Eyeing Up Photography's Value

Understand the formula for developing the fine art photography market--the medium of the 20th century

What is it that makes one photograph accrue in value while another, similar in such ways as size, content, time period, process and even artist authorship holds much less value? How do scarcity, visibility, technical elements, aesthetic and an exhibition track record, both galleries and museums, affect the value of a photographic work of art? These are the questions that collectors, photographers and dealers must consider on a daily basis as they participate in and help form the fine art photography marketplace globally.

Photo dealer Peter MacGill, guiding force of the Pace/MacGill Gallery in Manhattan, said his vision for success is photographically driven. "What makes a masterpiece of photography have value is that the picture is totally resolved, rock solid," he said. "Edition size is important in that, for example, I couldn't have sold Man Ray's `Glass Tears' for as much as it commanded [$1.3 million] had it not been so scarce--only three were made. But the physical size of the image, I think, is less important to value and is a matter of the artist's choosing. The artist makes the picture the size he sees the art, hopefully."

For Howard Read, owner of the Cheim/Read Gallery in the Chelsea Art District in New York, collecting and marketing fine art photography is all about the artist. "The impact of the career and life of the artist," Read explained, "combined with the importance of the individual work or works drive the market. Size and edition less so."

A case-in-point of the life of an artist impacting the market can be found with Robert Mapplethorpe, whose estate is represented by Read. The success of Mapplethorpe, whose prints at Read's early shows barely topped $1,000 and now can command $50,000, illustrates Read's theory on why important works accrue in value.

David Fahey, dealer emeritus at the Fahey/Klein Gallery in Los Angeles said aesthetic quality and visibility are the key to finding photographic success. This strategy was tested most notably with famed fashion photographer Herb Ritts, who Fahey took on in 1985. "My strategy was to package books, coordinate with publishers, mount the exhibition at my space and then travel the show around. I did this with Herb for the first book [Pictures] and we continue doing it now." The audience built with Fahey and Ritts has been nothing short of phenomenal; Ritts' one person museum show in Boston attracted more than 250,000 visitors, making it one of the most well-attended museum shows of the '90s. And Ritts' auction record parallels the growth of his popularity. In the mid '80s original Ritts prints were in the $750 to $1,500 range; a single print, "Djimon With Octopus" sold at Christie's for $22,000 recently.

Fahey has packaged books for exhibitions with a group of photographers, including author Allen Ginsberg and Richard Gere, who collaborated with the Dalai Lama. "My strategy has always been to explore all aspects of photography to keep expanding the market. When I showed Allen, I reached this literary audience who I had never connected with before. With Richard, there was that [another audience] too."

Fahey voices an opinion similar to that of Howard Read regarding the value of photography. "Editioning to show scarcity does not necessarily impress me," Fahey said. "People get worried because photography has a negative and they wonder if there are some large number of prints around because it isn't numbered. The photographers who do reportage, like Cartier-Bresson, rarely number prints. For me, authenticity--a signature and a solid provenance--is the key, combined with the right artist and a strong image."

Helene Weiner, co-owner of Metro Pictures gallery and representative of photographers Robert Longo and Cindy Sherman said, "My approach, and Cindy's as well, has nothing to do with the photography world. These issues of vintage print, editions and this and that photographic footnote information are not very important to me, to Cindy or her work. Cindy's influences, positioning and concerns are all art world driven, not photography driven. They are works of art that just happen to be photographs."

In an odd parallel that speaks well for women in art circa 2000, Sherman, wittingly or unwittingly, has done for contemporary photography what Man Ray did for vintage photography, namely, empowered it with the style and cache of a recognizable artist, museum signed and delivered, sealed with the undeniable a priori imprimateur of success no one will deny--a million dollar price tag. "At the beginning," Weiner said, "collectors had no interest in Cindy--not museums, not private collectors. The critics came around sooner but it took many years and shows to get the collectors to take her work." Sherman's early prints, black-and-white self-portraits set in B movie-ish sets she titled "Film Stills 1978-1980," originally sold for $250 to $750 and only topped $1,000 about 15 years ago. A full set of 68 prints, however, was recently sold to MoMA for more than $1,000,000.

The Future of Photography

As photography's popularity increases, there are a few trends that these dealers see emerging. MacGill said several renowned fine artists are moving into the photography realm, which will only increase its popularity. "Photography is the medium of representation for the 20th century," he explained. "So it makes sense that many great artists of the 20th century would approach photography. Let's face it, these artists are intense, capable people. And both [Robert] Rauschenberg and [Andy] Warhol, for example, used photography in their painting so it makes sense that they would have a photographic sensibility as artists."

Fahey stated that "the future of photography is those who never bought a photograph before."

Indeed, photography is hot--but is it a fad? At this, MacGill let out a resonating laugh. "The market for truly great pictures, masterpieces of photography," MacGill said, "is extremely large and the supply is nowhere near the demand."

While this may sound self-serving since MacGill is a top photo dealer, it also makes sense. Consider that while photography was ignored as an art form from 1875 to 1975, painting and sculpture weren't. Consequently, the masterpieces of sculpture and painting were bought in and around their time and many, if not most, are permanently lodged in museums. Further, when a masterpiece of Impressionism, for example, does come up at auction, high eight figures are assured. And the $100 million painting is coming. It is also likely that any painting auctioned would only be a minor masterpiece compared to the artist's best work: be assured MoMA is not selling their Monets or Picassos in the near future.

Whereas in photography, many of the most important works are still readily available. "You would think someone much smarter than I am would have figured the value of photography out long before I came around," said MacGill said with a laugh. "But, I'll tell you what, for the money it takes to get an Impressionist masterpiece I could assemble a collection of photographs that would blow your mind. Anyone who's not a rock will respond to a great photograph. That's what makes it a masterpiece of art, and exactly why it's value will keep escalating."

COPYRIGHT 2000 Pfingsten Publishing, LLC
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group