Picture on homepage
- Thread starter Tomwaits
- Start date
Father Luke
Founding member
its an excellent picture. mid 60s i think. little did he know that john martin would come to the rescue within the next few years.
Father Luke
Founding member
Sorry, tim. Wouldn't have a clue where to find a print.
- -
Love,
Father Luke
- -
Love,
Father Luke
mjp
Founding member
Well - that image, and others, will be part of an exhibition of Sam Cherry photos at Track 16 gallery in Santa Monica next year. Not sure when. The show has been organized by Sam Cherry's grandchildren, not his son Neeli, and there seems to be some controversy over selling the prints (which came from Neeli, by the way, see the link above) before the show. But I really don't want to get in the middle of it (which is why some of Cherry's grandson's posts were removed from the forum a month or two ago).
Anyway, you should be able to buy that print at the show. But expect to pay around $800 - $1200 for it. Or you could spring for the "special boxed edition" for 10 or 20 times that price. I don't know. Contact Track 16, they may be able to tell you more.
I wouldn't pay a grand for a photograph by Sam Cherry when you can get an original Mary Ellen Mark (or comparable noted modern photographer) for a few grand. But that's just me. Maybe Sam did some great work. I don't know. The pics I've seen look more like snapshots than photographs. There's something rare about a great photographer, and while I'm glad Sam Cherry and Michael Montfort photographed Bukowski, I don't consider either of them to be great photographers.
Anything you buy in an art gallery is twice what the artist would usually price the work for. The gallery marks everything up 100% and takes half the sale. It's a system I never understood, especially now when artists can so easily sell their work directly or get together online and open their own collective somewhere or something.
But to be considered a "serious" artist you need gallery representation - you have to play their game. And again, I don't understand why, in this day and age, artists stand for it. It's really time for a revolution. Because 90% of the art galleries out there a little more than con men (and women) and thieves.
I'm not saying that about Track 16 in particular - I don't know them - but I have seen and heard enough horror stories from Los Angeles and all over the world to know that the gallery scene in general is a con job. Like a record company or a film studio. We don't need these things anymore.
Anyway, you should be able to buy that print at the show. But expect to pay around $800 - $1200 for it. Or you could spring for the "special boxed edition" for 10 or 20 times that price. I don't know. Contact Track 16, they may be able to tell you more.
I wouldn't pay a grand for a photograph by Sam Cherry when you can get an original Mary Ellen Mark (or comparable noted modern photographer) for a few grand. But that's just me. Maybe Sam did some great work. I don't know. The pics I've seen look more like snapshots than photographs. There's something rare about a great photographer, and while I'm glad Sam Cherry and Michael Montfort photographed Bukowski, I don't consider either of them to be great photographers.
Anything you buy in an art gallery is twice what the artist would usually price the work for. The gallery marks everything up 100% and takes half the sale. It's a system I never understood, especially now when artists can so easily sell their work directly or get together online and open their own collective somewhere or something.
But to be considered a "serious" artist you need gallery representation - you have to play their game. And again, I don't understand why, in this day and age, artists stand for it. It's really time for a revolution. Because 90% of the art galleries out there a little more than con men (and women) and thieves.
I'm not saying that about Track 16 in particular - I don't know them - but I have seen and heard enough horror stories from Los Angeles and all over the world to know that the gallery scene in general is a con job. Like a record company or a film studio. We don't need these things anymore.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
...or they would then see themselves as "Art Dealers" and figure that there was more money to be made by jacking up the prices to the current level of art galleries.
The only ones that are getting shafted are the artists who have to have gallery representation to be legitimized. I cannot feel sorry for the wealthy that pay too much for artwork becasue they have some trust-fund baby "gallery Owner" that has to take a 50% cut...
Bill
The only ones that are getting shafted are the artists who have to have gallery representation to be legitimized. I cannot feel sorry for the wealthy that pay too much for artwork becasue they have some trust-fund baby "gallery Owner" that has to take a 50% cut...
Bill
I think I know that guy :p
mjp
Founding member
Con men (and women) and thieves. I stand by that.
The trust fund babies are the buyers, and they don't know what they should buy, so they rely on a gallery owner who gains their trust. Then the gallery owner unloads the material he can markup the most onto the babies.
