Author Topic: Microstock prices are becoming unaffordable (Read 9238 times)

Slovenian · « **on:** May 30, 2011, 06:37 »

And then one comes across news like this

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp. I know I mixing apples and oranges, but still, it makes sentences like the one in the subject pretty absurd

jm · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2011, 06:42 »

That image is obviously of low commercial value due to cropping. And focus is not located where I feel it works best.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2011, 06:56 »

Here's a nice long thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1014&thread=38420223

Personally, I don't see much worth of any kind in that image.

qwerty · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2011, 07:05 »

oh its only 3.9 million not 39million like I first though. Bargin

Black Sheep · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2011, 08:03 »

I'm scratching my head as well about what is fine-art and how to enter the fine art business.

We all hear about these crazy multimillion dollars sales but as a matter of fact galleries are flooded by crap that has nothing to envy to the crap sold for crazy prices and yet they're worth nothing.

In the last few months i personally went on a tour of the major galleries in my city and frankly was unimpressed by what i've seen there, instead the shock was to realize how many bloody awful images were sold for thousands of dollars.

It's both a bubble and a mafia, as any art dealer will tell you there's no clear rule about how an artist can make a name in the market and then grow the value of its collection over time : both galleries and art critics must agree the specific artist can generate value and then the gallery bet on him organizing a sale etc but at the end of the game buyers and collectors have no linear logic on why they prefer artist x to artist y or z, moreover they only buy as an investment, with the hope that they can make a fat profit after a few years, and when the artist dies the value increase as it become something interesting for collectors too.

In most of the cases the quality of the images is absolutely non important, and often the most expensive shots are terrible, grainy, and look to be shot with a broken Polaroid !

Long story short, i'm carefully assembling a book to present to my local art galleries and at least gather up some feedback, time will tell.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2011, 08:08 »

Quote from: Slovenian on May 30, 2011, 06:37

And then one comes across news like this http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp. I know I mixing apples and oranges, but still, it makes sentences like the one in the subject pretty absurd

That photo is awful from any point of view, but hey this is "conceptual photography" therefore anything goes.
Maybe i'm getting old but i can't see any clear concept on it, they sold it for millions just because it's been shot by Cindy Sherman, the bidders couldn't probably give a crap about the photo itself, all they know is that they can make money on it.

I'm not still an expert but to me it looks like basically a Ponzi scheme, where the loser is the last one buying the product, probably a gullible collector or somebody overseas money laundering a few millions.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2011, 08:12 »

Even a dog could take that shot with a mobile phone.
Conceptual my ass.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2011, 08:50 »

Good for Cindy Sherman. I hope she gets 7.8 mil for the next print.

click_click · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2011, 09:59 »

The frame is built from pure Platinum which is worth $4.5million - therefore it's a steal...

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:05 »

This kind of "fine art" is 95% about self-promotion. You have to be a special kind of person to pull it off.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:11 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 30, 2011, 10:05

This kind of "fine art" is 95% about self-promotion. You have to be a special kind of person to pull it off.

If she wrote a book on how to network "properly", I'd pay top dollar for that one.

Truly shows how to be a successful business person...

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:16 »

It's a very good photo, it says something. But 3 million? Come on people.

aeonf · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 30, 2011, 10:16

It's a very good photo, it says something. But 3 million? Come on people.

The only thing it says to me is "look, I aint such a good photographer".
Then again I haven't sold any photos for over 700$ so what do I know...

SNP · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:44 »

personally I can't stand most of Cindy Sherman's work. I don't like her lighting choices, and her shots inspire little interest in her subjects IMO. maybe that's her intention, to create distance between the audience and the subject but I find much of her work boring and self-indulgent. same goes for Warhol.

though I'll say I like the photo in this example better than most of her other stuff.

click_click · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:52 »

Quote from: SNP on May 30, 2011, 10:44

though I'll say I like the photo in this example better than most of her other stuff.

