View Full Version : Everybody wants to be a photographer
I was just reading on the British Journal of Photography that the musician Moby has created a major photobook of his photography. The BJP website had a few images that he made, and to be perfectly honest, his work is nothing to write home about. Seeing this, and seeing all the attention he is getting for a book that is made up of sophomoric images made me very upset and frustrated.
This is upsetting to me because I know so many photographers that have something to say and are actually producing completely unique work that is absolutely beautiful. And the sad fact is that the majority of them will never be recognized for the outstanding work that they produce. And this musician, just decides to now become a professional fine art photographer, and he already has a book published and a line up of exhibitions in New York city. While completely devoted photographers who spend their entire lives working their asses off will never be interviewed by the British Journal of Photography or have anything close to an exhibition in New York city!! I just find it to be very depressing and it says a lot about the media, and the arts.
Why is it so difficult for real artistic talent to be discovered and appreciated by the media.
Thoughts?
Nathan Potter
2-Jul-2011, 18:37
Ya gotta be a celebrity pal!
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
It will blow over soon enough. Relax and enjoy the journey.
Great....Now we'll start seeing famous photographers releasing musical albums....
I'd be watching for the 'second' show....(they can usually buy themselves into the first, but not the second....)
Dan
Merg Ross
2-Jul-2011, 21:44
While completely devoted photographers who spend their entire lives working their asses off will never be interviewed by the British Journal of Photography or have anything close to an exhibition in New York city!! I just find it to be very depressing and it says a lot about the media, and the arts.
Why is it so difficult for real artistic talent to be discovered and appreciated by the media.
Thoughts?
Artistic talent is discovered and appreciated.
On a personal note, my work was published in the British Journal of Photography fifty years ago, and I have prints in the collection of MOMA, New York. However, as gratified as I was by early recognition of my talent, I chose to bow out of the self-promotional game one must play to be a darling of museum curators, directors and publishers. If you want to be depressed, spend a few hours with those folks.
As you suggest, "I have worked my ass off", and am very proud of the work that I have produced over a long career. It is art that I have made for myself, and appreciated by a few for whom I have respect. For me, that is enough.
Sorry for getting off on a personal note. Your point is well understood, and numerous celebrities have published books of their photographic endeavors. Some have also done so with their paintings. As pointed out in previous posts, celbrity status surely helps, but some do have a good eye and talent. I have never subscribed to the thought that "real artistic talent goes undiscovered". Vivian Maier comes to mind; she was surely talented, but chose to be reclusive with her art. Fortunately, she was "discovered".
Frank Petronio
2-Jul-2011, 22:01
Everybody should be a photographer and visually articulate. I bet Moby has a great collection of work from photographers he admires, and I've found that other photographers are the best judges, collectors, and inspiration.
As long as Moby didn't bump you from showing in a particular gallery or being published somewhere -- which I doubt was the case -- what's the difference? If you look at Aperture or those portfolio reviews, most of the work is "sophomoric images". Hell most of it is from college professors and it really blows.
If you have a beef, it should be with the editors and curators and gallery owners. But they know showing mediocre Moby (or Michael Stipe) pictures draws people in...
Personally, Jeff Bridges has some cool stuff, so does Brendan Fraser. Diane Keaton is a fine collector and curator. Just because they are celebrities doesn't mean they're lousy artists.
It has to be sold as art. SOLD... Marketed. Yes, being a celebrity may add an element, but not in the quality of the art... in the sale of the product as Art. Again Marketing is key in success, not quality of art. The fact is very real in this world, anything can be sold, by proper or even aggressive marketing.
Do you know that doctors and dentists spend a good part of Med School in the business practice of medicine and in courses to train them in marketing their practices. Even then, you only see a portion of these professions in terms of advertising and practice advancement.
All true professionals market. If I were a celebrity, and wanted to venture into another product or profession, of course I would leverage on my celebrity status to be successful, and with that leverage, the quality of my new product/profession would rely less on quality and performance.
Frankly, I have always felt that most of the artists and photographers shoot themselves in the foot by remaining blind to the need to market their work. In fact the worst thing most of them do is turn their work over to galleries or agents (or God forbid Web Site designers) and pay much of their money for marketing without learning much about it.
I have encountered Art Co-ops where all the artists owning shares of the Co-op also do the work of running the business side (often a retail gallery) and sharing in the expenses. I can tick of three reasonably successful co-ops, where the business of marketing brings realization to how to participate in the art market.
So, while a celebrity leveraging his/her fame in other enterprises of marginal quality, it is simply another aspect of what people who achieve success do well....
They understand, and perform the functions of marketing.
I think fanbases of musicians and actors want to be fans of something more than simply a person that acts well or performs/makes music well. It's great to have one thing and do it well, but fans want another aspect of self expression. Too much music and acting is doing things "by the book" following a plan to success so it seems.
This Moby doing photography thing reminds me of Jewel who did poetry. She was highly acclaimed for her music, but panned for her literary skills. But I'm a fan of hers and like her poetry book just the same.
As has been stated, celeb status certainly helps market these things.
Mark Sawyer
2-Jul-2011, 23:57
Why is it so difficult for real artistic talent to be discovered and appreciated by the media.
...because real artistic talent has other priorities than being discovered and appreciated by the media?
I'm with Merg on this one. And BTW, I know quite a few musical artists who have yet to be "discovered and appreciated by the media" who, to my mind and ears, have much more to offer than Moby in the musical arena.
Soooooooooooooooooooo many people have an "in" with the gallery game that if you don't, you're at the back end of a very very very long line waiting for your turn to be discovered.
