If you're creatively talented and you dream of turning your passion into a lucrative career full of fame and riches, you might want to give photography a rather wide berth, because it's underpaid and, well, quite looked down upon.
They might seem like like rather harsh, discouraging words, but I've come across several things in this last week that have reaffirmed my belief that, unfortunately, photographers and the creative art form of photography are pretty much smack bang at the bottom of the totem pole. The first was news from my hometown of Sydney that one beach-side council in the north of the city plans to adorn a new 36 kilometer public coastal walkway with two million dollars worth of art. Up to 30 artworks will be displayed to add to what is already an amazing stretch of land, and each piece is estimated to cost between $150,000 to $200,000. The problem for us photographers? The mayor of the council says that indigenous artworks (paintings) and sculptures will be used. Not a mention of photography. And $150,000 to $200,000? Wow, great work if you can get it, huh? It should also be noted that along other gorgeous walkways across Sydney's coastal stretch, sculptures, and indigenous artworks are already commonplace. Photography? Er, no.
Commemorating Famous People
The talk of beautifying and memorializing Sydney's coastal walkways with expensive statues then got me thinking about how famous people are celebrated and remembered. As a sports lover, I started to ponder different stadiums I've been to across the world, and it dawned on me that, yet again, it's typically statues that are used to create an eternal memory of a particularly special sports star. At the United Center in Chicago, you have "The Spirit" statue of Michael Jordan, as seen below.
In London, at Arsenal's Emirates Stadium, there's a statue of the all-time leading goalscorer, Thierry Henry, outside the ground in his iconic knee-slide pose. And outside Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, in Australia, you have a statue of the might King Wally Lewis, arguably Queensland's greatest ever rugby league player.
Indeed, across the world, you can find statues of sporting heroes outside many stadiums, all of which cost a pretty penny to create, install, and maintain. But what about photography? Does it have its place alongside these statues inside the famed walls of huge, globally recognized stadiums? For the most part, that would be a no.
The Price of Art
The second thing that caught my attention this week and got me thinking about how undervalued photography is was the news that James Stunt has just been declared bankrupt, despite trying to repay massive, spiraling debts by selling off his art. Stunt is the ex-husband of Petra Ecclestone, who is the daughter of billionaire Bernie Ecclestone, the former owner and overlord of Formula 1 car racing. What was interesting in all of this was that Stunt was trying to stave off bankruptcy by flogging off his most expensive artworks. These included a $2.5 million painting by Monet, a $2 million painting by Marc Chagall, and two paintings by Camile Pisarro, valued at $500,000 each. Painting, painting, painting, painting. Photography? Er, no mention of that.
So, this got me thinking about the price of different forms of art and how photography rates among them. Sadly, it doesn't make very pretty or lucrative reading. If we look at the most expensive paintings ever sold (at auction or privately) the prices are rather eye-watering, to say the least. The most expensive painting ever sold is Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvatore Mundi," which went for $450 million in 2017. Next on the list is William de Kooning's "Interchange," which sold for a nice, even $300 million. Even if we go way down to number 25 on the list, it's a Picasso that comes in at $106 million.
What about sculptures? Well, the most expensive sculpture ever sold is Alberto Giacometti's "L’Homme au doight," which was bought for a nice $141 million. At number 10 on the list is Henri Matisse's "Nu de dos, 4 état," which was snapped for $48.8 million.
The Value of Photography
So, where does photography fit in and how do its sales prices compare with these astronomical figures? Sadly, but perhaps somewhat expectedly, they pale in comparison. The most expensive photograph sold to date is Peter Lik's "Phantom," which went for $6.5 million in 2014. Down at number seven is Andreas Gursky's "99 Cent II Diptychon," which sold for almost half that of Lik's at $3.35 million.
So just to recap, the most expensive painting ever sold went for $450 million, and the most expensive sculpture cost $141 million. The most expensive photo was bought for $6.5 million. So, the most expensive photograph sold in history was 69 times less than the most expensive painting and 21 times less expensive than the most expensive sculpture. That's staggering to me, but I guess it lends considerable weight to the notion that photography and photographers are grossly undervalued.
