As a child of the digital age (I started programming in 1977 on an Apple IIc) I do not really consider the impact of the digital copy of an image vs the original of an image.  Being as photography, by its nature, is a reproductive medium it is often assumed that every print of a work is equal, or can be.

The new technology has made this all the more possible through standardised profiles, light temperatures, exposure times, chemical qualities, ink qualities, papers… etc.. So in a way we actually have arrived at a point where we can theoretically create prints in photography that are indiscernibly different from each other.

On top of that search engines like google, yahoo etc.. and sites like instagram and tumblr have made the consumption of images into a passive process that we are almost incapable of not partaking in.  Well, those who are physically blind can not, but that is a different topic all together.

Let me take a brief step back to, say, 20 years ago.  The tech that currently inundates the photographic world under the name of “digital pigment prints” or “archival pigment prints” was already in the world by the name of “inkjet printers.”  At that time the tech was not quite available to everyman as the costs of buying a high res printer was prohibitive.  It was there though, and making its mark.

If we go back another 10-15 years we are back in the days of the darkroom and the processing lab.  The further back we go, the fewer people knew how to handle this medium called photography and the greater was the difference between a printers prints he/she created as well as the difference to his/her contemporaries.  Look at a print by Bernice Abbott vs a print by Henri Cartier Bresson (I mean one he made himself).  Part of the value of the work was founded in their ability or, in the case of HCB, lack thereof to produce great prints.

Now we have to fast forward back to today, and the reason why I am writing all of this. I have had many conversations about what the future of the gallery as a physical space is.  Many say that the market of the future is the art fair. Others say that online viewing will replace all of this.  Christies seems to certainly think so considering how much money they are investing in their online sales department. Is the gallery then a dying remnant of the Harry Lunn school of wheeling and dealing?

I would argue it is not. It is the question of seeing vs seeing.  When I see a work online I am looking at a colour distorted, surface distorted and size distorted rendition of a work.  If that is all I need then ok, but I think there is more to it.  For the contemporary works I could see it working, maybe, but for vintage material?

As for the fairs, as valuable as they are, they are pressure cookers.  I guestimate that I have about 5-10 minutes with anyone I see at a fair.  If they are close friends then possibly even less as I can talk to them when I am in the gallery. Of course there is the thrill of the hunt, and the fact that the viewer is surrounded by (hopefully) great work at every corner. But even that presents a problem. Too much of a good thing is still too much.  And then there is the competion issue. A good friend said “why should I introduce my competition to my customers?” Beyond that we exhibitors will rarely take a risk at a fair as the costs of doing them are so prohibitive that anything risky turns into missed sales, which is a luxury most gallery’s can’t partake of.  This translates into safer and more mainstream work being shown.

So I return to the gallery.  I asked my father Gerd many many years ago (think late 1980’s) what the gallery was for.  I asked this because there were always very exciting shows, but I saw my father selling work that was not on the walls.  He answered that the gallery is a place to define your position, to show what it is you stand for.  This is personal thing, or it should be.  And exactly this personal vision of the gallerist is what makes the gallery such a key part of the market.  We are nimble.  We can show new work without risking anything more than a bit of time and maybe a little bit of bad press.  And above all we can allow the buyer to see the work, physically.

In all of this the digital as well as the fairs, the magazines, the auction houses and indeed all other actors on the stage of the art world play their part.  The gallery is not the most important, rather it is a key part that is not replaceable.  The role is changing as the stage becomes more engaging , but the gallery is still one of the best places to see the work in its purest form and to talk with someone who has verified his/her belief in the work by the act of hanging it on the gallery walls.

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr

As the price of photography has continued to rise over the decades between when photography was not considered and medium worthy of being called art and now, the focus has moved more and more towards the stable or inflationary fiscal value of a photograph.  We dealers are busy cornering, developing and monetizing our artists bodies of work. The clients are busy viewing, understanding (at best) and buying the works we offer.  This all is appropriate and a regular part of any business. Buy low, sell high.  Its a simple and meaningful principle for any business to live by.

I regularly find myself in conversations with friends, artists, clients, collectors and most anybody, about the value of the artwork that is bought or sold. Particularly by younger collector I am often asked, how stable the value of the artwork is that I am recommending they purchase?  I have never been able to answer the question without changing the focus of the questioner.

There is something personally valuable about every object we hold dear to us.  The meaning of these things we collect are bound to our experience.  They help us both define as well as express who we are at any given stage in our lives. That is a meaning I think is incredibly potent.  If we free ourselves from having to have that meaning justified by someone else’s  approval then we take a step closer to standing without holding on to anyone or anything.  It’s kind of like what happens when a child goes from crawling to standing, to walking to running.  These developmental stages are all confined by their own restrictions and challenges.  We need to develop our senses, challenge our ideals and test our truths to see if they still hold up. They are all part of our becoming complete people.

The arts are a perfect and omnipresent tool to help us in this process.  All of us started defining our world using our creativity.  Every parent has received a drawing (resembling chicken scratch) from their child who stand beaming and says, “look a house!” (or whatever)  We see a bunch of scratchy marks, but the child sees the house.  Most of us forget this childhood understanding of abstraction.  We unlearn it because our world of productivity declares that the most efficient is always the best.  Maybe it is in many ways, but certainly not all ways.  We inherently can understand the arts.  We may just need to relearn or awaken it in ourselves.

So how do I answer the question of stable value?  If you consider that a work of art that you purchase becomes a part of your life. It becomes a part of you. It serves a purpose in it being with you.  That purpose can be fulfilled in a very short or a very long time, or maybe never.   If, at the time the purpose is fulfilled, you decide to part with it then ask yourself if it was worth it to have solved whatever it was that the artwork helped you solve?  If the answer is yes, then any amount of money you may receive for that work is icing on the cake.  And if that happens to be more than you paid for it, then thats all the better for you.

I know this is a lofty and dreamy view on all of this, but it is how I live with the arts.  I have grown up with art in the house, and in the museums where I regularly went (The National Gallery in Washington DC rules!!).  Now this will not always work, but as Benjamin Zander said in a his TED Talk from 2008, “…it is a possibility to live into..”

•  
• 
• Share on Tumblr