Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: PhillyPhotographer on February 11, 2009, 09:59:18 pm
-
Anyone ?
Focus Magazine (http://www.focusmag.info/submissions/)
-
Anyone ?
Focus Magazine (http://www.focusmag.info/submissions/)
Four year old magazine... looks like four issues per year.
Photographer pays for the display of her or her images (http://www.focusmag.info/submissions/)
With payment a photographer can reach 30,000 people, or they estimate 4.5 readers per issue; so your paid advertisements can potentially reach 136,971 people.
No, I have never heard of this magazine before.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
It is most highly unlikely that "exposure" in a venue such as the publication in question would benefit anyone but the publication itself. Imagine yourself a gallery owner. As such, you are constantly the target of the hundreds to thousands of wannabes walking the streets who "know" they are the next flavor of the month. Do you think that you would have to or want to consult a vanity publication? Do yourself a favor and read The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art by Don Thompson to get a sense of how the art world really works. There are an ever-growing number of schemes designed to separate artists from their money and take advantage of their irrepressible egos.
-
Thanks Russell
It is most highly unlikely that "exposure" in a venue such as the publication in question would benefit anyone but the publication itself. Imagine yourself a gallery owner. As such, you are constantly the target of the hundreds to thousands of wannabes walking the streets who "know" they are the next flavor of the month. Do you think that you would have to or want to consult a vanity publication? Do yourself a favor and read The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art by Don Thompson to get a sense of how the art world really works. There are an ever-growing number of schemes designed to separate artists from their money and take advantage of their irrepressible egos.
-
It is most highly unlikely that "exposure" in a venue such as the publication in question would benefit anyone but the publication itself. Imagine yourself a gallery owner. As such, you are constantly the target of the hundreds to thousands of wannabes walking the streets who "know" they are the next flavor of the month. Do you think that you would have to or want to consult a vanity publication? Do yourself a favor and read The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art by Don Thompson to get a sense of how the art world really works. There are an ever-growing number of schemes designed to separate artists from their money and take advantage of their irrepressible egos.
Russell, let me ask you a serious question:
Why do photographers showcase their work in art galleries?
No, this isn't the beginning to a cheesy joke - it's a serious question.
Maybe it would have something to do with wanting to reach art collectors. The gallery owner spends thousands of dollars every year to attract people to their gallery by showcasing the work that's being exhibited. They take out ads in local and national papers and magazines that they know art collectors read.
But what if the photographer doesn't have any gallery representation or wants to gain the attention of collectors in New York, San Francisco, LA, Houston, Santa Fe, etc. -- any city that the photographer isn't exhibited in? How does the photographer get the attention of collectors by being in one local gallery?
Focus Magazine launched in April 2005 centered around solving this problem for photographers: We offer multi-page spreads that can exhibit the work of photographers such as Mr. Penn and then offer full page ads in additional issues that create a marketing campaign of repitition that allow collectors that read mutliple issues to remember the name, the brand of Michael Penn through his photography.
Sure, we've gotten questions as to why we charge a photographer to be exhibited in Focus. The main reason is: Because if Michael's gallery has to pay to advertise his work in Focus Magazine and his book publisher has to pay to advertise their first book with Michael that exhibits his photography, why shouldn't Michael have to pay? The entire purpose of exhibiting Michael is for him to sell his work through the pages of Focus Magazine. If Michael has the potential make money off of his exhibition in the pages of Focus, why should we give that service, that opportunity away for free? It costs us tens of thousands of dollars to print tens of thousands of copies Focus Magazine. Our printer doesn't allow us to print the magazine for free because we're exhibiting art. All of the equipment used to produce the magazine, the software, the computer, etc. cost money. Michael had to pay for the supplies to create his photography, his website, etc. Why should he all of a sudden be granted the opportunity to exhibit and sell his work in Focus Magazine for free?
Yes, there are other magazines that will do that such as LensWork - a highly respected magazine that is one of my favorites to read. LensWork is not a magazine that markets itself to collectors of art photography. They're distributed in no galleries, no art fairs, no place that would attract a large number of collectors to a copy of LW with Michael's work in it. In fact, the only publication that is distributed at photo auctions, photo art fairs and photo galleries is Focus Magazine. I have personally gone through great legnths to ensure our distribution to events that we know a high number of collectors will attend.
So going back to my original question, why do photographers showcase their work in art galleries? Because the people who attend art exhibitions are also the same people who buy art to add to their existing collection. Now what if your photography was exhibited in a publication that was distributed at over 100 exhibitions, 4 art fairs, 3 auctions plus over 5,000 subscribers and over 10,000 newsstand readers? The opportunity for exposure through the pages of Focus is incredible.
-
Well, with all due respect, good luck with your avowed business model. I don't doubt for a moment that your publication is expensive to produce and that you need to charge someone in order to recoup your investment. But that's not the point here, is it? Read the book that I cited by Don Thompson. Collectors are most prone to rely on some "expert" they feel they can trust - a gallery, an auction house, etc. If your publication is able to establish that degree of authority, I wish you the best. Meanwhile, I would think that the photographic community would welcome some objective evidence. What returns can you demonstrate have occurred as a result of exposure in your publication? Provide, not just one or two singular success stories, but the percentage of participants in your business model who are winners. One would like an objective sense of the odds.
-
What ever happened to the days in which a publication gives artists the opportunity to have their work published based on the quality of the work, and not the quality of their pocketbook? I believe this gives credence (and respect) to both the photography and the publication, as they will have then both earned their way based on innovation, imagination and the simple belief that people will enjoy seeing (and buying) quality works.
