By way of introduction, I am an abstract fine art photographer, originally from Russia. I call my photographs, especially black and white ones, "photographic paintings", because this is how they appear to me and to many other people, both because of the creation process and the final look. One would think that this is a big plus, but I have discovered that this "in-between" quality is in the way of me promoting my work, because collectors of photography choose photography for its direct purpose, i.e. that of reflecting reality, rather than creating a "painting" in the form of a photograph; while collectors of "fine art" will not turn to the medium of photography, even though they might like the image. So, where does my work belong? In a fine art gallery or in a photographic gallery, or maybe some place else that I have not thought of? I would like to know what you think - visit me at http://www.Palnitska.com . Looking forward to hearing from you ! Sincerely, Tatiana

-- Tatiana Palnitska (Tatiana@Palnitska.com), July 29, 1998

Answers

Ah, the age-old debate between painting and photography. Which are these? I don't care, but I love them; the B&Ws are truly wonderful. You are bookmarked for a closer look later.

Looking at your profile, you have been around a bit, with a number of exhibitions etc. If you were aiming at a "mass" market, I would suggest investigating local shops, especially bookshops; cafes, restaurants; libraries. Have you thought about having posters made? Talk to poster publishers; I think these would sell well.

The market, here in the UK, is pretty bad for photographs, and not much better for paintings. However, you might be able to interest one of the larger (up-market, expensive) London galleries.

At these prices, I doubt that they would sell directly from the Web, although they do come across well on my laptop.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), July 29, 1998.

"Sticker shock" is a phrase which leaps to my mind.

I've found it interesting that prices for "archival" photos range from the low end (James F. Danis), middle (David Cirese), to Tatiana's price range and beyond. (Of course, Tatiana's come in a frame, and I have been told that makes for a significant part of the price). The range of prices doesn't seem unusual one way or the other, there's just no rhyme or reason to art pricing. I worked at one company which had a deal with a local art gallery for wall art. Every week or so the gallery would change the art on the walls. The art was marked with the artist's name, and ... the price.

Some of Tatiana's photos I wouldn't mind on the wall. Of course for me, I am loathe to shell out even $90 and take advantage of James Danis' three-for-two offer. (Must be my Scotch heritage) Somehow, I think that what makes "fine art" is, for a large part, the price of the piece. Is Ansel Adams' stuff fine art? I dunno. All I know is that I'll spend $25 for a calendar, but I won't spend $150 for a special edition print.

Tatiana, your web sales would probably be better if some of the fine art galleries had a link to your site. You some lovely scans of your prints. See if you can find out where your target customers web surf, and buy a little advertising in that area. Best of luck to you.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), July 29, 1998.

I hardly find the prices "sticker shock" but I would agree that at those prices, they will sell far better in a gallery setting than on the internet.

Regarding where to sell Tatiana's work, I agree with an earlier poster that cafes, restaurants, etc. are good places to try. I purchased a photograph that I saw in a restaurant last year. I now have photos hanging in a medical facility that runs fine art exhibits and art regularly sells in that setting, so there are a wide variety of venues.

Here in the US, the higher end gallery scene is very difficult to crack because it seems to have far more to do with the politics of the "in-crowd" than with art.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), July 30, 1998.

you say that photography is choosen for it "direct purpose" which is to "reflect reality", and you state your choices as putting your work in a "fine art" or "Photographic" gallery. Your choice of words tells me that you don't see photography as being capable of being art ( at least as art that can stand on its own without trying to be a painting), nor do you seem to see a photography gallery as "fine art",perhaps the problem stems from your own predjudices against photography in general.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves @msn.com), November 03, 1998.

Per Mark's response: how can I be possibly "prejudiced against photography in general" if I choose to devote my full time and effort to it?! It sounds as if you were offended for some reason by my question, and I don't see why. The reason why I do what I do and the way I do it is because that's the way I like it, that's what makes me excited about the creative process, that's what makes me feel satisfied with my work - and not because I am trying to create something that will not look like a photograph. It is not my fault that I do not get excited about photographs (or paintings, or anything else for that matter) of, say, landscapes - that is not to imply that I cannot appreciate a really good one, or never take such photographs myself. To feel fulfilled as an artist, I need something more than just a depiction of the scene - it is as simple as that. But (and this is what I was trying to convey in my question) as a result, I have difficulty "placing" my work, because what happens is that photography galleries tell me that they will have a hard time finding buyers for this work, and I am better off in an art gallery with my work than in a photography gallery (and as proof, the galleries that chose to represent me are fine art galleries, not photography galleries). So, if anybody is to blame for it, it is the "consumer" (i.e. collector) and the vehicle that leads to it (galleries, etc.)

-- Tatiana Palnitska (Tatiana@Palnitska.com), November 03, 1998.

sorry, its been awhile since I have been in here.

again, in your last statement you show misguided opinions of photography---

"To feel fulfilled as an artist, I need something more than just a depiction of the scene "

this is one of the biggest fallicies of photography, especially black and white. I too do not want to simply record what is before me, none of my images look anything like the original scene, if you were to stand in front of it you would not recognize it! The term,"a photograph never lies has always been a lie in and of itself.

Perhaps you should explore more what photography is capable of .

mark

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), January 12, 1999.

Don't worry about being accepted in "photography galleries" just go for Art Galleries that are accepting of your work. The perception of photography's "nature" is changing rapidly and if you "stay the course" you'll be percieved as one who is exceptional, in the literal sense of the word and this will be an asset, not a liability. There is plenty of precedent for this blending of painting and photography, Rauschenberg comes to mind, right off.

I'm actually surprised you came here looking for advice. You seem to be doing pretty well...I'm also not surprised you haven't been back...t

-- tom meyer (twm@meteor.com), March 20, 1999.