Why Do We Photograph?

[William Whitaker]

After kicking the tin can of photography down the road for the last 40 years, I've recently begun to really question what it's all about. Sound familiar?

This summer I participated in a group show. I resurrected some older prints and even printed a favorite image in a size more commensurate with the subject matter. So I really dove into it (or so I thought).

The experience was excellent. I felt for once in my life like I was doing something that I was meant to be doing. By the way, this was my first ever experience displaying my work publicly. And it was a kick. The reception early on was very positive. Many people I had invited showed up and I felt like I was getting support all around.

Alas, the show did not generate any sales. (Did I really expect any?....) I admit that setting prices was very new and somewhat awkward territory for me. Maybe I was too high. But my feeling was that it was better to be too high than too low, the latter suggesting, perhaps, that the artist did not really value his own work. And I didn't want that.

But not once in the two months the show was up did anyone even suggest that they'd like to have a print or that such & such a print might look nice in their foyer or bedroom or living room...

Notable to me was a sibling who came to the reception (at my request). Now this individual has been pushing me for a decade or more to pursue my photography.
"You have such a God-given talent!.... You really should make this your life's work!...." and various such comments. But did she buy a print? Hell, NO! And not even when I suggested a "family discount". Ha! And this individual knows that any money whatsoever from a print sale would be a tremendous help to me financially. Sheesh!!
So, really what I got out of the show was a very expensive bill for matting and framing.

So what drives you folks out there in forum-land? Is the pursuit of photography nothing more than an excuse to play with expensive toys?

I know it's normal to become discouraged at times. But this is ridiculous! I'm having thoughts of a large estate sale. Or maybe just a large dumpster!
My age is showing here as I realize that the time is approaching when working with a camera won't be possible because of one issue or another.

Or maybe I need to keep at it just for personal gratification because, well, it IS quite gratifying to produce a print that conveys well what I feel inside. And if I'm the only one who likes it enough to invest in it, then that's the way it is and I shouldn't feel bad about that.

I'd be interested in thoughts and experiences of others.

[jp]

You might read "Art and Fear" for a little more on the topic. Not answers so much as provoking discussion. While listening to Bjork's "Human Behavior"

What sells could mean it is marketed well rather than simply photographic talent executed nicely. If you look at it from the perspective of a gallery visitor, they may visit many galleries in a day or evening, see hundreds of pieces of high quality artwork, and do this repeatedly month after month and there is still a small chance they'd buy something. They do appreciate it, or they wouldn't have come out. If they were intent on buying it, they could have bargained with you; and your higher price will make everyone happier when the bargaining succeeds. I'm better at selling electronics than photos. I would starve selling photos.

Once in a while I have exhibited something too. Very little has sold. It does have some social benefits mixing with other creative people. I met a customer for the first time the other day at my computer shop who remembered my photo like it was yesterday from the Maine Photography Show probably three years ago. We had a good chat about photography while I setup lightroom for him on his new computer. But I don't really make photos to put in shows. Some people do, and that's fine. I put some on the Internet, print a few, show even fewer, hang a few up at home. The process is a creative thing I must do. My life is out of balance if I can't get some creativity in, and I can't paint or draw, but I do enjoy photography. For another creative person it might be woodworking or music or writing.

[Graham Patterson]

I think I photograph to communicate with myself. My professional life has encompassed geological analysis and computer system administration, both very process-oriented and demanding an analytical mind-set. I do more (and maybe better) photography when I am relaxed. This suggests to me that my creative side can be in charge, instead of supporting the analytical side. Have I exhibited and sold work? Rarely, and only if encouraged. I certainly don't do it for the new toys - I just bought my second new camera. The first was in 1975 8-)

Photography is a hobby for me - I don't think I could survive using it to make a living (read that whichever way you like!).

[Ulophot]

Walter Rosenblum once shared with me that his best friend, Paul Strand, whose broad recognition and financial reward for his artistry work came quite late in life, had told him then, "You just have to live long enough." Walter--and I might add, Ansel Adams, himself, among others--had a similar experience. Adams, of course, became a very wealthy man, which neither of the other two did, but again, late in life, given the prodigious output of his long prior career.

Dustin Hoffman was once asked, in an Q&A with acting students, why he did what he did. He replied (my paraphrase), "Take away all the fame, all the financial success, and I would be out there doing summer stock [community theater--PSU] and whatever I could get. This is what I am."

For me, coming back to serious B&W photography, as time allows, after about 13 years of supporting the family with a "real job" (which I still do), it is a passion I have had since my teens, long ago. I'm not going back to my commercial work; just natural light, film portraiture, large and medium format, mostly. I love it, and I pinch pennies to buy supplies.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Why do we breathe?

[JeffBradford]

I photograph out of a personal drive to express myself through art. I pursue art as a continuing path of personal development. Each photograph has a beginning and an end. At the end, I get the satisfaction of seeing my completed work. I do not expect my work to appeal to everyone, or even anyone. If I were trying to sell my work, I would be producing art for them and not for myself. My day job involves product photography. Photography on my own time as personal development and as an artistic pursuit is much more satisfying.

[Jac@stafford.net]

My photographic imagery is the least important part of my life. Infrequently I find work of a photographer that changes my life-view to the better; such works rise above the art of poetry.

[Merg Ross]

Hi Will, good question.

I posed a similar question ten years ago on this forum, "Who Is Your Audience?". (It's still in the archive) I think some of the answers to that question shed light on your query.

You have probably already answered the question with your concluding comment on gratification. For sure, "keep at it."

[Ari]

You only live once; gotta cram it all in there while you can.

And you answered your own question:

well, it IS quite gratifying to produce a print that conveys well what I feel inside. And if I'm the only one who likes it enough to invest in it, then that's the way it is and I shouldn't feel bad about that.