- Mitch D
www.mitchdobrowner.com
-
What ever happened to the days in which a publication gives artists the opportunity to have their work published based on the quality of the work, and not the quality of their pocketbook? I believe this gives credence (and respect) to both the photography and the publication, as they will have then both earned their way based on innovation, imagination and the simple belief that people will enjoy seeing (and buying) quality works.
- Mitch D
www.mitchdobrowner.com
Quite right too, but this is today, shrinking economies and rising greed.
The very high cost of print, paper and almost anything you can think about has caused havoc in advertising land, never mind in the vanity market of wannabe photography. That somebody comes up with alternative business models is no surprise; that such models may or may not prove useful to anyone who chooses to invest their money by buying space therein is no stranger a concept than a client spending money to air his soap-powders in TV land. Ever unquantifiable, these are simply adventures in wishful thinking that have less and less appeal as profits and the opportunities for consequential tax deductions are also lowered.
For myself, I would try for exposure in a local gallery and hope that it, within a network of others, might prove conducive to wider publicity and opportunity to purchase/sell, depending on who´s doing it!
I feel no urge to solve the world´s current financial problems on my own; my hands remain firmly in my pockets!
Rob C
-
I agree and understand. I also really do respect David and his business model. Its just for me.
My hope is that talent photographers, like Michael Penn, will be asked by publications (like LensWork did) to show their work based its quality.
Great work will sell magazines because it inspires people. Especially in tough economic times people will buy inspiration.
- Mitch
http://www.mitchdobrowner.com (http://www.mitchdobrowner.com)
-
Well, with all due respect, good luck with your avowed business model. I don't doubt for a moment that your publication is expensive to produce and that you need to charge someone in order to recoup your investment. But that's not the point here, is it? Read the book that I cited by Don Thompson. Collectors are most prone to rely on some "expert" they feel they can trust - a gallery, an auction house, etc. If your publication is able to establish that degree of authority, I wish you the best. Meanwhile, I would think that the photographic community would welcome some objective evidence. What returns can you demonstrate have occurred as a result of exposure in your publication? Provide, not just one or two singular success stories, but the percentage of participants in your business model who are winners. One would like an objective sense of the odds.
My magazine and several hundred photographers are actually evidence AGAINST Don Thompson's theory that collectors ONLY go to expert galleries. For instance, I'm sure several photographers here have sold work off of their website without being represented by a gallery. Maybe they got a mention in a local newspaper or won a local photography contest. The first rule of collecting art is "BUY WHAT YOU LOVE!" As far as authority, I have some pretty heavy hitters on my editorial staff. The publisher and editor of the Photo Review and the Photograph Collector, Stephen Perloff, is my Editor in Chief, John Bennette who many collectors and galleries know and love is my Editor at Large, the Director of the George Eastman House Museum of Photography is a contributing editor as well as a former assistant director of the original Witkin Gallery in New York City. I also have several AIPAD member blue-chip galleries advertising with me. I also was invited to exhibit at Photo San Francisco and Photo NY in 2005 and 2006 (if any of you visit Photo Miami or Photo LA, it's run by the same person) and sold art on behalf of photographers who advertised with me. I sold quite a bit of excellent work to collectors at these art fairs. So, I think I established authority with collectors a long time ago. And if you'll look through several back issues of Focus, you'd see that we exhibit a lot of just great photographers who are very talented.
As far as results are concerned, I would define a winner as a photographer either sold his or her work to one or more collectors, or obtained representation to a gallery, museum or book publisher. Over the past 4 years, we have over 60% success rate. One photographer, I believe has sold over half a dozen pieces of his work as a result of his ad campaign in Focus. Other photographers have sold 2 or 3 pieces. Almost all photographers see their website traffic increase dramatically. Still others have picked up representation with galleries and book publishers - one photographer even picked up representation with a small New Jersey museum. Are there photographers who advertise with us and sell absolutely nothing, see almost no increase in their website traffic and obtain no representation? I'm sure there are... I can recall a few off of the top of my mind. But not everyone's work will connect with my readers. It's the risk you take in starting out in your own business as a photographer: Will the public like my work enough to pay for it? The answer isn't always yes, unfortunately.
I contacted Michael, because, well... look at his work! I think Michael could do well in Focus especially with all of the collectors we're reaching this issue. We don't accept just anyone into Focus.
-
What ever happened to the days in which a publication gives artists the opportunity to have their work published based on the quality of the work, and not the quality of their pocketbook? I believe this gives credence (and respect) to both the photography and the publication, as they will have then both earned their way based on innovation, imagination and the simple belief that people will enjoy seeing (and buying) quality works.
- Mitch D
www.mitchdobrowner.com
Those publications are still around - but you won't sell your work through them. No gallery today is going to decide to pick you up for representation just because your work was exhibited in Silvershotz, LensWork, B&W, Color or for that matter, even Focus. The market is much more tough and demanding on photographers these days. Even to get in the door in the blue chip galleries, you need to have to have published your own book.
If you want to be a photographer and not a businessman who sells your photography, well then those publications are the right option for you. But if you're looking to sell your work to collectors on a nationwide scale, then we might be the right option for you.
