Why so few photographic art galleries, while most display paintings only?

Started Nov 5, 2014 | Questions thread
jkoch2
jkoch2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,198
Galleries wisely avoid photos

CalNature wrote:

Here in Northern California I occasionally stop in at art galleries to see what is "beautiful" or artistic. I seldom find photographic art. I often hear somewhat degrading comments about photography...like "we only display original art" (guess that assumes that photography can't be original).

Painters or sculptors may not create stuff that is altogether "original" in terms of subject or style, but it is original in the sense that it is hard to replicate without a lot of work or effort, and any replica or cast of the originals will be a bit different.

Meanwhile, a photographer is likely to insist on keeping the source file (in old days the negative) and possibly sell it to other galleries or parties.  A photo can also be copies a kazillion times and cease to be unique or distinctive.

If people are to invest $500 or more in a home decoration or collectible, better that it have some hand-made or irreplicable distinction to avoid depreciation.

It's also hard to expect people to pay big bucks for a no-name photo if they can buy rip-offs of iconic photographers' work, or celebrity shots, at the flea market for $25 or less.

Finally, if you have $500 to "throw" at a decorative frill, why not invest mainly in a fancy frame and fill it with a family portrait, whether shot by a starving "pro" for $300 (= 1 night in a not-so-fancy hotel) or yourself with the trusty smart phone?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
tex
tex
BAK
tex
tex
BAK
tex
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow