Author Topic: The "New" IS (Read 94021 times)

KimsCreativeHub · « **Reply #50 on:** September 29, 2013, 19:13 »

Good points, less people brag

LesPalenik · « **Reply #51 on:** September 29, 2013, 21:37 »

Quote

i've friends here doing exhibitions, fine-art, news assignments, documentaries, there's a whole world outside stock and they get decent money out of it

I don't think selling at exhibitions and art fairs is a viable solution. Maybe at special venues or for very talented artists.
At the fairs I've visited, I see every year new hopefuls in their booths and after trying it once or twice, they count their losses and never return. Even many established artists stopped going to fairs (except some proven moneymakers) or if they do, they use it to promote their workshops.

Saturation is everywhere. There is a need only for so many workshops and there is space on the walls only for so many pictures.

One buck is not so bad for an image, considering that many reported sales are subs at less than 20 cents. First step in addressing the problem is to stop submitting images to agencies who pay such low commissions.

Xanox · « **Reply #52 on:** September 30, 2013, 04:30 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 29, 2013, 10:57

I thought true artists starved in garrets.

hahaha yeah but in the real world to call yourself an artist you must make a living selling your art, if you beg for money in front of mcdonalds you're just a beggar, not a "pennyless artist" or a "temporarily unemployed creative guy".

actually i don't see myself as the typical crazy artist, i'm just "artsy", BIG difference.
i don't dream of becoming a billionaire shooting crazy sh-it or obscure conceptual stuff.

all i'm saying is many galleries are selling stuff that from any perspective is absolute dross, the difficult thing is getting the foot on the door, the price for that junk is 100% to who you are, who you know, etc ... the product comes later, if ever.

once your product is "conceptual" anything goes, an image of a toilet with a fresh poop on the floor could be worth millions as far as art galleries are concerned, as long as it's a "work" by a famous conceptualist artist.

art is a concept, it's not stock, there's no price attached, and concepts are very hard to value and quantify in relation to their "use".

the buyers are collectors and rich weirdos, they buy as an investment, they "bet" on your brand basically.
so the cr-ap you're shooting could be anything and could mean anything, nobody cares, it's your brand that matters.

as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ? i don't know, and even many art gallerists have no idea, it seems it all depends on your first exhibitions, if the critics give a positive feedback especially, looks like a total mafia to me but we'll see, i've the feeling it's still a better option than selling subs on SS or begging for money at getty RM or alamy.

Xanox · « **Reply #53 on:** September 30, 2013, 04:48 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on September 29, 2013, 21:37

Quote
i've friends here doing exhibitions, fine-art, news assignments, documentaries, there's a whole world outside stock and they get decent money out of it

I don't think selling at exhibitions and art fairs is a viable solution. Maybe at special venues or for very talented artists.
At the fairs I've visited, I see every year new hopefuls in their booths and after trying it once or twice, they count their losses and never return. Even many established artists stopped going to fairs (except some proven moneymakers) or if they do, they use it to promote their workshops.

Saturation is everywhere. There is a need only for so many workshops and there is space on the walls only for so many pictures.

One buck is not so bad for an image, considering that many reported sales are subs at less than 20 cents. First step in addressing the problem is to stop submitting images to agencies who pay such low commissions.

well, the couple ones i know are very specialized in their niche, they only shoot LOCAL things and there's a demand for it from rich buyers and even a few tourists.

they're not getting rich but they're not starving.
technically their style is very "documentary", their gear is canon 1Ds and canon 5Dii, macbook or imac, lightroom, photoshop, and expensive prints in museum quality Giclee, with heavy framing and glass.

in their opinion, they would never make it shooting generic stuff, their niche works because it's focused on local things and local people.

so of course it can't be a biz for everyone and it's dependent on your location.

workshops : yes but honestly i'm of the idea that if you can only pay your bills with workshops you're no more a photographer, you're just a teacher and your field is education.

besides, teaching is not for everyone, i would be a terrible teacher probably, you need a completely different skillset to be a good teacher.

and what's the point anyway ? do you want to be a photographer or do you want to teach about iso/shutter/aperture etc ? i mean if that's the logic why not working in a print shop or a camera store ?

ShadySue · « **Reply #54 on:** September 30, 2013, 05:06 »

Quote from: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 04:48

... it's dependent on your location.

That is so true, and true for other branches of photography direct services too.
I see people here and on e.g CreativeLIVE on pricing, and it's just silly money compared to what companies can charge here and still struggle. And contrary to what I've also read here and heard there, hereabouts having higher prices just means you'll go out of business quicker.
That said, having seen snippets of some pricing tuts on CL, I can see that those hereabout with low prices can't even be breaking even, which is why they inevitably fold after their two year start-up breaks and grants run out.

That is an advantage of the micros - it gives people from areas with few buyers a chance to connect with the world of buyers. Of course, the macros do that too, but historically they were very difficult to get into.