-
My magazine and several hundred photographers are actually evidence AGAINST Don Thompson's theory that collectors ONLY go to expert galleries. For instance, I'm sure several photographers here have sold work off of their website without being represented by a gallery. Maybe they got a mention in a local newspaper or won a local photography contest. The first rule of collecting art is "BUY WHAT YOU LOVE!" As far as authority, I have some pretty heavy hitters on my editorial staff. The publisher and editor of the Photo Review and the Photograph Collector, Stephen Perloff, is my Editor in Chief, John Bennette who many collectors and galleries know and love is my Editor at Large, the Director of the George Eastman House Museum of Photography is a contributing editor as well as a former assistant director of the original Witkin Gallery in New York City. I also have several AIPAD member blue-chip galleries advertising with me. I also was invited to exhibit at Photo San Francisco and Photo NY in 2005 and 2006 (if any of you visit Photo Miami or Photo LA, it's run by the same person) and sold art on behalf of photographers who advertised with me. I sold quite a bit of excellent work to collectors at these art fairs. So, I think I established authority with collectors a long time ago. And if you'll look through several back issues of Focus, you'd see that we exhibit a lot of just great photographers who are very talented...
Perhaps you can clarify something for me: Why do you need these individuals if your publication is paid advertising, paid by photographers? I find it odd that you "name drop" when these individuals are not necessary in a publication where photographers are showcased by payment and not by “natural selection.”
Nonetheless, but not in support of your position, many photographers are comfortable spending money to advertise their photographs and if it makes them happy to parade around a set of magazine pages with their photographs without mention that it cost them $2,000, so what, it's their choice. Who does it hurt, I mean, it is not like there is any integrity left, right?
Sorry, it's late, and I just found it quite hysterical that you have Stephen Perloff as an editor for a publication that is predominantly photographer paid advertisements! How typical of Stephen to have his hand in such a venture!
Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
www.jecxz.com
-
As far as results are concerned, I would define a winner as a photographer either sold his or her work to one or more collectors, or obtained representation to a gallery, museum or book publisher. Over the past 4 years, we have over 60% success rate. One photographer, I believe has sold over half a dozen pieces of his work as a result of his ad campaign in Focus. Other photographers have sold 2 or 3 pieces. Almost all photographers see their website traffic increase dramatically. Still others have picked up representation with galleries and book publishers - one photographer even picked up representation with a small New Jersey museum. Are there photographers who advertise with us and sell absolutely nothing, see almost no increase in their website traffic and obtain no representation? I'm sure there are... I can recall a few off of the top of my mind. But not everyone's work will connect with my readers. It's the risk you take in starting out in your own business as a photographer: Will the public like my work enough to pay for it? The answer isn't always yes, unfortunately.
I contacted Michael, because, well... look at his work! I think Michael could do well in Focus especially with all of the collectors we're reaching this issue. We don't accept just anyone into Focus.
One photographer, half a dozen pieces (sales price unlisted) OK, maybe that one broke even.
Other photographers, 2 or 3 pieces. If the sales price is in the ballpark of $1000 that's a loss to break even deal.
Photographers who advertise and sell nothing. I, like you, believe there are these.
It's not possible to validate your claim of a 60% success rate (in what terms, indeed?) with the information you've provided.
I suggest that Michael has a business model that already works for him. But, here's a marketing idea! Offer Michael a free ride for a spread. Then, if he accepts, we in the LL community will think, 'If Michael thinks it's a good idea, then it must be!"
-
Those publications are still around - but you won't sell your work through them. No gallery today is going to decide to pick you up for representation just because your work was exhibited in Silvershotz, LensWork, B&W, Color or for that matter, even Focus. The market is much more tough and demanding on photographers these days. Even to get in the door in the blue chip galleries, you need to have to have published your own book.
Interesting comment regarding galleries. Does this mean that you might think that it might be, let's say, disingenuous for Color and B&W magazines to accept ads from photographers "Seeking Gallery Representation"?
Ah, the key is to publish a book. Well, Focus has a business doing that also. How convenient, for only ~$20K, one can make that investment with you as well. One sees printers (as opposed to publishers) dissing their own low end promotional materials business to push "leaving a book behind" at the gallery.
Then there are the collectors on the other end of the equation. Hopefully, they do buy for the love of a work. Because, if they think that profits that occur at the level of the Gagosian, Saatchi, Sotheby's etc. will accrue to their collecting, they are sadly mistaken. Their experience will be more like that of Hummel figurine collectors.
-
The bottom line in all this, for me, comes back to the question for most aspirants to the arts: "How much are you willing to pay to play artist?" If approached with one's eyes open and expectations under control, I have no problem with anyone's participation in a process such as we are discussing here. I think it is very unlikely and quite unsatisfactory to buy one's way into the art world, but if that floats an individual's boat - great!
What is really handy is to have a trust fund. Someday, I'll have to make a list of those artists who were "trust-fund babies" Three Master Photographers come instantly to mind. Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Cartier-Bresson, William Eggleston.
-
Photographer's have paid to have their images in publications for years. You used to get and may still do if the interweb hasn't killed them off books that were published every years featuring the work of professional photographers, this would then be bought by ad agencies/art directors/designers etc for them to browse though and find photographers.
A magazine targeted at collectors is just a variation on that pretty old model and if they don't charge the end consumer, it may even be a better one.
Why is it wrong for photographers to advertise?
Not passing judgement onFocus magazine as to whether it's exploitative or not as I don't know any thing about it, but nothing wrong with the idea in principal. Unless they take in anyone no matter how crap, for unless they have some editorial policy regarding the quality of images, then it will not be taken seriously by the prospective collectors.
-
The bottom line in all this, for me, comes back to the question for most aspirants to the arts: "How much are you willing to pay to play artist?" If approached with one's eyes open and expectations under control, I have no problem with anyone's participation in a process such as we are discussing here. I think it is very unlikely and quite unsatisfactory to buy one's way into the art world, but if that floats an individual's boat - great!
What is really handy is to have a trust fund. Someday, I'll have to make a list of those artists who were "trust-fund babies" Three Master Photographers come instantly to mind. Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Cartier-Bresson, William Eggleston.
