Re: Pricing prints.


Altview@aol.com
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:26:46 -0400 (EDT)


It has been such a long time since I've had to think about print pricing,
this current thread has been very interesting to follow. There seems to be no
real foundation for price determination for those outside or new to the
gallery system. This is another thing they never talk about in art school. I
have been exhibiting with numerous major galleries for almost 30 years and
remember my first exhibited prints being priced at $65. This was in the
middle 1970's. Then came the period in photography known as "Moonrise Fever"
which followed the meteoric raise in auction prices of Ansel's Moonrise from
several hundred dollars to $16,000 before the bottom fell out. This elevated
the prices for all photographers participating in the gallery system and
before long my prices went up to $250. I like to believe part of this was
caused by the work being stronger and my vision more evolved. My prices are
now $650 for an 8 X 10 platinum and $1000 for a 14 X 17 which one of my
dealers feels is far to low for the quality of work I am now doing. I hope he
is right and will follow his lead as he makes more sales to collectors. These
prices have been established over time, due to continuing sales from my
dealers and also priced to compare with other artists working at a similar
level. It is and should be part of the gallery relationship for the owner and
director to advise and guide a new or young photographer in determining
prices due to their knowlege of the market in which they participate in and
who their client base is. It is one of the advantages of living in a big city
such as Los Angeles to be able, when visiting exhibitions of photographs, to
get a sense of what things are going for pricewise. There is a nebulous but
decidely consistent pricing as one goes from gallery to gallery. But
participation within this system is expensive. Gallery overheads are
enormous. With a normal 50/50 split, prices have to be higher generally to
make it worth the effort for everyone involved. A craft fair or small rural
gallery will not have these expenditures facing them each month and will
generally not have a client base to support it. As such prices can and should
be lower. Another venue to investigate pricing would be to attend any of the
major photo events such as Photo LA , Photo Santa Fe, and APED in New York
where numerous galleries will all be in one location. This allows some degree
of comparison shopping. This is probably the best way in which to evaluate
one's own work in relation to work done by ones peers and colleagues.
However, the art gallery system, love it or hate it, is not for everyone due
to inclination, location, or lack of vision or craft. At that point pricing
becomes more of a free for all. There is also the very real difference
between those who are serious professional artists and those who fall more
into the amateur or hobbyist category. This distinction, whose boundaries are
indeed sometimes blurry, do make a significant difference in how a print is
valued and in turn priced. I think it is pointless to calculate pricing based
on such mundanes as cost of materials and hours spent making an image. I
don't mean to imply these are not factors to consider, but what we do is not
industry. We don't make widgits. We make art. And an expression of our soul
will always be difficult to quantify financially.

Patrick Alt



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37