Profit from Passion?
"A Ferengi without profit is no Ferengi at all."
Quark, Deep Space Nine, 1997.
Rich has officially given up the idea of ever making any decent money out of nude photography. And by “decent” I mean at least breaking even. With the onset of a major recession, few collectors will have the spare cash to buy prints, and the private portfolio market has dried up too. Yes he still continues to be published here and there but he doesn’t get paid for it. Of course being featured elsewhere on the net or in varying printed works is always a nice ego boost but it usually doesn’t result in financial recompense.
Magazines, blogs and web sites are invariably working on a negative budget so however much they’d like to, there’s no way they can pay the original artist. Indeed if those talented original artists did demand a significant payment then they’d never be published at all. Nowadays there are so many other digital photographers who are dying to show their work for free just for the kudos factor, why do magazines need to pay when it’s easier to pander to the millions of free wannabes out there?
In the modern digital age, being published is more about ego stroking than money. However mere kudos doesn’t feed your family. Those who are full-time photographic artists will find it nigh on impossible to make any money out of shooting nudes. This is not because they’re bad photographers, far from it, but I would argue that the freelance nude photography market is now pretty much dead, if indeed it was ever alive to start with. Thanks to cheap digital technology, so many folks now do it that the market is saturated, and unfortunately there is only a limited market for selling pictures of naked women to both the general public and to magazines.
If you want to make money from your work then the main thing to ask yourself is “If I were a mainstream magazine editor or gallery owner, would I publish or exhibit these pictures?” If you’re totally honest with yourself, then the answer would mostly be no. Nudes have limited saleability because they usually don’t fit into the editorial policy of various magazines, and most galleries avoid exhibiting nudes because in this overly moralistic modern age, the public often object. Regarding private collectors, the sale possibilities are significantly reduced because it’s difficult to hang nude photos on your wall without the wife getting pretty pissed, oh and BTW, did I mention the recession? As for photographic grants from arts agencies and the like, forget it. You’ll never get sponsorship for shooting nekkid chix. You’re a social outcast for heaven’s sake.
IMHO, no matter how good your photography is, if you primarily shoot nudes as your main discipline, you are highly unlikely to ever make it as a world class master of any type of photography because your reputation will have been permanently tarnished. Yes, I realise that this is a highly controversial thing to say, but the art world is not what it once was. Cheap modern technology and the internet have seen to that, not to mention the new wave of politically correct morality that appears to be sweeping the western world. Would the photographic greats (e.g. Newton, Mapplethorpe, Weston) have achieved fortune and glory nowadays? I seriously doubt it. No matter how good a photographer is, no matter how unique his style (and make no mistake there are those on our blog roll on the right there who are very, very good) then the only chance they would have of “making it” is to abandon the controversial naked stuff, delete it from their ports, and shoot pure fashion and portraits instead, and even then it’s doubtful if they could pay the bills unless they have humungous budgets to support their shoots. Would Mert and Marcus be so successful if they primarily shot nudes? (Yes I know they do feature nude work, but that’s only because they are now so worshipped in the advertising industry and fashion world that they have a certain latitude to experiment with nekkid celebs, who are bound to sell magazines precisely because they’re famous.)
I guess what I’m saying is that a successful career in art isn’t about raw talent or passion. It’s about who you know, how well you network your contacts, whether or not you obsess about selling yourself (forget your work, I’m sure it’s excellent, but really you need to be Mr Schmooze or you stand no hope) and whether or not you are prepared to do what you need to do in order to achieve both photographic glory and most importantly, MONEY.
There is no merit in starving to death or not having enough dosh to pay your bills or buy more paper to print your pictures. You may only want to concentrate on photographing nudes but you can’t let this one style govern your work exclusively unless you’re a dilettante and make your main living elsewhere. It’s all very well if nude photography is your life’s guiding force (join the other millions of digital photographers out there) but nude art photography has now become so commonplace and so associated with tacky porn that its reputation has been seriously degraded. Even if you are as good as Newton (and frankly, many of you are) you are unlikely to find your work supports you financially in this modern internet age. So unless you are prepared to shoot to order, be friends with the right people and produce the type of images that your buddy clients want to purchase (even if that means moving genres) then frankly my dear, you’re not worth a damn.
