During the last fortnight, we had two photographic exhibitions, one by “A Sense of Place” (John Shanks and Mike Leale), mainstream, which sold five pictures. The other exhibition, in AF1, “An Anthology” by the Photohub Group, was looking at new concepts in photography and sold no pictures. This, in spite of the fact that comments were virtually unanimous in praise of the Photohub’s ingenuity and professionalism.
It has been suggested that the prices for work by Photohub were high – certainly higher than those charged by “A Sense of Place” but Photohub discussed the issue of price at length among themselves, and it was decided that prices must reflect the time and costs involved in creating new work.
All artists will sympathise with the plight of Photohub in fixing prices at a level to recoup their costs, or some of them. However, there is also another issue brought out by the two exhibitions – the attitude to photography in the hierarchy of ‘fine art’. There were several comments to the effect that the Photohub prices were ‘too high for photography’, with the implication that they were not too high for painting. When asked about this, Andrew Moran replied that he was disappointed photography was still expected to justify its position as an art form – this was surely established in the debates of the 1980s.
However, these issues are relevant to the Forum as it strives to meet its commitments to ‘raising the profile of the arts in Hastings’ as demanded by its constitution. This contrasts with the necessity of attracting enough income to remain solvent. In order to provide exhibition space for innovative exhibitions we need to give space to exhibitions which are mainstream and sell.
10 Comments »
Leave a comment
This raises several very interesting points Harry. I’ve not yet met an artist who doesn’t agonize over the pricing of their art.
One thing it makes me wonder is whether or not the arts forum should be suggesting prices for the art based on previous selling prices that artist has achieved, and what the market in St Leonards and Hastings will stand.
Comment by dannyadmin — April 29, 2011 @ 10:53 am
Thanks for putting this up Harry.
Mike and I spent a considerable amount of time on the “Sense of Place” exhibition with some of it spent on the issue of pricing.
We did not take the view of the other exhibitors that our price needed to reflect the time and effort (as well as resources)each image took as this would have been prohibitive. Rather we took the view that since our art is repeatable and unlimited by its very nature, a “fair price” should be one based upon affordability for the viewing public as well as represent a reasonable return for the artist and the Forum.
Perhaps also, the issue of repeatability of images in photography adds to the issue of “too high for photography”in that the medium even at its highest quality is infinitely repeatable and this is of course more widely known by the digitally consuming and knowledgeable public than when photography was still emerging and part of a “great alchemy and mystery”.
Perhaps to deny the repeatability of the process limits the market and inflates the price which in turn limits the market further and what it will stand?
On a broader point I’m unclear what “mainstream photography” is as opposed to “new concepts”, a “broad church of the arts” is surely what we are all striving for and perhaps one that does not create unnecessary boundaries?
Nonetheless both of these debates are very important and I look forward to others views and ideas.
Comment by John Shanks — May 1, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
leaving aside the vexed question of whether or not photography is an art form. I would like to take issue with the description of our work as mainstream. It somehow implies that our work is of less value than the ‘new concepts’ exhibition next door. The writer compounds this in his last paragraph by seeming to suggest that mainstream work is only given space from necessity. Who defines what is mainstream and what is cutting edge ? What do these labels mean anyway ?
As to prices: I am sure we gave as much thought to this as the members of Photohub. If I priced my work according to the time and effort involved then some of my images would sell for a fiver and some would be worth £5000. Unrealistic and impractical. The crucial word here ,though , is worth. Any artwork , whatever the medium, is worth precisely what someone is prepared to pay for it. No more and no less. So , is it better to price something realistically , based on research of the market, or to have it sitting at home unseen for evermore?
As to the Vexed Question, is photography art ? Could someone please define ‘art’ ?
Comment by Mike Leale — May 1, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
Thanks for raising this point. I regretted that our prices where quite high but as a novice to exhibitions I would not have known at what level to price my work at. I agree that the worth will be determined by the potential buyer but the question for me is if there were potential buyers in the room that were put off by the prices or if the right buyers were simply not in the room?
With this in mind, I actually thought if a sticker “offers invited” would have generated some interest to purchase??? If it works for houses and on ebay, maybe it can work for art at an exhibition too!?
Comment by Petra Lander — May 2, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
Good point Petra. Perhaps we all need to subscribe to a more regular Forum Auction of the Arts to test it out but with no reserve? Your first point seems to me to be an issue we can address and I have suggested and offered to supply more information for those new to exhibiting based on our experience.
Comment by John Shanks — May 4, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
Pricing is tortuous, but may also be fun! Personally, I always enjoy an auction, because at least my work will find a buyer.
Even better to be able to attract sealed bids, as suggested by Petra, with or without a reserve price at the artist’s discretion. How about this idea for the next members show?
We know that it is very rare for a work to be able to be valued at its cost in terms of the artist’s time, and I am sure we all aspire to recoup enough money to be able to employ someone to do the framing for us!
As regards photography, of course the repeatability of the image affects the price. One of the conundrums of photography is that it is inherantly repeatable, yet sometimes an image will have an artificial limit in an attempt to increase its value. And as so many images are now digital prints, the skill of the printer has become blurred. Perhaps photographs could be presented as ‘First edition of 50 prints overseen and signed by the photographer’.
Comment by Jeremy C Ebdon — May 10, 2011 @ 12:50 pm
What an interesting debate.
However, I am astounded to read the suggestion that exhibitions of photographs, which do not perhaps generate sales, might lower the required income levels for AF…..
How often is ‘real’ art – paintings – displayed in AF without a single sale, or very very few sales?
It is admirable that AF is embracing a wider view of ‘art’ – witness the recent hugely enjoyable and successful Recycling exhibition, with nary a true ‘painting’ in sight.
Long may it continue to do so!
Penny Hobson 17 May 2011
Comment by Penny Hobson — May 17, 2011 @ 9:50 am
supply and demand thats all, things are worth what people want to pay for them
Comment by Tevor Grant — August 27, 2011 @ 5:02 am
Thanks Tevor,
Interesting to get a view from China, with its developing momentum. How is it affecting your environment?
Harry
Comment by Harry Lyons — August 27, 2011 @ 11:42 am
I thought this rather old but relevant thread was exhausted but apparently not!
Auction still sounds like an idea for further development but I must take some issue with Tevor.
If it was simply supply and demand then potentially no art would be created whether photographic or other.
We all create work because we need to express ourselves and the choice of medium is about how we feel best about that expression and our skills. Then, once created, it certainly is about demand led economics which is why recovery of hours spent, materials and idea cannot be realistically calibrated unless you can be sure of the demand before hand, through commissioning or established reputation. This then often leads to GROSSLY inflated prices to capitalise on this.
So let’s auction more and see what this generates, if I may misquote Jeremy deliberately, let’s have more fun at more HAF Auctions. I’ll certainly DONATE 4 pieces with all profit (if sold of course) going to HAF – any other takers?????
Comment by John Shanks — November 3, 2011 @ 8:18 pm