W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography

[Henry Carter]

An acquaintance of mine is an accomplished social documentary photographer working on a long-term project in humanistic photography. I have been following his activities for many years.

He does not make his living as a photographer, he is a physician. His profession gives him the access and trust that allows him to work on a difficult but worthwhile photographic project. His work has also come to public attention and has had a significant impact in raising awareness about an important social problem.

I have encouraged him to apply for the W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography as his project is all about raising awareness through photography and stimulating social change. He tells me that as an outsider to the photographic community he is at a disadvantage, and as a physician he is seen as a privileged member of society who does not need funding in the same way that a struggling artist is. He tells me that these grants are best left to photographers who aspire to work for Magnum.

So, are non-professional photographers wasting their time by pursuing these sorts of competitions and grants?

[Walter Calahan]

Why not let the grant committee decide instead of blowing it off without trying?

Good work is good work. As I see it, the grant helps photographers put together a show and a book, not to join Magnum.

[Steven Barall]

Non pros are not waisting their time at all. Who says that "pro" photographers are actually better at photography than anyone else in the first place? Many great artists have very strong interests, passions and careers in disparate areas that on the face of it might not seem to have anything to do with the arts. Intelligence and insight isn't granted automatically if you write "photographer" on your tax returns.

I am much more curious and interested in what a professional health care giver has to say about the current state of the human condition than just what yet another photographer might have to say. We have to work to make our world bigger and that's done through inclusion.

My best wishes to your doctor friend. Does he have photos on a web site we can look at? Thank you.

[Henry Carter]

Thank-you for the replies.

The real question is not regarding the merit of the work or justifying an application. The real question is in regards to bias on the part of judges against people outside of the photo-community who have established themselves in another field. If the grant is to help the career of a photographer, and the applicant is a doctor who happens to be a serious photographer, will the judges discriminate against the non-photographer no matter how good their work is?

Aaron Copeland was an insurance executive who composed music in his spare time, Cezanne was a banker who painted, and Chekhov and Eliot Porter were qualified physicians. Today we know these people for their art, not because of their other professions. Yet they are among the greats for all time because of their artistic contributions.

Likewise there are many accomplished photographers, who make their livings in other fields, who can pursue long-term projects without the need to worry about commercial concerns or recognition. Are they any less deserving of funding and recognition than someone struggling to make a living from photography alone? Do their other professions not sometimes give their art a depth, maturity, stability, and perspective that photography alone would not? Being an amateur is something to celebrate.

[Mark Sampson]

Just go for it. Even if your friend doesn't win, it won't reflect badly on the work, which is the important thing. I'll bet your friend didn't start the project with the intent of winning a prize.

[PViapiano]

Actually, Charles Ives was an insurance executive. I don't recall reading/studying that Aaron Copeland was in business at all...

[tim atherton]

and William Carlos Williams was a doctor; T.S. Eliot a teacher, banker and publishing executive...

[Oren Grad]

Why not ask the grant committee?

[Henry Carter]

Thanks for the correction regarding my confusing Aoron Copeland with Charles Ives, who was the insurance executive. It is important to check one's sources and not rely on memory alone...

As many of you have also pointed out, there were (and are) many great artists who were established in other fields and did not rely on their art to make a living.

If one is not forced to make a living from one's art, then the art is driven by passion and not commerce. This certainly has an impact on the scope, depth, and duration of the projects that ensue.

[tim atherton]

As many of you have also pointed out, there were (and are) many great artists who were established in other fields and did not rely on their art to make a living.

If one is not forced to make a living from one's art, then the art is driven by passion and not commerce. This certainly has an impact on the scope, depth, and duration of the projects that ensue.

well - that's one possible way to look at it.... but there are also plenty of example (drawing from the last century alone) where artists slaved away at some career or dayjob because they simply had no choice. Ther work wasn't recognised by "the world" for what it was until either late in their life or after their death.

(and a good few who financed their careers/art by way of an inheritance or [usually] a wife...!)