While you're at it, make a list of well-regarded artists who struggled to earn a decent living throughout their careers. You can start with Ansel Adams and go from there. Let's see which list is longer.
-
While you're at it, make a list of well-regarded artists who struggled to earn a decent living throughout their careers. You can start with Ansel Adams and go from there. Let's see which list is longer.
Of course you make a good point, many, many photographers financed their interest through fashion work (Arbus), commercial work (Kertez, Adams), teaching (Callahan), scores of photographers in magazine work etc., etc. The situation is different today, the picture magazine is long gone, newspapers are laying off photographers by the handful, publications like People magazine is only interested in celebrity photos as are a few tabloids. Last year I sponsored a lecture by George Tice, one of the few photographers who, without a trust fund, and without supporting himself through commercial work managed a living selling through galleries. Pretty much the conclusion one had to make was that George's story could hardly be repeated today. For example, MOMA in the early days of collecting photography up through the Szarkowski days, had a fairly open door policy. While the technical barriers to entry continue to erode (aside from the high price and rapid obsolescence of digital equipment), the number of photographers "seeking gallery representation" is enormous. Thus we see the proliferation of purchasable schemes that promise a shortcut to entry. Artists, as a class, are quite vulnerable to such schemes. We could make another list: Schemes that Separate Photographers from Money in the Hope of Discovery. My point still stands that a trust fund is very handy to have. I would recommend it as a pre-condition for entry into a photo or art school.
-
Of course you make a good point, many, many photographers financed their interest through fashion work (Arbus), commercial work (Kertez, Adams), teaching (Callahan), scores of photographers in magazine work etc., etc. The situation is different today, the picture magazine is long gone, newspapers are laying off photographers by the handful, publications like People magazine is only interested in celebrity photos as are a few tabloids. Last year I sponsored a lecture by George Tice, one of the few photographers who, without a trust fund, and without supporting himself through commercial work managed a living selling through galleries. Pretty much the conclusion one had to make was that George's story could hardly be repeated today. For example, MOMA in the early days of collecting photography up through the Szarkowski days, had a fairly open door policy. While the technical barriers to entry continue to erode (aside from the high price and rapid obsolescence of digital equipment), the number of photographers "seeking gallery representation" is enormous. Thus we see the proliferation of purchasable schemes that promise a shortcut to entry. Artists, as a class, are quite vulnerable to such schemes. We could make another list: Schemes that Separate Photographers from Money in the Hope of Discovery. My point still stands that a trust fund is very handy to have. I would recommend it as a pre-condition for entry into a photo or art school.
1) I would argue that a photo or art school is pretty much superfluous to fine art photography. The big name photography schools (Brooks, RIT) graduate lots of folks who go into commercial photography, but as far as I can tell there are as many self-taught artists as school-trained.
2) I've spoken with a number of well known wildlife and natural history photographers, and the 'arc' of the natural history photography business is I think instructive. Circa 1970, really good quality wildlife or macro nature photos were technically difficult to pull off, given the limitations of the then prevailing equipment and film. The 1970's appear to have been a kind of 'golden age', when devoted natural history photographers could earn a very good living doing what they loved and selling images. But equipment and film got much better; workshops taught techniques; hundreds, then thousands of folks poured into the field, and millions of really excellent images flooded the market, which quickly became saturated. Prices for image licensing plummeted. Now even the best known, most skilled practitioners have to eeke out a living between teaching, running workshops, writing; oh, and occasionally taking photographs.
3) As Brooks Jensen has pointed out, the digital revolution has brought really excellent prints within the reach of almost anyone willing to try. There are more technically really good photographic prints being made today than ever before. It's much harder to stand out when the quality of 'average' is pretty darned good.
4) I could be wrong about this, but I believe George Tice supported himself as a custom printer while doing his own work. He did a lot of printing for the Edward Steichen estate as well as platinum printing for others.
5) And yet, it's still possible to break into the art world and sell prints for a bundle if you create really beautiful work that hits the zeitgeist. You never know who'll be the next Michael Kenna, Andreas Gursky or Edward Burtynsky.
-
I could be wrong about this, but I believe George Tice supported himself as a custom printer while doing his own work. He did a lot of printing for the Edward Steichen estate as well as platinum printing for others.
And yet, it's still possible to break into the art world and sell prints for a bundle if you create really beautiful work that hits the zeitgeist. You never know who'll be the next Michael Kenna, Andreas Gursky or Edward Burtynsky.
You are right about George Tice's printing. He leveraged those contacts to his advantage as well.
The number of people at the "top of the pyramid" are few in number, of course, and I find it difficult to discern a correlation between any measure of quality and success. It's seems mostly to hinge on some BS backstory - as in the case of Wall, Crewson, Muniz, etc.
-
russell a
Having read this thread, I think that the problem you encounter is that you are hitting "artists" and aspiration where it hurts: the extreme unlikeliness of success.
Also, I agree 100% with the passing notion that you expressed about the art school/photo school concept. Having had to spend time doing a night-school photo course whilst a trainee in an industrial photo-unit, I know that was a general waste of time. Other than learning the almost pointless art of turning prints sepia, I knew as much when I started as when I finished.
But that wasn´t the point you were making: the real point, as I interpret it, was about career and how photographic education would help you. In a nutshell, unless you are willing to accept the likelihood of a very low-paid job, or of long-term unemployment, or of a lifestyle where each week has you wondering about the chances of making it into the next, then avoid photographic education and, more basically, avoid photography as a career.
Of course the opposite holds true as well: there are stars out there, but for every twinkle there´s a galaxy of black holes.
