Posted by Jody Grigg on January 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Saw this in the Rocky Mountain News today, this gentleman is asking $31,500 for this painting titleAnother Encore. I am in the wrong business, can anybody lend me a paintbrush?
Posted by Stan Rose on January 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Geez, i could churn out something similar in 30 seconds! Of course, he hasnt got his $31.5K yet, let me know when there's a buyer.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Hey, Stan, that painting did win the "Artist's Choice Award".
So, you and I are obviously clueless when it comes to judging artistic merit.
Posted by Jody Grigg on January 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I am with Stan here Bill. I went to the Western Stock show page and checked out some of the other art and IMO there is better stuff than the one I mentioned. Maybe that's why I am photographer?
Posted by Grant Collier on January 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM
That's nothing. Richard Prince sold an image for $1.2 million after he stole (or re-apportioned it, as he calls it) an image of the Marlboro man, cropped it and reprinted it. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html The art world seems to be all about reputation and status, not about art.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I'm with Stan, too, Jody.
Note that I wrote "you and I" are clueless.
I'd never make it as an art show judge or gallery owner.
They say Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder, well I ain't be holdin no beauty here!
A long time ago, I went to a local "Gallery" that sold fine art reporductions of paintings and I tried to peddle my wares there. The response i got was that Photography was not considered art.
I went back with my degree in Art and exclaimed that Photography is Art and is taught as part of Fine Art cirriculim. I asked if anyone at the shop had a degree in art, none did, but still they said photography just does not sell.
Years later I was doing a showing at a local Art Gallery and was there when a buyer was looking at a print of mine. Seeing that there were no photos of me there, the guy did not know I was the artist he was buying from. He exclamed that he loved the image but would not shell out $400 for a framed 24 x 36 print when he could go out and shoot one just like at at any time.
The Gallery director talked with the guy and later I saw the guy walking out of the Gallery with the print and a check for $500 made out to the Gallery.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Maybe so Jody.
The piece is appealing to me though my wife and I purchase abstract modern pieces. It isn't necessarily innovative or unique, but it is a nice painting by a painter that has won some recognition. Its also well above my price point though it does not seem excessive for the size of the work and the reputation of the artist.
I seriously doubt that any of you could churn that out in 30 minutes. Its not a paint by numbers. And did you see the size? 42"X50"
You really shouldn't criticize other artists in this way. The one case where I do have an issue with painters is where they have directly copied a photograph that was not their own without compensating the photographer.
If you could sell your photos for $30K wouldn't you?
If you look at the big names in photography, they didn't get there overnight, but many of them charge thousands for a print today. And alot of their work is not terribly inspiring compared to what you might see from younger photogs. It takes time and dedication to build a reputation in the art world. Along with that reputation comes a higher price for your work.
Mel-
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM
A long time ago, I went to a local "Gallery" that sold fine art reproductions of paintings and I tried to peddle my wares there. The response i got was that Photography was not considered art.
There is no doubt that this is true. Photography is very slow to gain traction in the "art" world, though it sells very well and certainly is an art. Even within the fine art photography scene, there is a strong bias towards black and white, but I think if you ask the gallery owners and judges why, they couldn't tell you.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 22, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Mel, I speak from personal experience. I grew up on Long Island and had some of my work exhibited in prestigious galleries (paintings). My 30 second comment was hyperbole, and i respect all artists. But Grant has a valid point, which was the point of my hyperbole--the art world is indeed a large function of status and reputation, which isn't always developed through time and hard work, sometimes it is luck, sometimes it is who you know or your original monetary or personal connections, sometimes it is your willingness to 'bend' your ways to whatever happens to be chic or popular. I have every right to voice my opinion about the piece Jody posted, and i say it isn't worth $300 let alone 30K. I never said it wasn't good--i actually think its quite nice, but it's not worth 30K to me and i bet you a large sum of money that if it were offered anonymously at a large auction, it wouldn't fetch that sum.