Meanwhile, the artist says to the gallery owner, "Okay, I guess $2000 for this one." And the gallery owner says, "Great!" and sells it to the trust fund baby for $15,000, paying the artist their "half" of the agreed-on $2000 price.
This goes on in galleries every day in every big city in the world. Except about half the time, when the gallery owner pockets the $15,000 and pays the artist nothing.
There is a famous gallery in Los Angeles called ACE, and the guy who runs it is a flat-out, unapologetic criminal, yet artists fight each other for the honor of being raped by him because, well ACE is one of the biggest, most awesome galleries in Los Angeles. You show there, every paper in town writes about it.
Con men (and women) and thieves.
But, you know, that's just my opinion.
The trust fund babies are the buyers, and they don't know what they should buy, so they rely on a gallery owner who gains their trust. Then the gallery owner unloads the material he can markup the most onto the babies.
Meanwhile, the artist says to the gallery owner, "Okay, I guess $2000 for this one." And the gallery owner says, "Great!" and sells it to the trust fund baby for $15,000, paying the artist their "half" of the agreed-on $2000 price.
This goes on in galleries every day in every big city in the world. Except about half the time, when the gallery owner pockets the $15,000 and pays the artist nothing.
There is a famous gallery in Los Angeles called ACE, and the guy who runs it is a flat-out, unapologetic criminal, yet artists fight each other for the honor of being raped by him because, well ACE is one of the biggest, most awesome galleries in Los Angeles. You show there, every paper in town writes about it.
Con men (and women) and thieves.
But, you know, that's just my opinion.
MJP, Neeli has been involved 110% with these new Sam Cherry prints and has written some great anecdotes for each image. Neeli will also do a reading for the show. There is no controversy over selling the prints, Sam is genuine guy, and a talented photographer that deserves some credit. Here's a recent article on Sam in the new LA WEEKLY...mjp said:
http://www.laweekly.com/special/la-people-2008/sam-cherry/18865/
(by the way, the quotes that you removed from the discussion, were not solely posted by Cherry's grandson, the whole family was involved on Sam's behalf)
Cheers.
mjp
Founding member
No comment on the controversy. Again, we're not going to open that up here.
From the article: ...if you've ever seen a shot of Bukowski and considered it iconic, it was probably Cherry's.
Well that's bullshit. Ha.
Otherwise a fine article. Cherry took a lot of early pictures of Bukowski, in the pre-Montfort days when people were hardly lining up to take Bukowski's picture. So it's going to be great to see them at Track 16. Looking forward to it.
From the article: ...if you've ever seen a shot of Bukowski and considered it iconic, it was probably Cherry's.
Well that's bullshit. Ha.
Otherwise a fine article. Cherry took a lot of early pictures of Bukowski, in the pre-Montfort days when people were hardly lining up to take Bukowski's picture. So it's going to be great to see them at Track 16. Looking forward to it.
Last edited:
E
endisnear
I contacted the gallery, they said that the show will be early next year but the new Charles Bukowski photographs are printed and available now. I have some of Sam Cherry's Black Cat Cafe photos from the 1941, the scope of his work goes way beyond Charles Bukowski.
And just a note about pricing and value, the Edition size is huge factor,
If the Print Edition is small, then the market value is greater and each print is more unique and desirable. And conversely, if it is a large Edition then the value would be less, the print is less unique and less desirable. Mary Ellen Mark (as mentioned) editions are typically 25 or more, and anything greater in my opinion takes it away from the novelty and pushes the print into the realm of being a poster. Track Sixteen said Cherry's editions were 10, which is low, there will be 10 in the world, period. That also means the value will increase at a greater rate. Considering that, the gallery price seems good. They also said the Handmade Box Set is a very limited edition of 5.
Also about the Gallery mark up, typically a Gallery gets 50% not 100% as mentioned above. It seems like a lot, but if you consider the expense of rent, advertising, printing of announcements, staff, shipping, drinks for the opening, utilities, taxes and the many other expenses- 50% seems justified to me.
-j.sloan
mjp
Founding member
Oh look, "endisnear/j.sloan" posting from the same IP as "sam cherry," both of which are really Dani Tull, grandson of Sam Cherry.
