I am disassembling a darkroom. If anyone here is still doing darkroom work I probably have the equipment you need in very good condition, including 3 Beseler enlargers (2-23C and a Universal 45), Schneider lenses, easels, Omega timers, Cibachrome equipment, etc.
It looks as though I'll be able to find a home for most of it but knew photographers here might be interested.
FYI: my husband participated in art fairs for nearly 30 years so this was a very active darkroom. It has not been touched for 10 years, and I am not the photographer, but I know all the pieces are there to do fine printing.
Replies
It's best to make your own work and believe in it. I never think I'm going to make what sells. McDonald's hamburgers sell. I wouldn't want to make the equivalent of that. You can't go by the judges either. That changes from show to show. It changes for the same show from year to year. Five of the ten award winners were photographers, at Des Moines. No clay, no glass, no jewelry. In 35 year that is the first time I have seen that and I'm confident that will never happen again.
I can't tell anyone what gets into the good shows except it has to be good in concept, technique, and have a certain consistency. That's it.
I have everything you need to run a darkroom, Rita. Enlargers, lenses, filters, negative holders, easels, safe lights, timers, trays, plumbing, temp controlled faucets, chemicals ... a 17' sink! But don't think that would work for getting to Florida.
Norm's work was great. His work looked like nobody else's. He did his own thing unlike the majority of photographers that show at art fairs these days. In another post somebody was whining about not doing well. My suggestion, if you want to do well, is to do your own work. You would never catch Norm doing photographs of those obnoxious letters that make words. And while I'm at it, anyone who photographs flowers over a doorway in Tuscany should be banned from art fairs for life.
I had a conversation with a potter friend of mine a while ago about a photograph he was lucky enough to have gotten from Norm that had his favorite nude model in the photo. He sees that photo every day. We were chuckling about how hot the subject of that photo was and Norm's work made all his female subjects look angelic. I mentioned that one of the reasons why I liked going into Norm's booth was to look at those photos.
PS: That model is still hot!!
I agree with "doing your own thing" as a photographer. however as an eclectic photographer, who follows in nobody's footsteps, I have found downfalls.
Juries, despite what they say, don't relish it. They look for what they deem as cohesive and able to understand in a 7 second glance.
Unusual, different, uncommon or what takes more time to garner, is not always seen as sought after by the average customer, hence the juror does not select it.
Different is rewarding and what I will continue with, as an artist.
Normal, run of the mill, common, is what is more readily chosen by juries and what sells easily in shows (by others).
Good thing money is not my motivator.
Of course, we're way off topic here (but I'm breaking the rules) but I was just looking at the award winners for the Des Moines Arts Festival. Out of 10 awards, 4 of them were photographers: Chris Dahlquist, Matthew Hemminghaus, Igor Menaker and Larry Simon. Click those links to see what first the image jury liked and then what the street jurors chose.
http://desmoinesartsfestival.org/news/des-moines-arts-festival-anno...
Connie, Not sure which links are supposed to show me the image jury? Which link shows me the street jury images?
I tried the links you posted.
It was just more of an idea of what gets in the big shows, not a particular image. I know Chris Dahlquist's work. She is a master craftsman and knows all the old techniques, darkroom things, etc. Her work is lovely. Hemminghaus has taken an idea (he's a farmer that raises chickens by day and at night he creates scenarios and takes photos of his chickens having adventures!!) and made something pretty cool. I don't know the other two photographers, but you've got to admit that Simon is not creating imagery that people will line up to buy.
I did a collection very similar ideas to Simon, back in the 70's. I called it faceless. The concept that what we do has more meaning than who does it. The ability for anyone to place themselves in the picture / scene as you could not identify the person.
Interestingly, I have a piece, I sometimes bring out at shows. A three piece set, with changes. You cannot see the face. Almost everyone asks who the lady is. Sometimes I ask them, or say it could be your mother, grandmother etc.
Not a big seller however, at times, it brings people to tears. It is possibly my favorite piece.
I've had a show director tell me it will not sell because it is too strong, belongs in a museum. I'll continue to display it. It speaks to me.
I have to disagree. Juries do want "different", they just don't want every image to be different completely unrelated to each other. They want them to look like they are coming from the same person, a personal touch that only that photographer has honed. Sounds like you have done that, Larry. Sounds like you are shooting what has meaning for you. They like that.
The public, on the other hand, is not as interested in "different." If you want to make money, lots of it, then you cater to those buyers. You do popular images and scenics. Norm always said he tried to walk the line, different enough so that it is intriguing to the jurors (and satisfied his need to be creative) and yet accessible to buyers. No guarantee of big bucks but resulted in enough of the big shows and enough sales to sustain the lifestyle.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next