Ansel Adams Versus Others
What I also found interesting was the price of Ansel Adams' most expensive work. Considered by many to be the father or champion of modern photography and quoted by people ad-nauseam when asked who inspires them, you'd think such an illustrious figure would have some pretty expensive sales under his belt. You'd be wrong. The most expensive print ever sold by Adams went at a Sotheby's auction for $722,000. Think about that for a moment. We're talking about quite arguably the greatest, most influential photographer in history here. Yet his most expensive photograph sold for less than a million dollars.
Compare that with some other famous artists.
- Leonardo da Vinci: $450 million
- Alberto Giacometti: $161 million
- Rembrandt: $180 million
- Picasso: $179 million
- Dali: $5.6 million
- Ansel Adams: $722,000
It's a rather stunning sight isn't it?
Photography Undervalued Today
If you work in the photography industry, these prices at the high end of the scale might surprise you or perhaps not. Even today, photographers are continually being chronically and embarrassingly undervalued. We've all had experiences where companies or potential clients try to lowball us with ridiculous offers in return for "exposure." It even happens with print magazines or other forms of media wanting free access to our photos and in return offer "lots of free eyes on your work."
Do you think this happens to sculptors? Or other creative artists in different genres? The fact that the Sydney council I referred to earlier has allocated up to $2 million (AUD) to fund the coastal walks and estimated each piece to cost in the vicinity of $150,000-200,000 would suggest not. So, why do photographers and people working in the photography industry continually get overlooked, undervalued, and underpaid? And as the record sales of artists in different genres show, it's from top to bottom.
As I said at the beginning, if you're looking for fame and riches from a creative pursuit, it might behoove you to look somewhere other than photography. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments below.
Images courtesy of Pixabay users Chronomarchie, Skitterphoto, and TPHeinz.
All art is generally low paid and earns little respect. Look at painters, unless you have a magic mouth and great knee pads you won’t be getting into any established galleries.
Yes and no. As I tried to point out with evidence here, art in the form of paintings and sculptures can be very handsomely paid. I used the top end of town as well Sydney council plans to show this. But from top to bottom, it seems photographers/photography is consistently underpaid and, arguably, undervalued.
Of course, “the struggling artist” is a well-used phrase but do photographers struggle more than other strugglers....?
It's rarely the artist that is "getting paid" for the art, but mostly dealers and collectors in the secondary market who essentially use it as a tool to launder money.
I don't know well enough the ins and outs of the art world dealings but you'd have to imagine that the artist would get some of the proceeds, however filtered down. And if you're talking about a $100 million sale, that'd be nothing to scoff at.
You would think that because it would be completely logical. You would also be wrong because the fine art world is anything BUT logical.
Any piece of art is only as valuable as someone is willing to pay for it.
Absolutely, which arguably lends weight to the idea that photography/photographers is/are undervalued and underpaid. Why are people/foundations willing to pay $450 million for a painting, or $160 million for a sculpture, but nowhere near that for a photograph?
Yes sir...correct. There are more than a plethora of photographers world-wide with high-tech cameras in their hands making and/or creating/manipulating eye pleasing images. But works like DaVinci, Van Gough, etc are pieces of art unique due to the extreme talent, passion, etc from their hands and hearts. Such talent, in combination with them being long absent from this planet, has increased their value exponentially. In photography, todays works can be made and imitated as the same via computer manipulation and the such. How, if ever, will photography come to see people the likes of Adams, Cartier-Bresson and many others in these times? I believe what will be seen now is just more images being doctored in ways to grab peoples eye and to hell with purity. But...I've been wrong before.
yes that much is definitely true - photography is becoming more and more a "digital artform". We could go back and forth forever with equally compelling, valid viewpoints and probably cross over along the way......
Painting is an artform created and expressed through the hands - via tools such as paintbrushes and various types of paint. Photography is also created and expressed through the hands - via a machine that one might argue is more difficult to master than a paintbrush (for argument's sake). Whether one or the other is created more out of love is open to debate and I daresay some of Dali's or Picasso's pieces were created in a state of mind far from the realms of "love"....:)
It could be an endless, and interesting discussion but the fact remains that on the scale of pure remuneration, photography is not exactly at the top of the pecking order.
