Business VS Art for Art's sake

[Peter Lewin]

I think that if one re-reads Monsieur Duchamps' original post, you will see that being in a museum collection was not an end in itself, it was a measure of the merit of the photography. He specifically states that while for some, having works in "small galleries and collections" may be sufficient, he asks how to "transcend" that level to the point where one's work is collected by [major, my addition] museums. So ultimately, in my reading, we have someone entering the fine arts photography field asking how to reach the pinnacle of that field, particularly if one's love is the black and white silver print.

While many of us can question whether curators should be the measure of one's success, I personally would not argue that Rodinal's use of "museum collectibility" is not a good target. Yes, we occasionally come across excellent photographers who were never recognized (Vivienne Maier jumps to mind as a current example, as does Atget who was unknown until Berenice Abbott popularized his work around 1930), but very few mediocre photographs hang in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, or the Metropolitan Museum, in NYC. I see no reason why Rodinal, starting out, shouldn't aim high.

Of course his question about how to get there is somewhat unanswerable, but several with appropriate experiences have already posted their thoughts. I suspect that many of us can offer opinions on how to live one's life ("be true to your own spirit and vision" has been said several times) but in truth the vast majority of us are happy to have works hung in local juried shows or in small local galleries, so we are not aiming for the same target as Rodinal. As the father of two grown children, I could offer lots of wisdom (self-depricating humor) on how to live a life, but that wasn't the question.

The second part of Rodinal's question was whether there is still a place for the B&W silver print at the "pinnacle." Since I am still a darkroom printer, that question intrigued me. When I try to think of "contemporary" B&W landscape photographers who have made the major museum grade, I run out of candidates with Robert Adams and William Clift, and they are both over 60. Kirk, who as far as I know is the best qualified on this Forum to respond to Rodinal's question, has mentioned that he (although he too is over 60!) as well as others he knows, are actively collected by museums, so it would seem that darkroom photographers don't have to give up yet.

Edit: Read the thread in this same forum, "$6.5 million for a Peter Lik." He doesn't shoot B&W silver prints, I have no idea if he is collected by major museums, but there has to be a relationship between that thread and this one!

[Greg Miller]

The point is the work.

It should be about the work. With curators bombarded by people and work coming at them from endless media sources, it doesn't seem to be a good strategy to wait for things to happen, or to be difficult to work with. Maximizing the odds of being recognized and accepted includes the element of marketing and sales. Some people love marketing and some people hate it. It seems intuitive that the more sales and marketing that one does, and the more pleasant and easy one makes it to interact with, the better the odds of being selected. Its possible to be a curmudgeon and successful, or do no marketing, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. There are also ample cases of photographers who are better marketers than photographers who are more successful than photographers who are better than them. I think making outstanding work is very important, but I don't think that is enough today. At least not if one's ambitions include having the validation of being in museums and are willing to improve the probability of that happening.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I think that if one re-reads Monsieur Duchamps' original post, you will see that being in a museum collection was not an end in itself, it was a measure of the merit of the photography. He specifically states that while for some, having works in "small galleries and collections" may be sufficient, he asks how to "transcend" that level to the point where one's work is collected by [major, my addition] museums. So ultimately, in my reading, we have someone entering the fine arts photography field asking how to reach the pinnacle of that field, particularly if one's love is the black and white silver print.

While many of us can question whether curators should be the measure of one's success, I personally would not argue that Rodinal's use of "museum collectibility" is not a good target. Yes, we occasionally come across excellent photographers who were never recognized (Vivienne Maier jumps to mind as a current example, as does Atget who was unknown until Berenice Abbott popularized his work around 1930), but very few mediocre photographs hang in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, or the Metropolitan Museum, in NYC. I see no reason why Rodinal, starting out, shouldn't aim high.

Of course his question about how to get there is somewhat unanswerable, but several with appropriate experiences have already posted their thoughts. I suspect that many of us can offer opinions on how to live one's life ("be true to your own spirit and vision" has been said several times) but in truth the vast majority of us are happy to have works hung in local juried shows or in small local galleries, so we are not aiming for the same target as Rodinal. As the father of two grown children, I could offer lots of wisdom (self-depricating humor) on how to live a life, but that wasn't the question.

The second part of Rodinal's question was whether there is still a place for the B&W silver print at the "pinnacle." Since I am still a darkroom printer, that question intrigued me. When I try to think of "contemporary" B&W landscape photographers who have made the major museum grade, I run out of candidates with Robert Adams and William Clift, and they are both over 60. Kirk, who as far as I know is the best qualified on this Forum to respond to Rodinal's question, has mentioned that he (although he too is over 60!) as well as others he knows, are actively collected by museums, so it would seem that darkroom photographers don't have to give up yet.

Edit: Read the thread in this same forum, "$6.5 million for a Peter Lik." He doesn't shoot B&W silver prints, I have no idea if he is collected by major museums, but there has to be a relationship between that thread and this one!

Bravo, thank you for going back and retouching some of the more important parts of my original thought stream.

I am relatively young (29) and grew up in the digital era. However as a photographer and as an artist I will always prefer analog medium. I have tried Photoshop I am rather good at it but it can never replace the experience and process of developing negatives and printing with chemistry.

Yes I would rather shoot and be penniless but enjoy what I do to my core. Its fine for others to make all the money they can. Personally I want my work to reach an audience but not necessarily for commerce.

Though we do live in an era of "schmoozing" as some of you have said. We also live in a time where Banksy has gone from street artist criminal to world renowned artist. I would much rather be the latter even without Banksy's financial success.

[Merg Ross]

You may be jumping the gun here Merg. RodinalDuchamp may want to be in a Museum because he/she thinks that is the best way to communicate with his/her viewers.

Just playing devil's advocate! My work is in a few museums resulting from youthful ambitions. Nothing wrong with the goal of Rodinal Duchamp --- however, there may come a time when he reconsiders the actual worth relative to a love and passion for the medium. Only time will tell.

I wish him all the success.

[Kodachrome25]

I don't market my work, I get people excited to see it and then buy it. I love every aspect of my life as a photographer, maybe that is why I have endless energy and enthusiasm after 26 years in the biz....

Food for thought.

[gregmo]

Bravo, thank you for going back and retouching some of the more important parts of my original thought stream.

I am relatively young (29) and grew up in the digital era.
Yes I would rather shoot and be penniless but enjoy what I do to my core. Its fine for others to make all the money they can.
We also live in a time where Banksy has gone from street artist criminal to world renowned artist.

You & I are the same generation. You have to make your money somehow tho.
Going from criminal to famous artist- This is nothing new. The music industry is full of them.. Snoop, Jay-Z, 50 Cent...the list goes on & on.

[analoguey]

I thought you defined good marketing just there!
Get them excited then sell it to them.

[Greg Miller]

I don't market my work, I get people excited to see it and then buy it. I love every aspect of my life as a photographer, maybe that is why I have endless energy and enthusiasm after 26 years in the biz....

Food for thought.

It takes marketing to get your work out there and for people to see it (before they can get excited about it). Whatever you are doing to get people excited to see it is your marketing. There are traditional marketing methods and non-traditional methods. But its all marketing. Every business has marketing. Many businesses with really outstanding products fail all the time because no-one knows they exist.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Just to give a bit of background. I have made money with my photography just not in the way I want to. I've shot some weddings. You can even see some of it here www.matterandmovement.com but I realized that business wasn't for me.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I have received a generous amount of feedback and thank you all. Its going to take me still longer to interpret it. Its true we all have unique goals and ways to achieve them.