Just Dreaming

I wonder what would happen if instead of going round various galleries begging for a showing, then being grateful for anything at all that they offer you, instead photographers would submit their portfolio of prints to an auction house who would advertise the work and galleries would bid on the portfolios.

The photographer would get a straight sum for his portfolio at the auction, minus the auctioneers commission - no framing costs, no shipping, no promises not kept, hidden expenses, net profits that turn out to be zero, and so on. The galleries would have lots of choices since the auction house could and would have hundreds of portfolios to pick from. The galleries would buy the prints at bulk prices (perhaps as little as 10 cents on the dollar.

But think about it - the photographer would produce a series of prints that he estimates should sell for $500 each, perhaps 20 of them, theoretical max. sales would be $10,000, but of course he'd never expect to see that in any current sales model. With current galleries, lets suggest that he is lucky enough to sell 7 prints of the 20, and that the gallery pays him 50% but charges him some show costs and framing, so his take is $1000 total for those 7 prints.

Under my hypothetical system, lets say that the gallery were to bid $2000 for the whole 20 prints - take away 20% for the auction house, that leves $1600, which the photographer gets within 2 weeks of the auction. The gallery paid $100 per print instead of $250 which means they can spend more on promotion or can sell for less. What if the gallery used a 100% markup - ie. sells the images for $200 each, but offers substantial discounts on multiple prints. It would be possible for a purchaser to come away with half a dozen prints, framed for $1000, thus decorating an entire wall - which after all is a much larger market than looking for collectors.

I don't suppose it would ever happen, but you do have to wonder if it doesn't make sense.

One could make the argument that the problem is the galleries and their high expenses but someone has to show the work to the public - internet viewing does not generate good sales unless you already have a reputation and not well even then. Someone has to do the framing - so I think the galleries need to continue to exist.

This idea would introduce more competition - a gallery might see work that they think is really hot and currently undervalued and pick it up for a song, yet sell each image for 10X what they paid for it - how's that for encouragement - it would be a bit like trying to pick up a used camera on ebay.

The idea in the end would be for retail print prices to be substantially less, thus dramatically increasing the market for images - a whole lot of people who currently know they can't afford anything in a gallery would start shopping for bargains there.

Collectors need NAMES - people with reputation, to protect and increase the value of their work, real people just want some lovely images for their wall, images that will tell their friends of their taste, not their financial acumen.

Oh, I know, it's a pipe dream, and what if the galleries only offered $200 for the entire portfolio - but I think that in this system of bidding, it would soon sort itself out.

Anyway, just a thought.