What photos sell to the average person? (aka: what images hang on house walls?)

"The point I'm making is that , if you want to sell your images, maybe you should show in the traditional manner, a gallery."

 

Absolutely! That's been my experience, too. So many amateur photographers display poorly-framed small photographs in luncheonettes, barber shops and such places, hoping they'll sell for $25 or so and then wonder why photography isn't taken more seriously as a legitimate art form.

 

Unfortunately, it's not easy to get even excellent work displayed in many galleries for that very reason and others we've discussed. Locally, we're seeing the establishment of a few dedicated photography galleries, usually co-ops of several pros and advanced amateurs who pool their resources and seem to be doing fairly well.

 

Also, I've been working with the local art guild to add a photo gallery to our new art center. The atmosphere in which work is displayed has a huge influence on the respect it's accorded and the prices it can command. Amateur work will probably never be valued very highly, but if a photo can be sold for a few hundred dollars, the margin's excellent and, as sales increase, the medium's reputation and desirability will be enhanced. At least,that's what we're hoping!

 

Your experience with B&W, John, suggests a couple of things: having a coherent portfolio, rather than just a few assorted prints, enhances your stature as an artist and showing only B&W separates your work from all the digital snapshotters, evoking association with some of the greatest photographers known to the general public.

 

Many of the photographers on this forum have elegant websites, beuatifully showcasing their work. However, after visiting so many, they begin to take on a sameness and a remote quality that's not as compelling as viewing the real thing in an inviting gallery "up close and personal."

John - I think most people on photo.net are not professional photographers. I've sold about 20 photos total to friends and at a local art/craft show. I design computer chips for a living which I enjoy a great deal but we always here about our sales figures. To me photography is about getting away from people, money, the business world, and enjoying nature. If I had to worry about selling my work I think it would lose its appeal to me.

Other than some 50 year old photos of our house when it was a farm building (before conversion to redidential use, left to us by the previous owner) we have no photos hanging. In general I think paintings can be viewed from any angle or height while photos, especially behind glass, are difficult to see clearly. This seems to be true whether in a museum or a home. Threfore seemingly more like a bulletin board than decor.

Josh, there are two forms of photographic art that are apparently predominant in the

post 2000 West:

 

1. "Good life" photographs, namely beautiful houses, fashion, flowers, gastronomy,

pretty landscapes;

 

2. Paparazzi images.

 

Apparently, these are what everyone wants (according to a director at a well-known

French agency for photographers). Nothing else.

 

My own humble sales experience is simlar to what Dick says. $300 seems to be the

limit. Although I have had some photos ticketed in a Toronto gallery at $575 (and

which didn't sell), I sold only one image as high as $285 (nicely framed) in my

seasonal gallery/workshop. All the others were in the 150 to 200 range, before taxes.

Take a look at the Pottery Barn photo portfolio as a good compromise between fine art and decoration. They have images by Cunningham, List, Bischof, Leigh, Citret.....not bad for a middle of the road interior design shop.

1. large print of the hand of God and Adam (sisteen chapel)

 

2. Watercolor and ink Iris'

 

3. Family photos

 

4. Landscape photo by Yours Truly

 

5. Penicl drawing of my husbands Unit in Iraq framed with his coins

 

6. Beach shots in the bedroom

 

I would imagine, rather than hanging them on their walls, most people have photographs piled in nice little books atop the coffee table and even the magazines next to them probably get more viewing time.

I've always sold my work framed because I felt it was the only way I could control how it would look on a wall. However, the cost of decent framing, even doing some of the work myself, raises the cost to the point where, after gallery commissions, there isn't a huge retained margin on most sales.

 

Much as I've resisted the temptation, I'm considering offering unframed prints from a bin in our new gallery at about 1/2 the price of framed to "test the waters." Though the prints will only cost about $10 or so to produce and package, if I can sell substantially more units for around $100 than the typical $200 framed price with a cost of $30, the net proceeds should be greater. But, since I do this more for fun than profit, the question I need to grapple with is whether I want to lower the apparent value of my work by selling it that way.

 

One respected suggestion was to realize that they are only photographic prints and not to invest too much ego in them. The more I think about it, the more sense that advice makes.

I am having to go way back in time to remember what use to catch my eye before I took photography seriously. When my wife dragged me to markets and galleries before we had kids I was always drawn to marine life, sunsets and sports action.