[Leszek Vogt]

My answer would be somewhat what Jeff wrote. There were times when I thought about shooting for "them" (art fairs, galeries, etc) and it didn't take me long to realize that this wouldn't reflect my art taste....so that idea went quickly out the window.

Les

[William Whitaker]

Thank you for your replies all. I regret wearing my heart on my sleeve. It's just that sometimes life wears ya down and you end up questioning everything you once believed in. And you start to lose your faith.

No, my photography is NOT about sating the masses. It's about being who I am, expressing visually what I feel when I'm face-to-face with my subject. It's all about ME. As egotistical as that sounds, it's true.

I had to write an artist statement for that show. Never had written one before.



My photography represents my impressions of the world through the filter of my mind. My prints are glimpses into my own psyche; explorations into the experiences life gives us.

Subject matter may or may not play into what I choose to photograph. To me it is mostly immaterial. The photograph is about my experience while viewing a scene. In most cases I felt a strong compulsion to photograph a particular scene. It is those images which I feel are strongest and which are most revealing about me as an artist.

It is my hope that you may join me in my visual exploration of the world and experience some of the same wonder and amazement as I do.

I'm sorry if I sounded mercenary in the OP. It's about way more than money.

[dasBlute]

I do it because I have to. I'd quit if I could, but I can't :)

Questions are good, dissatisfaction can be a good starting place, like winding a spring, though it seldom seems so at the time.

Being too serious and then surrendering or giving up that seriousness can lead to creative play, at least for me :)

Good luck in your continuing quest...

-Tim

[Michael E]

Will, you ask more than one valid question. People photograph for all kinds of reasons and gratifications, so I'm not getting into that right now.

A show or a publication is a great and very satisfying way to bring your vision to a point. You have a date set and a wall to fill, so you bring your works in order, dig up the fragments from their boxes and drawers, tie up the loose ends. Very cathartic.

The experience that everyone praises your images, but nobody actually buys them, seems to be the rule rather than the exception. They actually drink all your wine at the opening, too... This is my experience in more than 25 years of exhibiting. I have two art/photography degrees, but don't even try to make a living with art. I know it can be done, but it's a hard business. I do assignments for money and art for pleasure. But there is no way I will stop making art and the occasional show. The good part ist: Nobody has to like my art, except I.

[LabRat]

Tough question, but why would a junkie stand out in the rain at night, trying to get a "fix", but I might stand out in the rain some night, waiting to end a long exposure, so if drug addiction is a disease, what about the other??? :-@

Steve K

[Ted R]

Two things (limiting to photography for pleasure not profit)

there is a human urge to make stuff (prints)

the world is beautiful and cruel and we have things to say about that

[Randy]

Will, I have done one individual show at our local art gallery probably 5-6 years ago, but it was mostly digital. I sold a couple framed prints in the show...to friends and family. In 2016, I entered a couple 4X5 cyanotype prints in two local shows and got a 1st and a 2nd place...a couple hundred dollars in prize money...but no sales.

I don't know. I have pretty much resigned myself to the attitude of not caring if no one likes my prints. I do it strictly for myself. If I win, fine, if I make a sale, fine, if I don't make a cent, fine. As long as I am happy from beginning to end: deciding on the subject, setting up the camera, exposing, processing, printing, etc, etc - that is what makes me happy. If someone else shows an interest in one of my prints, that is icing.

So, read your last paragraph. That's the best attitude as far as I am concerned.

Where are you in NC Will? I am in VA, just about an hour above Greensboro.

[AuditorOne]

???

I can't help myself.

I see something that grabs my attention and I take a picture.

I think I am really just collecting all the things I have seen in my life that I thought were worth remembering.

A sunset here, a flower there, my grandson laughing.

It is not likely any of it would ever sell.

[John Kasaian]

I'll hazard a guess---for the same reasons why a caveman painted pictures of critters on the ceiling of a cave in France.

[David Karp]

I love it. I have never had a show. Never tried to have one. I barely have enough time to do photography, but I do enjoy it so. Creating a fine print is an enjoyable process for me. Seeing the matted and framed final product is gratifying. I once sold some photos to a local business that needed some wall decor. It was nice. Contact came from a friend who worked there. I made a few bucks and that was it. I have not thought about it until now. I have never stopped thinking about making photos.

[DrTang]

So, really what I got out of the show was a very expensive bill for matting and framing.




I figured this out years ago and why I never bother framing and matting anymore...last 'show' I did I just stapled the prints to the wall and guess what...I sold as many prints as I did when I did do the matting/framing thing: zero

here is the thing..does the guy with the huge model railroad layout in his basement ever ask himself why he does that? or does the fisherman with 5000 dollars in rods and reels and who only fishes catch and release ever ask himself about that? doubt it.. they just do it cause they like it

and so do I

[William Whitaker]

I like that, Tangmeister! That would have saved a heap of money... Even if I bought "archival" staples! (HA!)
As it was, I got in trouble for push-pinning my artist statement to the wall. It got taken down and things said. Don't want holes in the walls!!... Yeah? And so like just where was I supposed to display it??

[William Whitaker]

...here is the thing..does the guy with the huge model railroad layout in his basement ever ask himself why he does that?

Maybe so he can take a fantasy ride through the land of giants...
https://youtu.be/cAu59h0RkWw

[Sazerac]

It is a type of sickness, I guess. There isn’t a good reason to wake up early or stay up late to work on making the image that you saw in your head a reality. It’s an expensive habit for sure, but it’s still cheaper then drugs and doesn’t mess up me life as much. ;)

[mdarnton]

I do it because I enjoy it. And I enjoy looking at my own pictures, and thinking about what they mean to me. I have never been driven to spread what I do around to other people. When I worked at a newspaper, I was so immune to self-promotion that the editor himself packaged my prints and entered them in my name in competitions, to make the paper more visible--he couldn't get me interested in that.

[arca andy]

Why do we photograph? Because yacht design college wouldn't take me and photography college would...oh how my life could have been so different!