Xanox · « **Reply #55 on:** September 30, 2013, 08:29 »

most of the top agencies and top photographers are in big cities like NYC, L.A., Paris, London, Berlin ...

it's obvious and unavoidable in many fields like fashion for instance.

but for lifestyle, street photography, landscape, travel, you can go anywhere you like, i don't think there's a clear rule for all.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #56 on:** September 30, 2013, 08:41 »

Quote from: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 04:30

as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ?

If you don't understand it you're already boggered. It's basically about being part of the correct social group. You make your name by networking and by being promoted by members of the art community. The moment you are accepted into that group you're made. You get the introductions, someone with an important gallery points your work out to an art critic who then, having been told that you are the bright new thing, will gush about you in a Sunday supplement.
So you need to up sticks and move to the most artsy part of the country (it's probably not the most expensive, it's the run-down area not far from the centre that the trendy up and coming artists have just start buying apartment in), then you need to drink in the right cocktail bars and bistros, make lots of friends and be sure always to gush over whatever cr@p people are turning out.
Alternatively, you could waste your life making websites and struggling with Search Engine Optimisation... but that won't really get you very far.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** September 30, 2013, 09:01 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 08:41

Quote from: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 04:30
as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ?

If you don't understand it you're already boggered. It's basically about being part of the correct social group. You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community.

So, in a nutshell, it's about schmoozing skills rather than talent.
'Twere ever thus.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #58 on:** September 30, 2013, 09:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 30, 2013, 09:01

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 08:41
Quote from: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 04:30
as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ?

If you don't understand it you're already boggered. It's basically about being part of the correct social group. You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community.
So, in a nutshell, it's about schmoozing skills rather than talent.
'Twere ever thus.

Yup. Sometimes I regret being an anti-social get.

Difydave · « **Reply #59 on:** September 30, 2013, 10:33 »

Baldrickstrousers has it when he said it's being part of the right social group (and being boggered if you don't understand it!)

The members of the art community are extremely jealous of their position within that community. Which means they are jealous of any newcomer who might offer competition, making it incredibly difficult to get "in" As already said the only hope is to get noticed by a gallery (and it has to be one of the right galleries) who thinks that you might have something. While all the time trying to get "in" socially.

While mentioning being in the "right" galleries, don't be tempted to put your work just anywhere to get sales. One way to kill any hope of any sort of real success is to have your work seen in the wrong sort of place.

I'm another anti social get, and although I had some moderate, local success in the applied arts, (furniture in my case) even that's not easy, and it requires lots of attending exhibition openings etc. Whether you have work in that exhibition or not.

sharpshot · « **Reply #60 on:** September 30, 2013, 10:44 »

Somehow I just can't picture Xanox fitting in with the arty crowd

There are some that can sell art photos just on their merit but I think it's much easier if you can talk the BS. I like listening to some talentless artists because they have convinced themselves that they are good and can convince others. I think some of them would make even more money in business. Sometimes I struggle to believe they aren't acting because how can anyone believe what they are saying is real?

JPSDK · « **Reply #61 on:** September 30, 2013, 10:52 »

The world of artists and galleries, compares to that of thorougbread dogs.

Its utterly corrupt and filled with ladies who have time and money to spend and spikes on their elbows.

Xanox · « **Reply #62 on:** September 30, 2013, 11:04 »

@baldricks : yes, that's precisely the impression i had so far, a total mafia, a closed circle, just like photojournalism in many ways.

we will see.

bunhill · « **Reply #63 on:** September 30, 2013, 11:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 08:41

You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community. The moment you are accepted into that group you're made. You get the introductions, someone with an important gallery points your work out to an art critic who then, having been told that you are the bright new thing, will gush about you in a Sunday supplement.
So you neet to up sticks and move to the most artsy part of the country (it's probably not the most expensive, it's the run-down area not far from the centre that the trendy up and coming artists have just start buying apartment in), then you need to drink in the right cocktail bars and bistros, make lots of friends and be sure always to gush over whatever cr@p people are turning out.

And then years later you realise that what they thought was trendy or stupid was actually bright, timely and interesting - it was just that you did not understand it from your reactionary perspective at the time. Like punk rock, post modernism, the nouvelle vague, color photography, pop art, abstraction and all those other isms and nuances which our grandparents could make no sense of. And then they kicked themselves for not buying a Rothko when you could get one for the price of a meal.

Personally I like art and am glad that every generation takes it in a different direction. Also - those transitional places where nobody else wanted to live are always the most interesting and exciting for a while. Who would want to be anywhere else when in a city?

Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ??

Xanox · « **Reply #64 on:** September 30, 2013, 11:29 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 10:44

Somehow I just can't picture Xanox fitting in with the arty crowd There are some that can sell art photos just on their merit but I think it's much easier if you can talk the BS. I like listening to some talentless artists because they have convinced themselves that they are good and can convince others. I think some of them would make even more money in business. Sometimes I struggle to believe they aren't acting because how can anyone believe what they are saying is real?

