Famous artists of the past produced physical, tangible works that could be bought, sold, traded, and displayed. These works were produced by hand and have great value. Looking at an 11×8 Ansel Adam’s original print valued at $15,000 one can’t help but think…is this digital world devaluing art?
Obviously comparing the normal everyday photographer like myself to a great icon like Ansel Adams is ludicrous. But if we look at our modern-day famous photographers like Leibovitz or La Chappelle, Steve McCurry or Howard Schatz…they’re prints and artworks sell for a hefty tag, and while a lot of their work is film, a lot of the stuff these days is digital. With digital my real question is…what part counts as the original? The digital file or the print? Is it the RAW file or the TIFF…hi-res JPG? Is there a market for this already or is one being created?
Now I don’t think that traditional art and traditional photo printing will die. But when a past great photographers’ film has been destroyed or lost, it’s his prints that become highly collectible. Nearly all iterations of the images are sought after. If there’s a feeling that they may exist, the hunt for his original slides can be a feverish one by many collectors. The discovery of those originals can be a aficionado’s dream come true. A great example of this was Rober Capa’s Lost Treasure Chest.
So what is the equivalent?
Most of us visual artists these days aren’t really producing anything tangible…that we can put our hands on. The work that’s being created today is more than beautiful, a lot of it is downright amazing. But once something is shot, downloaded, tweaked, burned to discs, backed up to hard-drives, posted to your website, uploaded to Twitpic, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Wordpress blogs, printed by Adorama and thrown on the walls of coffee shops I have to wonder, which of these thousands upon thousands of iterations of the photo is going to be the one with real value? Which is the original?
If say, after Howard Schatz’s death all of his digital RAW files are lost in a multi server hard-drive crash/fire…is it the prints we’ll eat up? For the rarer things will collector’s and museums be calling places like Facebook and Google to see if they happen to have saved and cached hi-res versions of anything along the way?
I think it’s a question that is becoming increasingly viable, and I honestly don’t know the answer. What I do know is that I HAVE to print my work. Photos don’t speak to me very well through a monitor. It doesn’t feel like anything I’ve actually made until I hold it, the only problem is at no point is the print I’m holding in my hand ever something I actually made with my own two hands.
I can envision in the future walking into an art gallery that has nothing but larger monitors hanging on the wall. Each monitor has a piece of art displayed (be it photo or illustration) and when you make your purchase you just receive a download of the file, beamed directly into whatever small little devices we have at that time. When you get home the file will immediately sync with all of your other devices and be possible to display in your own digital photo frame or computer screen, etc.
I suppose those are the breaks of shooting digitally…it’s a wonderful medium to work with and we live in an absolutely amazing time, but artistically it can be very draining.
Perhaps all digital files could be erased and destroyed after last edition is printed, much in the same way a lithograph plate is destroyed in traditional art.
Anyone else feeling this drain? Anyone have any answers to this problem? Is there a way to print digital files that’s more hands on than just hitting print?
I can’t wait to read what you guys have to say, but for now you’ll have to excuse me, I think I may go buy some film…
maybe the only thing worth any value will be the pieces with your “John Hancock”….maybe it will be the true signature of the photographer/artist. When limited editions of some art are made, often each is assigned a number say, 7/45. Number one becomes the most valuable and so on. And the less prints that are made the more valuable the piece is; ie: 1/10. This can’t really always happen with digital photography, as you do not always print in a “series”. Copies of the original photo can be made for years and years….and there’s no way to keep track of which was first or how many prints there are. So I think the pieces of highest value will be the prints with the artist’s signature on them. Oh and why not add the date? That way the older the signed print, the more valuable it can become.
Now I really have no clue what the answer is. Or if there even is an answer…..but it is fun to think about. Good question. Photographers should be concerned!
I think that photographers are not the only ones who need to know the answer to this question. What about artists who choose to work digitally and use the computer as their primary tool.
Is there any collectors who want to speak up?
What is the value of an audio file that has been downloaded from a torrent or file sharing service versus Amazon or iTunes?
The Internet has severely decreased the per capita value of services involving information distribution.
There is still a smaller but existent pool of people that will pay for your digital product at a reduced price because you guarantee the fidelity of the product. Digital distribution of your work will also shrink the market for your physical prints but it hasn’t made them worthless.
Look at four different industries that have had pieces of their previous business model shelled out by the Internet:
Music
Photography
Television and Film (Video)
News
I think that those industries are ordered from least to most impacted by the Internet.
Musicians can still perform concerts and control a product of their artistry.
Photographers can still produce prints. I think your market has felt a larger impact than music because it’s primary product is not time sensitive compared to music. Your print does not exist for only a few minutes in one particular place like a concert. Once someone ‘pirates’ your photo they can enjoy it forever.
But you’re not in as poor a position as film or news distribution.
No one really gets into having an ‘authentic copy’ of a film at a price point that makes it profitable to produce that film.
Say it costs you $50.00 to produce a print that someone buys for $250.00. That simply cannot be done with film. A $5,000,000 film cannot be sold to one buyer for $10,000,000. It has to be turned around and distributed to a mass audience in a relatively quick time frame to make money these days.
