Zoom in on a snappy photographic investment

Historic photographs might make you a tidy profit – if you choose your subject wisely

140307-prosper.jpg
(Image credit: 2012 Getty Images)

WHEN Vanessa Bell and Virginia Woolf shrugged off the confines of Kensington for the freedom of Bloomsbury in 1904, one of the few artefacts they took with them was a series of photographs of their mother, taken by her aunt – the pioneering portrait photographer, Julia Margaret Cameron. They were the only piece of High Victoriana that Vanessa Bell would allow in their new, light-filled surroundings. Artistically, the move was mould-breaking: black and white photography on white walls would become a 20th-century design cliché. With hindsight, it was also a savvy investment choice. In December an unknown collection of Cameron’s photographs sold for £242,000 at Sotheby’s London, a 60 per cent leap on her previous 2001 sales record. One of its constituents, a striking 1867 portrait of the sisters’ mother, Julia Prinsep Jackson (looking, it has to be said, remarkably like a pre-Raphaelite Harriet Harman under pressure) is currently on sale at Charles Isaacs Photographs Inc, according to artnet.com. Price? POA – for which read inflationary. Compared with other branches of the art world, where auction records tumble on a regular basis, photography values have moved upwards much more sedately. Indeed, given the recent scrum for trophy artworks, it says something that Rhein II, a 1999 abstract composition in green and blue by the German photographer Andreas Gursky, which sold for $4.3m in 2011, is still at the top of the pile. The rise of fine art photographers like Gursky seems a sensible “value-add” reaction to a digital world as saturated with photographic imagery as ours. This week’s decision by Getty to open up its huge historic archive of images to all-comers on social media, free of copyright charges, rams home the onward commoditisation of even classic photographs. Yet the thinking behind the move is as shrewd as you would expect from Carlyle, the private equity house which bought Getty for $3.3bn in 2012. It’s an acknowledgement that the war on policing copyright has been lost, and that other ways need to be found to make the portfolio pay. Getty’s plan is to track who uses its photographs, and find ways of monetising that knowledge. The thinking goes that the more widely the images are flung, the more iconic and lucrative they become: both in terms of what Getty can extract from companies using them for business purposes, and on the value of the original 30 million prints and negatives in its vaults. To illustrate the point, consider the impact of a bed-sitter classic like Edvard Munch’s The Scream on the value of the original.

If that’s the way things are headed, now would seem a pretty good time to jump into what is still, in art market terms, a comparatively undervalued market. You can, after all still pick up prints from auction-starred photographers for four-figure sums. The second highest grossing photograph ever – Untitled #96 (1981) by the American photographer Cindy Sherman – went for $3.9m in 2011. But had you been in Sydney in January, you could have snapped up a 1993 colour print for $2,200.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

writes profiles for Money Week and is City editor of The Week.