If your logic is right try being hired by "closed doors" agencies like AP/AFP/Reuters or getting a proper contract to sell stock on Corbis, good luck, they only hire by word of mouth, photo editors are the ones creating or destroying the careers of young photographers.

all the news guys i know have been recommended by other news guys to photo editors and directors of photography, there's no other way at the moment, and yes they were obviously good enough but in news the image quality is not THE factor, it's about having the photos in demand before any other, if you come too late or if you upload too late you will just not sell .. all they do is shooting in JPG, aperture priority, fix the exposure in LR/PS/Photo-Mechanic, keyword, caption, and upload, they've no time for anything else.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #65 on:** September 30, 2013, 11:37 »

Quote from: bhr on September 30, 2013, 11:26

Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ??

Oh, dear! Did I reveal my age as well as my reactionary perspective? I'd better just slink off to the darkroom...

Xanox · « **Reply #66 on:** September 30, 2013, 11:41 »

Quote from: bhr on September 30, 2013, 11:26

Personally I like art and am glad that every generation takes it in a different direction. Also - those transitional places where nobody else wanted to live are always the most interesting and exciting for a while. Who would want to be anywhere else when in a city?

Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ??

maybe i'm a misfit but i'm still of the idea that if nobody can understand a piece of art than maybe there's something wrong, art is supposed to be a mean to give a straight clear message, not to be a puzzle to be decyphered unless you're doing it on purpose.

when i was young i did paintings and illustrations, and yet i see CR-AP sold for big money that i could draw blindfolded when i was 14.

yes, some can say i'm just envious or arrogant but what the h-ell ... take a look at some art web sites and see by yourself.

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** September 30, 2013, 12:14 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 11:37

Quote from: bhr on September 30, 2013, 11:26

Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ??

Oh, dear! Did I reveal my age as well as my reactionary perspective? I'd better just slink off to the darkroom...

Or maybe you just know a scuddy Emperor when you see one.

bunhill · « **Reply #68 on:** September 30, 2013, 12:22 »

Quote from: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 11:41

maybe i'm a misfit but i'm still of the idea that if nobody can understand a piece of art than maybe there's something wrong, art is supposed to be a mean to give a straight clear message, not to be a puzzle to be decyphered unless you're doing it on purpose.

Contemporary art is for people who are interested in contemporary art. If you are not interested in the world of contemporary art then that should not be an issue for you. Nobody is forcing you to swim upstream.

Some people like to try out new ideas where as others prefer to feel at home with things which are established and which they think they understand. And there is definitely a place for pastiche.

It's weird how people get so twisted up about new creative trends and what other people are doing. The same with art, music, movies, fashion etc. Even in something as mainstream as stock photography - eg people here complaining for example that they do not understand, say, Stocksy and Offset

Ron · « **Reply #69 on:** September 30, 2013, 12:33 »

I do understand the need for Stocksy and Offset and their type of images, I just want to get in, thats the part where I lack understanding. LOL

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #70 on:** September 30, 2013, 13:50 »

An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me. It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.

bunhill · « **Reply #71 on:** September 30, 2013, 14:08 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 13:50

An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me. It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.

Presumably you are not dismissing all contemporary art on the basis of only 3 random pieces from the past 2 decades. That would be like dismissing all contemporary literature based on 3 books which made headlines or someone told you about.

It has nothing to do with being modern or not. You are not supposed to like everything. There is lots of contemporary music which I have no interest in. But I am interested in music, in general.

heywoody · « **Reply #72 on:** September 30, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: Ron on September 30, 2013, 12:33

I do understand the need for Stocksy and Offset and their type of images, I just want to get in, thats the part where I lack understanding. LOL

Why?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #73 on:** September 30, 2013, 15:17 »

Quote from: bhr on September 30, 2013, 14:08

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 13:50
An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me. It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.

Presumably you are not dismissing all contemporary art on the basis of only 3 random pieces from the past 2 decades. That would be like dismissing all contemporary literature based on 3 books which made headlines or someone told you about.

It has nothing to do with being modern or not. You are not supposed to like everything. There is lots of contemporary music which I have no interest in. But I am interested in music, in general.

No, I'm not dismissing all contemporary art. I thought from your tone that if it was modern and acclaimed it was beyond reproach, regardless of what it was.

bunhill · « **Reply #74 on:** September 30, 2013, 16:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 15:17

No, I'm not dismissing all contemporary art. I thought from your tone that if it was modern and acclaimed it was beyond reproach, regardless of what it was.

Fair enough. I guess I need to adjust my tone then because I did not intend that.

For me the bed depended too much on its emotional backstory. It seemed like a soap opera. I liked the fact that it annoyed people but felt that it annoyed them for the wrong reasons. The sheep was also good for annoying people but to me it seemed too much like a stunt.

I really like Gursky's work and also find it interesting. Rhine II, however, still has me baffled. I don't get it. But I like the challenge of that. Perhaps it is a distillation of an idea - a thing taken right down. I don't know. I go back to it. I have only ever seen it reproduced.

ETA: I get that it is typical. I get that it is boringly typical and therefore interesting - that aspect I understand.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The "New" IS (Read 94021 times)

KimsCreativeHub

LesPalenik

Xanox

Xanox

ShadySue

Xanox

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Difydave

sharpshot

JPSDK

Xanox

bunhill

Xanox

BaldricksTrousers

Xanox

ShadySue

bunhill

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

heywoody

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors