Business VS Art for Art's sake

[Tin Can]

The video is What Remains, the Life and Work of Sally Mann.

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/wh...fe114b6df.html

Thank you!

[Kodachrome25]

RodinalD: I'm enjoying this thread, because it covers some things I have been thinking about a lot recently, particularly the balance between salability versus one's own interests, and how B&W "small scale" (i.e. 11x14 silver prints) fit into the current scheme of things. But your initial question is also about the life of a photographer, and as a BFA candidate, you are younger than virtually all of us. There was a long (23-page) thread on a related subject, and in it Kodachrome35 posted something of his life story. It made an impression on me at the time (particularly in contrast to my own very corporate life experiences, where photography is a much-loved hobby, but has never had to put food on my table), and you may find it informative, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...n-or-not/page2 The particular post I refer to is the last on the page.

P.S. I hope Kodachrome35, who I only know from his posts to this forum, doesn't mind my reference to him; since I'm referring to a post already up in the forum, I assume I'm not revealing anything that he would prefer to keep to himself, and I thought his story was particularly relevant to someone just starting out.

I'm glad you linked it, I held off because I felt it was a bit too "Look at Meeeeee" for this topic. But also, to be honest, these Internet born inquiries of how best to live one's visual life before it is actually lived puts me in a sort of quandary. It's like buying a book titled "Secrets to Being a Master Photographer"....ummmm.....there are none and if acclaim and high water marks as a "Traditional Photographer" are the prize your eyes are set on, then you are likely doomed from the start.

There are no tips, no secrets and no magic bullets, you will live your life and everything, the life you choose, your ability to discern opportunity from distraction and above all else, the work you produce will dictate how it all turns out.

[Tin Can]

I'm glad you linked it, I held off because I felt it was a bit too "Look at Meeeeee" for this topic. But also, to be honest, these Internet born inquiries of how best to live one's visual life before it is actually lived puts me in a sort of quandary. It's like buying a book titled "Secrets to Being a Master Photographer"....ummmm.....there are none and if acclaim and high water marks as a "Traditional Photographer" are the prize your eyes are set on, then you are likely doomed from the start.

There are no tips, no secrets and no magic bullets, you will live your life and everything, the life you choose, your ability to discern opportunity from distraction and above all else, the work you produce will dictate how it all turns out.

And then you have children...

[StoneNYC]

I still think the question is a bit like asking "How do I get a supermodel to fall in love with me?"

He hard part isn't getting her to fall in love, that I've done, the hard part is getting her to stay in love...

[Kodachrome25]

Really?
Every day in the life of each Beatle has been documented ad nauseum, including what they did and said and thought and ate when they were nobodies, and everything they did in their rise to stardom, fame and immortality.
So why didn't I become a successful and influential musician, even though I knew about all the tricks the Beatles used to get to the top?
You can share anything you want, so-called secrets, but no one will benefit from them as you have, because they are not you, as lucky as you, or as naturally talented as you.

Now, I'm not saying you should divulge anything that you don't want to, just that the best idea is worthless in the wrong hands.

I know, I know....

It never used to be this way though, this is a public forum, not password protected, the logical thing is to not spout those things off in such a manner....

[Kodachrome25]

And then you have children...

Or you choose not to and are with a woman who feels exactly the same way. Pluses and minuses to that approach as well.

[Tin Can]

Or you choose not to and are with a woman who feels exactly the same way?

I tried that, and I have never 'had' my own children, but I married a widow and assumed the role. No regrets.

[pdmoylan]

Innately, any expression by an individual using a medium for creative (with emphasis) output, is premised upon a need to communicate (i.e. sharing). Art is creative output without real utility. One must ask the question, does anyone do anything creative solely for themselves? If so, what is the purpose then?

Somehow I cannot accept the notion that any creative expression without utility can be purposeless, that is, for the sake of not sharing. Can artistic expression rise to an existential need? Doubtful.

On the other hand, business is by defintion meeting demand with a product or service; however, with any artistic expression there is no instrinsic demand unless, as with Apple, the supplier creates the demand that was otherwise unknown (sell the customer what they didn't know they needed).

Assuming you accept the premise that photography is a creative expression (I have doubts, though I keep trying), how does one create demand among the millions of suppliers? Self promotion (social media, websites) and providing a service (as opposed to a product) are the keys for making it these days. But this has always been true. The forum of promotion has changed.

Photography as a product of one's vision is becoming more passe. When there are hundreds of thousands of really fine images out there, how does one distinguish themselves as a photographer? Choosing film over digital for instance may make a difference, but who can tell when the film is scanned and placed on a website? Look at Percy's (scottish photographer) work lately found in a current issue of one of the UK photography magazines. Mamiya 7 with velvia. Great work. Can you distinguish his work from those of many others who shoot film or digital. Maybe. Does that make his work "art", again I have my doubts.

I have mentioned this before, but my best friend from HS and college (having just passed from stomach cancer), a gallery owner, and curator for more than 40 years, once said to me that the only photography with weight depicts the human condition. Beautiful pictures (whether black & white or color) did rise to a level of true value, nor in his mind did any of the photographers he met, wrote about, and provided gallery space, produce "art" per se. The reason (and I think I agree), is that there no means of true expression in a two dimension medium where the ultimate raison d'etre is to illustrate. That is not to say that photography can't be expressive, and for its limitations, creative to some extent, but it is not like placing one's vision on a canvas with complete freedom to choose anything you wish (Dali for instance).

I look for unique vision (visionaries) in photography and there are few who have it and have the tools to articulate it.

PDM

[Robert Opheim]

When I was in college I worked as a security guard at the Seattle Art Museum and worked there for a while. I was the only guard without a MFA - and a practicing artist. SAM's main focus was Asian Art - it still is. SAM does have an a number of ongoing collections besides Asian. Photography has not been an area collected (in general) by SAM. There were and are a number of large private collectors in the area that will eventually donate their collections to SAM. In Seattle these collections formed SAM, and the Frye Art Museum early in the 20th century. An example of a photography collector named Monson - in Seattle is a former U of W professor - who had a large show of his collection in the 1970's at SAM. Since the 1970's numerous collections have been added to the Seattle Art Museum. The collections are from collectors with a lot of time and money who are are socially elite, and very will educated. An art photographer would need to have work that is reliant to a collector. To sell art to a collector it seems to me that there needs to be: new ideas, visions, that are presented to the gallery world - that hit it big (and sell a lot) - and eventually become collectible to museums. (Fine Art is hard business plus Art) When other museums have shown, or collected an artist - the other museums follow suit. Now in saying this the internet may have changed this. Collectors may buy off of E-bay or artists websites.

[Greg Miller]

When there are hundreds of thousands of really fine images out there, how does one distinguish themselves as a photographer?

I look for unique vision (visionaries) in photography and there are few who have it and have the tools to articulate it.

You just answered your own question.

I agree it is vision that separates a truly great image from a "really fine image". And technical excellence does not get anyone there (I'm not dismissing technical excellence). But there are some truly great images that move me, and its usually because of the photographer vision. I've never been moved by an image just because of technical excellence. That's not enough. It's unique vision,plus the technical skills that allow the execution, that transform it to art. I'm not suggesting that is easy or frequent, but it happens.