Enough to pay $3.9 Mill. for it?

stockastic · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:53 »

Interesting discussion. I don't really find this photo interesting but I think it's an offbeat sort of portrait that captures something about being a child, in a sort of retro orange-y glow. I've never heard of Cindy Sherman.

I always liked what Warhol did - when I was a kid it seemed very fresh and original. The mind of the 'collector' though is something different. The collector will pay a huge sum to own and display an original and imply a personal connection with the artist. We need rich patrons or there's no art. But this price strikes me as way, way over the top. There just isn't that much content, craft or even effort in this photo.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:22 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 30, 2011, 10:53

Interesting discussion. I don't really find this photo interesting but I think it's an offbeat sort of portrait that captures something about being a child, in a sort of retro orange-y glow. I've never heard of Cindy Sherman.

I always liked what Warhol did - when I was a kid it seemed very fresh and original. The mind of the 'collector' though is something different. The collector will pay a huge sum to own and display an original and imply a personal connection with the artist. We need rich patrons or there's no art. But this price strikes me as way, way over the top. There just isn't that much content, craft or even effort in this photo.

Collectors are not crazy as it seems.
From what i have understood they're rich people willing to find an investment and eventually a profit.
They usually invest in many fields, including art and they don't stick just with photography.
Before buying someone they think twice and they ponder accurately if the artwork is worth or not.
If they bought this crap for 3 millions it means they "know" sooner or later they can resell it for 4 millions, that's the logic,
especially if the artist dies and you have a large collections of his works.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:28 »

If I had that hanging on my wall I'd pay someone $20 to take it away and get rid of it.

(and someone forgot the "WB may be incorrect" rejection, too).

aeonf · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2011, 11:28

If I had that hanging on my wall I'd pay someone $20 to take it away and get rid of it.

(and someone forgot the "WB may be incorrect" rejection, too).

1+ and LOL

SNP · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2011, 13:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2011, 11:28

If I had that hanging on my wall I'd pay someone $20 to take it away and get rid of it.

(and someone forgot the "WB may be incorrect" rejection, too).

lol

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2011, 13:51 »

I'll need to add myself to the "Emperor has no clothes" camp. I totally don't get why that picture is worth anything other than to the model and her family and friends, and even then ... not a lot.
Which is clearly another reason why I'll never make it.

Graffoto · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2011, 14:23 »

^^
No model involved.
I believe that the image in question is, as most of Ms. Sherman's work, a self portrait of the artist.

This is less about being a great photographer and more about fame and artistic expression.

As for my own opinion of the photograph? I did better work when I was twelve... but then again, I'm not famous, which is why I license my images for pennies.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2011, 14:37 »

Sadly, artistic success at a high level often (not always) depends on getting in with the right social circle and persuading the right people to promote you. It's a matter of social skills rather than artistic ones. Unfortunately, selling microstock is likely to be an instant disqualification from membership of the in-crowd.
There are some photographers whose work is just so marvellous that nobody could deny their greatness but they are a tiny minority which I'm afraid we are not a part of. A good percentage of them are social/news photographers and sell stock at places like Magnum.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2011, 16:44 »

Went to her website and looked at "art". Ew.

louoates · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2011, 17:31 »

I had to click twice on that link. The first time I scanned the page quickly for the photograph that was being talked about. Not seeing it, I immediately jumped back to this thread to read on. I thought that photo was a pop up ad for some crummy teen clothing line!

Snowball · « **Reply #25 on:** May 30, 2011, 17:49 »

Quote from: louoates on May 30, 2011, 17:31

I thought that photo was a pop up ad for some crummy teen clothing line!

LOL! No accounting for taste. Maybe the name Cindy Sherman was enough to pull in that kind of money? I've never heard of her, but I am not much for fine art photography.

SNP · « **Reply #26 on:** May 30, 2011, 18:00 »

I'm going to defend this photo--despite my general dislike for Sherman's work. I think many of you are oversimplifying and dismissive of the image in question. the price tag aside--which in the art world is an arbitrarily determined and subjective number--the photograph is much more than its technical elements. and for that matter, technically speaking I think it's still very good. the other thing to consider is the context, the social implications, the time in which this image was produced. it's a self portrait, and elements within the image like the ad she is holding and the symbolism of the floor on which she is lying all have meaning. I think the subtlety of the image is beautiful and even poetic.