[Will Frostmill]

I wish you well, that must have been a fun and frustrating experience. It is good to receive personal recognition. It is a weird feeling for there to be no financial recognition, but people are weird and irrational about spending money.

I do photography because it is fun. To an extent it is a form of personal expression, even if it is by accident. But I mostly do it because it is fun, or it satisfies my need to capture a moment, or record some light.

Selling and marketing work...I've never spent the time to solve that problem. Selling pictures is probably the same kind of problem as designing a new kind of developer. It's a technical problem from a different field, and I'd have to study some experts from that field to figure it out. (Photographers who do sell often make lousy role models for how to sell.)

[Tin Can]

Why? Because I can. I like memory saved.

However art I really see, cannot be captured.

Yet

[John Layton]

An observation in consideration of Will’s original post…

For the past three years…I’ve had a booth at a very well regarded juried arts/crafts fair in New Hampshire, which typically sees around twenty five thousand visitors during its nine day run in early August. While my sales more than doubled between my first and second years, they fell back to just above my first-year levels this past August. Thing is…everything else about this experience…the quality of my work/presentation, plus the enthusiasm for my work, was arguably better than in the past.

So what happened? Not sure…but I had a strong sense that many folks simply found, in being surrounded by my work, that my booth became a calming, meditative refuge in the midst of very difficult and challenging times, while the uncertainties related to these times have made it much more difficult to justify the purchase of anything “discretionary.” In fact, quite a few who visited my booth shared as much…and that while they’d love to take a print home with them, this simply “wasn’t the right time.” I could only respond with understanding. Interesting times…indeed!

[John Layton]

and yes...I also have had a number of showings during which nothing sells. All the work...the expenses...the logistics. This does hurt...no matter how I might try to philosophize.

[cowanw]

The three vanities would be why we photograph.:)

[William Whitaker]

Thank you Bill. Kind of you to say. That photograph was rather serendipitous. And it is serendipity which shows itself time and time again in photography (in my photography) and which does provide a certain impetus to pursue this medium.

I thank everybody for their input to this thread. I don't consider it closed at all. In fact, this is a perennial and almost perpetual topic and worth revisiting time and time again as our (at least, my) enthusiasm rises and ebbs, accordingly.

[goamules]

To be remembered.

[noisegate]

It keeps me from drinking.

[John Layton]

It keeps me drinking.

[Tin Can]

I drink LF.

One stout beer a day for my health.

[Peter Lewin]

Since the "thread starter" was triggered by a failure to find customers at a crafts show, a number of things I have been reading and thinking about myself seem relevant. The first relates to the NJ Photographers Forum annual show, which this year had 155 submissions with 42 prints selected by the jury. I didn't submit this year, for some of the reasons you will read in the following excerpt. The NJPF is more-or-less chaired by Nancy Ori, a professional photographer and educator, who sent out what I thought was an excellent commentary on the judging for the show, and from which I will print the section most relevant to many of us:

"...One of the jurors is a gallery director and her focus was on how a piece would look in a gallery show so she was looking at impact, strong composition, and uniqueness (so get rid of all those Ansel Adams-type images....they would definitely be out for this juror who was looking for something beyond the typical tourist shot at National Parks....especially the slot canyons.....yes, I know they are all beautiful, but they have all been done many times before. They are basically old news for a fine art jury.)

Flowers are a bit old hat as well unless they are really stunning, large and sharp."

There was an article which to me dealt with the same theme in The Online Photographer, titled "Are Classic Photographs Still Relevant?": http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2017/10/are-classic-photographs-still-relevant.html

Which brings me back to the OP and this thread. First, I photograph simply because it gives me enjoyment; I am not defined by my photography as some of our members are, for me it is a lifetime enjoyable hobby that i have kept up for roughly 55 of my 70 years. I also view myself as a competent craftsman, rather than as an artist. And my favorite camera is my 4x5 because I enjoy the process.

But that said, the question I think about is whether, to use TOP's phrasing, "Are View Camera Photographs Still Relevant?" at least as art as opposed to craft? In Nancy's commentary about the show judging, she dismisses Ansel Adams-type images, typical tourist shots of National Parks, slot canyons, and flower images, which I think make up a large proportion of the images we all post on this site. There are very many really fine images, but with the exception of very few (Alex from Holland, with his combination of wet plate and surrealism comes to mind) we all have seen the images before.

In the comments Mike printed following his TOP article, this piece caught my eye: ""Far too much old photography was admired for the craft, not the content. This is largely because it was difficult. Digital has removed the constraints."

So with apologies for being long-winded, I am wrestling with the question of whether the constraints of LF cameras (large, relatively heavy, stationary, slow, and mostly B&W) which many of us value, in fact limit their ability to produce images that would be considered "current art?" Is our enjoyment with the process of making LF photographs and prints disguising the fact that artistically we are largely "dinosaurs?" I buy and hang LF prints, but that is largely because I enjoy work made in the same manner that I work, but I am not a typical, nor young, consumer.

[Jim Galli]

Hello Will!

Early on I framed a large show for the Nevada State Library in Carson City and it's popularity was such that when it was time to take it down there, the State Railroad Museum asked if they could have it for an equal time. The theme was Industrial Archeology and it was partly medium format Velvia and part large format black and white.

This all within just a few years, less than 10 serious in the hobby. I figured I was launched. But then like you, it dawned on me that I had spent a ton of money and personal effort for zero sales. Everybody loved the show. Nobody wanted the pictures, and my prices are err on the low side.

My brother in law owned a gas station when we were very young bucks. He'd get too busy on some Saturdays and beg me to come over and do the oil changes. He knew I was bright enough not to cross thread the oil pan plugs and that I would reliably tighten the oil filters. The first time I did it he offered me $5 bucks an hour. I told him that I would preserve my dignity by working for free.

I feel the pictures are similar. I know what the true intrinsic value is. And since I can't seem to get 10 cents on the dollar, I prefer to maintain my dignity by giving them away. I buy mat board in bulk and cut it myself. I buy decent frames at yard sales. If someone sees a picture and is ga ga over it, I tell them to take it home and enjoy it.

But ultimately after years of that, the wind has kind of gone out of the sails. I confess that these days for 98% of the images, a scan on the epson and a view on a screen seems to be as far as it goes. Sometimes I'll spit out a print on the Epson just to tape it on the wall and see how well it wears on me over a bit of time. Shame. But the fact that the work isn't valued or appreciated does have a long term effect.

I have other goals to accomplish. I don't have the tenacity of an Imogen Cunningham or Ansel Adams so that when I'm 92, the money starts to roll in.

Last week I was in Oregon and I built a dining room table that my middle daughter envisioned. Iron age industrial legs. A 4X8 center beam. I welded the platform and built the cedar top. I'll admit that creative process was just about as satisfying as the pictures have been. A legacy.

But why do I keep all the stuff? And I've got quite a collection of it. I think I enjoy the potential. If I wanted to I could be an "important" photographic artist. I just have to huckster the pics daily and live into my 90's. Or not.

[Corran]

Thank you Peter for sharing your thoughts. I have been thinking a lot similarly about "art" as it pertains to my photography.


"[...] (so get rid of all those Ansel Adams-type images....they would definitely be out for this juror who was looking for something beyond the typical tourist shot at National Parks....especially the slot canyons.....yes, I know they are all beautiful, but they have all been done many times before. They are basically old news for a fine art jury.)

I will say though that these types of statements/viewpoints make me mildly angry. The judgement here is that any landscape, no matter how good, how tight the composition, how nice the light, how well it fits together, would be acceptable because it's not what's "in vogue" right now. It's also casting aspersions towards anyone who makes landscape images.

Yes we have all seen Half Dome, we've seen the slot canyons, we've seen a myriad number of landscapes, but that doesn't mean that one can't express new ideas and feelings from a landscape image. Sure, tourist shots from the same overlook of Yosemite Valley aren't on their face visually interesting since everyone has taken the same shot, but at a different angle, time of day/year, weather, etc., could one not make an image that stands out?

Worse in my mind she follows that up with a statement that flowers are boring too, but maybe not if they are large and sharp?! As if that alone makes it a good photograph??? I am dumbfounded at the call-out against Ansel Adams style images but flowers are okay if they are printed real big?

Now you mention Alex from Holland's wetplates. This is an interesting comparison IMO because it is a shift from landscape to people. I don't have a prejudice against images of people but they aren't my subject of choice usually - however I wouldn't judge a portrait negatively just because it is a picture of a person. I mean, I see people everyday. There are 7.5 billion out there, after all. But there's plenty a photographer can do with their subject. It bugs me that there seems to be a bias right now in the "art" world for photographs of people over anything else. Do you see the same?

As for craft vs. art, it seems to me that some consider them to be mutually exclusive. In researching MFA programs last year I was surprised at how many portfolios from professors at major art institutions had so little craft involved. It seemed to be more about what was written about the photographs, not the photographs themselves. In this case by "craft" I am talking about basic photographic elements, like some semblance of composition, thought, and execution, not some arbitrary sharpness measurement (though that was not evident either). On the other hand, I see some dismiss images that have a high craft element as automatically "beneath" what is considered "art." I can understand this to a degree. There's plenty of technically excellent images that are boring and say nothing about anything. I make plenty. I strive for more than that, while still practicing my craft.

Why do I photograph? I ask myself that constantly and I figure if I knew why definitively I wouldn't have to struggle so much. It's a learning process. That said, I try to make photographs of landscapes that give a sense of "place." Not just what it looks like, but how it felt to be there and experience it. I'm not sure I could do that with other mediums so MF/LF/ULF it is. I want my images to evoke the same feeling and sense of "being there" as the viewer. While I enjoy the act of photography I also have an innate need to share it. I know entirely too many younger people my age who very rarely, if ever, go out and experience nature. Perhaps they go to a local park or a run in the neighborhood, but not arduous hikes for miles on the AT. Not sure if I succeed but I'll keep trying.

I am interested in more thoughts on this thread. I haven't been able to collect my thoughts on it and I just kinda rambled (this is more of a topic I prefer discussing over a nice cup of espresso but I tried).

[Merg Ross]

Hello Will!

Early on I framed a large show for the Nevada State Library in Carson City and it's popularity was such that when it was time to take it down there, the State Railroad Museum asked if they could have it for an equal time. The theme was Industrial Archeology and it was partly medium format Velvia and part large format black and white.

This all within just a few years, less than 10 serious in the hobby. I figured I was launched. But then like you, it dawned on me that I had spent a ton of money and personal effort for zero sales. Everybody loved the show. Nobody wanted the pictures, and my prices are err on the low side.

My brother in law owned a gas station when we were very young bucks. He'd get too busy on some Saturdays and beg me to come over and do the oil changes. He knew I was bright enough not to cross thread the oil pan plugs and that I would reliably tighten the oil filters. The first time I did it he offered me $5 bucks an hour. I told him that I would preserve my dignity by working for free.

I feel the pictures are similar. I know what the true intrinsic value is. And since I can't seem to get 10 cents on the dollar, I prefer to maintain my dignity by giving them away. I buy mat board in bulk and cut it myself. I buy decent frames at yard sales. If someone sees a picture and is ga ga over it, I tell them to take it home and enjoy it.

But ultimately after years of that, the wind has kind of gone out of the sails. I confess that these days for 98% of the images, a scan on the epson and a view on a screen seems to be as far as it goes. Sometimes I'll spit out a print on the Epson just to tape it on the wall and see how well it wears on me over a bit of time. Shame. But the fact that the work isn't valued or appreciated does have a long term effect.

I have other goals to accomplish. I don't have the tenacity of an Imogen Cunningham or Ansel Adams so that when I'm 92, the money starts to roll in.

