Clive Murray-White Posted December 14, 2012 Share #1 Posted December 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The other day someone asked me about photography prizes, most specifically about the kind of prize money that would really send a buzz through both the pro and enthusiast fraternity. Any ideas? Also just for interest sake, which category of photography would be guaranteed to attract vast numbers of entrants? Looking forward to your views - Clive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Hi Clive Murray-White, Take a look here Photography Prize - how much money would really get people interested?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted December 15, 2012 Share #2 Posted December 15, 2012 £10K plus. Also just for interest sake, which category of photography would be guaranteed to attract vast numbers of entrants? Landscape most probably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 15, 2012 Share #3 Posted December 15, 2012 If it was the Tate Modern running the prize I think £5000 would get lots of people interested, but if it was McDonalds then make it £50,000, which would mitigate having the 'The Ronald McDonald Award' on your CV. Landscape as a category. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Murray-White Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted December 15, 2012 Thanks - How true, the more elite it is the less the prize money needs to be. $AU20,000+ seems to be the message I'm getting. Landscape appeals to me mainly because there's something intrinsically controversial in it, both enthusiast and art photographers, have very different ideas of what makes a "good landscape". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
de-JTC Posted December 15, 2012 Share #5 Posted December 15, 2012 Exposure is much more than money, so if the prize is a publication, funding of a book etc. loads of people will be up for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Murray-White Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted December 15, 2012 Exposure is much more than money, so if the prize is a publication, funding of a book etc. loads of people will be up for it. A most astute observation thank you - the reason the discussion actually started was because an organisation wanted a high profile/high exposure event, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjames9142 Posted December 17, 2012 Share #7 Posted December 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was lucky to get a $30,000 prize for a book -- the publisher got another $20,000, and I have had two prizes of $25,000, one from a private foundation, one from the State. They all got publicity. Canada also now has a $50,000 Grange Prize, where four artists compete for the votes of the public. (Always two Canadians, and two from another country.) There is also a newish bank prize for photography that includes $50,000 and a publishing contract with Steidl. Small amounts don't attract much attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Murray-White Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share #8 Posted December 18, 2012 Its pretty much the same story in Australia. in photography there are a number of respected prizes at around $20/25000, one huge one from a company that progressively has to increase its purses to off-set ambivalence about it being "commercial". Photography is well out ranked by fine art prizes - particularly painting and sculpture with prizes of often 3x as much. Galling for the photogs is the anomaly that photographic works can often win contemporary very valuable art prizes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjames9142 Posted December 18, 2012 Share #9 Posted December 18, 2012 The whole question of the weirdly arbitrary way in which the art world takes up certain photographers is too complicated to go into here. Most of the taste-makers don't really have any clue about anything earlier than the last 15 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted December 18, 2012 Share #10 Posted December 18, 2012 The other day someone asked me about photography prizes, most specifically about the kind of prize money that would really send a buzz through both the pro and enthusiast fraternity. Any ideas? Also just for interest sake, which category of photography would be guaranteed to attract vast numbers of entrants? Looking forward to your views - Clive i'd settle for a Monochrom and $50! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2012 Share #11 Posted December 18, 2012 The prestigious World Press Photo award is just 10.000 Euro, yet it attracts the world's top press photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted December 19, 2012 Share #12 Posted December 19, 2012 http://hipa.ae/en/home USD 120.000 first price, 389.000 USD in total! :D:D gr John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Murray-White Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share #13 Posted December 19, 2012 http://hipa.ae/en/home USD 120.000 first price, 389.000 USD in total! :D:D gr John So true - once you start looking into organising a prize, you start to realise that processing the applications is a very time consuming business and unless you are willing to work full time for ages without being paid you really should always be thinking of the total cost of the exercise rather than just the prize money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted December 22, 2012 Share #14 Posted December 22, 2012 The question for me is how much would it cost to enter a photo? Most contests are lottos and your entry is simply a lotto ticket. Selection of the winner is a very subjective outcome often with no connection to image worthiness. I stear clear of contests. No amount will entice me if I have to pay to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted December 22, 2012 Share #15 Posted December 22, 2012 Exposure is much more than money, so if the prize is a publication, funding of a book etc. loads of people will be up for it. This would depend on who is putting on the photo competition, the terms and conditions of the competition, and how much they are charging to enter. The biggest turn off of competitions for professionals is the rights granted for the use of the winning photo by the sponsor. Many competition sponsors want ridiculous usage rights of the winning photos. Winning the competition is senseless if you lose the rights to use your own work. Sponsors who host a competition are not doing it to help the photographers, there is usually more benefit to be gained on their end. Also, in today's world of self publishing being published isn't as big a deal as it once was. Getting 'exposure' requires great photography, intelligent marketing, and shameless self promotion by the photographer. If you are a professional already you most likely would be more interested in the money. How much money? This would be dependent on the rights granted to the sponsor for the use of the winning photos. It wouldn't make sense to pay to enter and win a photo competition to give away rights at a cost that is less than what that photo could have been licensed for to another user. If the image is truly a winner it has value on the stock photo market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Murray-White Posted December 22, 2012 Author Share #16 Posted December 22, 2012 Very helpful comments, my real experience is with contemporary sculpture and painting prizes where such things as the reproduction rights is not half as much a big deal as photography. Comments about prizes being lotteries rings a few bells for me too, but I am also aware that there are some rather miserable conventions in awards. Certainly in "fine art" and I suspect in photography too, we can predict with almost pin point accuracy exactly the demographic from which the winners will almost always come. There are 3 distinct groups of practitioners, emerging, established and senior, all of which imply that the artist is at least known to most judges. For high profile national art juried comps, being selected for inclusion in the prize exhibition is an achievement for an emerging artist but however impressive they may be they are very unlikely to win. Senior well known big league artists are included in the shows to give credibility and clout to the "standing" of the prize. They also are unlikely to win - but it does happen occasionally. That leaves the hot group of newly "established" just out of "emerging" who almost always win - so much for anyone ever thinking that its best on the day by anyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 24, 2012 Share #17 Posted December 24, 2012 I dislike artistic competitions. I much prefer exhibitions that simply exhibit and leave you with your own reactions. I understand the commercial need for prizes and drumming up interest, but there are preferable ways of encouraging genuine creativity, risk-taking and imagination than dangling wads of cash at the end of a stick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Murray-White Posted December 24, 2012 Author Share #18 Posted December 24, 2012 I dislike artistic competitions. I much prefer exhibitions that simply exhibit and leave you with your own reactions. I understand the commercial need for prizes and drumming up interest, but there are preferable ways of encouraging genuine creativity, risk-taking and imagination than dangling wads of cash at the end of a stick. Thanks Peter - would you care to expand a bit on "preferable ways............" Clive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.