Personally, I would rather sell my prints to anyone who wants to buy them. I don't care about class distinction.
Originally Posted by Jim Jones
FWIW, my prints are Fuji Crystal, triple matted in 100% rag, non buffered, museum board, archival dust cover back and Tru Vue Museum Glass. My prints are expensive, because I use the highest quality materials I can get - it makes me feel good to sell and present them that way.
Artists at the opening is very helpful for sales for sure and ultimately that is what it is all about, making sales. Certainly that is what the galley is in business for and would not hang an artists works unless they felt they would sell. For 50% of the selling price, the gallery had better put out the bulk of the effort in selling.
Originally Posted by Jorge
Who really invests more time and energy into a work, the artist or the salesman, obviously the artist. But then who really has the selling advantage, the gallery. They have pretty much an endless parade of artist's work they can pick and choose from to sell and can keep or dismiss artists as trends and sales fluctuate. The artist only has himself to produce works to sell, based on his own style, medium.
So yes the artist has far more worries to consider and frustrations to overcome. Just vent them away from the prospective buyers.
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.
It seems to me as though the "photographer" wasn't the only one that handled this poorly.
Originally Posted by WarEaglemtn
ha haa - oh jeesh - it has to be printed on a special kind of paper to make it art....?! yep - right
Originally Posted by Gay Larson
I guess you don't consider color to be fine art then, since there are no fiber based color papers.
Originally Posted by Gay Larson
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Colour FB paper existed until around 1970. So obviously, no fine art photo has been produced in colour since 1970.
If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee
So Cartier Bresson and his decisive moment are not art and therefore just drugstore snaps? Forgive me then B&W magazine, by your definition, is full of fine art. ;-)
Originally Posted by jhavard
This is all very simple to quantify:
1. If printed huge and square it is ART.
2. If printed rediculously small and overmatted to 24x30, this too is ART.
3. Everything else is crap.
See how easy that is? Problem solved. We can all now go back to shooting pictures (uh, I mean CRAP).
-- If film is dead, then how come I can't buy a Leica for 20 bucks? --
Editorial & Commercial Photographer
If you want to get a good idea of what fine art photography is, then have a look at John Blakemore's 'Black & White Photography Workshop' ( see also AA's 'The Print', etc)- it's the blending of craft skills and vision by the photographer to produce an image that has that little extra bit of magic and makes you go 'wow' (can be b&w or colour).
"He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.
I would submit that some are overly sensitive to "titles" - and far too quick to judge people on their motives.
I've been thinking .. "Fine Art" does have its use in describing a particular TYPE of photography ... as does "Sports Photography", "Street Photography", "News", "Lansdscape" --- "Railroad" -- and probably a host of others. I'd name more, but I'm running out of quotation marks.
One submits a photograph to an exhibition. On the submssion form there is .. "Check One ... Sports, ... Fine Art ..."
For the greatest majority of my work, I'd check "Fine Art" .. not becase I want to pre-judge or pump-up my work ... but I believe it is the only category that fits ... or at least the best choice of the category that fiits.
I'm contemplating alternatives: "Art Photography" - omitting "Fine" --- immediately I would envision photography OF art. Photographs of statues, other peoples' paintings ...
"Fine Photography" - omitting "art" ... I don't think I've ever seen a description of any work using that particular description. I would have the image of a shingle - the sign proclaiming an early photographer's studio - most likely suggesting well-done portraiture...
Possibly "Fine Art Photography" IS pretentious, possibly there is an assumption - warranted or not - of the photographer's expertise and skill ...
But, I think that this description is, like Churchill's description of Democracy - "The worst of all - except for all of the others". .
Ed Sukach, FFP.