Last week I was in Oregon and I built a dining room table that my middle daughter envisioned. Iron age industrial legs. A 4X8 center beam. I welded the platform and built the cedar top. I'll admit that creative process was just about as satisfying as the pictures have been. A legacy.

But why do I keep all the stuff? And I've got quite a collection of it. I think I enjoy the potential. If I wanted to I could be an "important" photographic artist. I just have to huckster the pics daily and live into my 90's. Or not.

Hi Jim,

Well said.

Your reply here recalls a thread you started about a decade ago on this forum. Remember the "parallel universe?" I think some of the comments made back then are appropriate to Will's post, and answer why some of us continue to make photographs.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?37583-The-parallel-universe-of-quot-Fine-Art-Photography-quot-and-the-rest-of-us&highlight=parallel+universe

By the way, beautiful table; I can sense your satisfaction!

Hope all goes well.

Best,
Merg

[John Layton]

This is a very important thread...and what can be a very difficult, but also necessary and productive discussion. I will chime in again soon when I have more time...but for now - let me share, without comment (but with cognizance of above commentary), the two images which continue to be, at least at the nine-day arts/crafts fair to which I'd referred in my first post in this thread, my best sellers:

171462171463

[Tin Can]

Arrived today

Timely issue 20, Looking Glass Magazine, has an editor's discussion of our topic by Kimberly Anderson.

[DrTang]

...there seems to be a bias right now in the "art" world for photographs of people over anything else



*perk*..wait..... what????

people? or NAKED people??

I have a lot of the latter

[Jim Galli]

Hi Jim,

Well said.

Your reply here recalls a thread you started about a decade ago on this forum. Remember the "parallel universe?" I think some of the comments made back then are appropriate to Will's post, and answer why some of us continue to make photographs.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?37583-The-parallel-universe-of-quot-Fine-Art-Photography-quot-and-the-rest-of-us&highlight=parallel+universe

By the way, beautiful table; I can sense your satisfaction!

Hope all goes well.

Best,
Merg

Merg, what a pleasant reminder. I'm honored. I had completely forgotten that thread. My, 10 years goes by fast these days.

[John Layton]

So…how can a couple of slot-canyon images continue to be best sellers? I mean, c’mon…Barnbaum has done these to death - right?

Thing is…I’ve never, ever truly believed that any subject has been, or can ever be, “done to death.”

But to sell this work…is simply, truly exhausting. It does not sell itself. What works best is if I can be present - but then…man oh man…do I need to be PRESENT! My dirty little secret is that I actually depend on such sales for income - and so my dog and pony show must go on…

Rant…

What I find exasperating is how certain images - like that of what appears to be a couple of strips of grass, a flat strip of river, and a strip of sky…which for the life of me looks like any number of casual iphone pix (ultra-high resolution aside)…can sell for millions of dollars.

Actually I do have some understanding…that there exists a species of human which function as “gatekeepers,” whose sole purpose is to anoint a very fortunate few to bear the torch of what they (gatekeepers) consider (more like what they have somehow decided) to be culturally relevant. But what truly disgusts me is the slight of hand that these very same gatekeepers exercise in getting so many sheep to nod their heads “yes.”

Case in point…with the difference that the gatekeeper here was also the “artist.” Years ago…at an evening seminar in Rockport, Maine, I found myself surrounded by nodding heads as the presenter/photographer held up image after image - specifically 12 X 20 (ish) contact prints which were…Flat…Uninteresting…Uninspired…Horrible. And yet, here he was, with his booming voice and impressive physical presence…so convinced of his own importance…so thoroughly surrounding the crowd with the net of his own EGO - that the sheep could only nod their heads yes. What…alchemy! Then something truly bizarre (yet perfect) happened: an unknown individual stood up, spontaneously and uninvited, and began to hold up his own prints…which were astoundingly beautiful…well seen, conceived, perfectly executed. But within just few seconds…Mr. EGO sternly shouted the interloper down, and for the rest of the evening the stranger was treated by the sheep as toxic waste…completely shunned and shamed. Yeah…I know - poor form to try to rain on someone else’s parade. Thing is…Mr. EGO so completely deserved this interruption. How sad that it did not amount to a coup.

…end of rant.

My feet…are suddenly full of…holes!

[Tin Can]

Politics

[Peter Lewin]

Both John Layton’s and Corran’s posts raise points I think are worth exploring. I suggest this thread deals with three issues: why we as individuals photograph, second, what makes a photograph sell, and lastly, what does originality mean, and does our choice of the view camera as our favored instrument limit originality.

John posted two of his best-selling images, slot canyons, and comments that no subject can be overdone, even if Bruce Barnbaum is already widely known for his slot canyons images. My response is that in terms of marketing, there will always be people who want a well-done piece of art for their walls. John’s images meet that need/desire. But what would happen if his prints were in a gallery along with Bruce’s, and some of the other slot canyon images posted on this very site? Would any one stand out, or would it be an almost random choice? This is where the issue of originality arises.

I have an example in my own family room, where I hang my own, and purchased, photographs. I would never argue that my own photographs are as good as the Linda Connor and John Sexton prints next to them, but visitors always ask me which pictures are mine, and which are not, which merely says that the differences in quality are not huge. The image I have in mind is one I took of White House Ruin in Canyon de Chelly. Is it better, worse, or even particularly different from the similar images by William Clift (one of my all-time favorite photographers) and many others? No. But I like mine because I was there, I made it, and it does convey a “sense of place” to use Corran’s phrase. In a gallery of White House Ruins photographs, would any one image stand out? Again, there is an originality issue.