Personally, I just take pictures because I'm hoping to score with Tinkerbell...
Steve Smith
3-Jul-2011, 00:24
I'm a musician and a photographer. Luckily I'm not famous for either!
Steve.
Ross Chambers
3-Jul-2011, 00:51
Who is Moby?
cjbroadbent
3-Jul-2011, 01:36
Frank P. +1
All that's missing from the system is the hard-boiled critic.
lenicolas
3-Jul-2011, 01:55
Why is it so difficult for real artistic talent to be discovered and appreciated by the media.
Record an electronic music album first. It's so much easier than putting together a photobook. :)
David R Munson
3-Jul-2011, 02:07
Record an electronic music album first. It's so much easier than putting together a photobook. :)
I hear a proper album cover is a minefield, though.
Richard Mahoney
3-Jul-2011, 04:08
... And this musician, just decides to now become a professional fine art photographer, and he already has a book published and a line up of exhibitions in New York city. While completely devoted photographers who spend their entire lives working their asses off will never be interviewed by the British Journal of Photography or have anything close to an exhibition in New York city!! I just find it to be very depressing and it says a lot about the media, and the arts. ...
Your comments may also reflect the intolerance that some `specialists' feel towards well rounded individuals with ability in a number of fields. Personally, I think it is great that someone should be given the opportunity to develop a wide range of interests. Seeing people pigeon holed within one narrow discipline for most of their lives must surely be a better reason for indignation. :(
Kind regards,
Richard
Luckily you probably haven't seen the work of Duran Duran's Nick Rhodes, his exhibition of polaroids was something else.
I photographed the ex wife of a Beatle a few weeks ago, her pics were were some of the worst pictures of the Beatles I've ever seen, technically and compositionally, she was charging upwards of £1100 for a poorly printed print.
Like most things in life, it's who you know, or who knows you...
Jim Jones
3-Jul-2011, 06:31
Your comments may also reflect the intolerance that some `specialists' feel towards well rounded individuals with ability in a number of fields. Personally, I think it is great that someone should be given the opportunity to develop a wide range of interests. Seeing people pigeon holed within one narrow discipline for most of their lives must surely be a better reason for indignation. :(
Kind regards,
Richard
Indeed! Consider Gordon Parks. Many wouldn't consider a tenant farmer's son from Kansas, a high school dropout, a piano player in a brothel and a singer, a semi-pro athlete, a busboy, and a non-white. He was also one of America's great renaissance men: photographer, journalist, novelist, poet, composer, director, and more. Yet, he is scarcely mentioned in much of the literature in these fields while mere celebrities garner much more than their unearned 15 minutes of fame.
Several years ago, Viggo Mortenson was riding the high of playing Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He wants to be a renaissance man and considers himself a poet and photographer. Someone I knew at the time was so into him that she bought up every bit that his name was on. I saw his photo book and wasn't impressed. It didn't look like much effort was put in beyond publishing something for people to buy. But Clarissa drove through a snowstorm to see him read poetry in upstate NY. Most of his movies besides LOTR bombed and he's sorta disappeared.
My point - Many performers know that their rabid fans will buy anything and it feeds their (usually considerable) egos to be thought of as something besides singer, guitarist, actor. The people who buy their stuff are probably not that likely to buy things from people who aren't in the favorite band, movie, etc...
David R Munson
3-Jul-2011, 07:17
Anyone remember when the singer Jewel released a book of poetry? Sometimes these things are best forgotten about as quickly as possible. That said, sometimes people who are artists in one realm do manage to create something of high value in another discipline as well.
Frank Petronio
3-Jul-2011, 07:41
Well that lameo Viggo backs a photo book publishing company that publishes a lot more than just his work.
And some of it is excellent.
You can disregard something like that... or see it as an opportunity. But it seems silly to discount someone because they have more than one talent or specialization.
Brian Ellis
3-Jul-2011, 08:02
Richard Gere too.
And Yul Brynner and David Byrne.
it helps when you are well known in a different field to have the money, inertia and public interest
so people can see in the work produced ... then again, that's what the agora gallery is for :)
its too bad there aren't more people with the skill and want to make photographs
there would be less "boring" and more "interesting"
Merg Ross
3-Jul-2011, 08:20
And Yul Brynner and David Byrne.
And Dennis Hopper.
Ya I mostly agree with what you guys are saying. I just wanted to make it clear that I dont think there is anything wrong with musicians making photographs. And if a celebrity is creating art of some kind I think it is great! Although, the work that I saw of his was not so great. And that is the problem that I am having. If you gave his work to a random person and had that person try to book a show at some gallery in NYC it would never happen. And I do realize that he is receiving special treatment because of his celebrity status, I just still think it's screwed up.
I also agree that it is important not to pigeon hole yourself, especially as an artist. But I also feel that when somebody is marketing his photography on that level they should be expecting to have their work critically evaluated, and if it sucks then critics should say something regardless. What I'm trying to say is that for the most part I think it is very common for a majority of the celebs to try and spread themselves to thin. You can't master anything if you do everything.
Mark Sawyer
3-Jul-2011, 08:44
And Kenny Rogers, and Leonard Nimoy, and Jessica Lang, and Joel Grey, and Don Imus, and...
Jay DeFehr
3-Jul-2011, 08:58
And Jeff Bridges (http://www.jeffbridges.com/photojan10a.html).
Ya I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with having multiple talents. And to be perfectly honest if I saw that article about Moby and if I thought the images were well done I could care less whether or not he is a celebrity. I just have a problem with MOST, not all, celebrities thinking they can do whatever the hell they want.
I personally don't feel like the majority of true artistic talent is ever discovered and appreciated. I'm not talking about personal satisfaction or being known as a good artist among family and friends. I'm saying being appreciated on a large scale. Why the hell is Peter Lik a famous photographer and well known on a national level, while the majority of people on this forum are producing work that makes Lik's images look like snap shots. Anyone of you guys produce images that can actually emotionally move the viewer, and even enlighten the viewer. Which is amazing when you think about it! But we all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that it is highly unlikely any of us will ever have a tv show and become a household name. It just pisses me off to think about the amazing work that is being produced, but I will never know about it because it's easier and more profitable for the media to only expose things like god damn Justin Bieber. The media is just really screwed up, and if something isn't main stream and easily acceptable, regardless of how beautiful it may be, it will never be exposed to the general public.
why shouldn't they ( celebrities or anyone else ) do whatever they want ?
i am not sure why it matters ...
there are book publishers who will print a book
and give anyone an isbn number and a back door to
the major book retailers, and print the books on demand
so there isn't a garage full of 25K books ...
and art galleries in NYC who will give someone ( even a 4 year old )
a full blown NYC art show without being "famous "
it isn't hard for anyone to do whatever they want these days
and who knows, maybe the "media" will notice and make them a household name ...
I couldn't care less what celebs are doing, that's not what bothers me.
I guess I just don't feel the same way as you do.
Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.
Frank Petronio
3-Jul-2011, 10:49
It is discouraging in some ways. I just stumbled upon a younger photographer who has work somewhat similar to mine, although not as well done in my opinion, doing work for Nike, Urban Outfitters, even Microsoft. Shooting celebrities and probably making great money for it.
But I don't live in LA or NYC and I could do a better job of marketing myself, even though my background is in marketing and advertising.... it's hard. Especially if you're not going to parties, good looking, and loaded to begin with.
Yet it can be done. Kurt Markus was designer for Western Horseman magazine who went on to do great books and shoot $$$ fashion and ad campaigns. He had good work and he got it in front of the right people, was a good person, did it right.
Mario Testino was a waiter. In fact most of these guys came up like that....
I agree with you Frank.
It's just depressing that it all boils down to marketing and appearances, and the quality of work does not matter like it should.
Steve Smith
3-Jul-2011, 11:11
I could care less what celebs are doing.
I couldn't care less what they are doing.
Steve.
Greg Miller
3-Jul-2011, 11:15
And Jeff Bridges (http://www.jeffbridges.com/photojan10a.html).
I don;t care for the photos much, but the web site look is pretty cool!
I couldn't care less what they are doing.
Steve.
Sorry if that bothered you. I will fix it.
Greg Miller
3-Jul-2011, 11:17
It has to be sold as art. SOLD... Marketed. Yes, being a celebrity may add an element, but not in the quality of the art... in the sale of the product as Art. Again Marketing is key in success, not quality of art. The fact is very real in this world, anything can be sold, by proper or even aggressive marketing.
Do you know that doctors and dentists spend a good part of Med School in the business practice of medicine and in courses to train them in marketing their practices. Even then, you only see a portion of these professions in terms of advertising and practice advancement.
All true professionals market. If I were a celebrity, and wanted to venture into another product or profession, of course I would leverage on my celebrity status to be successful, and with that leverage, the quality of my new product/profession would rely less on quality and performance.
Frankly, I have always felt that most of the artists and photographers shoot themselves in the foot by remaining blind to the need to market their work. In fact the worst thing most of them do is turn their work over to galleries or agents (or God forbid Web Site designers) and pay much of their money for marketing without learning much about it.
I have encountered Art Co-ops where all the artists owning shares of the Co-op also do the work of running the business side (often a retail gallery) and sharing in the expenses. I can tick of three reasonably successful co-ops, where the business of marketing brings realization to how to participate in the art market.
So, while a celebrity leveraging his/her fame in other enterprises of marginal quality, it is simply another aspect of what people who achieve success do well....
They understand, and perform the functions of marketing.
+1
It helps top be a good photographer. It helps to be a good marketer. It really helps to be good at both (at least when it comes to getting recognition and selling work).
Most photography books are bought by people who have an interest in the subject photographed, rather than an interest in photography in general. Books that appeal to a larger audience than the hard core photo fans are crossover books, and they're the cash cows of photography publishing.
Popular music (and the surrounding culture) has a fan base orders of magnitude bigger than fine art photography in general. So when someone like Moby makes a photo book that's about the day to day life of a musician, it's going to appeal to his fans in large numbers. He's got more fans than you or I or Edward Weston. Or all of us put together.
And good for him. He says he's been photographing for as long as he's been playing music, and that this documentary project has been ongoing for his whole career. It's not like he woke up yesterday and said "hey, I think I'll be a famous photographer now."
Most photography books are bought by people who have an interest in the subject photographed, rather than an interest in photography in general. Books that appeal to a larger audience than the hard core photo fans are crossover books, and they're the cash cows of photography publishing.
Popular music (and the surrounding culture) has a fan base orders of magnitude bigger than fine art photography in general. So when someone like Moby makes a photo book that's about the day to day life of a musician, it's going to appeal to his fans in large numbers. He's got more fans than you or I or Edward Weston. Or all of us put together.
And good for him. He says he's been photographing for as long as he's been playing music, and that this documentary project has been ongoing for his whole career. It's not like he woke up yesterday and said "hey, I think I'll be a famous photographer now."
Ya like I said before I don't have any problem with him or any other musician making photographs. Good for him, that is great. I just do not think his work deserves the attention it is and will continue to receive. I think it's screwed up that a body of work like that is receiving such attention just because he is a famous musician. That's all that I'm annoyed with.
Jay DeFehr
3-Jul-2011, 11:55
Kyle,
We all do what we do for a host of reasons, and I suspect there's a lot of commonality among those various reasons, though they might be differently prioritized. Recognition, financial rewards, self expression, the satisfaction of skillful execution, and others probably appear on many photographers lists of motivations, in many different orders. If recognition and financial reward are high on your list, this kind of news is more likely to trouble you than if those rewards were closer to the bottom, or omitted entirely. Recognition and financial rewards can be unfairly awarded (though there can be a lot of disagreement about any specific case), so if those rewards are high on your list, it can seem like an injustice when they are, or are perceived to be. The rewards of self expression and the satisfaction of work skillfully executed, etc., are not diminished by the recognition or financial rewards justly or unjustly awarded others.
My point is that the apparent celebrity-bias of the media might not be as much of an injustice as you imagine. Many of the un-celebrated but worthy of celebration might be so because they have different priorities. And as John points out, the media is more accessible to more people than it ever has been in history. And maybe Moby, like many celbs who dabble outside their primary careers, will donate any proceeds from his photography to a worthy charity.
Kyle,
We all do what we do for a host of reasons, and I suspect there's a lot of commonality among those various reasons, though they might be differently prioritized. Recognition, financial rewards, self expression, the satisfaction of skillful execution, and others probably appear on many photographers lists of motivations, in many different orders. If recognition and financial reward are high on your list, this kind of news is more likely to trouble you than if those rewards were closer to the bottom, or omitted entirely. Recognition and financial rewards can be unfairly awarded (though there can be a lot of disagreement about any specific case), so if those rewards are high on your list, it can seem like an injustice when they are, or are perceived to be. The rewards of self expression and the satisfaction of work skillfully executed, etc., are not diminished by the recognition or financial rewards justly or unjustly awarded others.
My point is that the apparent celebrity-bias of the media might not be as much of an injustice as you imagine. Many of the un-celebrated but worthy of celebration might be so because they have different priorities. And as John points out, the media is more accessible to more people than it ever has been in history. And maybe Moby, like many celbs who dabble outside their primary careers, will donate any proceeds from his photography to a worthy charity.
Hi Jay,
I'm sorry if I am coming across as financially driven. I personally do not regard financial success as the top priority. But I do think recognition is important. The way that I feel is true artists that are producing work that really means something, and is a real raw personal expression should be appreciated. No not like E News recognition, but art deserves to be appreciated, especially when it is something amazing. Just like Moby's music for example, it is obviously well done and he deserves the recognition that he has earned for it. My point is so much art whether it be photography, music, painting, sculpture or whatever goes unappreciated. There are a lot of people out there that have something important to say, but for some reason self expression is not important to the greater majority of the general public.
Mark Sawyer
3-Jul-2011, 13:00
...but for some reason self expression is not important to the greater majority of the general public.
I think this has mostly to do with it being someone else's self. Our own self-expression is important to each of us, but to others? Maybe within certain niches, like here in a large format forum, or within certain groups like friends, family, and, (here's where celebrities have the following), fans.
Art isn't so much about self-expression as it is about art, its trends and who influences them. Gallery art is about what draws crowds to galleries and sells so the gallery can keep its doors open. Self expression tends ultimately to be about one's self. Sometimes it touches a common chord, something universal in the "human condition", and people respond. But not often.
Jay DeFehr
3-Jul-2011, 13:19
Kyle,
There's certainly no need to apologize, even if you were financially driven; it's a perfectly legitimate motivation. Public recognition has always favored the lowest common denominator, and yes, it can be frustrating, but the art world certainly isn't the only one in which recognition is awarded on questionable bases. Scientists and academics, among others, share your complaint. Look at it this way, if the mainstream media always recognized the best in every field, there would be less satisfaction in doing so independently. It's always fun to champion undiscovered talent.
I think this has mostly to do with it being someone else's self. Our own self-expression is important to each of us, but to others? Maybe within certain niches, like here in a large format forum, or within certain groups like friends, family, and, (here's where celebrities have the following), fans.
Absolutely. The whole idea that art is about "self-expression" is just a holdover from the Romantic era. No one used that definition of art before then, and much of modernism has been about trying to get away from it. Why should the world care about my emotions? One of the hardest lessons of adolescence is discovering that it doesn't.
But even this conversation is full of assumptions. Who's to say people are interested in Moby's book as art? I haven't laid eyes on it, so I have no opinion on its interest as art, according my own ideas or other familiar ones. And this is probably beside the point. People are most likely buying it as a documentary work ... a look behind the scenes at the day to day life of a musician (an artist in another medium ... don't forget that) who they admire and are curious about.
Would I prefer that similar numbers of people were buying books of adventurous, challenging contemporary art, photography or otherwise? Sure. But I'm glad that people are buying photo books at all. It's the nature of the photo publishing biz that the big sellers supplement everything else—so every photographer aspiring to publish a book should hope for the success of books like Moby's.
I think a lot of confusion gets caused by the broadness of this thing called photography. People use it for so many purposes that are superficially simmilar, but quite different in both intent and perception. To appropriate Shaw's (or was it Wilde's?) witicism, photographers are irreconcileably divided by a common language.
Richard Mahoney
3-Jul-2011, 14:39
He [Viggo Mortenson] wants to be a renaissance man and considers himself a poet and photographer. ... Most of his movies besides LOTR bombed and he's sorta disappeared. ...
Suggested corrective -- you may like to watch Nikolai in Cronenberg's `Eastern Promises' ... scary biscuits. We should be grateful that M. has refused to become a cardboard cutout. The complexity just wouldn't be there.
Best,
Richard
Jay DeFehr
3-Jul-2011, 14:58
Richard,
I agree. Same goes for History of Violence. They're a great team.
Brian C. Miller
3-Jul-2011, 15:31
Popular music (and the surrounding culture) has a fan base orders of magnitude bigger than fine art photography in general. So when someone like Moby makes a photo book that's about the day to day life of a musician, it's going to appeal to his fans in large numbers. He's got more fans than you or I or Edward Weston. Or all of us put together.
Here's another thing to consider: his book contains his latest album. So buy the book and you also get the album.
The book isn't some pretentious thing, it's just photographs in his musical life. If the press on it is, "Moby the Photographer!" then I think that's the marketing staff, and not Richard Melville Hall's doing.
johnielvis
3-Jul-2011, 18:51
this reminds me
I love photographers then. Beats overweight, hairy nosed middle aged men wannabes with halitosis.
Michael E
3-Jul-2011, 19:47
I like the book. The photos go great with the writing (he won't win a pulitzer for it either), it all works and conveys the feelings he writes about in the preface. You can see all the photos online, read the text, and listen to the whole album. This is not bad.
I'm sick of groups of photographers/painters/musicians whining, complaining about other people, who do far inferior work and have far more success. It is embarrassing. And most of the time the assessment is not even true.
Michael
I like the book. The photos go great with the writing (he won't win a pulitzer for it either), it all works and conveys the feelings he writes about in the preface. You can see all the photos online, read the text, and listen to the whole album. This is not bad.
I'm sick of groups of photographers/painters/musicians whining, complaining about other people, who do far inferior work and have far more success. It is embarrassing. And most of the time the assessment is not even true.
Michael
As many people have pointed out there are numerous celebs that create some medium of art work and I don't have any problem with it, in fact I think it is great. The only reason I posted this in the first place is because when I viewed his work I personally thought it did not deserve the recognition it received from the BJP, and it frustrated me that work like that was getting that level of attention simply because of his celebrity status. I'm not just bitching for no reason, this post is based solely off my assessment of his work.
Making generalizations is never a good idea. Because more often than not, they aren't true.
You can see all the photos online, read the text, and listen to the whole album. This is not bad.
Link?
I'm sick of groups of photographers/painters/musicians whining, complaining about other people, who do far inferior work and have far more success. It is embarrassing. And most of the time the assessment is not even true.
Michael
Thank you!!
The only reason I posted this in the first place is because when I viewed his work I personally thought it did not deserve the recognition it received from the BJP, and it frustrated me that work like that was getting that level of attention simply because of his celebrity status.
The best thing about stuff that gets too much (unjustified) attention is to not give it any more attention ourselves. Or, in other words, move on and ignore.
Just my 2 cents…
Well, as to whether Moby's photos are good or not, that's pretty subjective. They're supposed to be of his world while he is on tour, which is a unique perspective and isn't comparable to the usual stuff we see in LF - cars rusting in wheat fields, nude women, barn doors, Yosemite, Arizona deserts, and flowers. It is all subjective anyway; personally I don't see what the fuss is about most of Eggleston's stuff. ITS JUST A DAMN TRICYCLE!
As to whether it is fair that celebrities get so much attention for their artwork by virtue of being celebrities...of course not. But then again, it is not as if Moby's photography is preventing someone else from being a famous photographer. Lotsa very good photographers...and musicians...are destined to die in obscurity. Hell, Van Gogh sold only ONE paintings while he was alive (and if you'd met him, you'd probably say "what a weirdo" rather than "there goes an unrecognized genius painter!")
...it is not as if Moby's photography is preventing someone else from being a famous photographer.
In fact, he's making it easier. Here's (http://www.damianieditore.it/catalogo.php?IDcat=105) the current photography selection from his publisher, Damiani. It's a wide range of work, including monographs by people I've never heard of. Most of these books will be published at a financial loss for the publisher. This is the reality of photo publishing for everyone, including heavy hitters like Aperture. They depend on the handful of books with wide popular appeal—like Moby's—to finance all the others.
Vascilli
11-Jul-2011, 02:50
It is discouraging in some ways. I just stumbled upon a younger photographer who has work somewhat similar to mine, although not as well done in my opinion, doing work for Nike, Urban Outfitters, even Microsoft. Shooting celebrities and probably making great money for it.
But I don't live in LA or NYC and I could do a better job of marketing myself, even though my background is in marketing and advertising.... it's hard. Especially if you're not going to parties, good looking, and loaded to begin with.
Yet it can be done. Kurt Markus was designer for Western Horseman magazine who went on to do great books and shoot $$$ fashion and ad campaigns. He had good work and he got it in front of the right people, was a good person, did it right.
Mario Testino was a waiter. In fact most of these guys came up like that....
Well then, I'm done for. :rolleyes: And I'm not much of a partier either.
Michael E
11-Jul-2011, 15:03
Link?
http://destroyed.moby.com/
Lynn Jones
11-Jul-2011, 15:34
Perhaps the best musician I've ever met who was also a photographer was Sammy Davis Jr., singer/dancer and truly great photojournalist. When ASMP was magazine phtography, Sam was the only full member who did not earn one half of his income through photography, it was honorary because of his incredible skills. He was also one of the great "quick draw" shooters and pistol twirller. I knew Sam but not Kenny below.