It certainly isn't at the top of the pecking order. I wouldn't call working with digital - "digital artform" either. Using a computer to 'create' something is a far cry from using ones' hands...guided by their heart and soul....to express a masterpiece. Anyone can learn to use a computer and, given time, can become quite proficient at it. I, on the other hand, can only draw stick figures whereas my grandmother was a skilled artist. It's like painting with oils compared to painting by numbers.
If you saw more photographers burn their negatives (or somehow shred their RAW file in a verifiable manner) after making a single print, I would imagine that you'd see similar valuations.
I don't think that many photographers practice this even in the fine arts, but I do think that they should as doing so would give anyone purchasing your work assurance of the scarcity of what they are spending their money on. Obviously, this is easier done with negatives (in terms of proof to the buyer) than a digital file, but barring the destruction of the RAW file or negative, one could argue that the art object should actually be the RAW file or negative rather than the print since the print is simply a reproduction from the RAW file or negative.
classic case of chicken and egg though isn't it? You'd have to be big enough and famous enough for anyone to even care that you were destroying your RAW files etc....
True, but it's no different from you having to be big enough for someone to care that you're painting whatever subject. The main difference between photography and other arts such as painting or sculpture is that the medium itself is designed around reproduction whereas any painting or sculpture is a unique object. Destroying your negative or RAW file after creating a one-off print would create the same level of scarcity (there's only one physical art object in the world) as a painting or sculpture, but in all cases, someone would have to care enough about you as an artist to attribute any value to your work.
It certainly *can* be art.
Broadly, if you create a print, which is intended to be hung or displayed, then you have made art. Someone with a better art education than I would probably also talk about intentionality and pre-visualisation.
But then you have photographers who deride creating prints--and they appear now to be the majority of serious photographers. You have photographers who dispute that it's an art. You have photographers who refuse to put their own names on their work. Why should anyone else respect photography as an art when photographers don't?
Are they representative of the artform of photography though? I don't dispute in any way what you say, but surely such people are a massive minority...? Point taken though
I think they are currently the majority.
The majority of serious photographers deride creating prints?
Does daVinci represent all artists and the universe of art? And yet, you didn't address my point.
And people who treat it as such (a trade like carpentry) are usually way more successful. For example, School photographers generally make way more money than a wedding or portraits photographer.
Not in the US
I am surprised. I only met two professional school photographers from the US, one from Florida and the other from the Chicago area. Both used to do weddings and both made the switch to school photography and never looked back.
I was under the impression that school photography in the US is even more lucrative in the than it is in Canada.
What do you mean by school photography?
The standard student portraits and class photos. Parents buy packages after viewing a few proofs.
That gets split between corporations like Life Touch that have indentured servants as photographers and a very few photographers who are willing to pay kickbacks to schools and administrators.
I guess things have changed. In Quebec (and probably other provinces), big corporations have their share of the business but the more lucrative are the small daycares and schools that the big guys don't bother with.
Ah got it. Thanks.
We live in 'good enough' times. Bottom-line is god. Every industry is affected. 'Good enough' is always cheaper. Cellphone journalism is one example.
Yes I think that the ubiquity of ‘cameras’ in so many people’s hands probably serves to devalue photography somewhat
Well you can't devalue photography (the study of light) but it has devalued photographers in general.
The only people I know who do this job, do it because they loving doing it, not to get rich.
I would qualify that by saying most people who start doing photography as a job do it for the passion. Most have to move into wedding/studio/portrait photography because sunrises don’t pay the bills.
I can only speak anecdotally, but most of my wedding/studio/portrait photography friends certainly don’t love their jobs. They prefer it to a 9-5 in an office but “love”....? Not so much
For me, it was a means to an end. I needed work, I enjoyed making photos as a hobby.
So, like many, I Made my hobby into my work. Saying that, it doesn't feel like 'work' as such, it's enjoyable, I live from it, I don't get that Monday morning feel. I have freedom.
Problem is, my hobby has gone, so I'm getting back into what I used to do before I started my company, making things in wood. As a hobby. :)
When money becomes involved different types of pressures and stress also get introduced. No longer is it simply just a creative pursuit that you enjoy, it’s also something you need to do provide for yourself/your family. If you can maintain the love and the ability to do the type if photography you love, then you’re in a happy place.