I have recounted this episode on this wavelength before, but it bears repetition. A wealthy friend of mine (and this during the booming early 80s) had his son come out of university with the enviable opportunity of picking a career. Ha, he thought, I wonder what photography would be like - I fancy the lifestyle. So, he and his father took a flight to London and the offices of an expensive careers adviser. On hearing that junior was interested in photography, and bearing in mind that we are talking about people with means, the adviser was quick to calm the lad down. He pointed out that in the UK there were possibly a dozen practioners making the sort of income that the family might have been expecting the son to make... Needless to say, photography vanished from the scene and the lad eventually went to Sun City and the world of PR.
Frankly, if you want to be a pro, then you have got to have the dedication already in your bones and a mind that accepts that the material rewards mght be very meagre indeed. This isn´t written in stone, but is written in the book of probability.
If you want to be an artist, living and working within the strictures of the definition, then be prepared for a fight even greater than the one being fought by your commercial cousin, with the odds stacked even more firmly against you.
And in both instances, pro or "artist", you are faced with the same basic fact: the insecurity of the life-path you have chosen is, of itself, one of the strongest reasons why the marketplace can manipulate you to its advantage. And manipulate it will.
Rob C
-
David,
Those magazine are free? if so can you send me one?
Forget it, I can see you sale it, for a year subscribe.
Do you give the money back to the photographer?
I ask, because you already making money, chargen the photographer to sale the magazine
BlasR
-
You are right about George Tice's printing. He leveraged those contacts to his advantage as well.
The number of people at the "top of the pyramid" are few in number, of course, and I find it difficult to discern a correlation between any measure of quality and success. It's seems mostly to hinge on some BS backstory - as in the case of Wall, Crewson, Muniz, etc.
Ain't that the truth. I can appreciate a certain in-your-face cleverness to Gregory Crewson's theatrical images, or some droll wit to Philip Lorca DiCorcia's, but that's pandering to the wealthy cocktail party art crowd. It doesn't demonstrate any artistic integrity in the photography per se.
There's a book out by Michael Fried pompously titled "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before". Fried buys the whole Crewson/Wall thing hook, line and sinker, arguing that it's become the most important modern form of art because these huge images let you walk right into them, forming some new kind of paradigm.
Gaaaaaahgg.
-
Ain't that the truth. I can appreciate a certain in-your-face cleverness to Gregory Crewson's theatrical images, or some droll wit to Philip Lorca DiCorcia's, but that's pandering to the wealthy cocktail party art crowd. It doesn't demonstrate any artistic integrity in the photography per se.
There's a book out by Michael Fried pompously titled "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before". Fried buys the whole Crewson/Wall thing hook, line and sinker, arguing that it's become the most important modern form of art because these huge images let you walk right into them, forming some new kind of paradigm.
Gaaaaaahgg.
Geoff: Yeah, I opened Fried's book in a bookstore, and there was so much spin in it I could feel a breeze on my face.
-
Rob C: Your comments relate to some of my musings lately. I attended art school as a wide-eyed youth - an idealist under a protective layer of cynicism. Among my teachers were Callahan and Siskind. Post college, with the beginnings of a family on the way, I signed up as a Photo Officer in the Air Force, received some great technical training, and got to use equipment that I couldn't personally afford. Coming out of the service, I went back to art school with the intent of finishing some graduate work I had started. Through a state program I was selected for computer programming training. I thought, this is neat, I like logic and such. Then, I discovered that people would pay real money in the computer field and, not wanting to condemn my family to a life of starving artistry, pursued the computer field until retirement. I always thought of my self as an artist disguised as a businessman and never quit experimenting and working various projects, occasionally exhibiting. What it took me time (a long time) to realize was that I had stumbled into the right model. I was able to pursue my artistic interests, not full time, certainly, but sufficiently in terms of my artistic growth. Importantly, I didn't have anyone (dealer, department head) trying to micromanage my work to fit any current (and soon to be passing) market imperative. More colloquially, there was no one to screw over the area of endeavor I loved best.
Someone in my readings posited the role of citizen/artist - as someone who has a commitment to the arts, but not as their means of livelihood. I would like to see more of this. If the arts were more integrated into our education system maybe it would happen more. After retirement I had a brief association with a college arts program, kind of as a volunteer mentor. I cringed each time I was introduced to a student who had switched majors from something potentially remunerative to the arts program. The lure, I believe, is the promise of an endeavor that seems to deal with a "higher calling " an avenue to a level of self-development not obviously available in other fields of study. What isn't taught in art schools is that this model will crash on the rocks of the hyper-mediated, commodified jungle that is the art world. Suzi Gablik has a book Conversations before the end of time in which she interviews a number of people with opinions about how to restore the arts' relationship to the community and the individual to a proper balance. Ted Orland and David Bayles' Art & Fear (still in print after all these years) comments on how many graduates of arts programs never practice their art again, they wreck on the shoals of reality.
-
they wreck on the shoals of reality.
Yep, and as with the Cornish wreckers of old, there is always somebody ready to help them do it today!
The only problem with the citizen/artist paradigm is that it can take a client to allow the art to happen. My own urges to go to exotic lands with a couple of models was a case in point: I could never finance much of that on my own and, with similar responsibilities of family to support, a client was the only key. Snag is, in retirement, not a lot has changed and a client would still be required. So, in an effort to stay in photography within the cit/art model, I had to change my ideas and head for pastures new. This, though quite nice, always will be second-best...
Rob C
-
Perhaps you can clarify something for me: Why do you need these individuals if your publication is paid advertising, paid by photographers? I find it odd that you "name drop" when these individuals are not necessary in a publication where photographers are showcased by payment and not by “natural selection.”
