I agree and recognize what you've said, especially the point about the galleryists wanting to at least break-even on the investment of being at the show itself (in fact I wrote about this in my 2003 Photo Techniques article on Paris Photo). However, keep in mind that I was neither looking for a rep, nor showing any photos. Just asked a simple question.
Secondly, the point is well taken that many budding photographers, including myself, photographed Imogen. I will note however that there's a slight difference between a posed portrait of someone sitting in their livingroom and a snapshot of someone during a workshop.
Still, accepting all of your points, it's just that it's hard for me to image a self-portrait by, Imogen — or, Ansel, or Edward Weston, or Steiglitz, or Strand, etc. — having "no market value". See what I mean?
Anyway, no big deal. It's not my intention to make a long thread out of this. I just wanted to run it up the flagpole to see if it would flap a little. Thanks for the input.
Second-sudden thought: (on the premise that a photographer's self-portrait is worthless in the art market) Hey wait a minute! No fair! Why does a painter's self-portrait have value and a photographer's not? Or, when songwriters write songs about themselves (as they usually do), why are they worth anything at all? Afterall, isn't all artistic expression purely equal in spite of the chosen medium? (oh my gosh .. there goes the "short thread"!)
And who are Cindy Sherman and Judy Dater . . . and what are they doing in my kitchen?