How the art world works for art photography?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
linux99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,151
Re: It's 100% the same for artists in any medium

Toronto Photography wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

linux99 wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

linux99 wrote:

newnorm wrote:

The more I browse through some galleries' collection online or auction houses, the more I see some outrageous prices on photography prints. Often, those photographers/the creator were long dead. ie, Ansel Adams, etc. I'm talking specifically about photography and not some paintings or sculptures. Still, I think the narrative is almost the same regardless of the medium.

Some photos were priced outrageously. I think when those photographers are still alive, they will never sell their prints at that price.

Anybody have opinions/experience in how the photography art world works? Please enlighten me.

edited: I just read that the family of a deceased artist will be getting the percentage as well, but only if the sales involve an auction house, a dealer, or a gallery.

It's 100% the same for artists in any medium. As soon as they die the value of their work increases many fold.

The trope of starving artist who dies in poverty and then his work is worth millions is, sadly, still true.

Plenty of artists have made significant money whist still alive.

Whatever you say..... I'm sure that "artist" is right up there with Dentist, Lawyer and Civil Servant on the list of stable, high income, jobs.

Goalpost shift duly noted

Artist, on average, is not a high paying gig, bu the starving artist trope doesn’t reference the field as a whole.
plenty of artists make money whilst alive

a small list

Picasso, Dali, Michelangelo, Georgia O’Keefe, Ansel Adams, Andy Warhol, Richard Avedon, Damien Hurst, Jasper Johns, Rembrandt, Gurski…Peter Lik

If you want to say that becoming an artist is an unlikely path to making a living and much less to becoming rich, then of course. But the starving artist discovered after death is a myth, at least to the degree suggested by the trope.

And of course prices rise when someone is dead since they cannot make any more art.

The combination of both may be be rare, but certainly the starving artist is not - as many have said many artists just give up as a primary career and become a waiter who acts, or a banker who paints. They would be starving if they did not have a career to pay for there want ot be profession.

I remember when William Shatter was homeless for a while after being famous

All my friends in art school when threw there starving live off there friends phase until most gave up in some way -two where really successful and full time artists but they go from feast to famine regularly.

I personally don't believe that iti is overblown - the famous after your dead but I am thinking small f famous - more appreciated after your dead than not - I could see it go either way - its not that artists are starving but the question is do they tend to be discovered at all dead or alive - I could see most just giving up before death . But even if discovered many artists live at best some of the time in poverty its the nature of the beast.

Exercise for the reader - in Toronto go to the Brass Rail, or Zanzibar. See how many of the people working there are grads from OCAD or UoT Art.

Then reflect - if working as an artist pays a living wage for most... why?

 linux99's gear list:linux99's gear list
Sigma DP2x Canon PowerShot S100 Sigma DP3 Merrill Nikon Coolpix A Fujifilm X100T +19 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow