Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Campos & Davis Photos wrote:
> Yes, pricing is one thing, but how much did you actually sell them for, how
> many etc, etc.
As far as I know they sold for the price marked. At least I got half of
that. The numbers I don't remember -- certainly not a great many. But
that, believe it or not, was of little concern to me. In fact I had enough
of the work left to have another show on Long Island that got rave reviews
in the New York Times & the 3 major photo magazines. And, yes, I still
have many of those prints, which I would not sell at any price. (I'm not
going to do that work any more.)
But something in your tone leads me to add that money was NOT the point.
I had a bit before that sold a print to the Museum of Modern Art for $150
(they offered the price, I accepted), and was THRILLED. (The great
Szarkowski himself came out to meet me, wanted to know who I was and how I
did it.... In fact it was my SS toner -- among other things.)
But I once did support myself at my art -- since this seems to be true
confessions week. I was a free-lance illustrator in the 1950s, well before
you were born, I daresay, and making what we called then "good money for a
woman." (Do they still use that phrase in England? They probably should,
from what I hear.) In fact in 3 days a week I made more money than my
junior executive husband did in 5 days. But every job was a three-day
migraine. I vowed to separate my art from my livelihood at the first
opportunity. And I did.
Yes, in youth I was a success. Would you like a list of the annuals I was
in? The ad agencies submitted the work, and rate of acceptance was good.
I'm too (busy, distracted, weak, uninterested, cynical, elitist ...fill in
the blank) to do that myself.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37