Passion for nudes doesn’t pay. Adapt or starve. It’s your choice.
Images are of Pirate Maiden
Quark, Deep Space Nine, 1997.
Rich has officially given up the idea of ever making any decent money out of nude photography. And by “decent” I mean at least breaking even. With the onset of a major recession, few collectors will have the spare cash to buy prints, and the private portfolio market has dried up too. Yes he still continues to be published here and there but he doesn’t get paid for it. Of course being featured elsewhere on the net or in varying printed works is always a nice ego boost but it usually doesn’t result in financial recompense.
Magazines, blogs and web sites are invariably working on a negative budget so however much they’d like to, there’s no way they can pay the original artist. Indeed if those talented original artists did demand a significant payment then they’d never be published at all. Nowadays there are so many other digital photographers who are dying to show their work for free just for the kudos factor, why do magazines need to pay when it’s easier to pander to the millions of free wannabes out there?
In the modern digital age, being published is more about ego stroking than money. However mere kudos doesn’t feed your family. Those who are full-time photographic artists will find it nigh on impossible to make any money out of shooting nudes. This is not because they’re bad photographers, far from it, but I would argue that the freelance nude photography market is now pretty much dead, if indeed it was ever alive to start with. Thanks to cheap digital technology, so many folks now do it that the market is saturated, and unfortunately there is only a limited market for selling pictures of naked women to both the general public and to magazines.
If you want to make money from your work then the main thing to ask yourself is “If I were a mainstream magazine editor or gallery owner, would I publish or exhibit these pictures?” If you’re totally honest with yourself, then the answer would mostly be no. Nudes have limited saleability because they usually don’t fit into the editorial policy of various magazines, and most galleries avoid exhibiting nudes because in this overly moralistic modern age, the public often object. Regarding private collectors, the sale possibilities are significantly reduced because it’s difficult to hang nude photos on your wall without the wife getting pretty pissed, oh and BTW, did I mention the recession? As for photographic grants from arts agencies and the like, forget it. You’ll never get sponsorship for shooting nekkid chix. You’re a social outcast for heaven’s sake.
IMHO, no matter how good your photography is, if you primarily shoot nudes as your main discipline, you are highly unlikely to ever make it as a world class master of any type of photography because your reputation will have been permanently tarnished. Yes, I realise that this is a highly controversial thing to say, but the art world is not what it once was. Cheap modern technology and the internet have seen to that, not to mention the new wave of politically correct morality that appears to be sweeping the western world. Would the photographic greats (e.g. Newton, Mapplethorpe, Weston) have achieved fortune and glory nowadays? I seriously doubt it. No matter how good a photographer is, no matter how unique his style (and make no mistake there are those on our blog roll on the right there who are very, very good) then the only chance they would have of “making it” is to abandon the controversial naked stuff, delete it from their ports, and shoot pure fashion and portraits instead, and even then it’s doubtful if they could pay the bills unless they have humungous budgets to support their shoots. Would Mert and Marcus be so successful if they primarily shot nudes? (Yes I know they do feature nude work, but that’s only because they are now so worshipped in the advertising industry and fashion world that they have a certain latitude to experiment with nekkid celebs, who are bound to sell magazines precisely because they’re famous.)
I guess what I’m saying is that a successful career in art isn’t about raw talent or passion. It’s about who you know, how well you network your contacts, whether or not you obsess about selling yourself (forget your work, I’m sure it’s excellent, but really you need to be Mr Schmooze or you stand no hope) and whether or not you are prepared to do what you need to do in order to achieve both photographic glory and most importantly, MONEY.
There is no merit in starving to death or not having enough dosh to pay your bills or buy more paper to print your pictures. You may only want to concentrate on photographing nudes but you can’t let this one style govern your work exclusively unless you’re a dilettante and make your main living elsewhere. It’s all very well if nude photography is your life’s guiding force (join the other millions of digital photographers out there) but nude art photography has now become so commonplace and so associated with tacky porn that its reputation has been seriously degraded. Even if you are as good as Newton (and frankly, many of you are) you are unlikely to find your work supports you financially in this modern internet age. So unless you are prepared to shoot to order, be friends with the right people and produce the type of images that your buddy clients want to purchase (even if that means moving genres) then frankly my dear, you’re not worth a damn.
Passion for nudes doesn’t pay. Adapt or starve. It’s your choice.
Images are of Pirate Maiden
Labels: money, Pirate Maiden, purist
posted by Lin at 12:49 PM
12 Comments:
Sounds like a parody skit.
I disagree with just about everything you have said here.
If you are an artist, it is not about money in the first place, it's about creating art.
The trouble come in with artists when they want to market themselves. They don't have a clue how to go about that, and they don't want to. They just want to create.
I am one of those who only sells prints through galleries.
This year I will have paid for a new camera, two lenses, taken several expensive photo trips and shelled out tons of money for model fees, and I will end the year with a nice profit.
But 90% of the work is not in the photography, it is in marketing the photography. Selling myself and my work to galleries.
I do not know how the economy will effect this coming year sales. I assume it will be down some, so I may have to look at other avenues for my work to supplement the decline.
Lin, your stance here sounds like people talking about this election. You have chosen a side and are using statements to defend your choice and statements to knock down the opposition.
If an artist wants to make real money, they shove all their art tools in a box, put it in the garage and go out and apply for jobs.
Oh, great, just what I needed to wake up to this Sunday morning.
As usual, you've written to the point and well. I consider it a great irony that porn merchants can be pulling down billions while I can't sell an artistic nude more than once in a blue moon.
Oh, well, we soldier on.
Sorry Stephen. Maybe I should have saved this one for Tuesday, huh? See Dave's comment for a more balanced perspective. As with all my posts, it goes without saying that I could be wrong. In fact, I often am.
Dave, I was hoping you would say that. Yes, I was playing Devil's Advocate, hence the part-parody, and you are the obvious exception to the rule. In fact, you are one of only two exceptions to the rule that I know of, from a very large sample size. I suspect this is because your marketing approach is unique, tailored, and more flexible than most.
Regarding the money aspect, again you're quite right, it goes without saying that art is more important than profit (this is the topic of later post, I thought I'd post the gloomy stuff then cheer you up next week!) However, please remember that I am part Ferengi.
What you say is true for the whole photographic community in part. With the advent of digital everyone has that person who in charge of getting the images they need, call him Joe the photographer. But the quality is not there either in the print (to use a archaic term) or in the subject’s quality. Now anyone can go out and get a decently expose image but only the artist have the eye and practice to look beyond the mundane. What Dave says is true the artist will find a market for their work, it’s a niche market but it's there. It’s marketing that triumph and gets you where you need to be. To become a successful artist (successful anything really) you need to market to your strengths and by trial and error tailor yourself to that market and by all means possible be as flexible to succeed. As Randy Pausch say’s the brick wall’s are not there to keep us out but to prove to us how much we want in.
Just call me a dilettante. I do the photos I do because I must, not because I expect them to produce an income. I often joke that I'm working to make my grandchildren rich when I've been dead for 50 years and a mythological art history grad student will do her thesis on my work and make me famous and my photos valuable.
It doesn't really matter. I could as easily stop shooting what I shoot as I could stop breathing...and with luck those two events will coincide.
Lin, what you say is true for models as well. We are a dime a dozen, and I always wonder why I do this when I am lucky to break even. I don't like paid shoots. I like to be an equal in the creative process, and that is why I do this. Because I like to create.
It is also true that, with the economy as it is, I have had to cut back on shoots that take me out of town. But when I do go, it is to do more than shoot pictures. It's to be with wonderful, like-minded friends I have met because I am a fine arts nude model.
As long as I enjoy this and can afford it, I will do it, with no expectation of fame and fortune.
Lin, this is nothing new. A quick squint at art history will show you that for pretty much the whole of recorded time, 'art for art' sake has been the dream of the permanently poor, stuck in a garret, dreamer. The great artists of history have always had to take commissions most of the time in order to eat, whiled trying out some developmental work on the side. Most of the surviving great art, until perhaps only the past century, has come from commissions. In terms of "great" and "surviving" art, perhaps the exception to that would be the impressionist painters, but then, heck they were mostly starving in their own lifetimes.
Furthermore, the advent of cheap, high quality printing, since the 1950s has made possible that the reproduction of works of art no longer bears any relationship to the amount of effort put into creating them. Thus the public's access to art has shot up, while the cost of being able to put something pretty on your wall has plummeted. It's the same for any form of 'craft' that can be mass produced. Ease of access devalues the item accessed in the public perception, whether that be art, or sanitation or energy. And when access to paying your mortgage becomes a problem, being inspired by an image will always fall off the radar - it's Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" again.
So I'd never be hard on anyone taking portrait or fashion commissions - these can be just as artistic as any other subject, if done well. If anything, having predefined 'goal posts' to work within can hone and focus the mind. Personally, I prefer working this way. I sometimes do posters for a friend who runs a small theatre company. We have a deal whereby she sets the parameters of what is to be communicated and I then do what I like within those limits. Working to some boundaries means I get the job done and produce something, whereas if I didn't have those constraints, I'd be going round in circles for ages trying to find a focus.
I'm never hard on those shooting fashion/portrait/landscape/advertising work, Mr G. The more, the better. I think they are fabulous art-forms. Besides, whatever brings in the pennies, you know?
I do feel that concentrating entirely on nudes is a bad career move in the current market, however. Adaptation, flexibility and self-marketing are essential.
My point was that if nude photography is your main discipline, then this can count against you in the "commercial viability" stakes. I see so much prejudice out there from the media who look down on those who photograph nudes (or write about them.) Nudes often count against you if you are trying to make photography your living, because you are "labelled." Sad, but true.
(Mr Swanson is the exception to the rule. I'm glad. there should always be exceptions, especially if they prove me wrong.)
Great post...and good points. Yep..there is very little $$ in this littel genre' we dabble in. So why do it?...simple..because we can. I have said a gazillion times..that its about creating for self and thats it (Shadowscapestudio is dead on!!). But..in saying that...one can make a few $$ here and there selling our work. Just about my entire collection of Photographic Art was bought with $$ that I earned selling my photos.
I just spent a small fortune printing and shipping 27 prints to my show in Zurich at the Museum of Porn in Art (in addition to about 50 more that will be displayed on a monitor..all for sale).
Worse time in my life to try to sell art with the economy as it is..but you know what?...life is NOT a dress rehearsal....its the real show!!!
Enjoy what we do with our photographic art....the enjoyment is the real payoff.
bt
With the way that the economy is, models aren't making what they used to. We are being flaked on left and right.. people who say they want to hire us later decide well.. they just don't have the money. Models who have been doing this for years are lowering their rates to less than what they made when they first started out.
That being said.. I make enough to get by, and I would rather do something I love than make a ton of money doing something that keeps me miserable. I would not trade my profession for the world.
I must admit that the truth often hurts to hear but everything you said was true...and hurt!
It actually motivated me to get off my a$$ and start my own blog. Your article is quoted and linked along with my response.
I LOVE your writing and the photography. Thank you for your art and your truth.
Bob
www.studiomarcotte.com
Thanks Bob! That was a great response on your blog too. Love the maternity shot! Now all I have to do is get a Wordpress account :-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home