Photos vs. paintings as art

I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to
put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other
media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I
started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have
learned some interesting things.

Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a
photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting,
"Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is
inherently valuable.

A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How
was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a
true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary.
It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier
to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of
reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art
appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to
represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the
light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination
to produce it.)

However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are
more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at
a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard
it is to get the truly great shots.

I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The
biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather
it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a
digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not
sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw
here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also
like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl
in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl
would.

I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.

Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of
these two art forms?

- Alan Justice

On 5/26/04 3:04 PM, in article
.net,
"Alan Justice" wrote:

I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to
put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other
media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I
started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have
learned some interesting things.

It is a hard market to make a living at. If I did it again I would figure
out the very best seller I had and make a limited edition print or a poster
out of it and market that to art and frame shops. A great Trade Publication
for the Art & Frame market is Decor Magazine.
http://www.decor-expo.com/DECOR/home.htm
And another one is Art Business News.
http://www.artexpos.com/

That is how most painters I know, make their money. They make prints and
sell them.

Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a
photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting,
"Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is
inherently valuable.

Yes but sometimes when a photograph looks like a painting a "real" painting
will win out.

A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How
was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a
true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary.
It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier
to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of
reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art
appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to
represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the
light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination
to produce it.)

I don't think they think that much about it. I think is it just that
everybody has a camera and because of that they have a much more familiarity
with photo taking. Painting for them is a much less understood medium.

I believe "beauty' helps but I believe the real seller is "emotion." If your
photograph can produce a "emotion" in a person then you have a much greater
chance of selling to that customer. All my best sellers and constant sellers
had emotional triggers to them.

However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are
more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at
a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard
it is to get the truly great shots.

Yes I used to hear all the time "My brother is a photographer he can take a
picture like that." Don't let it get to you, sometimes even those people
will end up buying a smaller photo.

I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The
biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather
it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a
digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not
sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw
here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also
like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl
in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl
would.

Again Emotions might have something to do about it. When they get home and
see the photo of the "Rhododendrons in the Redwoods" that brings back their
emotions of the visit they had to that place. It is a connection with
emotions. If they went to a bird rehab place that had a "spotted owl" and
they held it, then they might be more connected to it.

I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.

Yep! Fine Art shows officials are real bad about this. They think Black &
White Photography is real photography. Color Photography is below that and
Wildlife & Nature Color Photography is wayyyyyy below that. No matter the
quality of the wildlife and nature photography. That is just they way it is.

Doing Fine Art shows and Wildlife Expositions is a great way to learn this
field real quick. And I don't mean craft shows, yech, but real Fine Art
Shows where customers have disposable incomes. After a few weekends of
listening to all the people who come into your booth your whole perspective
will change, unless one isn't very observant.

--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com

On 05/26/2004 03:04 PM, Alan Justice said:
I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to
put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other
media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I
started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have
learned some interesting things.

Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a
photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting,
"Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is
inherently valuable.

A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How
was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a
true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary.
It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier
to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of
reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art
appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to
represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the
light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination
to produce it.)

However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are
more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at
a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard
it is to get the truly great shots.

I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The
biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather
it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a
digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not
sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw
here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also
like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl
in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl
would.

I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.

Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of
these two art forms?


A few of my thoughts - which echo yours:

There is a feeling that 'anyone can take photographs'. Even if a
person knows they can't take photographs as good as the one hanging
in the gallery, there is still a feeling that if they were in the
right spot at the right time, maybe they could have gotten it.

There is another perception that paintings are a one of a kind. (I
would debate that, just look at Franz Kline's paintings). And with
photographs, the photographer can just print as many as he wants
from the negative, so why should they cost as much as a painting.

Oil on canvas paintings have a long history which gives them more
credibility. It's almost the historical definition of 'art'.

Oil on canvas paintings have a certain mystique. Everyone has
taken photographs - it's easy. (I didn't use the word 'good'
photographs.) But most people wouldn't know where to begin with a
painting - ok, I drive to the art store, now what... That sense of
the unknown has some influence on the perceived value of an object.


--
Joe
http://www.joekaz.net/
http://www.cafeshops.com/joekaz

In article k.net,
"Alan Justice" wrote:


I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.


I think you need to visit a high-end photo gallery, such as Etherton in
Tucson, or Andrew Smith in Santa Fe. Prints by famous photographers
routinely sell for 5 figures, and lesser-known (but good) contemporary
photographers easily command 4-figure prices. At retail, of course.

It's certainly true that there are far more art-galleries than
photo-galleries. But photography as fine art is well-established now.

Any working artist finds it tough at the start. Usually forever... G

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

"Peter D. Tillman" wrote

I think you need to visit a high-end photo gallery, such as Etherton in
Tucson, or Andrew Smith in Santa Fe. Prints by ... lesser-known
(but good) contemporary photographers easily command 4-figure prices.

Only if the photographer is dead.

I have contemplated identity theft: take a name from a tombstone and
sign it onto my photographs. Photo by a dead photographer. No chance
of the value going down 'cause he printed up another dozen. I should
be able to get 2-3 times the $$.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Peter D. Tillman wrote:
In article k.net,
"Alan Justice" wrote:


I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.


I think you need to visit a high-end photo gallery, such as Etherton in
Tucson, or Andrew Smith in Santa Fe. Prints by famous photographers
routinely sell for 5 figures, and lesser-known (but good) contemporary
photographers easily command 4-figure prices. At retail, of course.

It's certainly true that there are far more art-galleries than
photo-galleries. But photography as fine art is well-established now.

photography is also so very new when compared to painting. we'll only
know the real masters in a couple of hundred years...


Any working artist finds it tough at the start. Usually forever... G

while i'm not one, this certainly appears to be the case.


Cheers -- Pete Tillman

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. Value is
in rarity.




I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to
put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other
media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I
started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have
learned some interesting things.

Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a
photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting,
"Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is
inherently valuable.

A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How
was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a
true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary.
It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier
to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of
reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art
appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to
represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the
light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination
to produce it.)

However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are
more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at
a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard
it is to get the truly great shots.

I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The
biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather
it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a
digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not
sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw
here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also
like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl
in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl
would.

I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.

Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of
these two art forms?

- Alan Justice

On 9-Jun-2004, GW wrote:

Art is ALWAYS one of a kind.

Many types of art come in multiples. Cast sculpture and etchings, for
example.

Photos can be reproduced infinitely.

overstated but certainly large numbers can be produced.

Value is in rarity.

Rarity does increase value, but it's not the only factor. If it were
Polaroid shots would be very valuable. Rarity can be created by the death of
the artist, the destruction of the original negative, or creation of limited
editions.


--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:37 -0400, GW wrote:

Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely.

The masters of darkroom technique and chemical post-processing might
disagree with you!

Sometimes I wonder how they can make two prints look alike. Possessing the
negative doesn't necessarily give you the means to create duplicate prints.

Not really, most artist who make a living off of art every day, make much
more money off of Prints, ie Limited edition prints, then originals.

Case in Point: nationally known Award Winning, Nationally Published Artist
sell prints Originals for around $5000.

He also prints and sells Limited Prints (1,500) at retail for $80. Now lets
see even if they average out selling at half price (Some sell at Retail,
many Wholesale, and some at distributor prices) and some "Artist Prints"
sales.

OK 1,500 times $40 equals $60,000 from prints alone.

Value in artwork is totally a perceived or hyped up value. The bigger name
you can make for yourself, anyway you can, the more your "artwork will be
perceived to be valuable. Its 90% PR and 10% Talent. Sorry!

PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com



On 6/9/04 8:30 PM, in article ,
"GW" wrote:

Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. Value is
in rarity.