News is extremely time sensitive and pretty much the only marketability left for news organizations are speed and fidelity. I would say that leaves them in the worst position of any industry in the Internet era.
In each of these industries the Internet has commoditized the digital distribution of their product. But it can still be a source of income… Just a smaller and less valuable one per capita than it used to be. The flip side of the coin… you just might be able to get your product out to a larger audience more quickly…
Just some thoughts on this topic.
I’m not sure where the heart of this discussion is at. Good art has always separated itself from bad art through true craftsmanship and the awe it creates in the viewer. The more awe… the more someone is willing to pay for it. This can be achieved on the cave walls of Lascaux, France or on the master’s canvas. It doesn’t seem fair to pigeon hole digital art as different. It can be achieved through masterful use of the tools. It can be distributed and viewed by the entire world. It can be stolen by thieves. It can be copycatted by non-artists for profit. Nothing new there, right?
Wealthy patrons of the arts (and artists as well) have been robbed and duped for centuries… today this market has extended itself to include the internet marketplace. Hundreds of buyers have been replaced by millions of buyers. Good artists have shared the marketplace with charlatans since the beginning of time.
I need to get back to painting now…
When photography produces an “object” that object is usually a print (not always, as photos can be used in video, or as a part of a sculpture). Image production in this way is still a form of printmaking, and this includes etchings, lithographs, woodblocks, etc. Prints have always been valued by quality, rarity, and the fame of the artist, as well as the age of the print and the connection between artist and artwork. Consider that there are many excellent copies of Albrecht Durer prints, and some modern ones are probably better reproductions than could be made in Durer’s own time, yet older ones, especially those made in the painter’s lifetime, are most valuable. Weirdly, it seems to me that Durer, who became very successful as a famous author of widely reproduced prints, must have faced the same question; if your work is mostly reproductions, however well made, how should the work be valued? History has provided the answer, at least in his case.
Some great comments here, I’m going to try to respond to each one in order.
@Trista – The signature still is worth something for sure, and the I’ve seen digital photos printed in “limited runs” but the question I ask above is, should the file be destroyed afterwards? If it’s not, then what is the “value” of having a “limited run” print if it can be turned around and reproduced in the EXACT same quality. Perhaps only signing the first run of prints could increase the value and collectibility. Good Idea!
@Michael Grills – I definitely agree, more and more traditional art is merging with digital. Not only that many graphic designers and illustrators are nearly completely digital these days…this is an issue for all of us to ponder. I encourage all artists working in digital to weigh in and give their opinions on this.
@ John Chapin – News really has taken a downturn, mostly I feel like they took so long to embrace the new medium. I think the biggest problem music has faced with digitizing has been the loss in quality. The over-compressed sound that most new music has these days is really grating. Film has suffered from a similar loss in quality, being that a lot of the films I watch these days are all slightly pixelated versions streamed on Netflix.
The issue that I’m really concerned about is more focused on the collector’s. The “snobs”, the “experts”. The type of people that still go search out the special-edition master-track vinyls of The Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds”. That go to auctions and scour the planet for an original studio print of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. That collect and frame the NY Times front pages from the day Japan invaded Pearl Harbor. And the ones that can tell if DaVinci really put his brush to the canvas or if it’s a fake.
These are the types of people that demand to have a print that Ansel Adams actually hand-printed in the darkroom and signed his name to.
My concern is that digital is taking that authenticity and intimacy that an artist has with his art. And consequently takes that feeling of “connection” a collector has when purchasing that perfect new piece. I just don’t know what the digital equivalent of the above-mentioned things is, or what it will be down the road.
@Michael – All true statements. The heart of this discussion isn’t whether or not digital is a viable art form. It’s also not a concern for it being stolen or pirated. The sad part is that digital IS different. All other forms of art are analog and tangible. You can get knock out those original cave paintings from 5000 B.C. and hang them in your loft. The real concern is where is the tangible product when digital is concerned? Where is the original? Does there have to be one? What will be the thing that collector’s hungrily seek when a masterful digital artist dies?
@John Perry – your comment seems to hit the nail on the head. It also echoes Trista’s idea that signing a limited amount of reproductions could do a great deal to preserve the value of a work. But in the case of a digital artist that never creates anything analog/tangible in his lifetime, what will have the most value? What will be “authentic”?
Thanks to everyone for all the great comments so far, let’s keep em coming, I really do make a great effort to take the time to respond to everyone! I feel that this is an issue that is going to become more and more of a concern. I’m very interested to see how history and society faces this issue.
As a cartoonist for 38 years I have done traditional and now completely computer. with the wacon cintiq I even do my roughs on the computer. all the arguments above hold true for the value of both traditional vs computer art. When you think about it a lithograph is just a copy of the original, Picasso would not destroy the original drawing after making lithographic prints. I have found educating my clients to how I brand my work, my process, integrity (not reissuing prints) helps with why the work is price the way it is. For some reason the Photography field in a general way has fought the digital age. I would have too if I had the investment in the equipment a pro photographer does. with the generations that follow they for better or not won’t even know what a 4×5 chrome is and their art collection will be held in the palm of their hand. Those creative arts that can make the transition will have an easier time being successful.