Dick, instead of offering unframed photos at half price, why not trying to keep the same price for them and double the framed ones. It is important for people to see framed pictures in a gallery, but often, people will prefer to choose their own frame. And having the framed ones more expensive, they will be more willing to buy the ones offered for a lower price, whatever the prices are.

 

Leading me to the subject of the thread : I believe that photos which are selling to the majority of people are not photos sold in galleries, but mostly photos mass produced, that people already saw, and that, the most important, is not for people to have on their walls photos which will make them/us have to think about philosphical matters, but rather photos which will make them dream, and neutral enough to feel the security of home.

 

Also the motivation may also be based on what is fashionable at the moment or feel connected to at a certain time, but thinking they may be willing later on, to replace the photo either by will of looking at a different image, or sometimes,perhaps just because a change of furnitures, thinking another one would fit better. I personaly believe that more and more, all kind of images are seen in term of fashion or decoration more than love/passion/art or whatever.

I know the area in which I live is the exception and not the rule for the sale of art. Aspen

just oozes art and art buyers with deep pockets. I actually do well in the sale of prints to

hang on walls. These are some of my top sellers:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1055515

http://www.photo.net/photo/186674

http://www.photo.net/photo/597285

 

Most of it is black and white and because of this, I have returned to traditional black and

white film in 120 and gelatin prints to give art buyers a little more hands on value than

something a Epson printer could kick out, that's just my personal preference. I have a few

things of my own work on my walls at my girlfriends insistence, but one of my favorite

images is by a friend of mine who is a very well known climber from John Krakuer's book,

"Into Thin Air". Last fall, one of our climbing buddies came down with cancer. His bills

were mounting and the insurance had basically ran out. So we had a huge fund raiser /

party for him at one of the local ski lodges. I donated three matted and framed prints of

about 15X24 in size which fetched about $2,000. The whole event was a huge success

eclipsing the monetary goal by tens of thousands. So in talking to my Everest buddy, I told

him how I would love a print of "Flying Rope" and I would hang it up.

 

To me, it is one of the most incredible mountaineering images of all time and will remain

as such:

 

http://www.normclasengallery.com/support/galleries/beidleman/detail.np/detail-01.html

 

It's not so much fine art as it is like having an original print of that famous image on man

on the moon. Just an incredible, unrepeatable moment in time well rendered.

 

I do a lot of stock and commercial work which I enjoy very much. I would love to spend

the rest of my life just shooting black and white film with my Hassy and sell fine art prints.

 

That is what I am working towards...:-)

" instead of offering unframed photos at half price, why not trying to keep the same price for them and double the framed ones. It is important for people to see framed pictures in a gallery, but often, people will prefer to choose their own frame. And having the framed ones more expensive, they will be more willing to buy the ones offered for a lower price, whatever the prices are."

 

Excellent suggestion! I'm a little embarassed not to have thought of it myself. That would also solve the problem of diluting the apparent value of other photographers' offerings. Thanks, Laurent!!

Dick you are welcome. Also don;t forget, that most of the time, art is a bit more than a beautifull art piece, and probably unfortunately ( as this is the reason why too many people feel they can't afford art ), asking for a high price will in fact feel people more secure in their buying. Especially with photography : lots of people will wonder why pay only a few 10s of dollars more than a poster they could by in a super market.

when I was showing at a local fine art gallery we had a great turnout for opening... with lots of response to the "fine art" works, but in the end, only the landscapes sold... and the gallery went out of business.

 

Only a hand full of fine art photographers actually make a real living off it... for most it is like being a poet (even heavily published and respected poets make almost no money from it).

 

The sad thing is that most wedding photogs and other hacks equate importance to gross sales.

Mark,

yes I'm very aware about the difficulties to sell "fine art" and that artists as galleries really have to strugle most of the time.

 

You are sharing your personal experience, so permit me to share my own:

 

I had the opposite experience as yours, when I was still in the Art World, and my art dealer decided to multiply by 4 to 5 the selling prices of my work for absolutely no reasons : no bigger demand, no change in "fashion", and I certainly didn't became some sort of genius between the starters and the coffee, which was the time frame it took for him to make this decision.

 

And canevases he had in stock for a while, sold in a matter of days, without even a new exhibition, and mostly to the same collectors who already saw the pieces ... Yes i was very lucky. Or was I ?

 

Unfortunately that is how most of the art world works, and art is sold more thanks to the address book of the gallery and the PR abilities.