I think this photograph tells a story, as does the expression on the subject's face--resignation. I think it's one of her more interesting images. I hate many of her portraits, but I think it's too easy to look at this piece and dismiss it because of the selling price as its frame of reference.

I also disagree that artists that contribute to microstock are by default excluded from 'art' circles. that's ridiculous.

dk · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2011, 18:39 »

I think some people here are exaggerating. Cindy Sherman together with Sally Mann / Mary Ellen Mark and Nan Goldin are among the few living legends of female photography. They have been around for years each doing her own thing not caring for immediate cash-in like we do (stock photographers). I'm sure that for years Cindy Sherman photographed herself and Nan Goldin her outcast friends without expecting any money. So after years of producing a consistant non-commercial body of work which evolves around the same subjects, with a personal artistic style, their work has high value - not of course to buy and use the photo commercialy on a website (like stock photos) but as a work of art - like a painting.

The work of a photographer of this class is to be viewed as a whole a single photo cannot give you the general idea of the subject etc that's why they all publish monographs which usually have a single subject each time, not just random nice photos. These women really are living legends of female photography and have influenced A LOT of photographers and because they are still living it is their time to cash-in.

One way to go is sell commercial photography and cash in immediately and another is to wait for years keep only 10% of your work and try to be an artist with a personal style and subject in your photos and maybe when you are old or if you are lucky and good enough your work will be recognized at some point and you make big money.

Also let's not forget that all this reviewing at the stock sites is not to be taken so seriously that it influences our photography in a bad way. If you want to shoot a photo that will have a lot of noise or shoot against the sun lens flare etc it might not be accepted but it doesn't mean that you as a photographer should be limited by that.

Suljo · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2011, 19:00 »

Very sick for non bull market todays. Or very infantile market like dolly houses and stuff like that...

sharpshot · « **Reply #29 on:** May 31, 2011, 02:25 »

I don't like the photo much, it's nothing special but I am pleased to see any photographer making that sort of money. Photography has had a hard time with the art world, the more photos that sell for these prices the better. When anyone asks why we charge so much for a $100 photo, just show them this.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #30 on:** May 31, 2011, 02:44 »

"Living legends of female photography" says it all, really. The excitement and the price is all about hype (and probably market expectations and bragging rights), not quality (and I'm not talking about microstock's obsessions).

The reason I say selling microstock excludes you from this market is that you then don't fit the required profile. You're not a heroic loner doing your art thing for decades and then being deservedly discovered and revealed to the world ... you're just a money-grubbing hack photographer with no romance about you.

My opinion is that SNP is projecting her own feelings onto the work. As far as I can tell, it's just a snapshot with no message or emotional content at all, let alone compositional skill. Obviously, others disagree with that but it really does seem like an "emperor's clothes" moment to me.

What I do agree with is the remark about developing an individual style being an important element of acquiring an artistic reputation.

aeonf · « **Reply #31 on:** May 31, 2011, 04:35 »

I'f I would have taken this photo, nobody would give a rats ass about it, I would proly need to donate it since nobody would buy it.
People dont elude yourselves, it only has value because of the photographers name.

Red Dove · « **Reply #32 on:** May 31, 2011, 05:42 »

The Emperor's New Clothes is a favourite story of mine. Anyway, it's worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it and we all know the art world is full of fools easily parted from their money. I'm a Pollock fan but my girlfriend calls him a scribbler. She likes Cartier-Bresson, but I prefer Nan Golding. The fights we've had. Jeez.