Dear Dani, it is unoriginal to attempt to pimp things this way. You know, having a "conversation" between your two alter egos here. I can tell you from experience that no one that uses this forum regularly is going to find it clever. In fact, they will dislike you for assuming they are so stupid and gullible, and be infinitely less receptive to your shilling.
If you want to sell something Bukowski-related here you have to do it in a straightforward, honest way. Otherwise you are just shooting yourself in the foot and making things much harder for yourself.
Good luck selling those prints. Call me after the show, when you have cut the prices of all the unsold stuff by 75%. Down to where they should be for an unknown photographer.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
yes, this is probably the third time that I can recall where someone tried this and was called out. It never has gone well. Once it was the promo guy for a certain Swedish singer who pretended that he "ran across" a CD and loved it. Turns out that he was paid to shill it by her label. Then there was a relative of a poet who just loved the work of a guy who happened to be related, without mentioning that they were linked.
Truth is that the people on this forum are not stupid and do not like being treated as if we were. Try this on myspace or facebook and you will go unnoticed, but I can tell you that not much gets past the mods here and something as obvious as this will be noticed and brought up every time.
Notice how there is not spam all over this board unlike almost any other board out there? It is not an accident.
Thanks to mjp, FL & HS for keeping it tight and above board.
Bill
p.s. I am not an artist or photographer, but take exception to the statement that anything over an edition of 10 is closer to a poster than a photograph. I would pay more for the iconic Alberts gelatin photo of Buk and Georgia in front of the fridge than I would for the Cherry photograph, even if the Alberts was limited to 100 copies, all hand printed by the photographer from the original negatives. Low limitation only makes the buyer feel like they are getting something very rare, but it was made to be rare. In fact, they are still buying the art because they love the artist or the subject. In the case of Sam and Buk, I like both of their works, so this is certainly not a knock on Sam or Neeli, who I admire. Still, I can shit in a bag, number it 1/1 and try to sell it. It is truly limited and unique, but cannot see anyone wanting it. My wife sees things on TV and tells me that they are "Limited Editions". Things like "Little House on The Prairie Plates". Limited to 1000 plates and no demand to justify that many. Still, enough people run out to buy things based on their limited run without thinking if a photograph is worth $1000 whether there are only 1, 10, or 10,000 of them. I do not think that it is.
Truth is that the people on this forum are not stupid and do not like being treated as if we were. Try this on myspace or facebook and you will go unnoticed, but I can tell you that not much gets past the mods here and something as obvious as this will be noticed and brought up every time.
Notice how there is not spam all over this board unlike almost any other board out there? It is not an accident.
Thanks to mjp, FL & HS for keeping it tight and above board.
Bill
p.s. I am not an artist or photographer, but take exception to the statement that anything over an edition of 10 is closer to a poster than a photograph. I would pay more for the iconic Alberts gelatin photo of Buk and Georgia in front of the fridge than I would for the Cherry photograph, even if the Alberts was limited to 100 copies, all hand printed by the photographer from the original negatives. Low limitation only makes the buyer feel like they are getting something very rare, but it was made to be rare. In fact, they are still buying the art because they love the artist or the subject. In the case of Sam and Buk, I like both of their works, so this is certainly not a knock on Sam or Neeli, who I admire. Still, I can shit in a bag, number it 1/1 and try to sell it. It is truly limited and unique, but cannot see anyone wanting it. My wife sees things on TV and tells me that they are "Limited Editions". Things like "Little House on The Prairie Plates". Limited to 1000 plates and no demand to justify that many. Still, enough people run out to buy things based on their limited run without thinking if a photograph is worth $1000 whether there are only 1, 10, or 10,000 of them. I do not think that it is.
CarversDog
RIP
Well, hopefully that's the end of that discussion. Nice shootdown, MJP, good aim.
mjp
Founding member
I didn't say the gallery "gets" 100% (though if they do not pay the artist, which is not unusual, then they are in effect "getting" 100% of the sale). What I said was they mark everything up 100%, which it true and typical. Artist says I want $1000, gallery offers it for $2000 - that is a 100% markup.
On top of that blatant thievery, if they gallery offers the buyer a discount, do you think that discount comes out of the gallery's cut? Think again. The artist is expected to absorb some or all of that discount, a discount they never usually personally authorized.
You can shill for galleries all you want, but I know how they work, and it's an ugly, idiotic business.