Reciprocity Failure

[BobDavid]

A lot of realist painters use photographs as guides. Only a very few know how to use photos as merely a starting point. The best of the best create paintings that do not look at all like the original photographs. Unfortunately many painters who paint directly from photos are just parroting the photograph. They are not artists; they are copy machines. And the best of the best copycats know how to pick subjects that sell. Now, what about photographers who take pictures of paintings? Reciprocity failure comes to mind. So, here is a photograph of a painting. The artist is unknown. How much would somebody pay for the photograph?

[BobDavid]

An "art lover" walks into a bar. He points to a nicely framed picture hanging on the wall and says to the bartender, "That's a curious photograph." The bartender replies, "Oh it's actually a painting. ... I picked it up at an art fare. The artist is really talented. His paintings look just like photographs."

[BobDavid]

I know some very skilled artists who take pictures and use their photos as source material for drawings and paintings. Most often, they are reinterpreting the photograph through another medium. And that is fair. They are not using a photo as a "coloring book." My favorite watercolor painter takes  mediocre photos, but his paintings are pure alchemy. I wish I had an eye like his. 

[BernardLanguillier]

I have a small show planned in Sept in Belgium where water color paintings painted by my mother will be displayed together with my photographs that inspired those paintings.

How does that rank?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BobDavid]

My comment applies to folks who use pens, pencils, watercolors, oils, acrylics, etc. who duplicate photos, without abandon, and then peddle their products as art. I think it's great that your grandma loves your photographs. And it sounds like you've got a really cool show planned.

It's easy to spot a painting that's copied from a photo. Especially when the painting shows lens traits--compressed space, wide angle distortion, scenes that are not framed the way the eye actually sees, etc. I do not have a problem with artists who use photos to enable them to interpret scenes, subjects, or ideas. But to my thinking, a painting that is a blatant copy of a photo is worthless. I see a lot of these worthless paintings selling for a premium while highly original fine art photos are dismissed.

A joke: An "art lover" walks into a bar. He points to a nicely framed picture hanging on the wall and says to the bartender, "That's a curious photograph." The bartender replies, "Oh, it's actually a painting. ... I picked it up at an art fare. The artist is really talented. His paintings look just like photographs."

I've thought about going to art fares to take pictures of all of the drawings and paintings that are direct ripoffs of photographs (Celebs, historical landmarks, etc.). After taking the pictures, I'd print them up, frame 'em, and try to sell 'em. Odds are, not a single one would be purchased for a mere fraction of the same price as the first gen ripoff.

[Jim Pascoe]

I've thought about going to art fares to take pictures of all of the drawings and paintings that are direct ripoffs of photographs (Celebs, historical landmarks, etc.). After taking the pictures, I'd print them up, frame 'em, and try to sell 'em. Odds are, not a single one would be purchased for a mere fraction of the same price as the first gen ripoff.

I think you might find that is a direct and serious copyright infringement....

Jim

[Isaac]

It's easy to spot a painting that's copied from a photo. Especially when the painting shows lens traits--compressed space, wide angle distortion, scenes that are not framed the way the eye actually sees, etc.

fyi Vermeer's Camera, Secret Knowledge, …

[Otto Phocus]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

If the person creating it considers it art, then it is art
If the person viewing it considers it not art, then it is not art... to them.

There really is no absolute definition of what is and ain't art. 

As Leonard Nimoy once said "an item is worth what the purchaser will pay for it".  LoL

Art, being impossible to define absolute, also lacks an absolute value.

[BobDavid]

I appreciate your point of view, Otto (love your moniker), but I think there is a difference between art and artifice.

RE copyright issues, who the heck knows? What about that guy who lifted the Instagram photos from the internet, blew them up, and is now selling them through a NY gallery for $100K each?

All I am really trying to say is that it is very difficult to sell fine art photography. For some strange reason, a pencil drawing or a painting that is a 100% ripoff of a photograph has greater sales potential. I've seen countless pencil drawings and paintings of celebrities. Those paintings and drawings look exactly like the original photographs. The photographer is not given credit and the artificer is able to get decent coin for his/her copycat products. I've seen a lot of people draw a grid on a photo and a corresponding grid on a canvas or sheave of paper. And then proceed to meticulously copy.

Tim's Vermeer is an excellent documentary. Vermeer is the true father of photography. Not only that, he was a damn good fine art photographer.

[Otto Phocus]

In any of the creative industries, the producer is at the whim of the consumer.

At any one time, the consumer may be attracted so something and not attracted to something almost the same.  It is folly to attempt a logical explanation. 

You can design the best dress, using the best material, the best technique, applying 50 years of experience in fashion trends backed up by the best design education..... and still people may not decide to buy your dress design.  Why?  Because the whim of the consumer.

The same applies even more to photography.

It is one of the more frustrating aspects of trying to sell something creative.  Sometimes the customer prefers this over that. 

In your example, the consumers prefer the pencil drawing over the photograph.  Is there a logical reason for this preference?  Maybe... maybe not.

It is what it is and since it is the consumer making the purchasing decision, what the consumer decides is right for them.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Now, what about photographers who take pictures of paintings? Reciprocity failure comes to mind. So, here is a photograph of a painting. The artist is unknown. How much would somebody pay for the photograph?

It depends on whether the photograph of the painting transcends the original meaning or intent being communicated by the painting or else it's no different than repro work for archiving for public display in museums which says nothing new about the original works.

An example of this type of visual communication concept can be seen in Mad Magazine's iconic "Alfred E. Newman" image which started out as public domain clip art for pharmacy advertisements and as a spot illustration to demonstrate certain human developmental issues in medical journals.

That original intent ("clip art") was transcended/transformed through the context of humor & attitude by the creators of Mad Magazine as their "What Me Worry" mascot.

The photo of the painting does not transcend/transform into anything new being communicated because there is no new context in how it's being presented. IOW the photo of your painting would not be worth very much due to there being no contextual background other than it being a photo of a painting.

[BobDavid]

Prior to being pushed into retirement due to health reasons, I ran a successful studio. Believe it or not, I had a nice business photographing dogs. Clients commissioned me to take a portrait of their beloved pets. My fee was $1,000. That included the sitting and a print up to 20" X 24." I'd spend up to three hours with the owner and the dog, and rarely shot more than thirty frames. It took years to develop the skill and to earn the recognition to command that fee.

Well, I miss the days of being able to take on commissions (cannot due to disability). Commissions were cut and dry. Fine art photography is an entirely different game. A typically good fine art photo (from a relatively unknown fine art photographer), unframed and printed onto 13" X 19" cotton paper commands $125.

A nice painting of similar size fetches more money. I spend, on average, six to eight hours on a picture. It adds up when you count up hours--driving to a site, scoping out the scene, taking the actual photos, sorting through the RAW files, selecting a keeper(s), post production, and print prep.

[Alan Klein]

Developing a niche in any area of work is the way to bigger fees.  Scarcity defines the cost of the things.  Landscape photographers are a dime-a-dozen.  Obviously dog photographers are a niche.

My friend Mel, now retired, spent his working career as an illustrator. He would do softback book covers and other commercial art and ads.     http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/melgreifingercom.html


He worked from photos as the starting point for his illustrations.  Here's a picture of me shooting my camera followed by the art work he created from it.  Mel has a great sense of humor as well.

Photo:  https://flic.kr/p/99kh7W

Artistic interpretation: https://flic.kr/p/99hfdZ