Another was Kenny Rodgers, terific singer and photojournalist. He loved George Hurrell's photography and and trained under him for a year or so. Kenny published a book called "Your Friends and Mine" shot in all 8x10 film. Really quite good.
Lynn
Steve M Hostetter
15-Jul-2011, 13:19
My 20 yr.old daughter just informed me today that she wants to be a photographer..:)
steve
Richard Mahoney
15-Jul-2011, 17:11
My 20 yr.old daughter just informed me today that she wants to be a photographer..:)
steve
Well I trust that she was supported ... but please ensure that she never has access to this site, as she may find it somewhat less than encouraging. At times, it would be easy for one to come to the conclusion that no one could ever make a living as a `genuine' photographer and that any attempt to do so somehow puts oneself beyond the pale ;) I'm assuming, of course, that she is serious, and actually wants to work as a photographer.
Kind regards,
Richard
Steve M Hostetter
17-Jul-2011, 12:51
Well I trust that she was supported ... but please ensure that she never has access to this site, as she may find it somewhat less than encouraging. At times, it would be easy for one to come to the conclusion that no one could ever make a living as a `genuine' photographer and that any attempt to do so somehow puts oneself beyond the pale ;) I'm assuming, of course, that she is serious, and actually wants to work as a photographer.
Kind regards,
Richard
Richard,, yeah she said she wants to make $$ at it... I guess I'll have to start shopping for a DSLR when I get some extra $$
Richard Mahoney
17-Jul-2011, 14:42
Richard,, yeah she said she wants to make $$ at it... I guess I'll have to start shopping for a DSLR when I get some extra $$
Or perhaps you could save yourself something ... just get her a decent Nikon F or F2 -- without batteries -- and a years worth of BW400CN. She might be irritated at first, but long term, I'm sure she'd thank you for it.
Best,
Richard
Or perhaps you could save yourself something ... just get her a decent Nikon F or F2 ... I'm sure she'd thank you for it.
I think the quick feedback and lack of film cost makes a dslr a much, much better learning tool. Unless you specifically want to learn about film.
Richard Mahoney
17-Jul-2011, 21:53
I think the quick feedback and lack of film cost makes a dslr a much, much better learning tool. Unless you specifically want to learn about film.
From memory -- I hesitate to dive into the dust to pull out the volume -- I can recall Escoffier holding forth about cookery and knives: the first, principal lesson, to be mastered by a cook before everything else, was the care and use of knives. It seems to me that it is not very different with driving: there has also always been a strong argument in favour of learning in a paddock in a truck without synchromesh. I'm not sure that a preference for immediate self gratification or for doing things on the cheap is conducive to developing the skills needed to be a decent photographer. Surely a secure grounding in the basics might be more useful?
Kind regards,
Richard
My 20 yr.old daughter just informed me today that she wants to be a photographer..:)
steve
best of luck to her !
it isn't an easy path to follow ...
make sure she takes business courses
and learns graphic design and videography to
supplement photography ... the more skills she
has the better in this day and age...
john
cjbroadbent
18-Jul-2011, 05:35
Somebody once said "If there is on thing that unites all nations, it is the fear that one of our children will want to become an artist".
Somebody once said "If there is on thing that unites all nations, it is the fear that one of our children will want to become an artist".
Then I feel bad for my father, who cranked out four of them.
rguinter
18-Jul-2011, 08:52
I was just reading on the British Journal of Photography that the musician Moby has created a major photobook of his photography. The BJP website had a few images that he made, and to be perfectly honest, his work is nothing to write home about. Seeing this, and seeing all the attention he is getting for a book that is made up of sophomoric images made me very upset and frustrated.
This is upsetting to me because I know so many photographers that have something to say and are actually producing completely unique work that is absolutely beautiful. And the sad fact is that the majority of them will never be recognized for the outstanding work that they produce. And this musician, just decides to now become a professional fine art photographer, and he already has a book published and a line up of exhibitions in New York city. While completely devoted photographers who spend their entire lives working their asses off will never be interviewed by the British Journal of Photography or have anything close to an exhibition in New York city!! I just find it to be very depressing and it says a lot about the media, and the arts.
Why is it so difficult for real artistic talent to be discovered and appreciated by the media.
Thoughts?
Not much talent in his music either.
But he has a strong following.
Such is life...
Bob G.
lawrencebrussel
21-Jul-2011, 05:30
It happens in most of the cases, that real artists lags behind the popularity for what they are meant to be .In this situation ,I would like to say just one thing, whatever or whenever you do .....Just Do It Big.
Because I also believe that everyone got there a big life time chance to prove , what they are up to.
WAH...WAH...WAH...
Get real (everybody with a cell phone is a photographer), become a celebrity.
On another dissonant note, would it be possible to start another section on LF Forum specifically devoted to Sour Grapes?
John Kasaian
21-Jul-2011, 10:14
Heck, I wannabee a photographer too! :D
lawrencebrussel
22-Jul-2011, 01:05
ROL-No doubt, many times people with cellphones are doing such a great job that a professional camera can't do. :eek:
Richard Mahoney
22-Jul-2011, 04:39
ROL-No doubt, many times people with cellphones are doing such a great job that a professional camera can't do. :eek:
Or just doing a great job regardless ... (Chase Jarvis) (http://www.chasejarvis.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=5&a=0&at=0)
Best,
Richard
lawrencebrussel
23-Jul-2011, 05:03
Or just doing a great job regardless ... (Chase Jarvis) (http://www.chasejarvis.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=5&a=0&at=0)
Best,
Richard
Hi Richard , I like your photography, & it would have been got better if there wasn't any human body over there :P
The background shot is awesome .