Because the second half of the magazine contains what I've described here - the Focus Galleries, the advertorial. The first half contains some excellent articles that interest collectors of photography. This is how we lure them to pick up Focus Magazine in the first place - we give them high quality editorial content that interests them. In face, in my next issue, one of my best writers has a 20-page article on collecting contemporary art photography visa vi an interview with Bill Hunt and Sara Halsted of the Halsted-Hunt Gallery which is an AIPAD member. It's quite a lengthy article and is going to be one of our best ever. Other than that our regular columns and articles contain quite a bit of information for the collector and our interviews with master photographers really help them get to know the biggest and most important names in our industry today. So, while they're busy reading the magazine and our editorial content, they look through the second half of the magazine and find photographers whose work they can purchase just by visiting the photographer's website or by calling them. As I said, about 6 in 10 of the photographers who've advertised with us in the past have been successful.
Nonetheless, but not in support of your position, many photographers are comfortable spending money to advertise their photographs and if it makes them happy to parade around a set of magazine pages with their photographs without mention that it cost them $2,000, so what, it's their choice. Who does it hurt, I mean, it is not like there is any integrity left, right?
I think I understand the angle that you're looking at this from - and it's the wrong angle. I do not ask, nor does a photographer really care about if their work has been published in Focus Magazine - we are not that kind of publication. The days of rising in importance in the photography industry paralleling being published in a magazine are over. They have been over for decades. Today, you can walk into a blue chip gallery in Chelsea, pop open a copy of any magazine in existence with your photography spread over multiple pages and the owner will care more about what they're having for lunch than that. No magazine today, is relevant for photographers to be published in other than for stimulating their own egos. It will not help your career one bit. It won't hurt and if you'd be more proud of yourself because you got your work published by Aperture, Silvershotz, LensWork and so on, good for you. They're all beautiful magazines and I'm sure your work will look beautiful in them. But don't expect anything to come of it as far as selling your work to collectors.
That's the difference between Focus and the other magazines, including B&W and Color. We actually market ourselves to collectors while other photography magazines market themselves to photographers. Every single other magazine offers products and services for photographers and have very little, if any in the way of paid advertising from galleries and I'm not talking about 3 or 4 ads here and there.
-
One photographer, half a dozen pieces (sales price unlisted) OK, maybe that one broke even.
Other photographers, 2 or 3 pieces. If the sales price is in the ballpark of $1000 that's a loss to break even deal.
Photographers who advertise and sell nothing. I, like you, believe there are these.
It's not possible to validate your claim of a 60% success rate (in what terms, indeed?) with the information you've provided.
I suggest that Michael has a business model that already works for him. But, here's a marketing idea! Offer Michael a free ride for a spread. Then, if he accepts, we in the LL community will think, 'If Michael thinks it's a good idea, then it must be!"
Ah, this must be the misunderstanding here. Most of the photographers who advertise in Focus don't sell their work for under $1000. Most of them start at around $1500 and go into 5 digits. I'd say between $2500 and $5500 is the average price the photographers sell their work for. We wouldn't accept anything else unless the work was very strong and we felt the photographer could sell very well.
-
Interesting comment regarding galleries. Does this mean that you might think that it might be, let's say, disingenuous for Color and B&W magazines to accept ads from photographers "Seeking Gallery Representation"?
Well first of all, both are great publications and I wish them all the best of luck with Color - there are indeed some interesting articles and I've always been a fan of Maggie Taylor's. I have nothing against them - Henry has always been very kind to Focus Magazine.
But, I don't know, nor would I pretend to know Henry's business plan for both magazines before he sold them off to Ross Periodicals. I don't know what their marketing plan is on how to reach collectors. I do know that very few galleries actually advertise with them and an overwhelming majority of photographers advertise with them. That should give you a hint as to who reads the magazine. And since 2005, B&W hasn't been at either AIPAD or Paris Photo. I'm sure they do something else to reach collectors though that is just less visible than being on display at two of the world's biggest shows for collecting photography.
Ah, the key is to publish a book. Well, Focus has a business doing that also. How convenient, for only ~$20K, one can make that investment with you as well. One sees printers (as opposed to publishers) dissing their own low end promotional materials business to push "leaving a book behind" at the gallery.
Obviously if a photographer wants to have their own book printed, as so many of them do these days, we want to offer them a service to do that as well. Since we already have contracts with a high end printer and paper supplier, we can get 1000 books for far less money than you can get at Meridian or you could've gotten at Stinehour before they closed - and the quality is second to none. Some photographers don't want that many books and we're not a service for them. But that the bigger problem is here, Russell, is that you fail to see that we're serving an entire market: Collectors, galleries and photographers. That's the way to make money in today's economy - to stay afloat is to diversify yourself and not be a one-hit wonder. We found many photographers who advertised with us in the past have already or will want to publish their own book soon and we also found out that the galleries that advertise with us want to print catalogues and that the collectors who read our magazine buy both photo books from photographers AND catalogues from galleries. We are not a charity. We are not a non-for-profit business. We are in this market to provide everyone with as many services as we can possibly offer and while doing that, we will hopefully continue to make profit and we are un-apologetic for that. I don't know you, Russ, nor do I know if you're a full time photographer or not - or if you have your own business or not, but if you don't like the idea of making a profit, then you're not going to be in business very long.
-
The bottom line in all this, for me, comes back to the question for most aspirants to the arts: "How much are you willing to pay to play artist?" If approached with one's eyes open and expectations under control, I have no problem with anyone's participation in a process such as we are discussing here. I think it is very unlikely and quite unsatisfactory to buy one's way into the art world, but if that floats an individual's boat - great!
What is really handy is to have a trust fund. Someday, I'll have to make a list of those artists who were "trust-fund babies" Three Master Photographers come instantly to mind. Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Cartier-Bresson, William Eggleston.
