Sotheby's photography auction results

[peter_mounier]

<p>I came across this web page from Sotheby's that is interesting and fun to look at. It's the results of a recent auction of some well known photos by some well known photographers.</p>

<p>http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotResultsDetailList.jsp?event_id=29337&sale_number=N08533</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Thanks for that, Peter. The more I look, the more I'm confused by what makes a photo desirable. It seems to be worthy of market, it needs to be either B/W, very old, by a "famous" photographer, or very large in print size.<br /> <br /> I wonder if collectors are true connoisseurs of photography or merely buy for its investment value.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Michael,<br>

In answer to your question, I know several collectors and curators and the answer is: it depends on the collector. Outside of the investment aspect, what makes any piece of art desirable to a collector is their emotional attachment to it -- there will be something in it that appeals to them. It was good to see that the Peter Turner prints went for as much as the Annie Leibovitz Demi Moore photo, which is much better known to the general public. All of these are very fine photographs, very conservative as well.<br>

Maybe the question underneath your question is: what makes a really good photograph really good.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Like any art form, there are more collectable artists and processes. I know some curators as well, and they are also aware of things like which artists took steps to make their work archival, and which are not. You can get a very good sense of what flies with collectors, and what doesn't, by reading B&W magazine, and a new counterpart magazine: Color (I can't remember if it's Color or the British spelling, Colour).</p>

<p>There is also the issue of who printed the image. Last year I was asked to hang a small Edward Weston exhibit, made up of modern prints (not his own). I was shocked at how poorly they were printed. I kept thinking "If I only could have access to the negs, I'd do a better job". One thing I noticed is the prices seem very depressed right now.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Thanks, Ellis, and you are right about my underlying question, but:</p>

<p>I see so many good photographs just on Pnet alone worthy of recognition at the same level as those at Sotheby's site, but they aren't, and will unlikely be within the lifetime of their respective authors. This is personal opinion, of course, but does appear to hold some truth.</p>

<p>It seems that like beauty pageants, there can only be a handful of winners among untold numbers of entries that filters become necessary, but skewed in a manner to the exclusion of fairness because it is subjective, and that subjective judgment is in the hands of a few elite. To acknowledge others are equally good is to dilute the value of the chosen "special", so we end up with an all-or-nothing system based not on meritocracy but commercial viability.</p>

<p>I was always of the opinion that there can be no art without commerce, but at the Sotheby level, I see art being exploited for the commercial gain of a few, none of which has to do with the gradation of quality as is the case with other commercial goods.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Michael, like any other market, you have to understand a lot of things, besides those mentioned, and more than a little historical context to be able to grasp significance and value. </p>

<p>"...at the Sotheby level, I see art being exploited for the commercial gain of a few, none of which has to do with the gradation of quality as is the case with other commercial goods."</p>

<p> That's simply untrue. The sellers, buyers, agents and Sotheby's know exactly what they're looking at, and you do not, which is why it looks illogical/a rip-off/insider trading/etc. to you. That's real money being exchanged. The buyers know the gradation of quality, rarity, provenance, historical significance, and desirability -- and what it's worth. </p>

<p>They're auctions, very similar to other auctions. As with most of the art works I own, I'm certainly glad I bought a Pete Turner back when I did, more for how much I've enjoyed it over the years, than for its appreciation as an investment.</p>

<p> There is a recurring problem here and elsewhere with people that haven't put in their 10,000 hrs studying art photography, and because they fail to grasp what's going on, assume it's all a sham-wow deal. It isn't. As with any other market, discipline, or area of expertise, there are people who really know their stuff, and understand what others cannot imagine, be it in software design, wedding photography, gardening, medicine, collectible automobiles, engineering, physics, or art. </p>

<p> Of course, there are the unscrupulous. They exist in every discipline, and the cognoscenti know them, and are continually weeding them out. As with Walter Rosenblum's fraudulent Hines prints, He was caught, starting with an honest and knowledgeable Santa Fe gallery owner, Andrew Smith, who stood to profit directly from selling the works, but instead tipped the FBI.</p>

<p> Art is no different, and no, it is not a titanic conspiracy. Damn, the Kertesz "Satiric Dancer" went for an affordable price!</p>

<p>http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Satiric-Dancer-Posters_i1305250_.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[orias]

<p>Objects that have been owned or created by hsitorical figures, will always have a premium over similar objects owned or created by John Q. Public, unless John Q Public does something historical.<br>

This is what being famous entitles the famous. </p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Well, BS, celebrity, ego and stupidity are the seemingly unshakeable cornerstones of the cash-craving "art" world these days, so this kind of stuff is all par for the course, is it not...?</p>

<p>Amusing link... Cheers.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Art prices often seem to do the opposite to commercial investments. When stock markets zonk, the art world flourishes. And vice versa.</p>

[j_sevigny]

<p>There is a great degree of sham in auction houses and a great degree of ignorance as well. The biggest issue is that collectors-investors often know what a good investment will be, but know nothing about what makes for good art. To re-quote Luis, they haven't put in their 10,000 hours of art history study. And to quote Robert Hughes:<br>