If i had photos of what i personally considered similar quality, and someone gave me 30K for it, id give 27,700 away to charity. Then i'd buy you a beer, Mel, cause i like your tenacious style
Posted by Les Barstow on January 22, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Well, it's not a 30-second job (not like some abstract paint splatters, IOW), but I don't think I'd pay $31k for it, even if I had the money. Still, it's an original at 42x50"; that takes some time to paint, and there's enough detail and texture in it to make it look like the artist took a bit of time at the easel.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 22, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Abstract paint splatters?? J. Pollock is one of my all time favs! Id pay 30K for one of his works (if i had it )
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 22, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I think my point about not criticizing other artists came off wrong. Perhaps more clearly stated:
Criticizing the price artists place on their work has the potential to negatively impact the entire art community. When you say, "well that piece isn't worth X" the same will likely be said about your own artwork or that of your peers. If this is being said all around, then I think you'll see pricing pressure on the community where potential buyers get the impression that artwork isn't worth its asking price. In general, Colorado already has a very low paying art market compared to other similar communities. I know a couple painters who live here. One sells abstract paintings in the $20K+ range and no longer shows in any Colorado galleries because the market is so bad. The other is struggling to get traction in this market though I think she would do alright in another market.
Value in artwork is tough to measure. When an artist relies solely on artwork to pay the bills, its not like they can just charge the cost of materials. And who is to say what the piece is worth. There isn't another Len Chmiel out there making equivalent paintings that you can price from. It may be worth $30K today. It may be worth $300K or nothing in the future.
Its difficult to say how a piece would sell at auction. I've never been to an art auction, so I guess I'm not sure exactly how they are run. But, Chevrolets that sold for ~$3000 when new are selling for $300,000 at car auctions, though a tiny imperfection could take 30% of that value. Watch antiques roadshow sometime. Two types of items generally bring the biggest price estimates and surprises to their owners. 1) Early American furniture. 2) Paintings. The auction world is a crazy place.
Another thing to consider is that Mr. Chmiel probably sells his paintings through galleries. Galleries charge a customary 25-50% of the sale price for showing, promoting, etc... So if he were to sell this painting through a gallery, he is probably looking $20K coming to him. Galleries tend to get bent out of shape if you turn around and sell your work on your own at a price lower than what you would charge through the gallery, so he might not have flexibility to reduce his price when showing on his own (if that is what he is doing at the National Western.
But when it comes down to it. $30K is a significant chunk of money for me and is far beyond what I would buy. $30K is beyond the "does it go with the sofa" price and I would have to REALLY like a painting to purchase one in this price range. I can't say that this painting fits in that category for me.
That's nothing. Richard Prince sold an image for $1.2 million after he stole (or re-apportioned it, as he calls it) an image of the Marlboro man, cropped it and reprinted it. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html The art world seems to be all about reputation and status, not about art.
I don't know how to explain Richard Prince. If it were my work he copied, I'd charge him with copyright infringement and empty his bank accounts. Of course the problem is that the people who did that work sold the copyrights to Marlboro or Reebok or whoever long ago and it appears that the corporate owners of the work don't mind the publicity. If I had purchased one of his pieces and he had represented it as his own original work, I'd go after him. He is a personality selling other peoples work and misrepresenting it as his own. But some stupid fools with too much money on their hands are willing to buy his rubbish and as Prince's status grows, he finds fools with deeper pockets.
Posted by Nat Coalson on January 22, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I think it's cool that members of this particular forum find these topics interesting, and I can see that it's a hot button for some. But there's really no need to get upset by what others are charging for their product.
The idea of "art" is nebulous, and there's no doubt that photography, in general, is largely considered less "creative" than the traditional/natural media arts. Most people think that if they had the time and the equipment they could make the same image. Of course, anyone pursuing the art of photography knows this isn't true. So it's interesting to hear photographers bashing traditional media and downplaying its validity. Statements like "I could paint that in 30 seconds" remind me of this. In any case, it's irrelevant.
Do what you love. If it sells, great. If not, no big deal. If you want to pursue financial success in the arts, sell out, and even then you may not make it. Making art and making money are two vastly different pursuits.
Anyone who knows me also knows that i am an advocate for pushing the bounds of creativity, especially in photography. Ultimately, any object of art is only worth what someone will pay for it. And many factors influence this. But in my mind, uniqueness is paramount.
I think it's great when I hear someone selling a piece of art (any kind) for lots of money. It gives me hope.
Rubbish? Stupid fools? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Posted by John Klotz on January 23, 2008 at 1:10 AM
I have decided that art buyers are a fickle lot. This is especially true for photographic prints. B&W took a very long time to be accepted as art; color still has yet to be accepted as art. Digital has yet to come into its own and there is clearly a bias towards silver based images just as there is a bias against color photographs as art. Adams said "You don't take a photograph, you make it." For the fine art photographer, making a photograph is a decidedly deliberate act! It is not an accidental, lucky click of the shutter.
