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

At the bottom of the <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O2FV">"The emperor has

no clothes!"</a> thread, a discussion got started about what sells in the "art

world". There was some debate about if an "art world" exists.

<p>

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

kind of images are purchased for display at home? Ignore those of us here on

this site. I think that most serious photographers are likely to have images

that reflect the photography they do, or photography they aspire to do, or

photography that they could never begin to do. Also ignore wedding or family

portrait images. I'm just talking about images that someone went out and bought

to hang on the wall.

<p>

When I go visiting friends, I see a lot of nature photos purchased from

arts/crafts fairs, Anne Geddes type images, black&white with one color spot

"love" images, photoshoped "art" images (HDR images would be in this category),

and travel-magazine type "dream vacation" scenic images.

<p>

Given the difference between these images and what I see in the average

photographic gallery (nudes, studies in light/shadow, etc), I'd say that there

is at least a fair amount of disconnect between the two. The HDR type photoshop

art images might be the place that has the most crossover, in my opinion anyway.

A survey of the photos in my friends' homes:

 

1) city skylines and famous landmarks (New York, Paris, London)

2) wildlife (African safari type stuff, colorful tropical birds)

3) Western US National Park landscapes

4) sports cars (mainly in men's offices)

5) ocean/sunset landscapes

6) sailboats in harbors

 

Except for teenagers with posters of atheletes and celebrities I can't think of anyone who has bought a photo where a person was the primary subject and not a family member.

I think I agree with you, Walt. Although I was in a house not too long ago, where - without a touch of irony - there was a photo of Elvis, hanging (perfectly!) at the left hand of a portrait of the Pope.

 

Other than that: yup, scenery, mostly. But I also know a lot of dog people. Serious, maniacal dog people. They consider their animals to be family members, or prize posessions. In many cases you'll see photos of a favorite animal or event in which the animal was in some way celebrated or triumphant (say, a show or other competition). But those same folks will buy - simply as art - a particularly well-captured photo of any dog in their breed, just out of admiration for how the breed is depicted. Perhaps that's the same as someone who has a 12-foot sailboat hanging up a picture of a racing yacht rounding a buoy... but believe me when I say that for those folks, it is just like buying a portrait of someone else just out of love for the portrait. Horse people, same deal.

I haven't been in many homes, but have found that my floral subjects easily outsell general landscapes. Hanging out with friends as they work their booths at art fairs, the comments I hear seem to be largely about how well a particular picture will "go" with a room's decor, rather than its artistic merit.

 

At the lower end of the price spectrum, art seems to be purchased as home decor, not for any special artistic merit. Men seem more interested in subjects that remind them of a special place or experience and tend to favor the marine scenes.

Time to take more flower pictures, cute cat shots too. All this hoity-toity discussion about what is art is "nice", but what's really "important" is selling stuff. My guess is that a modern day Van Gogh would consistently be outsold by the guy next him who sells cartoon caricatures; in fact, it's not speculation, Van Gogh only sold one work during his lifetime. So who would you rather be? Most of us aren't emotionally tormented enough to be Van Gogh -- nor would we choose to be; but I don't want to work in a kiosk at Disneyland either.

Walt's summary is pretty close to what I have seen around a number of homes.<br>With regards to photos where a <i>person</i> is the primary subject. Apart from athletes and celebrities, there seems to be a market for fantasy art - angels, fairies, etc. - not my choice of art, though.<p>I also would like to add the abstract category, though this seems to appear more often in the corporate sector and is outside the scope of Josh's question.

The "average" person is 51.3% female and always slightly pregnant.

 

I think the "average" home probably has no photographs on the wall, and only a few family snaps on the telly.

 

Otherwise, as per another thread, "cute" sells. Maybe next come landscapes with heavy use of graduated neutral density filters.

Peter - I have seen angels and fairies hanging on walls but they were all paintings, not photos. I see the same with still lifes. People will pay for a painting of a fruit basket on a countertop but most won't buy a photo of the same thing. People will buy a painting of a 5 year old brother and sister looking for easter eggs but they won't buy a photo of the same thing unless it's their own kids.

I think you are touching the nail on the head Josh.

 

It comes close again (I think) to the the continuing comments on what is considered "photography" by some and not others.

 

It's very interesting to note the "sometimes" vast difference between what is considered aesthetically pleasing, in a place such as this, and the standard of work needed to produce an outstanding print which attracts many customers to purchase.

 

Though an argument could easily ensue. People do like to disect words.

it would be very interesting to see what we, forumers,have hanging in our walls....

Well, here goes. Excluding my own works, which constitute most of the photographic works hanging in my house, there is one small shot of Puget Sound at dusk, one medium sized shot of a lighthouse on the Oregon Coast, one B&W lighthouse shot, two small kitten shots interspersed with similar etchings, one shot of the Pike Place Fish Co. in Seattle, and finally one large panoramic view of Bryce Canyon. I actually prefer my works to all but the Bryce Canyon shot - however my wife has a vote in our decorations.