Brian K
23-Jul-2011, 07:22
There seems to be two main approaches to photography today, the shotgun approach or the marksman. There are those who will shoot 3000 images in a weekend and might have a bullseye or two in there but will otherwise scatter their shot all over the place, and there are those who shoot just a few images over that same period of time and get mostly bulls eyes or near misses. Who would you consider the better shot?
I just came back from a major art fair. And there was quite a bit of photography. Nearly all of it was very predictable, very. Many of the images of the different photographers were done from literally the same tripod holes. The color work, way over saturated, HDR on steroids. The print sizes? Huge, some as large as 72". 30" prints selling for $250-325 framed. 16x20's selling for $125- 160 framed. I have no idea how anyone can make a profit by selling a framed, matted, mounted print for $125. I guess they don't consider their time and equipment costs as a cost of producing the work.
Among the crowd some LF shooters, also with big prints, some even being silver. While most of their subject matter or locations were very similar to the larger group of photographers, their perspectives were more original and better designed, their sense of light superior and their quality and attention to detail better. Their work sold in the $400 to $1000 range, and I think most here would have appreciated their work.
But I also had another observation, those working with digital, while having a few excellent images, had many more that were far less acceptable. They had a few home runs, well maybe a few triples, but an awful lot of strike outs. The LF shooters had more home runs and extra base hits, and even when they didn't get a hit they made solid contact.
Some might argue that maybe the LF shooters did better work because they were more committed? Maybe, but all those other photographers appeared to have made serious efforts and participating in this fair is expensive and requires a tremendous amount of logistics, preparation and effort.
As for the overall success of the fair, the weather was awful but according to those exhibitors I spoke to, the fair has been suffering horribly since the economic downturn. I saw no one carrying away or buying any photographs, paintings,sculpture, etc. It seemed that only jewelry and small crafts items sold, if at all.
As an aside, I believe that photography has been hurt more than any other art form because the perception now is that it doesn't require any talent or skill to produce an image, so why pay for it? Why buy someone else's work when you think you can do it just as well yourself.
Bill Burk
23-Jul-2011, 12:05
Nice post Brian, makes me want to bring LF to the baseball game this afternoon.
Roger Cole
23-Jul-2011, 12:19
Richard,, yeah she said she wants to make $$ at it... I guess I'll have to start shopping for a DSLR when I get some extra $$
I thought you said she wanted to be a photographer? :confused:
:D
Ok, ok, of course one can do serious work with a DSLR, and a working (translation, paid) pro just about, almost, must shoot digital. I'm just having a bit of fun.
Or perhaps you could save yourself something ... just get her a decent Nikon F or F2 -- without batteries -- and a years worth of BW400CN. She might be irritated at first, but long term, I'm sure she'd thank you for it.
Best,
Richard
Good idea. The basics of shutter speed, aperture, D.O.F. etc. don't change, and having that knowledge will put her way up on those with DSLR cameras who know little beyond how to choose different auto modes.
I'm not sure about the learning to drive in a car "without synchromesh" as anyone who can drive a manual transmission should be able to double clutch if they just have the principle explained once, but I fully agree about learning on a stick shift. I'm teaching my girlfriend to drive one now, and I think it would have been easier to teach someone who had never learned to drive at all than to teach someone who's been driving for more than a decade but only in "awfulmatics" as I all them.
Richard Mahoney
23-Jul-2011, 15:19
Or perhaps you could save yourself something ... just get her a decent Nikon F or F2 -- without batteries -- and a years worth of BW400CN. She might be irritated at first, but long term, I'm sure she'd thank you for it.
Good idea. The basics of shutter speed, aperture, D.O.F. etc. don't change, and having that knowledge will put her way up on those with DSLR cameras who know little beyond how to choose different auto modes.
Yes, and having to rely on a hand held light meter, or her own judgment, will help her to pause and think about exposure ... In addition, I should perhaps have mentioned what may be the most important thing of all -- the choice of a lens. If she wants to be a photojournalist, and if she is willing to lug around an F, then I'd recommend letting her loose in the world with *one* fine but temperamental lens, say a '70s 35mm 1.4 Nikkor. This help her to learn how to work within the limitations of her equipment. Depending on her approach, the results could range anywhere from the extremely poor to unbelievably good -- a valuable lesson in humility ;)
Kind regards,
Richard
I think the best thing you can do is give her the freedom to be any type of photographer she wants to be, but to be there for her if needed. Forcing someone down the path of your choice is a shure way to put them off. Young people have to make their way through a different world to that of their parents and by trying to control their destiny we threaten their ability to thrive and compete and grow in their world.
George Kara
28-Jul-2011, 08:30
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/27/female_engagement?page=0,21
These are some very meaningful photos shot of US female soldiers in Afghanistan. Many possess the elements of profound lasting and meaningful images. These images were all shot using an iphone and hipstamatic app. Many are as good as any photojournalist could take.
The truth is (except for LF and MF) the process of photography has been automated where skill is no longer necessary to take good photos. Even Monkeys, gorillas and young soldiers with iphones can do it.
Old school photography and the skills needed are perhaps going the way of skilled horseshoeing and buggy craftsman of the late 19th century. Maybe its time to hone those skills not related to pressing the trigger finger or using light sensitive materials. There is a whole new world of opportunity for image makers who are willing to embrace the modern world and its possibilities.
