Discussion
Having spent a little bit of time with one of the auction feeds open today, with quite a lot failing to meet the lower end of the estimate scale I was just about to wonder out loud why fine art photography was so undervalued.
Then... up pops Dora Maar's "Portrait with Glasses". From an estimate of £5-7k it made £68k (+ buyer's premium)!!!
In case you're curious it's ths:
The polarisation in interest and perceived value does make me wonder what direction the fine photography market is going to take... what do the PH photographers think? Now that everyone thinks they're a photographer, with the exception of the odd "stand out" piece, is the medium going to face (even) tougher times being generally accepted?
Then... up pops Dora Maar's "Portrait with Glasses". From an estimate of £5-7k it made £68k (+ buyer's premium)!!!
In case you're curious it's ths:
The polarisation in interest and perceived value does make me wonder what direction the fine photography market is going to take... what do the PH photographers think? Now that everyone thinks they're a photographer, with the exception of the odd "stand out" piece, is the medium going to face (even) tougher times being generally accepted?
I'm sure you know... as with most things art, it's not what it looks like, or how good it is, it's how much people think it's value will increase. That's the crucial factor in determining market price. How much did Queen Victoria's bloomers sell for? 
(Not that they were particularly arty mind)
(Not that they were particularly arty mind)GetCarter said:
I'm sure you know... as with most things art, it's not what it looks like, or how good it is, it's how much people think it's value will increase. That's the crucial factor in determining market price.
And the way in which the value can be increased by careful positioning in the market place. Which applies for art as much as photography - once an artist has been able to establish a 'brand', such as Damian Hurst or Andy Warhol, then the perceived value increases exponentially, but usually the creation of that brand owes as much, if not more, to marketing as it does to the quality (perceived or real) of the piece of art itself.I also think one of the perceived risks with buying photography as art, in terms of 'value', is the fact that what you have bought may not be unique; even if it is claimed to be a total one-off, who's to say there's not another (better ?) copy lurking somewhere ? Or maybe, as has happened in the past, there are some unscrupulous people with access to archives of photographs who then gradually feed new versions out into the market. I think this risk is amplified when you get into the realms of the photographers who are either less well known or who have a reputation for prolific volumes of work and for releasing prints into the market.
Interestingly, there is also a more recent phenomenon of 'unknown' photographers being marketed posthumously, such as the woman in New York (whose name escapes me) who took a bundle of street photos over the years, and which have now been pushed and marketed via the internet, almost in a viral way (though maybe not *quite* that cynically). Granted they may not be 'fine art', but their value has gone from zero to substantial in a short space of time by virtue of the way they have been released into the public domain and the story that goes with them.
Nick M said:
I also think one of the perceived risks with buying photography as art, in terms of 'value', is the fact that what you have bought may not be unique; even if it is claimed to be a total one-off, who's to say there's not another (better ?) copy lurking somewhere ? Or maybe, as has happened in the past, there are some unscrupulous people with access to archives of photographs who then gradually feed new versions out into the market. I think this risk is amplified when you get into the realms of the photographers who are either less well known or who have a reputation for prolific volumes of work and for releasing prints into the market.
Indeed, it can be quite surprising when you look around and see just how many copies of iconic images are available. That said, the same applies in the series production of lithos/prints in the broader art market where even crazy edition sizes seem to sell.It does however make me wonder what impact digital techniques (when used for traditional subject matter) will have on the broader perception of "value" in the photographic art market.
LooneyTunes said:
It does however make me wonder what impact digital techniques (when used for traditional subject matter) will have on the broader perception of "value" in the photographic art market.
I was pondering this when writing my earlier reply, and I'm not sure I've come to any real conclusions, but I think it seems to break down into two categories of buyer:- the educated buyer / collector - for them, they understand the creativity and work which went into an image, and hence attach a higher value to it. Digital techniques are part and parcel of creating the image, and don't detract from the value. Incidentally, I use the word 'image' rather than photograph, because I think there is a point where a photograph can extend beyond the constraints of the light captured in the camera, with digital manipulation being used to create something which may lot literally exist and is a product of the photographer's 'vision' for how he wanted to present the image. It helps that such images will be limited in number and released in such a way as to create interest and hence value.
- the uneducated buyer - here I am talking about someone who has some knowledge or awareness of photography and Photoshop, and thus assumes you can turn a sow's ear into a purse just by playing around with software. Such thinking fundamentally undermines the initial input of the photographer into creating the original image, and how it is still a basic requirement to have a good command of photographic skills, the vision and creativity in order to produce great images. Such buyers don't attach anything like the same value to images because they think it's all done artificially - in effect it's no different to them going and buying a poster from Athena (showing my age there...
).So, given the latter category far outnumbers the first group of buyers, then yes, I think photography faces an uphill struggle to maintain its place in the 'fine art' category.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff