more your "artwork will be perceived to be valuable. Its 90% PR and 10% Talent. Sorry! PWW -- PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com On 6/9/04 8:30 PM, in article , "GW" wrote: Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. Value is in rarity. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Arsat-Kiev/Zeiss-Rollei side-by-side fisheye photos | Jim Hemenway | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 25 | May 6th 04 10:36 PM |
If Interested in Scrapbooking Your Photos... | Todd | General Photography Techniques | 0 | April 7th 04 06:52 PM |
If Interested in Scrapbooking Your Photos... | Todd | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | April 7th 04 06:47 PM |
New website with 1000+ photos & videos of wild trout & insects they eat | Jason Neuswanger | Photographing Nature | 0 | February 29th 04 05:55 AM |
Photographing red paintings with a digital camera | John Purcell | General Photography Techniques | 4 | February 25th 04 10:40 AM |