Microbius · « **Reply #33 on:** May 31, 2011, 06:55 »

Looks like we are coming out of the recession. It must be cool to be rich again, and the best way to demonstrate it is by spending your filthy lucre on worthless cr*p.
Look at the Turner prize as a guide to taste, recession kicks in, suddenly better (real?) artwork starts winning. Markets boom, people want to demonstrate just how wealthy they are by burning cash on piles of doo doo (sometimes literally)

OM · « **Reply #34 on:** May 31, 2011, 07:02 »

The 'Fine Art' market and Wall Street are both intricately linked (IMHO). Neither 'market' is truly a market. We, that are not in George Carlin's Big Club, cannot possibly understand the need for greed, megalomania and the status of cult that exists in that world. That world does not follow our rules of logic in our true economic reality and therefore someone pays $3.9 million for an 'artwork'.

Imagine you had a few hundred photo's by Cindy Sherman gathering dust in a draw (bought at a time when they cost nothing) and you have a need to 'cash out' quickly. What could be simpler in order to magnify the value of your collection a thousand-fold instantly but to sell a photo and ensure that the bidding goes to silly heights (it's naturally assumed that at auction, buyers want stuff for the lowest price but what if the buyer wants the highest price so that their own collection is valued at the new mark-to-market price). Not saying that this is the reason for such a silly price...probably too peasant-logic based.

BTW Jackson Pollock was nicknamed Jack the Dripper.

SNP · « **Reply #35 on:** May 31, 2011, 10:40 »

art collectors buy art for many reasons. an art dealer may purchase a work as an investment only without any regard for its artistic value. then there are those who are megalomaniacs and simply want to say they own "X" by "the artist". and some are genuinely in love with the work.

of course I'm projecting my experiences and feelings into the photograph. that's precisely what art can and IMO should evoke. art is and always will be subjective. the meaning and value is always projected into it. it's not inherent or scientific.

Microbius · « **Reply #36 on:** May 31, 2011, 15:03 »

I should probably come clean and say that photos don't really do it for me as art anyhow.
They are "of" something that has already past, and therefore fundamentally dead. They are a pale imitation of life.
Paintings are something not of something so have a life of their own.
Photos are great for selling stuff with though, thankfully.

(Stand back and let the fireworks begin)

SNP · « **Reply #37 on:** May 31, 2011, 15:48 »

Quote from: Microbius on May 31, 2011, 15:03

I should probably come clean and say that photos don't really do it for me as art anyhow.
They are "of" something that has already past, and therefore fundamentally dead. They are a pale imitation of life.
Paintings are something not of something so have a life of their own.
Photos are great for selling stuff with though, thankfully.

(Stand back and let the fireworks begin)

though I obviously don't agree, I applaud you saying it. not everyone can produce art and not everyone sees art in art. that's the beauty of it.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #38 on:** May 31, 2011, 16:09 »

Quote from: dk on May 30, 2011, 18:39

I think some people here are exaggerating. Cindy Sherman together with Sally Mann / Mary Ellen Mark and Nan Goldin are among the few living legends of female photography. They have been around for years each doing her own thing not caring for immediate cash-in like we do (stock photographers). I'm sure that for years Cindy Sherman photographed herself and Nan Goldin her outcast friends without expecting any money. So after years of producing a consistant non-commercial body of work which evolves around the same subjects, with a personal artistic style, their work has high value - not of course to buy and use the photo commercialy on a website (like stock photos) but as a work of art - like a painting.

The work of a photographer of this class is to be viewed as a whole a single photo cannot give you the general idea of the subject etc that's why they all publish monographs which usually have a single subject each time, not just random nice photos. These women really are living legends of female photography and have influenced A LOT of photographers and because they are still living it is their time to cash-in.

One way to go is sell commercial photography and cash in immediately and another is to wait for years keep only 10% of your work and try to be an artist with a personal style and subject in your photos and maybe when you are old or if you are lucky and good enough your work will be recognized at some point and you make big money.