What's wrong with being a photographer who supports his family through the sale of his work? Why do you have to be a master photographer on the level of those guys? You look at photography as an art - I look at it as a product to offer to consumers. How many people bought photography last year? How many will buy it this year? These are all questions someone who makes a living as a photographer should be asking himself.
As far as your opinion of you thinking it's very unlikely a photographer would do well if they advertised in Focus, what is the evidence you have for your opinion? Or do you have any at all and you're just standing on your soap box because you think we should give free space away to photographers who want to sell their work?
-
5) And yet, it's still possible to break into the art world and sell prints for a bundle if you create really beautiful work that hits the zeitgeist. You never know who'll be the next Michael Kenna, Andreas Gursky or Edward Burtynsky.
You're right - and there is no way that anyone will ever know who you are unless you do something with your work other than put it on a website and hope a gallery will somehow magically find it without advertising it.
-
I don't know you, Russ, nor do I know if you're a full time photographer or not - or if you have your own business or not, but if you don't like the idea of making a profit, then you're not going to be in business very long.
I certainly give Mr. Spivak credit for directly addressing criticism of Focus Magazine's model and defending his position. If he can genuinely deliver an 'affluent collector' readership to his photographer/customers, and if buying a spot in Focus earns them enough high-dollar sales to come out ahead, God bless 'em all. As Mr. Spivak quite explicitly says, "You look at photography as an art - I look at it as a product to offer to consumers." There are much shabbier ways to make a living.
However, I think most of us here are passionate amateurs who might occasionally sell a few prints. As such the validation of being accepted and published in Lenswork (for example) on artistic merit may be more fulfilling than buying a vanity spot in Focus Magazine. One can always take a mercenary view of photography/art and map out a way to make some money. Create a sugary confection that appeals, give it the best possible presentation and very slick marketing, and voila: Ann Geddes, Peter Lik...insert your own favorite example. That's not what I'm looking for, though. I already have a career that pays the bills. Photography is an avocation and artistic outlet that I dearly love; but if I were compelled to grind it out as a product and to make it work financially...well, that sounds like about as much fun as making sausage.
-
Ah, this must be the misunderstanding here. Most of the photographers who advertise in Focus don't sell their work for under $1000. Most of them start at around $1500 and go into 5 digits. I'd say between $2500 and $5500 is the average price the photographers sell their work for. We wouldn't accept anything else unless the work was very strong and we felt the photographer could sell very well.
So you say your publication is a way station on the path to the stratosphere of the Philip-Lorca diCorcia's, Gursky's, Wall's etc. The reps for those top feeders do have an impressive mechanism for manipulating price and demand, don't they? An envious business model, wouldn't you say? One that, if the art world were regulated like the SEC (and had enforcement and disclosure - like the SEC needs), then those practices would land a few dealers and auctioneers in the slammer. At any rate, surely we can all agree that the input side doesn't matter. To do otherwise, after all, would be to discount the ability of a good salesperson or art writer* to spin anything on which they set their sights. There is no objective criteria by which we can say given work is "strong" (unlike cheese or manure, which we can say "smells strong") and this is certainly borne out by looking into any gallery today. Back to the top business model, which creates a potential problem for the mid-tier collector business. Without a sustaining mechanism of publicity and price support (such as the manipulated auction, or the complicit museum placement), mid-tier products will likely suffer declining rather than appreciating value. So the investment argument for a photograph priced in four or five figures (as opposed to six and seven at the top) is very weak. So what is there to justify those prices? From the mid level up, what is being sold, after all, is the equivalent of tulip bulbs.
Now, if we had transparency and disclosure what would be the effect? What if auction houses had to publish true prices and the actual names of buyers? What if dealers had to reveal that they paid a premium at an auction for a work from their own inventory that they use as justification for raising the price of their other works by the same artist? My God, chaos!
Now, to the Focus business model. What would be the effect of your publishing actual detailed statistics on the results of photographers investing in adverts and books, etc? Actually, I think, very little. If on the chance that your business model for participating photographers is not as compelling as you claim, a few of those able to assess an objective investment decision might demur, but hope springs eternal in the heart of the artist aspirant. Each of their cases is "unique". The business model of casinos is fairly transparent, not a lot of effort needs to go into research, lotteries publish their odds and players are not discouraged. (Except, of course, in our present economy, everyone is discouraged.)
Which brings me to ask, why are you, David, here wasting your time sparring with me? LL would seem an unlikely place to troll for photographer clients and no collectors are here. I make my posts to entertain myself. You should be off doing something useful, like checking a list of potential collectors who weren't totally invested with Madoff.
But, all in all, good luck with Focus. You have your business, and I certainly don't expect you not to try to make money. You are not in Public Service or philanthropy. Per my discussion above, all Focus needs is to lay out a couple of compelling success stories and the aspirants with investment cash will project themselves right into it. Tulips Rock!
* I use this term rather than critic. There are no critics anymore. Those that once might have been called such are careful not to be negative about anything so as not to cut off potential scraps of work writing gallery blurbs and book introductions.
-
I just happened to be browsing the What´s New section and came across the Mike Johnston article
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-03-23.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-03-23.shtml)
where he writes about going pro - well worth the reading for anyone so tempted. And he is right.
Rob C
-
It won't hurt and if you'd be more proud of yourself because you got your work published by Aperture, Silvershotz, LensWork and so on, good for you. They're all beautiful magazines and I'm sure your work will look beautiful in them. But don't expect anything to come of it as far as selling your work to collectors.
David, I do respect your position - but I believe you're wrong (in regards to your reference to "don't expect anything").