Lastly, and this responds to Corran’s observation about people photography versus landscape, what kind of images seem “current?” I mentioned Alex from Holland not because his images are of people, but because they are surreal narratives. The view camera users who IMHO are the most original are minimizing the static nature of view cameras by using them to record narrative, “produced and directed” images from their own imagination: Greg Crewdson, Julie Blackmon, Jeff Wall, Tina Barney. The vast majority of the rest of us, certainly me, tend to repeat well-worked themes, because that is what view cameras do most easily. If creativity, rather than process and craftsmanship, is our goal, would we be better served by digital photography and the virtually unlimited freedom of Photoshop?

[bloodhoundbob]

I just had a flashback to my freshman year in college, where the professor in Psychology 101 class posed the question for our final exam: What is life? Boggles my mind to this day, 49 years later.

[Corran]

The view camera users who IMHO are the most original are minimizing the static nature of view cameras by using them to record narrative, “produced and directed” images from their own imagination: Greg Crewdson, Julie Blackmon, Jeff Wall, Tina Barney. The vast majority of the rest of us, certainly me, tend to repeat well-worked themes, because that is what view cameras do most easily.

This is a great point, and I am certainly impressed and intrigued by some users of LF cameras doing this type of work. In my own way, I think that the documentary-type work I have done using LF cameras is in a similar vein (I know it's all been done before by Weegee et al in terms of journalism, but not so much currently). Alex's use of wet-plate for intense narrative-driven works certainly is different, and not only is it good just on a photographic level but the usage of a unique medium gives it further weight IMO.


If creativity, rather than process and craftsmanship, is our goal, would we be better served by digital photography and the virtually unlimited freedom of Photoshop?

I have also thought a lot about this, especially as I happen to own some very nice digital gear. Following up on my last comment re: Alex's work, I think that sometimes a good photograph can be made even better by the usage of different tools. While numerous photographers insist they can get the same "look" as film using digital techniques and filters, I don't believe that at all. If one of us LF guys is standing right next to a person using a DSLR of some stripe at the same time, getting the same composition, light, etc., the images will still be different. Viewers may even prefer the digital image, but I don't think they could ever be identical, because the medium makes a difference in the look. In this way we can impart even more of "ourselves" in the way we take the photo.

As an example, at the art festival I did last month, every single visitor to my booth commented on how different my images were than anything they had seen that day from the other photographers. Of course this was immediately apparent since my work was 100% b&w, while 95% of the work elsewhere was color, but nevertheless even the images of parks, waterfalls, and other places that locals knew and had seen before they often commented on how different they were from other images they had seen. Some did not recognize places that they knew well.

Also at the end of the day, even if my intent is to sell prints, I personally think it's imperative that I use the tools and such that I find enjoyable. I think digital photography is drudgery. I don't like sitting and editing images on my computer, I don't like hands-off nature of digital printing, etc. The banal commercial image making can be done with a DSLR and I am fine doing that but in the pursuit of art I would just rather shoot with my preferred tool, same as why painters choose oil, watercolors, or even acrylics depending on their tastes and preferences.

[jnantz]

hi will

some people photograph for themselves
and if others like the images that is a bonus
others really don't photograph for themselves
well, maybe a little bit, but they really gravitate
towards what others want to see, buy comment on.
im of the former. sometimes it is a hard pill to swallow
but most of the time i don't really care much for what is in vogue
or what other people want to see or buy...
so to answer your question why i photograph or make photographs
most of the time its cause im bored and i have nothing better
to do, other times it is cause i can't draw my way out
of a paper bag. from time to time i won't photograph for a few weeks
and i miss it. ill even take a camera out without film or paper in it
and make them that way ...
and the cameraless stuff .. i never get tired of seeing what refracted light looks like
on a sheet of paper when it appears ..
unlike you and the dumpster im going to give everyone a camera at my funeral
and they'll throw them in the big hole with me, i figure you might be able to
get chromes processed in the afterlife.

[Tin Can]

Sometimes it’s just lunch. Which I am having right now at Giant City Lodge.

Very nice day with great Fall color.

Perhaps we meet here soon?



I just had a flashback to my freshman year in college, where the professor in Psychology 101 class posed the question for our final exam: What is life? Boggles my mind to this day, 49 years later.

[bloodhoundbob]

hi will

some people photograph for themselves
and if others like the images that is a bonus
others really don't photograph for themselves
well, maybe a little bit, but they really gravitate
towards what others want to see, buy comment on.
im of the former. sometimes it is a hard pill to swallow
but most of the time i don't really care much for what is in vogue
or what other people want to see or buy...
so to answer your question why i photograph or make photographs
most of the time its cause im bored and i have nothing better
to do, other times it is cause i can't draw my way out
of a paper bag. from time to time i won't photograph for a few weeks
and i miss it. ill even take a camera out without film or paper in it
and make them that way ...
and the cameraless stuff .. i never get tired of seeing what refracted light looks like
on a sheet of paper when it appears ..
unlike you and the dumpster im going to give everyone a camera at my funeral
and they'll throw them in the big hole with me, i figure you might be able to
get chromes processed in the afterlife.


Sometimes it’s just lunch. Which I am having right now at Giant City Lodge.

Very nice day with great Fall color.

Perhaps we meet here soon?

Sounds good, Randy. Where did you watch the eclipse?

[archphotofisher]

Because I couldn't paint and yes i tried.

[Ron McElroy]

Sometimes it’s just lunch. Which I am having right now at Giant City Lodge.

Very nice day with great Fall color.

Perhaps we meet here soon?

There used to be a ride to eat called Dances with Turtles held at Giant City Lodge. Great fried chicken there...... Now back to important art talk.

[Tin Can]

I saw a clear view of the Eclipse right in my yard. Friends did not at the Arena. One big cloud.

I have heard the chicken is great at Giant City. I had the steak burger.

I go mostly for the amazing WPA buildings.


Sounds good, Randy. Where did you watch the eclipse?

[faberryman]

Actually I do have some understanding…that there exists a species of human which function as “gatekeepers,” whose sole purpose is to anoint a very fortunate few to bear the Years ago…at an evening seminar in Rockport, Maine, I found myself surrounded by nodding heads as the presenter/photographer held up image after image - specifically 12 X 20 (ish) contact prints which were…Flat…Uninteresting…Uninspired…Horrible. And yet, here he was, with his booming voice and impressive physical presence…so convinced of his own importance…so thoroughly surrounding the crowd with the net of his own EGO - that the sheep could only nod their heads yes. What…alchemy!
This seems to be the way of the world: self promotion in the service of mediocrity.

[William Whitaker]

... i figure you might be able to
get chromes processed in the afterlife...

I'd guess the odds are at least as good as getting them done "locally". :)

[bloodhoundbob]

I saw a clear view of the Eclipse right in my yard. Friends did not at the Arena. One big cloud.

I have heard the chicken is great at Giant City. I had the steak burger.

I go mostly for the amazing WPA buildings.

Hard to feel sorry for those who paid $10K for suites at SIU Stadium just to watch clouds. We had a great view in Makanda.

[jnantz]

I'd guess the odds are at least as good as getting them done "locally". :)

that is what i have been told ! :)

[William Whitaker]

I found this interesting: https://youtu.be/L4pE-pdhnJw

[chassis]

Thanks Will. Good video. I like Mr. Forbes' comments which encompass all art forms across all times in history. One message I get from the video is: do what you like, do it well, and try to make it matter.

[Peter Lewin]

I found the video posted by Will very interesting, but in a way it reinforced my concerns posted previously. How much can another LF image of slot canyons, aspen trees, rusting cars, or waterfalls matter, no matter (no pun intended, just my limited vocabulary) how much effort we put into them. I firmly believe that the vast majority of what we do photographically matters to us as individuals, because we value the process of creating the images, but little to anyone else. That is not to say the work may not be decorative, and sell, but if the same image has been made by countless others, to me our individual efforts can't "matter." Similarly, we are enjoined to not take the "easy"image, but I for one do that all too often: I am out with my 4x5, looking for images to make, and along comes a white clapboard church, or a picturesque ruin (architecture or car), and bingo, I have an image I can work on. The solution to that dilemma, I believe, is time, because once the easy shot is out of the way, if we have time, we can try to use the same subject in a more personal way. When I raised this concern at a group critique, I received a good answer, albeit easier with digital cameras: when I find a subject that speaks to me, once I have the easy shot out of the way, take 50 more photographs (another version of the old "image per day" exercise). I will be trying this, adjusted for the fact that I normally carry 6 film holders, and of course each image takes a lot longer to set up than its digital counterpart.

[John Olsen]

I firmly believe that the vast majority of what we do photographically matters to us as individuals, because we value the process of creating the images, but little to anyone else. That is not to say the work may not be decorative, and sell, but if the same image has been made by countless others, to me our individual efforts can't "matter."

If the image matters to you, that's enough. You're recording your experience in life and that's valuable, if you think your life is valuable. Maybe it looks a little like something that's been done before, but all of life is repetitive at the biologic level. You can still hold out for the genius-breakthrough image that will bring peace to the Mideast and solve the climate change problem, but in the meantime interact with the world around you without apologies about "mattering." Now go out and buy more film holders, six is not enough unless you are already a genius.

[Tin Can]

Worth reading twice or as many times needed until we understand.

Thank you



If the image matters to you, that's enough. You're recording your experience in life and that's valuable, if you think your life is valuable. Maybe it looks a little like something that's been done before, but all of life is repetitive at the biologic level. You can still hold out for the genius-breakthrough image that will bring peace to the Mideast and solve the climate change problem, but in the meantime interact with the world around you without apologies about "mattering." Now go out and buy more film holders, six is not enough unless you are already a genius.

[cosmicexplosion]

photographers are usually neat and clean, and tend towards the technical, astrologically they would be Virgo's, so as a self expression, and a way of externalising said organisation, its suits, as a certain 'type', painters on the other hand, are completely messy, usually, and thrive in chaos. generally speaking. IMO. being both.
however to answer your question, one must look at ones motives, some like to look at girls through the lens. others its just a job, some people just love the image, of black and white, and the process. so do what you love is the first order.

[andrewch59]

I was very lucky at my first (and only) gallery display, I was approached by the gallery director, the intent was to show old cameras in the gallery. As an afterthought I went around the area taking a few shots, purely to reflect what great images could be made with a prehistoric camera. The pictures took over the exhibition, this was very unexpected, if I had tried to produce great photo's for others I think they would have flopped. I dont think I could do it again.

[pepeguitarra]

Not everybody gets into photography for the same reason. I remember my uncle in a small town about 50 years ago saying: I carry this camera because everyone likes to have his/her photo taken. So, the took pictures and used this action to break the ice and contact potential buyers of what he sold: electrodomestics (stove, dishwashers, etc.). I started at age 12 taking and developing photographies because a friend from school's mom had a studio where people went to have their photo taken for passports, document, etc. I thought it was magic to put some paper under the light and later get an image in a dark room. I never tried to do ART from my photographic hobby. I have done photo to documents events from life, and to have idea of departed ones in a future. Through the years, I have explored the film, digital, videocamera, etc. However, after almos 50+ years, I have decided to take it seriously as an art. Like Van Gogh, maybe not to sell a photo, but to enjoy it myself.
I did have the experience you mentioned while exhibiting paintings, yes Watercolor and Oil paintings I made. My first show cost me a lot of money in framing and glass, etc., plus my actual painting work. I sold nothing, but I had to pay the bills. I keep doing this for several years, supporting my art with my real work. One day, I sold one painting for less than what I spent putting it together. Next day, I quit my "professional" career as painter. I do paint still, but for my own enjoyment. Same as I do now with my 4x5 and 8x10. To amuse myself.

[Andrew O'Neill]

For its ability to capture extreme detail that I cannot with a pencil.

[Jim Galli]

We photograph because we're fish out of water. We never tire of looking at our surroundings. They are a source of continual amazement. So we stop little pieces of time and place. The animals around us have no sense of time and place and/or their position in it. God did that.