What difference does it matter if the final image is grains of chemically altered metallic silver or drops of pigment or dye. Perhaps it is the perceived archival life span of silver based prints. However, giclee printing has caught up to archval standards. So, I only "get it" in relation to my opening statement; art buyers are fickle. We hope our work will outlive us and someone will put value on it before we die, not after!
John
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 23, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Nat, I certainly don't begrudge any artist in any media making lots of money.
Hey, if people are willing to pay, then obviously the work is worth that amount.
And certainly uniqueness will always be a big factor in separating photography from traditional art.
Supply and demand principles do function in the art world !
I am just incapable of understanding the perceived "value" in much of what is being sold today. Jody's link is a good example.
From my clueless perspective, I have seen high school art students produce work that is infinitely more appealing to me .
I worked for a company that built a large new office in Denver. They hired a full time art curator and gave him a multimillion dollar budget to acquire art to cover the walls of many floors. It was a great project supporting the art community. So from that standpoint, it was a success. However, the employees were unanimously unimpressed with the curator's selections. Obviously a bunch of technical people lacking taste.
In contrast to the traditional art, we also had a great collection of landscape photography created by a very talented staff photographer (all MF and LF film prints - 30"x40" +). Needless to say, those prints were in great demand to have in your office, or outside your door. I finally got one of a Grand Teton sunset. Seniority counts for something!
Over the years, as the company downsized and finally closed the Denver office, there were numerous "art" sales where employees were allowed to purchase the surplus art at $20 - $40 per item. I bought a few for the frames and glass. That was after 20 years of "appreciation". Unfortunately, none of the landscape photography came up for sale.
So what's the point? Maybe it's a right brain-left brain distinction, but there appears to be a significant portion of the population that just doesn't live in the same universe as the gallery owners, art curators, and highend art buyers. That's OK. Diversity is good.
I just can't play their game.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I think it's great when I hear someone selling a piece of art (any kind) for lots of money. It gives me hope.
Rubbish? Stupid fools? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I'm also excited to see art selling (or asking) for good money. That doesn't mean that I like everything I see, but I don't begrudge artists for making a living.
I certainly don't mean it to sound like sour grapes, but regarding Richard Prince, its a different issue. The guy is/was deliberately and blatantly reproducing another's work, something we generally term COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, and getting a big pat on the back and a fat wallet. Untitled (Cowboy) is a primary example of my problem with Prince. I don't see how the work that made him famous could be classified as fair use, but nobody was doing anything about it.
It would be like me making a photocopy of a Hemingway novel, changing the font, taking out a couple paragraphs and then trying to pass it off as my own original work. The difference being the photographer who shot the Marlboro ads was essentially anonymous.
If Prince had gone out to re-shoot the Marlboro Man ads himself (IMO, not a particularly difficult task), and made his statement based upon his own photograph my attitude would be different. But he is doing nothing more that photocopying and enlarging and cropping the work of another.
Posted by Nat Coalson on January 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I see your point, Mel, and I agree.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM
I should say that I do understand the point that Prince was making, I just don't entirely agree with the means.
From the Metropolitain Musuem's site :http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pcgn/ho_2000.272.htm
Prince's picture is a copy (the photograph) of a copy (the advertisement) of a myth (the cowboy).
I understand that late 20th century pop art often reused advertisement or branding work to create new art and make a statement about our culture of mass production. Warhols extra large Billo boxes were obviously copying the Brillo brand's trademark and copyrighted artwork. And his soup can silk screens were essentially copying Campbell's trademark and artwork. Perhaps there is no difference between the two artists. Perhaps I should hold Warhol to the fire as much as I dislike Prince. But for some reason, I accept Warhol's work as original and entertaining and find it difficult to do the same with Prince.
Posted by John De Bord on January 23, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Well I'll be a lone wolf here, but personally I like it! I like the shadow play and the palette used...I started out as a painter so I can appreciate it...a landscape at that no less. Do I think it's worth that kinda cash? No. But it sure is better than the sheer crap ya see from say Thomas Kinkade!
Discussion
19 repliesSo, you and I are obviously clueless when it comes to judging artistic merit.
Note that I wrote "you and I" are clueless.