 

If an artist is lucky enough to get a powerfull gallery, there is a danger for the artist to start not caring much about what she/he is doing anymore, knowing that her/his work will sell on her/his name alone, no matter what she/he is offering.

 

Also very often, a gallery will have to power over its artists to ask them to work in a way they know will sell, and not only will they choose artists which they know are fashionable in accordance to their targeted public and buyers, but will often ask ( by contract ) for an artist not to change his/her style )

 

Some will be happy with the situation, but for me, reaching this state of mind gave me more insatsifaction than satisfaction, and that is why I went to explore different directions out of this institutionalized art world.

>>> That got me thinking, what kind of images DO sell to the average public? What kind of

images are purchased for display at home?

 

With respect to the "average public," from what I've seen, that would include images that are

easy for the average person to enjoy, usually decorative, and not too deep on requiring a lot

of interpretation.

In Croatia, average public likes to buy calendars of different themes. When they decorates their homes, they usually display paintings on canvas and less photographs. But in certain occasions, they like to put on the wall bigger photographs which represents some dramatic and religious seascapes in BW and sepia tones. They like to receive a photograph as a gift. I'm speaking from my experience.

Yes, Brad, I agree, pretty landscapes are what the average public wants, not those

that are difficult to interpret. Kristina has hit on one point that I think is both nice

and also regrettable. People recognise the effort someone has put into a well printed

and framed photograph. but unfortunately are not willing to pay very much for it

(maybe 200 or 300$ is a maximum?). If you get well recognised in the press for your

work, like the case of Ed Burtynsky and his industrial landscapes in places like

Portugal, China and Canada, the value to the public increases greatly.

Usually photos that people can relate to on an emotional level, sell really well. Scenics, lanscapes do well for home decorating. Artistic photos do well in office lobbies, small businesses and the home.

"The sad thing is that most wedding photogs and other hacks equate importance to gross sales."

 

No. Most wedding photogs and other hacks equate SUCCESS to gross sales.

 

Most don't give a damn about importance.

"The sad thing is that most wedding photogs and other hacks equate importance to gross sales."

 

No. Most wedding photogs and other hacks equate SUCCESS to gross sales.

 

Most don't give a damn about importance.

I think if someone is conciously wanting to display some artistic photography, where each image is hung in an exhibitive way, ie to be considered and viewed as a piece of art in its own right by those who view it, then the genre really doesn't matter - it could be anything from portraits to war, landscapes to abstract.

 

If it's purely hung as an aesthetic addition to the decor of a room, then I'd reckon lansdcapes and floral are about your best bets.

 

I'd say if you took a hundred people off the street and asked them whether they prefer their wall hangings to be considered for their own artistic merit or to simply to break up an otherwise blank wall - so long as it looks nice, I think that you'd be pushed to find more than one or two who preferred the former.

 

cheers

Guy

I know the topic regards the images a person might hang in their home, but in thinking about framing some of my photographs I've had in mind businesses as much or more than homes. Many of the offices (doctor, other professional services) I walk into have framed photography on the walls, often of local scenes.

 

Does anyone have experience with the market potential there?

Most reponses here agree that the average person does not go out and buy photographs for their home because if you buy a fine art photographic print from the photographer, you then have to go to a framing shop and have it matted and framed at a cost of up to $200.00, depending on how large and fancy you make it.

 

However, when people go on vacation and there is an Arts and Crafts Fair in the vacinity, with a photography showing scenes of local landmarks, these people will buy matted photographs of the local scenes to hang on their walls to remind them of their vacation. I used to show my photogaphs of local landmarks on Cape Cod and would sell dozens of well known landmark photos over a weekend. In fact people would come back year after year and buy another photo, saying they wanted to make a grouping of Cape Cod photos on their wall.

I'm sure that you are all correct that most people do not buy original photographs to display as art in their homes. Those who do probably do so for decor and mainly consider how well it will go with their room.

 

However, the following print - shot on 120 film and printed to 16x20 - never stays on display very long before it sells (usually for around $650). I knew it was probably very good when I shot it. When I made the first 8x10 straight print I knew it could become an excellent photograph (the actual lighting was flat, the entire scene being evenly lit with the same density as the statue).

 

I know why I think it is a fine photograph. But I do not know why it sells.<div></div>

This is something I am certainly interested in since after years of taking photos I have put some up on my website, <a href="http://oregonfoto.com" >hyperlink</a> in hopes of some people interested in purchasing some prints. I think a lot of people buy prints when they are on vacation to remind them of the spot, or when at a crafts fair etc.