Brian K
28-Jul-2011, 08:54
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/27/female_engagement?page=0,21
These are some very meaningful photos shot of US female soldiers in Afghanistan. Many possess the elements of profound lasting and meaningful images. These images were all shot using an iphone and hipstamatic app. Many are as good as any photojournalist could take.
The truth is (except for LF and MF) the process of photography has been automated where skill is no longer necessary to take good photos. Even Monkeys, gorillas and young soldiers with iphones can do it.
Old school photography and the skills needed are perhaps going the way of skilled horseshoeing and buggy craftsman of the late 19th century. Maybe its time to hone those skills not related to pressing the trigger finger or using light sensitive materials. There is a whole new world of opportunity for image makers who are willing to embrace the modern world and its possibilities.
The work you linked to was shot by a professional photojournalist. Not some kid with a cell phone, but a PRO with a cell phone. The images are good not because of the equipment but because of her eye. It's always the EYE, and that's what separates a real photographer from everyone else.
In the past it was the gear that made many hobbyists think that that was the only difference between them and real professionals. And the camera manufacturers recognized this and would often add the word "Pro" to their sales pitches,"shoot like a Pro", "Light like a Pro", etc. So now aspiring hobbyists can say that there is no difference between what they do and pros, because both have access to the same gear. But for most hobbyists, there's a far greater difference than they could ever imagine.
rdenney
28-Jul-2011, 10:08
When it comes to reportage in particular, here are what seem to me a photographer's priorities:
1. The correct subject.
2. The correct time.
3. The correct framing (composition).
6. Focusing correctly.
9. The correct exposure.
127. The equipment.
No award was given for 4, 5, etc.
Rick "whose priorities are often inverted" Denney
Brian K
28-Jul-2011, 10:47
When it comes to reportage in particular, here are what seem to me a photographer's priorities:
1. The correct subject.
2. The correct time.
3. The correct framing (composition).
6. Focusing correctly.
9. The correct exposure.
127. The equipment.
No award was given for 4, 5, etc.
Rick "whose priorities are often inverted" Denney
Rick where do you get this from? The overriding requirement of reportage or photojournalism is "tell the story". Something which you fail to mention.
rdenney
28-Jul-2011, 12:02
Rick where do you get this from? The overriding requirement of reportage or photojournalism is "tell the story". Something which you fail to mention.
Seems to me that's the goal. Once the photographer is where the story is and understands what the story is, then the strategy for telling the story is to point the camera in the right direction, push the button at the right time, and include the right things in the picture. I was confining myself to what one does with the camera, given that the thread is about the technology of the camera.
Rick "who got it from his head, which is where the 'seem to me' came from" Denney
Technology of the camera is not what I read this thread to be about. Pointing a camera at a target is simple enough for anyone to do, no matter it be 8x10" or iPhone. Making a statement, be it art or story is what "seeing" is about. The "very meaningful photos shot of US female soldiers in Afghanistan" is seeing in my opinion.
rdenney
28-Jul-2011, 13:13
Technology of the camera is not what I read this thread to be about. Pointing a camera at a target is simple enough for anyone to do, no matter it be 8x10" or iPhone. Making a statement, be it art or story is what "seeing" is about. The "very meaningful photos shot of US female soldiers in Afghanistan" is seeing in my opinion.
The original thread was about a celebrity photographer getting wide notice for what the OP thought were mediocre photos, when superb photographers get little notice for their superior work. That morphed in several directions, one of which was that photographers can use cell phones and get good results because they know what they are doing.
My point was general agreement--the fact that it's a cell phone is of almost negligible importance in reportage, compared to being there and making the photo at the right time.
You can call that "seeing", but I'm not much of a fan of taking common words and giving them narrow meanings. How is your "seeing" manifest in practice? By pointing the camera in the right direction, from the right place, at the right subject, and at the right time. All of those can be done with any camera. (In music, it would be: playing the correct pitch, with an appropriate articulate and decay, for the right amount of time, and at the correct time. Miss any of those, and it won't matter how artistic you are or how fancy your instrument is. Get all those, and you can express yourself with a kazoo.)
But if the photo is not reportage, other qualities may also be important. Art must have gesture, but it sometimes also needs detail and tonality to make its point. And even things that don't move have timing. (A violin sonata on a kazoo can be musical, if telling the musical story is the only objective, but it won't be appropriate without the violin.)
If you want to sell it, though, it's best to go out and become a celebrity first. Now, I'm back on topic.
Rick "f/8 and be there and all that" Denney
You can call that "seeing", but I'm not much of a fan of taking common words and giving them narrow meanings. How is your "seeing" manifest in practice?
"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words."
Ansel Adams
I think Ansel said it best.
rdenney
28-Jul-2011, 14:33
"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words."
Ansel Adams
I think Ansel said it best.
I think he said that well, and I agree, but that is not, of course, what I was talking about.
Rick "giving up" Denney
Rick "giving up" Denney
:rolleyes:
Good idea. :)
megapickle1
5-Aug-2011, 11:50
Ya gotta be a celebrity pal!
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Yes, that´s the point today! I you have a "name" you call sell shit, sorry, but it´s true.
George
photobymike
18-Dec-2012, 07:14
There are alot of celebrity photographers... some good ones and really bad.... good ... Sammy Davis jr and Dennis Hopper.... bad really bad... Spock <star trek dude.... and Moby ..... its easy anybody can take pictures LOL LOL
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.