I'd never make it as an art show judge or gallery owner.
A long time ago, I went to a local "Gallery" that sold fine art reporductions of paintings and I tried to peddle my wares there. The response i got was that Photography was not considered art.
I went back with my degree in Art and exclaimed that Photography is Art and is taught as part of Fine Art cirriculim. I asked if anyone at the shop had a degree in art, none did, but still they said photography just does not sell.
Years later I was doing a showing at a local Art Gallery and was there when a buyer was looking at a print of mine. Seeing that there were no photos of me there, the guy did not know I was the artist he was buying from. He exclamed that he loved the image but would not shell out $400 for a framed 24 x 36 print when he could go out and shoot one just like at at any time.
The Gallery director talked with the guy and later I saw the guy walking out of the Gallery with the print and a check for $500 made out to the Gallery.
The piece is appealing to me though my wife and I purchase abstract modern pieces. It isn't necessarily innovative or unique, but it is a nice painting by a painter that has won some recognition. Its also well above my price point though it does not seem excessive for the size of the work and the reputation of the artist.
I seriously doubt that any of you could churn that out in 30 minutes. Its not a paint by numbers. And did you see the size? 42"X50"
You really shouldn't criticize other artists in this way. The one case where I do have an issue with painters is where they have directly copied a photograph that was not their own without compensating the photographer.
If you could sell your photos for $30K wouldn't you?
If you look at the big names in photography, they didn't get there overnight, but many of them charge thousands for a print today. And alot of their work is not terribly inspiring compared to what you might see from younger photogs. It takes time and dedication to build a reputation in the art world. Along with that reputation comes a higher price for your work.
Mel-
There is no doubt that this is true. Photography is very slow to gain traction in the "art" world, though it sells very well and certainly is an art. Even within the fine art photography scene, there is a strong bias towards black and white, but I think if you ask the gallery owners and judges why, they couldn't tell you.
If i had photos of what i personally considered similar quality, and someone gave me 30K for it, id give 27,700 away to charity. Then i'd buy you a beer, Mel, cause i like your tenacious style
Criticizing the price artists place on their work has the potential to negatively impact the entire art community. When you say, "well that piece isn't worth X" the same will likely be said about your own artwork or that of your peers. If this is being said all around, then I think you'll see pricing pressure on the community where potential buyers get the impression that artwork isn't worth its asking price. In general, Colorado already has a very low paying art market compared to other similar communities. I know a couple painters who live here. One sells abstract paintings in the $20K+ range and no longer shows in any Colorado galleries because the market is so bad. The other is struggling to get traction in this market though I think she would do alright in another market.
Value in artwork is tough to measure. When an artist relies solely on artwork to pay the bills, its not like they can just charge the cost of materials. And who is to say what the piece is worth. There isn't another Len Chmiel out there making equivalent paintings that you can price from. It may be worth $30K today. It may be worth $300K or nothing in the future.
Its difficult to say how a piece would sell at auction. I've never been to an art auction, so I guess I'm not sure exactly how they are run. But, Chevrolets that sold for ~$3000 when new are selling for $300,000 at car auctions, though a tiny imperfection could take 30% of that value. Watch antiques roadshow sometime. Two types of items generally bring the biggest price estimates and surprises to their owners. 1) Early American furniture. 2) Paintings. The auction world is a crazy place.
Another thing to consider is that Mr. Chmiel probably sells his paintings through galleries. Galleries charge a customary 25-50% of the sale price for showing, promoting, etc... So if he were to sell this painting through a gallery, he is probably looking $20K coming to him. Galleries tend to get bent out of shape if you turn around and sell your work on your own at a price lower than what you would charge through the gallery, so he might not have flexibility to reduce his price when showing on his own (if that is what he is doing at the National Western.
But when it comes down to it. $30K is a significant chunk of money for me and is far beyond what I would buy. $30K is beyond the "does it go with the sofa" price and I would have to REALLY like a painting to purchase one in this price range. I can't say that this painting fits in that category for me.
I don't know how to explain Richard Prince. If it were my work he copied, I'd charge him with copyright infringement and empty his bank accounts. Of course the problem is that the people who did that work sold the copyrights to Marlboro or Reebok or whoever long ago and it appears that the corporate owners of the work don't mind the publicity. If I had purchased one of his pieces and he had represented it as his own original work, I'd go after him. He is a personality selling other peoples work and misrepresenting it as his own. But some stupid fools with too much money on their hands are willing to buy his rubbish and as Prince's status grows, he finds fools with deeper pockets.
