- This topic is empty.
Art/Photography appreciation (in Ireland)
-
Ali wrote:
I’ve often wondered about how much the Irish actually sppreciate art and why they are so reluctant
to purchase?? Maybe the beginning of a new thread????Ali posed the above question in the Peoples Photography 20th Annual Open Air Photo Exhibition thread.
With specific reference to that event, I know that some exhibitors, a few years back, when film was still all the rage, planned to get a few of their best landscapes and copy them on to a roll of film, and then get that film developed and printed to 7″x5″ with mutliple copies. These 7″x5″ prints were then to be mounted and sold at the event for about a fiver each. I think as a business concept it was a sound idea – people are much more likely to buy a small image of a scene they like that’s not going to cost them the earth, rather than a large framed print. They would make as much money selling 10 copies of the one shot than one enlargement for 50.00.
On the broader issue of whether or not the Irish actually appreciate art, I think they do. But the question surely should be, do they consider photography an art? The answer depends very much on the photograph, I think. I think in order to give buyers some assurance that they are buying a piece that not only will look good, but will eventually have some status attached to it (and ultimately a financial investment too) prints must be limited edition prints. Otherwise, they may a well go to their local framing shop and buy a commercially available print in a frame (where the frame is usually worth significantly more than the print).
Yes, limited edition is very important. I started years ago with edition of 100 but now I do 20. And thinking to go to 10.
Personally, I don’t think the majority of people in Ireland do see photography as art. They’re “just” photos after all :shock: It’s a little bit of an aside, but I had an Irish person call to my door one night trying to sell someone of his own oil paintings. More often than not I simply don’t entertain door to door salesmen, chuggers etc. but he was a charismatic enough chap and was pushy but in the right way, so I spent some time looking through his images. At no stage did I give him the impression that I was going to buy a painting from him, but he stayed persistent and suggested how great they’d look on a wall. This was when I switched the sales pitch around, said I was interested in photography and that I’d rather have my own shots on my wall or better still, perhaps he could buy some from me :) His answer… “but painting is art, photography is just photos” :shock: I’m not sure that I used to view photography as art. Obviously now, the more I have been sucked into this world, I do.. but does that mean that only photographers view photography as art? I don’t know!
On the point of limited editions. Purely from a customer point of view, I’ve always been very VERY sceptical of the idea of limited editions. How do I know that the photographer will never sell any more than X amount of prints? Personally, if I was to buy a print, it would be 100% for cosmetic reasons and I would never view buying a photo as an investment.
I don’t want to get into the art photography debate, I’m sorry but I would be out of my debt i have to admit.
However from my experience with Peoples Photography i think Photography is appreciated now more than a few years ago. You see more articles in the paper now profiling photographers who sell photographs for a living. The DIT end of year exhibitions are really well attended and get great press coverage. The RHA accept photography into their yearly exhibition. We are getting there but it is slow.
The UK had great exposure to photography in the 60’s and their photography art has been growing for 40 years. They have a vibrant market over there especially in London, i think we are having our photography explosion now and the future will be good. It would be nice to get a gallery or two in Dublin or Cork selling creative photography. This would really help focus the interested public on the benifits of collectable photography.
Eddie wrote:
However from my experience with Peoples Photography i think Photography is appreciated now more than a few years ago. You see more articles in the paper now profiling photographers who sell photographs for a living. The DIT end of year exhibitions are really well attended and get great press coverage. The RHA accept photography into their yearly exhibition. We are getting there but it is slow.
The UK had great exposure to photography in the 60’s and their photography art has been growing for 40 years. They have a vibrant market over there especially in London, i think we are having our photography explosion now and the future will be good. It would be nice to get a gallery or two in Dublin or Cork selling creative photography. This would really help focus the interested public on the benifits of collectable photography.
I’ve also noticed a trend towards a general acceptance that photography can be a valid art form, although many people still percieve it simply in terms of a craft. But the fact that you can now go in to some of the more upmarket furniture stores and find large framed black and white images for sale (original prints) as part of their product range is testament to the growing popularity of photography as a legitimate art form.
I’ve no doubt that photographers such as Giles Norman and Mike Brown, who both have their own shops/galleries selling their work, have also played a significant part in raising the profile of photography.
The discussion on whether photography is or isn’t art rarely reaches a conclusion. It seems to me that the number of people who think it is art is about as large as the number of people who think it isn’t. And anyone who wants a quiet life is probably going to decide that it is a topic that requires an “agree to differ” attitude.
My own 2 cents on it is that photography is art. This is because I think that many people regard the classification as totally black or white – photography must compare favourably with other art forms or it isn’t art at all. I feel, rather, that there are different levels of art. Photography does not rank with the top sculptures or masterpieces. They are among the highest levels of art forms. But some photos, with a good degree of creativity, can be considered to be some intermediate level of art.
Of course, there is a lot of rubbish photography being hyped as art when it isn’t, and that really undermines the argument!
Back to the original question – I think some Irish people are begining to accept some photography as art. There was a process of acceptance in other countries and it is happening here now too.
Just my 2 cents…
I agree with Ciaran, for most cases the limited edition thing does not impress, and seems a bit suss. However for reproductions of paintings as giclee on canvas for example, etc limited edition is important.