Based on results I've had, many galleries and collectors look at LensWork, B&W and Silvershotz.
And I didn't have to pay to play. - Mitch
www.mitchdobrowner.com
-
David, I do respect your position - but I believe you're wrong (in regards to your reference to "don't expect anything").
Based on results I've had, many galleries and collectors look at LensWork, B&W and Silvershotz.
And I didn't have to pay to play. - Mitch
www.mitchdobrowner.com
I too respect davids position, it's just not for me at this time.
The LensWork experience for me was the most easy and enjoyable I've had in my short photography career. I can't say enough good things about Brooks and Maureen. The doors that open after being published are still coming as well as an increase in print sales. The fact that they pay you and the copies of LensWork and Lenswork Extended DVD are a nice plus too.
-
David, I do respect your position - but I believe you're wrong (in regards to your reference to "don't expect anything").
Based on results I've had, many galleries and collectors look at LensWork, B&W and Silvershotz.
And I didn't have to pay to play. - Mitch
www.mitchdobrowner.com
Unfortunately, we as a community suffer from a shortage of galleries. There is ample supply of fine work readily available, but only 150 or so galleries ready to sell it to the public.
When I say "Don't expect anything" I don't mean at all to disrespect the other publications. I've complimented B&W/Color on this forum and on other forums as well as have always had high praise for Brooks Jensen's LensWork. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Silvershotz in the world, but it's my own personal taste. I don't know anyone over there, but they have featured a lot of great photographers who I know. I would not assume to begin to know the personal reading habits of gallery curators and owners and if I were to, I would assume that each of those publications would be high on their lists as well as Focus.
I believe we are all trying to achieve Stieglitz's vision of what a high quality fine art photography journal should look like. Perhpas one day our publications will be mentioned on a list of other high quality photography magazines by historians when mentioning Camera Work.
Of course, the main goal of advertising in any publication is to generate revenue. By being the only of those magazines that is distributed to almost all of the fine art photography galleries and AIPAD/Paris Photo/Photo LA/Photo Miami AND the fine art photography auctions at Christies, Sotheby's and Swann, the likelihood that we will reach collectors of photography is much greater than those of other publications and of course then so is the likelihood of some of those collectors purchasing the work they like. The first rule of collecting is to "Buy what you love." And while we certainly can't force collectors to love the work we exhibit in Focus, we give them every chance to by viewing it.
This is why galleries and photo book publishers advertise with us - because they know and they see the market we reach is the market they want to reach.
As far as obtaining representation through Focus, I believe that's happened about 4 or 5 times. Don Duddenbostel, actually achieved representation through Winter Works on Paper because of Focus. But it's not hard to see why that happened... his work, much like Mr. Penn's, is really quite excellent.
-
So you say your publication is a way station on the path to the stratosphere of the Philip-Lorca diCorcia's, Gursky's, Wall's etc. The reps for those top feeders do have an impressive mechanism for manipulating price and demand, don't they? An envious business model, wouldn't you say? One that, if the art world were regulated like the SEC (and had enforcement and disclosure - like the SEC needs), then those practices would land a few dealers and auctioneers in the slammer. At any rate, surely we can all agree that the input side doesn't matter. To do otherwise, after all, would be to discount the ability of a good salesperson or art writer* to spin anything on which they set their sights. There is no objective criteria by which we can say given work is "strong" (unlike cheese or manure, which we can say "smells strong") and this is certainly borne out by looking into any gallery today. Back to the top business model, which creates a potential problem for the mid-tier collector business. Without a sustaining mechanism of publicity and price support (such as the manipulated auction, or the complicit museum placement), mid-tier products will likely suffer declining rather than appreciating value. So the investment argument for a photograph priced in four or five figures (as opposed to six and seven at the top) is very weak. So what is there to justify those prices? From the mid level up, what is being sold, after all, is the equivalent of tulip bulbs.
Now, if we had transparency and disclosure what would be the effect? What if auction houses had to publish true prices and the actual names of buyers? What if dealers had to reveal that they paid a premium at an auction for a work from their own inventory that they use as justification for raising the price of their other works by the same artist? My God, chaos!
Now, to the Focus business model. What would be the effect of your publishing actual detailed statistics on the results of photographers investing in adverts and books, etc? Actually, I think, very little. If on the chance that your business model for participating photographers is not as compelling as you claim, a few of those able to assess an objective investment decision might demur, but hope springs eternal in the heart of the artist aspirant. Each of their cases is "unique". The business model of casinos is fairly transparent, not a lot of effort needs to go into research, lotteries publish their odds and players are not discouraged. (Except, of course, in our present economy, everyone is discouraged.)
Which brings me to ask, why are you, David, here wasting your time sparring with me? LL would seem an unlikely place to troll for photographer clients and no collectors are here. I make my posts to entertain myself. You should be off doing something useful, like checking a list of potential collectors who weren't totally invested with Madoff.
But, all in all, good luck with Focus. You have your business, and I certainly don't expect you not to try to make money. You are not in Public Service or philanthropy. Per my discussion above, all Focus needs is to lay out a couple of compelling success stories and the aspirants with investment cash will project themselves right into it. Tulips Rock!
* I use this term rather than critic. There are no critics anymore. Those that once might have been called such are careful not to be negative about anything so as not to cut off potential scraps of work writing gallery blurbs and book introductions.
I have no intention of responding to you in this thread any further. If I tell you rain is wet, you're going to question it. I'm wasting my time and your time and everyone else's time. You don't like the idea - period. I understand and respect your position. I appreciate the time you spent on this topic, though and hope you'll pick up a copy of my next issue when it's out this Spring. We have wonderful interviews and articles.