The idea of "art" is nebulous, and there's no doubt that photography, in general, is largely considered less "creative" than the traditional/natural media arts. Most people think that if they had the time and the equipment they could make the same image. Of course, anyone pursuing the art of photography knows this isn't true. So it's interesting to hear photographers bashing traditional media and downplaying its validity. Statements like "I could paint that in 30 seconds" remind me of this. In any case, it's irrelevant.
Do what you love. If it sells, great. If not, no big deal. If you want to pursue financial success in the arts, sell out, and even then you may not make it. Making art and making money are two vastly different pursuits.
Anyone who knows me also knows that i am an advocate for pushing the bounds of creativity, especially in photography. Ultimately, any object of art is only worth what someone will pay for it. And many factors influence this. But in my mind, uniqueness is paramount.
I think it's great when I hear someone selling a piece of art (any kind) for lots of money. It gives me hope.
Rubbish? Stupid fools? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
What difference does it matter if the final image is grains of chemically altered metallic silver or drops of pigment or dye. Perhaps it is the perceived archival life span of silver based prints. However, giclee printing has caught up to archval standards. So, I only "get it" in relation to my opening statement; art buyers are fickle. We hope our work will outlive us and someone will put value on it before we die, not after!
John
Hey, if people are willing to pay, then obviously the work is worth that amount.
And certainly uniqueness will always be a big factor in separating photography from traditional art.
Supply and demand principles do function in the art world !
I am just incapable of understanding the perceived "value" in much of what is being sold today. Jody's link is a good example.
From my clueless perspective, I have seen high school art students produce work that is infinitely more appealing to me .
I worked for a company that built a large new office in Denver. They hired a full time art curator and gave him a multimillion dollar budget to acquire art to cover the walls of many floors. It was a great project supporting the art community. So from that standpoint, it was a success. However, the employees were unanimously unimpressed with the curator's selections. Obviously a bunch of technical people lacking taste.
In contrast to the traditional art, we also had a great collection of landscape photography created by a very talented staff photographer (all MF and LF film prints - 30"x40" +). Needless to say, those prints were in great demand to have in your office, or outside your door. I finally got one of a Grand Teton sunset. Seniority counts for something!
Over the years, as the company downsized and finally closed the Denver office, there were numerous "art" sales where employees were allowed to purchase the surplus art at $20 - $40 per item. I bought a few for the frames and glass. That was after 20 years of "appreciation". Unfortunately, none of the landscape photography came up for sale.
So what's the point? Maybe it's a right brain-left brain distinction, but there appears to be a significant portion of the population that just doesn't live in the same universe as the gallery owners, art curators, and highend art buyers. That's OK. Diversity is good.
I just can't play their game.
I'm also excited to see art selling (or asking) for good money. That doesn't mean that I like everything I see, but I don't begrudge artists for making a living.
I certainly don't mean it to sound like sour grapes, but regarding Richard Prince, its a different issue. The guy is/was deliberately and blatantly reproducing another's work, something we generally term COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, and getting a big pat on the back and a fat wallet. Untitled (Cowboy) is a primary example of my problem with Prince. I don't see how the work that made him famous could be classified as fair use, but nobody was doing anything about it.
It would be like me making a photocopy of a Hemingway novel, changing the font, taking out a couple paragraphs and then trying to pass it off as my own original work. The difference being the photographer who shot the Marlboro ads was essentially anonymous.
If Prince had gone out to re-shoot the Marlboro Man ads himself (IMO, not a particularly difficult task), and made his statement based upon his own photograph my attitude would be different. But he is doing nothing more that photocopying and enlarging and cropping the work of another.
From the Metropolitain Musuem's site :http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pcgn/ho_2000.272.htm
I understand that late 20th century pop art often reused advertisement or branding work to create new art and make a statement about our culture of mass production. Warhols extra large Billo boxes were obviously copying the Brillo brand's trademark and copyrighted artwork. And his soup can silk screens were essentially copying Campbell's trademark and artwork. Perhaps there is no difference between the two artists. Perhaps I should hold Warhol to the fire as much as I dislike Prince. But for some reason, I accept Warhol's work as original and entertaining and find it difficult to do the same with Prince.