I think there is a few different levels of photography as ‘art’, there is the totally ‘fine-art’ photography where the photographer produces art and photography is the ‘medium’ where the image conveys itself like a painting or watercolour would. Often technically ‘wrong’ images are popular as photographer can get bogged down with making something to perfect. Then there is the landscape and ‘real’ images these are harder to sell as the market is saturated with posters and prints. etc.
It is a fairly new concept in Ireland to see it as true art. And for people to discern between a cheap framed prints and the real quality photographic prints.
In the US framed black and whites and large colour pieces are extremely popular, practically every US tv show that shows an interior of a house has a few b+w prints on the wall. Over here it’s only catching on IMHO.
But my 2 cents on this is that photographers if the plan to sell it as ‘art’ then they should start thinking and creating like artists – common sense? What is selling in your local art gallery? Go in and ask! 9 times out of 10 they’ll tell you what oil/wc/prints/art is popular. Ask yourself “well would I want that on my wall, and not just because I took the picture?”
To answer the question if photography is art you will have to define what “art” is in the first place. In my opinion photography can be devided in two main categories: documentation photography – which is a pure document of a subject and which I would not consider to be art – and fine art photography – which contains a huge amount of interpretation of the subject by the photographer and which I would consider art. Where to draw the line however is difficult.
In many countries photography is considered a valid art form – be it nudes, landscapes or other themes. Just think of Ansel Adams. Ireland however is a step behind although it is slowly getting better. I had some interesting encounters at joined exhibitions and art auctions in the past where photographs ended up in some corner completely ignored but paintings – that were as bad as it can get – were praised by the “art loving” audience.
In one of the messages the word “craft” is being mentioned. Photography is a craft – as is painting, sculpturing and other arts. And only if you master your craft you can create art. Most people however don’t know that this applies to photography as well as to other recocnized art forms. If you haven’t learned how to paint your pictures won’t be good. If you don’t know how to compose, how to properly expose a picture, how to use filters, etc. your photographs won’t be good either.
Also considering the element of accessibility to photography these days.
Most people have a camera. Even before digital, it was as easy as 1-hour photo (ok maybe now have their own printer?) they have their print and the job is done. So perhaps in the mind of joe and jane public the “art” of photography has lost a little of its magic and mystery in the world of “digital”.
This thread leaves me with more questions on the subject than I had to start with ;)
L
carstenkrieger wrote:
In one of the messages the word “craft” is being mentioned. Photography is a craft – as is painting, sculpturing and other arts. And only if you master your craft you can create art. Most people however don’t know that this applies to photography as well as to other recocnized art forms. If you haven’t learned how to paint your pictures won’t be good. If you don’t know how to compose, how to properly expose a picture, how to use filters, etc. your photographs won’t be good either.
Very well put! Interestingly, there is another thread here which seems to put forward the idea that you can have a great image without getting the craft element of the image correct. Whilst I don’t subscribe to that way of thinking, I do believe that it is possible to get a great photograph “by accident”. However, such opportunities are few and far between and if one wants consistently strong images one needs to get to grips with the craft of photography to understand how to apply that craft to produce great images.
LoGill wrote:
Also considering the element of accessibility to photography these days.
Most people have a camera. Even before digital, it was as easy as 1-hour photo (ok maybe now have their own printer?) they have their print and the job is done. So perhaps in the mind of joe and jane public the “art” of photography has lost a little of its magic and mystery in the world of “digital”.
This thread leaves me with more questions on the subject than I had to start with ;)
L
More people have a pencil
gavin wrote:
More people have a pencil
:lol: – true
However most would never write a book (they may talk about it) and they generally don’t have the capacity to produce one at home …
L
I have found that the market for selling framed photographs (not portraits etc.) has certainly fallen over the last few years. Personally I think that the digital age has contributed to this. Generally people do seem to have the opinion that its just a photograph, and therefore no work has gone into it. Sure, you can be lucky and get a great shot with minimum effort, but, you can also visit a location many times, at different times of the day (often ungodly hours) to get the shot you were looking for. I had a number of prints, flush mounted on hardboard, with a textured laminate finish 36*24 inches hanging in a local gallery. If I say so myself, they looked very impressive, and were very reasonably priced. The gallery manager told me that on three occassions there were enquiries re purchasing, but, each time, when they heard that they were photographs, they were not so keen. I didn’t sell one, but my family were delighted as they got some great christmas presents that year !! I think that photographers with a bit of knowledge, from amateur right up to the top pros can appreciate a photograph as a piece of art, but the general public have a bit of catching up to do.
Rgds
Kevin
Getting back to one of your original questions, “do the Irish appreciate art”. I can give my viewpoint here as someone who sells his photos online of both Great Britain and Ireland.
Despite the fact that my Irish portfolio is more extensive and better quality, it is my Scottish and Welsh photography that sells in greater number. I would argue that the Irish don’t really appreciate their landscape in the same way and would usually never think of hanging pictures of it up on their wall. Perhaps it’s because they are so close to it everyday of their lives and take it for granted somewhat.
After all, why put something up on the wall that you can see from your own window?
An English photographer friend of mine explained to me how he thought the Irish were “philistines” because he couldn’t sell them landscape images. I suspect that he was making excuses for his own poor photography but in some ways I think that there is an element of truth in what he said regarding landscape. However the Irish contribution to music, literature and other traditional arts is obviously significant and would refute his general theory.
Andy
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