"Most of the time they buy what other people buy. They move in great schools, like bluefish, all identical. There is safety in numbers. If one wants Schnabel, they all want Schnabel, if one buys a Keith Haring, two hundred Keith Harings will be sold."</p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Most of the time they buy what other people buy. They move in great schools, like bluefish, all identical. There is safety in numbers." --Robert Hughes</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That idea applies to most photographers as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see so many good photographs just on Pnet alone worthy of recognition at the same level as those at Sotheby's site, but they aren't, and will unlikely be within the lifetime of their respective authors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference is that many of the photographers in that auction go there first and by "there" I mean that many of them pushed the idea of what a photograph could be in that particualr directio n first or at least in a better way than waht their peers did.<br>

Great photogrpahs mean somethign to the historical context of photography. they are not about technically skillful and proficient the photogrpaher is or how a photograph is executed. They aren't even so much about the personality behind and in front of the camera. They tend to be considered important because they do a powerful job of pushing the idea of what a photograph can be in a way that is interesting and they start to accrete a shell of fame about them which if the photo becomes famous enough, eventually disguises what was their original revolutionary character for the times in which they were created. When some photos or photographers get famous enough, people start getting the idea behind the photograp , they start thinking "that is what a good photogrpah looks like" and start trying it out themselves in a superficial way. Nothign wrong with that. We all consciously or unconsciously ape someone else's work, in fact it is one of the ways you learn. But you then have to figure out a way to go beyond that to find your own visual vocabulary to express what you think and feel.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was always of the opinion that there can be no art without commerce, but at the Sotheby level, I see art being exploited for the commercial gain of a few...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is just part and parcel of the human condition I'm afraid.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Ellis and Luis, have you come across <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=526277">Emil Schildt</a> 's bio? I'll paste it here for reference:<br /> <em>"educated in classical music..Academy of music...but no one wanted to pay for my "talent"..so I started taking pictures.. Self taught..and a teacher in photography at a folk highschool in Denmark.. STILL no one wants to pay for my "talents"...maybe I should be working in a bank or something...."</em></p>

<p>Emil's work belongs in a museum if not an auction house and represents the many photographers ignored by the "art world". Again, personal opinion, and I don't profess to be expert in these things, but I see art dealers speculating on up-and-coming young (or potential future) greats and encouraging investments in their work on the gamble of future returns. This is the reason for my earlier remark, that at the level of Sotheby it's more about commerce than art.</p>

<p>As to Luis' earlier remark: <em>"The buyers know the gradation of quality, rarity, provenance, historical significance, and desirability -- and what it's worth." </em> <br /> The gradation of quality and desirability are individual perceptions when they are intangible. It doesn't necessarily mean I or anyone should hold those same values in our personal assessment of quality or desirability. Tangible quality on the other hand, is measurable, quantifiable and verifiable in which there is no dispute, so when art sells on the basis of values held by the very few, does it necessarily define quality for the rest of us? I would like to think not, but that doesn't mean I think high art is junk; it's just that they don't necessarily fairly represent art.</p>

<p>Maybe the whole idea of placing a monetary value on the exclusivity of art is the problem. Maybe art should be sold like Beetles albums - $8.00 each for an original Annie Leibovitz print, sold by the millions, and let the mass market decide what is "better".</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Michael:</p>

<p> I don't want to comment on whether Emil's work is at the level you place it at or not. If any gallery thought they could sell it, he'd already have representation and be in many collections. That's the way the market works, assuming he schlepped/sent his work around so it can be seen.</p>

<p> When markets are flush with money, they turn more speculative, be they stocks or fine art. Most lucrative deals involve well-known, established work trading hands between established, well-known buyers. It's where the money is.</p>

<p> The transfer of ownership of anything involves commerce, of course. For the auction houses, commerce is their livelihood, and the two main ones have been in business for a very long time. Having said that, the love and connoisseurship of art there, even with temporary summer interns, is remarkable.</p>

<p>[MC] <em> </em> "The gradation of quality and desirability are individual perceptions when they are intangible."</p>

<p> This is a misconception. Individual expertise in these matters is hardly singular/ isolated. As with so many other human endeavors, it's built up through elaborate, specialized, degreed, social, corporate, and academic networks, and buoyed by consensus and prior sales records. It's not nearly as arbitrary as you might think.</p>

<p>It is the same with art. What is intangible to you (and most) is very tangible to those who know. It fairly represents art in the sense that any market represents what is traded in them. And these two houses auction much more than just art. There is also a certain naivete in assuming that this market alone totally dominates the medium. There is a less commercial, parallel world in fine art -- the Academic/Museum/Corporate collections. Most of the time, they agree, but not always. Both of these channels influence art, often by people drooling while reading the prices some of these things have sold for and the recognition they bring. Given what the average income for photographers (commercial and art) is, that's easily understood.</p>

<p> It should not define anyone per se. One can only see what they're prepared to see, and in a way they're ready to see it. You can only be you, and your work will show it.</p>

<p>The market really does decide. All the way down to cheapo posters. There just aren't "millions" of significant photographs.</p>

<p> As it happens, many people decided to do exactly what you suggest 4+ years ago, taking a Populist, Mass-consumerist route. They sell smallish-sized prints in large-numbered editions, for around $30-40 per print. Well-known gallery owner and blogger Jen Bekman had a hand in this, and it has enjoyed mixed success among people I know of that have tried it. Ctein is trying another model along similar lines. Maybe there would be a different mass market at $8, but at current prices, no one seems to have hit a hitherto undiscovered financial motherlode. On the other hand, it is another welcome income stream. The same goes for Blurb-type books.</p>

<p> </p>