[Tin Can]

+1!


We photograph because we're fish out of water. We never tire of looking at our surroundings. They are a source of continual amazement. So we stop little pieces of time and place. The animals around us have no sense of time and place and/or their position in it. God did that.

[Jerry Bodine]

I wonder what motivated cavemen to put "stick-like" figures on interior walls or exterior rocks (UV and all) that are apparently archival as well, having held up for such a long time. Very likely no test strips or chemistry involved. Hmm...

[Pieter]

I wonder what motivated cavemen to put "stick-like" figures on interior walls or exterior rocks (UV and all) that are apparently archival as well, having held up for such a long time. Very likely no test strips or chemistry involved. Hmm...

For the most part, I don't think they're archival at all. Great care has to be take with what we have now, and most likely nothing like they were originally made. Some art survives because it is in caves, exterior art has greatly faded. Even art that was incised in stone has eroded.

[Mark Sawyer]

Why not! :)

[John Kasaian]

IMHO Mr. Galli nailed it!

[Drew Wiley]

John started this thread. He's a fish out of water when he's trapped in the city. And one's gills can certainly suffocate in that particular city. During our own recent forest fire air crisis, I had to stay indoors; but at least the darkroom gave me opportunity to revisit the mountains visually, even while in confinement.

[Drew Wiley]

Rock art? What we have left is due to pigments that are essentially UV-proof - natural red oxides like we see on the surface of Mars, on in the deserts etc. Or else carbon blacks. Other pigments could have been used, but are simply unknown to us because they faded long long ago. But primitive societies generally understood the track record of pigments, just like fresco painters did later on, and chose accordingly. For example, I have a large "brick" of red oxide pigment with finger impressions still on one side, and paintbrush strokes on the opposite side, now virtually fossilized or permanently hardened over the millennia since it was last used. When the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel were painted, not only was the Pope deeply in debt, but had looted entire countries, especially Germany, for sake of his art patronage. But with a budget like that, Michelangelo could use true lapis blue pigment, as well as crushed semi-precious stones for green, perhaps precious coral for true red, etc. Now those same products cost more per ounce in prime hue than gold itself. But what is suddenly destroying the painting in Pleistocene caves and Egyptians tombs is simply the humidity changes due to tourist's breath. That's why most are now closed to the public. With outdoor Greek marble sculptures, it was acid rain at the inception of the industrial revolution. With the ruins at Nineveh, well, dynamite can instantly make something "non-archival".

[Tin Can]

dust to dust

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed, Randy. One of the most popular and affordable colorants in the Victorian era was "mummy brown" - actually a variety of brown shades obtained by grinding up Egyptian mummies! Apparently their intended afterlife was not "archival" after all.

[jnantz]

Michelangelo could use true lapis blue pigment, as well as crushed semi-precious stones for green, perhaps precious coral for true red, etc.


as scooby cousin would say " SACRE BLEU!"

[Drew Wiley]

Now the art stores are probably selling in tubes surplus Soilant Green.

[Jody_S]

dust to dust

Nothing lasts forever, except student loans.

[Tin Can]

They are expunged when one turns to dust.

I did my MFA Thesis project on student loans 19 years ago.

Not kidding




Nothing lasts forever, except student loans.

[bloodhoundbob]

They are expunged when one turns to dust.

I did my MFA Thesis project on student loans 19 years ago.

Not kidding

I'm shocked that they don't go after the survivors.

[Tin Can]

Always read the rule book


I'm shocked that they don't go after the survivors.

[Alan Gales]

They are expunged when one turns to dust.

I did my MFA Thesis project on student loans 19 years ago.

Not kidding

Thanks, Randy! My daughter has two semesters left of electrical engineering before joining the working world and paying on her student loans. She will be glad to hear that they will finally be paid off! ;)

[Jody_S]

I'm shocked that they don't go after the survivors.

They do go after parents, if the student dies and the parents have co-signed.

[Tin Can]

Yes. of course 'they' go after cosigners in a very sad situation.

This means a parent has lost a child to death.

Loan sharks are always circling.




They do go after parents, if the student dies and the parents have co-signed.

[scheinfluger_77]

Thank you for your replies all. I regret wearing my heart on my sleeve. It's just that sometimes life wears ya down and you end up questioning everything you once believed in. And you start to lose your faith.

No, my photography is NOT about sating the masses. It's about being who I am, expressing visually what I feel when I'm face-to-face with my subject. It's all about ME. As egotistical as that sounds, it's true.

I had to write an artist statement for that show. Never had written one before.



My photography represents my impressions of the world through the filter of my mind. My prints are glimpses into my own psyche; explorations into the experiences life gives us.

Subject matter may or may not play into what I choose to photograph. To me it is mostly immaterial. The photograph is about my experience while viewing a scene. In most cases I felt a strong compulsion to photograph a particular scene. It is those images which I feel are strongest and which are most revealing about me as an artist.

It is my hope that you may join me in my visual exploration of the world and experience some of the same wonder and amazement as I do.

I'm sorry if I sounded mercenary in the OP. It's about way more than money.

What a great ‘artist statement’, this comes closest to my own feelings about the matter. Thanks for sharing it

[scheinfluger_77]

...The good part ist: Nobody has to like my art, except I.

Another excellent viewpoint, I concur.

[dodphotography]

I photograph to leave something behind, a positive mark on this world.

At times I’m self-defeated, faced with a full time job and a live in quiet suburbia.

For me, the power is in the series. I think we all have our own goals and standards and mine has been and always will be elevating what I make beyond the single image. The single image represents the masses whereas the series is the what distinguishes the greats. I keep an extensive book collection in my living room and I’m always looking over at them while I’m eating dinner with my wife... thinking, what would Robert Adams be doing at my age? Likely out in the field and being a negligient husband but doing his “thing”.