With one exception, I can't recall seeing a purchased original photographic print (as opposed to a poster or reproduction with a gallery name on it) in the house of anyone who is not a photographer, for at least 15 years. The one exception was at a casual acquaintance's apartment, someone who was not a photographer, who had a Paul Strand print. That's it.<p>I see a lot more purchased paintings and non-photographic prints, even some really great work, in the "average" person's home. Most of the photographers I know, and a few of the painters, have photographs of their own or done by friends.<p>As to David's question, I have exactly three purchased photographic prints, two from people I met, on my walls at home. The rest of the photographs are mine, except some prints from trades I hope to frame and hang someday, although a bug got squished against one and the innards ate into the print. With some prints, that would be OK, but not this one. On the other hand, I have a lot of paintings, enough that I have to keep many closets and they get rotated. More than any others are by my friend <a href="http://cynthiatom.com/">Cynthia Tom,</a> some are things came from my parents and grandparents, and most of the others are purchased from the artist.<p>There is one other exception on the photographs. I was walking down a street in San Francisco one day and looked up and saw one of my prints. That was pretty funny, I remembered who had bought it from a show, had no idea where they lived when I sold it to them. That makes two photographs in people's homes.

You're painfully right, Walt -- most folks at shows would gladly pay hundreds for a mediocre painting than a decent price for a meticulously crafted archival-quality photo, assuming it's "just a photo" and the result of no more than the click of a shutter.

Josh, I think that in the main the "average" person isn't going into art galleries to begin with. Art galleries cater to an entirely different clientele. Mostly higher income, but also different esthetics.

 

Art & crafts show purveyors know their clientele offerings wares accordingly. It has been my observation that prices for photos are normally much higher at art galleries than at art & craft shows. A reflection of the different expectation in customers.

Walt & Dick, one thought on why people prefer to buy paintings... For better or worse, especially in the age of perfect digital copies, a photograph is not viewed as a good investment. One thing a person can be sure of in buying a beautiful photo is that they are not the only one buying that exact same photo, which in their mind devalues it. Whereas if one buys a painting of a fruit basket, even if it looks very much like other painted fruit baskets, it is not *identical* to any other painted fruit basket, so there is the belief (hope?) that theirs is somehow "special".

 

We can debate whether art should be viewed as an investment at all but for most people that is at least part of the consideration, whether they're spending $50 or $50,000.

<i>We can debate whether art should be viewed as an investment at all but for most people that is at least part of the consideration, whether they're spending $50 or $50,000.</i><p>It is?<p>I've heard the "I word" for people spending lots of money, but never for people who just hang paintings on their walls because they like it. The last time I heard the "I word" about paintings, it was someone who owned a Miro and things like that. He really didn't care about the art, it was the value. Very different than the people I know who buy art because they like it, which is most of them.<p>Do you have any documentation on all these "investors"?

Whatever <i><u>she</u></i> likes. We all know it is a woman's perogative to decorate the home and photos are-after all, decoration. <br>Men on the other hand tend not to put ``scenery`` on walls as opposed to women who love flowers, places they`ve visited, family-etc.<br>Women have <i>places</i> in the home for images: hallways, foyers, bathrooms-living rooms and so forth. <br>Men on the other hand simply drive a nail someplace to hang an out-of-focus enlargement of their old `57 Chevy.<p>People with ``tastes`` generally are ``tasteful`` and pretentious-at once, displaying whatever is the flavor of the times.<p>``Ordinary`` people tend to reserve a place of honor to display family (<i>or a favored family member</i>).<P>``Upscale`` (read: rich) folks even have ``<i>suites</i>`` of images they mount and move seasonally or even more gauche', <i>rent</i> for a season.<p>Unless it's a crash pad for a guy, T&A shots usually do not appear on walls, in particular if the guy has a girl who, like most women, cannot ever hope to compete with the women (<i>giggly girls mostly</i>) in T&A photos.<p>Then again, <i>ordinary</i> people <b>do not buy photos to display on walls</b>: <br>they buy ``<i>starving artist</i>`` (read: mass manufactured) still lifes and/or scenery.<p>Photographers hang their own favorites, while ``artists`` tend to never buy (<i>in that images made by others tend to cost too much</i>) anything made by someone else.

"ordinary people do not buy photos to display on walls"

 

I tend to agree. I know only one person other than photographers who has photographs in their home other than those of family members. Most of the homes I visit have paintings, prints of fine art, old maps etc but not photographs, and especially photographs made by others; and most especially photographs that they've had to pay more than a printing cost for. I think the majority of people place zero value on a photograph unless its of their parents/kids/dog and wouldn't dream of paying more than the cost of printing and a mount/frame.

