Age???

What on earth does the photographers age have to do with the requirement for images for a Gallery???

Ageism !

Good to see that the BJP is supporting and ageist project !

Ageism?

I think you'll find the gallery were talking about the age group of their target clients not the photographers age if you read it properly. Sounds like a good idea to me.

What REALLY puzzles me...

I think you'll find that it's the potential customers whose ages the gallery have aimed at, not the photographers (well, at least, I hope so...)

I'm a bit more concerned at how far you have to go to find this - according to the website, Chris Beetles' aim is to help potential buyers "circumnavigate" the conventional art world.

In what? A yacht?

(I suspect he meant "circumvent". If he doesn't want my pictures, perhaps I can sell him my proofreading service.)

yachts etc

Yes, the age 30-45 is the customers, not the photographers. The earlier version had a few errors that were swiftly corrected!

I did, however, mean circumnavigate. Athough the term literally means to physically 'go round' something on your way to somewhere, perhaps in a boat, I was using it as a metaphor here. Circumvent is a boring word in comparison. We are not aiming the website solely at yacht owners - I need to make that absoutely clear.

I would also like to make it equally clear, however, that we are neither are we discriminating against yacht owners. They would be welcome. particularly welcome, in fact.

Nor are we discriminating against those under 30 or over 45. We're terribly happy for anyone to buy our prints.

Really?

Absolute trash article. Come one BJP you're supposed to be journalists - the clue is in the title of your publication!

The text in this piece is appearing in a number of magazines on the web. Very poor cut n paste job!

correction

This article seems to have maddened a lot of people.

There was a change in the copy just after this was published that may have confused you at the start. Obviously the age range is the customers, not the photographers. We welcome photographers of any age.

However, I did mean circumnavigate. Circumvent is a boring word, and sounds like a sort of chimney. Circumnavigate is a metaphor, and so I didn't intent it to be nautical (it doesn't have to be). We are categorically NOT appealing only to yacht owners. However, neither are we discriminating against them. I need to make it VERY clear that yacht owners are very welcome too. Particularly welcome, in fact.

I hope this clears up all the issues.

Also, I thought this was a nice article, is it really out there on the web? I can't find it, and it's my business! Would appreciate being shown where...

Giles

Doesn't tell the full story

Diane,

I don't think you have the full story. Firstly I don't recognise 'Chris Beetles Fine Photographs' as the 'best-established' photography gallery, this venture is a new start up trading on the reputation of 'CB Fine Art' - Photodemocracy.com is a spin off from 'Chris Beetles Fine Photographs' and is a virtual gallery! We are not talking Michael Hoppen, Atlas, Hamilton's, Eric Franck nor The Photographers Gallery etc etc

This is no more then a publishing company comparable to 55max.com or Ikea and I fear it will do for Fine Art Photography what royalty free stock did for the Stock market. I'd also be interested to know how Giles plans to deal with photographers who are already represented by other galleries or have their own online web sales or what he intends to do if the images he's offered have already appeared in different edition sizes or in open editions for that matter.

Also what your article doesn't note is that £40 is the lower limit for a print and even at £300 split 50:50 ex cost it will cost more to frame the photograph then the photographer will get, which has always signals alarm bells in my world.

I welcome and encourage Chris Beetles Fine Photographs even if they do offer new print runs of old masters but they have a duty to promote photography as a Fine Art not exploit contemporary photographers hungry for recognition and a bit of attention.

I could go on, but maybe you'll consider doing a in-dept piece of the future of photography as a fine art or how about the transition between 'Day rate' photographers to 'Artists' which seems to be another growth area. Last week at London Art Fair I saw an interesting example where an award winning advertising photographer come weekend artist with no fine art pedigree is offering a set of 5 photographs all taken at the same time in editions of 30 with a gross value in excess of £170,000 GBP giving him effectively a day rate in the region of £60,000 compared to his advertising rate of £5,000 max!

There has to be a happy medium without making a fool out of the photographer on one hand or the collector on the other.

Regards

The ghost of Edward Steichen

on whose terms?

I am very much infavour of anyone who wants to sell my photographs, but I would not submit images to a website of complete unknowns to whom I am, also, a complete unknown. I would expect to be searched out, found, recognized as having what sells and to receive an offer in the post along with an invite or two, or even better , the offer to visit me, see my work etc....

The reason for this last is obvious- I keep hold of it and show it but THEY do not get my negs or files at a useable resolution until they have paid me their full worth.

If this sounds stupid, it is, but then it is even more stupid to allow a bunch of strangers to control your work, how it is printed , how it is marketed, and how it is sold unless they pay at least the cost of a single gersky print upfront, merely as a guarantee of their integrity,
because otherwise what- you are no longer either the possessor or author of your work, which can be sent around the world in an instant and printed however and wherever forever-might as well just stick hi res files on Flickr and ask for a contribution.

Or get the BJ to publish a few of your snaps, and pray.

THE WAY IT'LL WORK

Dear Mr Steichen,

Firstly, I suggest that you actually pop into the gallery to have a look at what we're doing here - currently we have an exquisite show of Arnold Newman prints, mostly vintage, which I believe is an excellent exhibition. Whilst we are the new kid on the block compared to other London establishments, it doesn't make us inferior. We publish a highly researched and academic catalogue for each show (no one else does), and offer a huge range of different print types - from 19th century prints by Peter Henry Emerson, via 1980s Penn master prints to modern prints by Bruce Davidson. You seem to be suggesting that we only sell modern prints - you couldn't be more wrong.

re Photo Democracy, you make out that I am setting out to rip everybody off, which I resent, and is the only reason I am responding to your comments. Clearly this would not be a good way to go about starting a business. The sad truth about the contemporary Fine Art Photography business is that it completely controlled by a few people/galleries, and the market is therefore relatively tiny. The vast majority of good photographers haven't got a chance of getting near it because there simply isn't enough room for them. In addition, because prices are kept high, the vast majority of enthusiasts can't afford it. PD simply addresses this issue and opens the market up to collectors that don't have vast resources. I can't see the problem with that.

We will only sell images that haven't been previously editioned, many of which will have been taken specifically for the site, and no photographer will be forced into selling their work with us (you seem to suggest that a whole generation of photographers will be enslaved in my evil empire, for which i'm slightly flattered, actually!).

Whilst you purport to write in defense of photographers, you actually do them an injustice, painting a picture of them as a bunch of stupid, money grabbing, fame obsessed dupes. You clearly do not have much respect for the trade. From the huge number of wonderful submissions i've received already, it seems that the photographers out there think that this is a good idea. They also all seem very happy with the financial reward proposed - no less or more than they'd get at Gagosian, White Cube, Hamiltons or any other gallery that shows contemporary photography. I'm not sure that they're hungry for recognition and attention, simply keen to get their work onto people walls and make some money in the process. I can't see the problem with that, especially in a world where the art market offers little alternative.

I had a great meeting with quite a respected photographer yesterday who thought it was a fantastic idea - because it just gets more photographs out there.

I very much doubt that PD will destroy the high end (expensive) photography market that you hold so dear, but it might just offer a viable alternative to the tens of thousands of people out there who can't get near it. I think that is a VERY good thing.