Also let's not forget that all this reviewing at the stock sites is not to be taken so seriously that it influences our photography in a bad way. If you want to shoot a photo that will have a lot of noise or shoot against the sun lens flare etc it might not be accepted but it doesn't mean that you as a photographer should be limited by that.

i agree completely with your post. It's conceptual art, so the idea behind it is important, as well as the "shock of the new" aspect. When Cindy Sherman started doing her self portraits, it was something out of left field. As with any art, it only matters what the artist is expressing, and if no one else likes it, that's not really the point. I prefer Mary Ellen Mark and her style, but i consider Cindy Sherman an accomplished artist.

sharpshot · « **Reply #39 on:** May 31, 2011, 17:42 »

Quote from: Microbius on May 31, 2011, 15:03

I should probably come clean and say that photos don't really do it for me as art anyhow.
They are "of" something that has already past, and therefore fundamentally dead. They are a pale imitation of life.
Paintings are something not of something so have a life of their own.
Photos are great for selling stuff with though, thankfully.

(Stand back and let the fireworks begin)

Many great artists use photography as a tool, no different to a paintbrush. Some have even used camera obscuras or just painted over photos. I really don't see why any one form of art should be thought of as superior to another.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #40 on:** May 31, 2011, 20:22 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 31, 2011, 17:42

Quote from: Microbius on May 31, 2011, 15:03
I should probably come clean and say that photos don't really do it for me as art anyhow.
They are "of" something that has already past, and therefore fundamentally dead. They are a pale imitation of life.
Paintings are something not of something so have a life of their own.
Photos are great for selling stuff with though, thankfully.

(Stand back and let the fireworks begin)
Many great artists use photography as a tool, no different to a paintbrush. Some have even used camera obscuras or just painted over photos. I really don't see why any one form of art should be thought of as superior to another.

The point is, conceptual "art" is something so obscure nowadays that almost nobody can understand what their so called concepts are
all about.
With this illogic logic anything can potentially become art, go in any art fair and see what i mean ...

But it all starts when the art critics start praising an unknown guy and calling him a 'rising artist', to me it all looks like a Ponzi scheme
no matter what they say, and that's nothing, i've seen people shooting their dog in their garden winning fat art contests so i really can't
understand how this business works, talking with art galleries it all become even more nebolous to me ... recently i shown some of my
ethnic portraits to a gallery owner, he said they look, then he's already selling some similar crap for a few grands probably shot with
a polaroid or canon powershot ! what ! ? His answer was that the artist is notorious and blah blah blah and i should first find a gallerist
and run an exibition to taste the waters, if i sell at least 40-50% of my works it means i've some chances in the art market so we'll see how it goes.

dk · « **Reply #41 on:** May 31, 2011, 22:39 »

I'll try to explain why this photo is good and why it is worth (big) money.

Compositional Aspect: The composition becomes conceptual by the blending of the subject with the surroundings. This is a favorite subject explored by many other classical photographers. The way the skirt blends with the texture and shape of the tiles and the way the blushed face matches the color of the floor. On the contrary to what we would do in stock photography which is to try and make the subject pop-out here the key is blending in. Again there is a sort of mystery like an old film to all her work and a strong body of work is more important than a single great photo.

Artistic background: Of course she is not a random photographer and her name gives value to the work - there's no denying that. Of course the hype around the name and vanity of the collector wanting to own but usually just invest in art raises the prices. Apart from that though she is one of the names considered as an influence to what became known as "heroin-chic" during the 90s in fashion photography (actually they copied her style) and was around in the 80s to be part of the no-wave and "cinema of transgression".

Like Sharpshot said whether someone likes her work or not we should be pleased that a photographer is making this sort of money. It's hard for an artist to be starving for decades - (slapping and rubbing his face to make it blend with the floor for a selfportrait) - and few are those that are finally recognized and cash-in while alive.

About the point made that microstock photographers wouldn't get accepted in the art crowd - i must agree to this at least for all the work submitted as stock and all similar series. However for example there are musicians who do music for commercials for a living (like we do stock) and still produce their own music (art).

Edit: I just saw on the other thread that this was commissioned work for a magazine that didn't get accepted. If it had been used commercially and printed in the magazine i'm pretty sure that it wouldn't sell at this price today so this i think solidifies Badricks point about stock or commercial work being excluded or devalued in the art market.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Microstock prices are becoming unaffordable (Read 9238 times)

Slovenian

Microbius

Microbius

jbarber873

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors