What kind of income are we talking here?

[Kimberly Dow]

No one here has mentioned something I have noticed and that is location.

I know the internet has changed that somewhat, but not completely since we have to be paid to travel to get good photo references and that ups the price more.

I personally could not survive on just portraits. I'd love to have more, but I truly feel it is where I am. Small, low-income town. My goal is to get the word out at the nearby San Antonio to improve things - but it takes time and money to do that - especially when I do not get there often.

Doesnt it make sense that say, Michele, who lives in Seattle would have more client options than myself in a small low-income town of 25,000 people? The five people in town who can afford it have already hired me.

[Geary Wootten]

Originally Posted by Kimberly Dow

No one here has mentioned something I have noticed and that is location.

...........

Doesnt it make sense that say, Michele, who lives in Seattle would have more client options than myself in a small low-income town of 25,000 people? The five people in town who can afford it have already hired me.

Yes, Kimberly, I wholeheartedly agree. As someone has already mentioned on this forum about who can afford the service of fine portraiture...... in that, when you look at figurative artists from anytime and any culture of the past, it has always been the elite among them that had the resources to pay for the time and talent that this kind of work commands. Portrait artists of the past, when Kings ruled the earth, were set up in the palace premises so that their services could be readily available at the requests (demands) of the royal government.

Back in my hometown of 45,000 in an agricultural area of central California, I doubt there would be 10 people that would justify paying more than $1000.00 for a portrait of any size. I, prersonally, think there it's mostly due to a lack of art education. They would just say, "Gawwwly.....he shore is a good artist.....but, man.....he wants a lotta money for his stuff." Then drive off to the coast with friends in a 60 thousand dollar Escalade and think nothing of spending 500 bucks on a fancy dinner.

Happy Hunting,

Gear

[Michele Rushworth]

Geary, I think you hit on something important here:

Back in my hometown of 45,000 in an agricultural area of central California, I doubt there would be 10 people that would justify paying more than $1000.00 for a portrait of any size. I, personally, think there it's mostly due to a lack of art education.They would just say, "Gawwwly.....he shore is a good artist.....but, man.....he wants a lotta money for his stuff." Then drive off to the coast with friends in a 60 thousand dollar Escalade and think nothing of spending 500 bucks on a fancy dinner.

Chris Saper and Peggy Baumgaertner have talked about the phenomenon of "induced demand" in portraiture. Having more top quality portrait artists in an area doesn't mean less work for each (due to competition) but rather, more work for each artist. Prospective clients begin to see lots of good portraiture in the homes and art shows around them (and learn what the typical prices are) and that starts the idea growing. Once a half dozen of their neighbors have paid $5,000 plus for a gorgeous portrait, they start to think it might be a good idea too. And, Geary and Lara, since you'll both have a Seattle-area waiting list of a couple of years, maybe I'll get the commission!

[Michele Rushworth]

Lara, I think the reason you haven't gotten a specific dollars-and-cents reply on this subject from some of the more established pros (apart from modesty about money) is that there aren't that many long term pros participating in the Forum. Most of the members are relatively new to portraiture or are new at being a pro (as I am, having done this for less than three years). Of the couple of hundred active participants here I can think of only a dozen or so who have been focused on doing commissioned portraits for more than five years. (Someone else correct me if I'm wrong in this.)

However, to get an idea about your question of annual income you can take a look at all the artists represented on the main SOG site. (Most of those folks don't post here because they're busy painting -- which is what I should be doing right now!) Then take a look at the average prices. Assuming, working full time at it, that many of them complete ten or twelve portraits a year. (This is a number I have heard from various places.) Then the math starts to add up.

I just did a little informal survey, on the SOG page that lists artists "By Location and Fees." I went down the left column and wrote down the price range of the first ten artists who show pricing. Because I went down the left column, I got artists in different states. The average price of those ten artists (halfway between their listed high and low price) is $7,500. (I have three commissions on my waiting list that are priced higher than that so I know the figure is not out of line, and I'm still very new at this.)

At ten paintings completed per year that's total sales of $75,000. Assuming $10,000 to $20,000 annual expenses (which might include a new camera, a trip to one of the national conferences, etc.) it's well above your original $35,000 question.

I don't know if any of my fundamental assumptions in making that calculation are inherently flawed, but it seems to make sense to me. Someone jump in here and let me know if I'm way off base.

I'm not saying that every artist on the SOG site has $75,000 in commissions a year, or even most of the artists. (I certainly don't. I don't paint full time and I have given lots of discounts in the past to get the ball rolling. However I have six full price commissions in my waiting list now, so things are happening.) There are many portrait artists who have sales of a lot more than $75,000 a year, too.

It would seem, in any case, with these assumptions, that the "potential" is really there for the rest of us.

Hope that helps!