Not many photographers can find that but if you can, well done!
No, they're far from the lowest paid, least respected creative a/Art form. Photographers, especially when on the safe ground, and at times echo chamber, of photography/photo gear-centric sites, like Fstoppers or DPReview, can seem the biggest complainers though. And it takes a particularly narrow view of Art for that position. Also the comparisons in this article are ridiculous. I mean the whole premise is flawed, but why not continue the flaw? Look at Fiber Arts. The most expensive quilt ever sold was $264,000. The most expensive photograph was $6.5 million. Conclusion: Respect for photographers is over-exaggerated and they're obviously severely overpaid.
Agreed. Also, Betteridge's law of headlines, as usual, applies here.
The speculation is that Lik purchased his own photo.
Yeah, I don't believe for a minute that Lik sold his photo for $6.5 million. It was a very effective publicity stunt, though.
Yes, I’ve read such things too. If true, it would serve to bring the price of the most expensive photograph down further.
Lik thinks highly of himself if you have never had the displeasure of meeting him in person.
Before Ghost was claimed to be a 6.5 Million $$ purchase by an unconfirmed source and non identifiable customer .. there was Reeds that was reported to be a 1 Million $$ purchase. Reeds was also non confirmed and non identifiable purchaser. But advertised at that time as the most expensive since Adams.
Don’t forget about his Tree of Life either.
https://news.artnet.com/market/new-york-times-exposes-peter-lik-photogra...
I took one of Ansel Adams Zone System classes.
He said “ I do not respect Photographers like real artists “.
He said he would rather be known as an image modifier and creator of the Zone System.
I see decent 24 mega pixel kit cameras going for about 400 bucks today. Not hard to start practicing the craft of photography. Sermons are not commanding much money except within the mega churches. Wonderfully delicious meals are being served up for a few bucks wherever you go. Pick something that is fun and easy to do, something you love. But don't expect to be paid well for it. If you do, you are deceiving yourself. Good luck and enjoy what you do.
“ Photo Art “ prices are correct for the mass amount of photographers today and the ease of taking photos.
Apples and oranges... One also has to consider how the artist moved/shaped art at that time, and how it affects art today. You cannot compare Lik to Picasso or Rembrandt; it's just not the same. I imagine that Da Vinci's work at the time of conception was greatly undervalued than it is today. He'd probably gawk at the exorbitant price for his work. What's the phrase people say about artists... it's worth more when you're dead? Also, another thing to consider is how many painters there were then that did not get a big break like these masters. Same with photographers that are well known. This really is a moot point.
I'm not comparing Lik to Picasso or Rembrandt in any way except for what their works have been sold for. You could insert any name you want really, it's the value/prices that I'm looking at more than any individual's name. And in that sense, photography values pale in comparison with other artforms. Perhaps in time an Ansel Adams will be worth more. But Picasso died in 1973, and Adams passed in 1984. Not much difference, but a huge difference in the value of their works. Then you have someone like William de Kooning, who died as recently as 1997...
But you still are though, regardless of their work. It's a different medium entirely, and they are going to be priced differently. There's an over saturation of photographers in this world. but how many would be comparable to Picasso or Rembrandt? I would say very few, and most would be unknown in the current world we live in. Yes, Adams was a badass landscape photographer, but then again he SHAPED this artform ...much like the others. Perhaps his work will be valued at a higher rate in the next 100 years or so, who knows. I think one thing to also consider is that prints are so readily available(aside from limited edition ones at a higher cost), so there is more value put into the actual one of a kind art piece.
It probably has to do with the difficulty of creating the artwork itself. Even with today's technologies, not everyone can create a decent sculpture or painting. The same is true for other forms, like dancing, singing/ composition, playing of musical instruments. Those take years of practice.
For photography, sure, a lot of the photographers that became really successful has also spent years perfecting their craft. The thing is though, if we're striclty just talking about an image, almost anyone can get a great shot with a simple recipe - go to a great location, have a top of the line camera phone, and hope you're lucky with the weather/lighting. Add to that the fact that majority of images are viewed in phones or tablets where it's not big enough too see the flaws.