 

I do wonder how many photographs would sell from galleries at all if there wasn't a resale market- in other words how many people buy from galleries just for the sheer joy of ownership and the pleasure of seeing it on the wall? Many of us rush off and buy equipment thats pretty much halved in value by the time we've got it home. How many are prepared to do the same with a photograph, no matter how much we like it? I suspect the answer is not many, and that the cost recovery/possibility of profit aspect is extremely important for photography and to some extent for any art of a higher price than that generally available in a department store.

My impression is the reason paintings tend to outsell and appear on more walls than photographs is the common concept of art equates to hand crafted. People imagine an painter applying each stroke, taking days or weeks or more building a combination of color and tone and texture until they've produced some "perfect" vision. ( Despite this most people end up buying a mass produced print of a painting rather than a painting. Economic compromise, I suppose. )

 

Photography on the other hand, in accordance with most common experience, is viewed as a technical production. Consider how commonly people equate the quality of the print with the quality of the equipment. Push the shutter button on the camera, then the print button on the printer and out flows a million copies of something lacking the hand of an artist. To most it does not represent some ideal or vision, but is a more a copy of some reality. The common aesthetic does not seem to equate that to art. It's more documentary and therefore most home photos are hung for that purpose. Most photographers who make all or a substantial part of their keep with photography are not selling art, but a service.

 

Some may take issue with this but I'm not trying to make a point or defend anything, but rather describe what I see.

 

Personal inventory: One Joyce Tenneson, one Arnold Newman, one Jude McConkey, a few prints of obscure paintings and my own photos.

"ordinary people do not buy photos to display on walls"

 

My personal experience as a photographer and also as director of an art guild with a respected gallery suggests that ordinary people do actually buy them, but generally won't spend more than about $300 for a nicely framed print. At a recent community art show in a nearby town, out of approximately 150 pieces of art (paintings and photos) on display, the only two sales were of photos, priced between $200/$275.

 

While it's true that the ease of reproducing photos severely limits their appeal as investments, most people who buy relatively inexpensive photos do so to decorate their homes and have no delusions about their investment potential.

 

At the upper end of the price scale, the motives for purchasing a print would be quite different and involve bragging rights, enjoyment of having the work of a recognized master and its potential for appreciation as an investment. I suspect most of us are more concerned with the former than the latter.

Jeff: I have never undertaken an academic study, but I have browsed for photos and other artwork with friends and acquaintances, and more than one has said "you should never buy a photograph" for the reasons I stated (more or less). I am always slightly taken aback by people telling me what I should or shouldn't do when it comes to art or money, but it's pretty clear where their head is at.

 

One of these people is my very own better half, who has purchased several paintings (none "expensive" by art standards, all under a thousand dollars). We had this very conversation about the one photo she DID purchase. She agonized over it because she loved it, but she so deeply believes that photos are a "waste" of money that she almost (almost) couldn't part with the $50 or $75 or whatever it was.

 

I'm not saying I agree with that point of view, I'm just saying a lot of people have it.

Also, to be clear, I'm not suggesting people buy $200 paintings because they hope to make money. But they do hope that it at least won't be worthless the moment they take it home, as other people have pointed out here. And for whatever reason, they think a photo will be worthless.

Ed greene wrote: "whatever she wants"

 

a friend of mine went to pick up a box of old stuff that belonged to his father at his aunt

house. back at his home,while checking the contents of the box, his wife liked a framed

photograph and decided that she was going to hang it somewhere (the bar was chosen ). a

few months later, a friend sees the photograph and informs them that it was an original

Edward Weston print from 1925. they had no idea of who he was, but after some

research,it turns out that Weston gave the photograph to his grandfather in a visit to

cuernavaca.

 

good thing his wife liked it.....

Very few of the galleries I've been to carry photographs. I was told by one owner that photos aren't art. So there's that prejudice.

What I have read so far would seem to indicate that the posters aren't selling their own images, which I find hard to believe. Assuming the bunch of the reponders have overlooked that aspect, then people are hanging your photos on their walls. If you haven't over looked that aspect and you haven't sold prints, i would ask you to analyze why? Could it be that the majority of photographers are soley posting to the web, instead of pursuing solo shows in galleries or other in person venues. The last show I had consisted of 27 B+W prints, 11x14 paper, 11 of which sold to people in Berks county Pennsylvania. The subject matter was almost entirely abstract Architecture(construction and urban decay). I believe that "ordinary " people if exposed to photography which is good but unfamiliar will still buy the good stuff. I don't think people are as inclined to by an original print off the web as they are in person at a gallery. The price for my prints were 250.00 for 11x14 in 16x20 frames if you need to know. Further, B+W photography is NOT a big item where I live. The point I'm making is that , if you want to sell your images, maybe you should show in the traditional manner, a gallery.