0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There is no greater feeling than selling your art for .35!
Then why are you in microstock? Does someone have a gun to your head?And what is "art"? It's such a touchy-feely term. It can apply to anything, so it's meaningless. Maybe if you like something you can call it art, and if you don't you can call it garbage. Is everything anyone creates "art?" What matters to me is, Do people like my stuff enough to pay for it, and do I feel what they're willing to pay is fair? I look at how much time it takes me to create an image, and how often it will sell, and for how much each time. I make the cold, hard decision that the equation works for me. I feel justly rewarded for my work. Notice I didn't call it "art." I consider myself a business person, not an artist. Microstock is for business people, galleries are for artists. If you feel your work deserves to be in a gallery selling for hundreds or thousands of dollars, you're free to go that route and see if the market agrees with you.
Microstock is for business people, galleries are for artists.
For me, art implies a high level of originality, art must stand out of the crowd.This is not the case for stock, where the same idea is replicated hundreds of times without adding anything significant to it.
Quote from: ultimagaina on May 15, 2015, 09:57For me, art implies a high level of originality, art must stand out of the crowd.This is not the case for stock, where the same idea is replicated hundreds of times without adding anything significant to it.You could say the same about 99% of the painters, musicians, sculptures, etc. You get a few that are original and soon there are thousands replicating the same concept and selling their work in art galleries. But they get to be part of an "artistic style"...
I guess some people just don't understand the difference between 'selling art' and 'selling a license to use an image'Whatev.
I understand how it is easy to feel otherwise, but microstock is not photography/art. It is simply a business that sells images at the highest possible profit for a given company.
Should also point out that IMO my art somehow becomes less than art when I am influenced by it's commercial viability. I don't have a framed picture of new brake disks in my living room, but sadly it is one of my best sellers.
You may not have an image of brake discs hanging on your wall. But I'm pretty sure many Mountain Bikers have prints of mechanical parts of bicycles hanging on their walls.If one of the characteristics of art is to convey emotions/feelings among others things couldn't/shouldn't images of disk brakes be considered art too? After all the emotion of a MTBiker looking at a good photo of a disc brake is as genuine as someone looking to a Picasso.
Quote from: Copidosoma on May 15, 2015, 10:39I guess some people just don't understand the difference between 'selling art' and 'selling a license to use an image'Whatev.You are wrong about that. I do understand the difference between selling art and license an image. Or could we call licensing the use of photographic art instead, if we want to be provocative?...Because "artists", namely musicians, do licence their art to commercials, tv shows, films, etc. Yet, they continue to be considered artists and their songs art. What's the difference? Am I missing something, when most of the singers and musicians are formulaic?What I do not agree is the concept of art or artist because it's simply based in an elitist, snob and monetary speculative concept. If I sell one, but only one, piece of crap of each of my creations for thousands of dollars each, and act an enigmatic, cryptic or pseudo-intellectual pose I can get away with almost anything.If someone creates something similar to that "artist", but more competently or even better but decides to make his work available and affordable to many people, than he's automatically dismissed as an artist. Why? Because the people who classify creations as art are businessman, mere speculators that trade in art just like they trade in coffee, cotton or anything else. This is why many works of art are bought by banks!A similar example of speculation are the diamonds business, one of the most common minerals in the world and certainly more common than most of the other precious stones. An extremely successful marketing campaign during the 1950's, (Monroe was part of it) encrusted - pun intended - in the mind of Americans that a diamond ring was the right way for a man to propose to a woman. That, along with the almost monopoly that one company has on the trade of this stone, buying almost all the world production but only selling limited quantities, hiper-valued the real value of diamonds. It's the same principle as art.In fact, if we look at the current concept of what an artist is (someone creating freely, choosing themes of his own inspiration, etc.) would automatically exclude most of the great names of art, including Da Vinci , Michael Angelo, etc. After all they were hired to paint many or most of their works, and most of the times the themes were decided by those who hired them. Their art was in most cases in the technical execution of the paintings and sculptures.So, where do we stand?
When I was a kid in the 70s, I used to cut out pictures of my favorite fish from Field and Stream to hang on the walls, it was art to me then. I think history is full of examples of artists that over time came to be appreciated for creating something amazing and timeless. Should by chance years after my death one of my brake disc images make it into an art auction, so be it.