The parallel universe of "Fine Art Photography", .....and the rest of us.

[John Kasaian]

Well, before we condemn ourseves too much to the trash heap, we should remember that there are some very recent and current photographers, such as Robert Adams, Sally Mann, Linda Connor, Mark Klett, Stephen Shore, Robert Mapplethorpe, Frank Gohlke, and Emmitt Gowin, who's work has strong roots in "traditional" photographic aesthetics, yet who are very well-respected in the fine arts world.

There is also a fairly large group of aesthetically very traditional photographers who have made a decent living and earned good reputations through their work from an audience as thoughtful and probably much larger (if not as monied) as the audience for the current avante-garde crowd. I'd include in that group John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, Gordon Hutchins, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee, Jay Dusard, Clyde Butcher, Huntington Witherill, Per Volquartz, Nicole Boenig-McGrade, Kirk Gittings, and we could keep the list going and going and going...

Maybe we're not as hopeless as we take such pride in being...

I think the visa to the parallel universe probably expires when the deeply personal creative muse that sparks a photographer's fancy is overruled by marketing schemes and dictates. When the "Why not?" is silenced by the "What for?"
Or something like that!

[jnantz]

i have a few friends who by the definitions given here are "conceptual artists".
they don't "make" for galleries, but for themselves, friends and family.
they have not lost their spark, and do not make their " stuff " to get big-money
or for fame. instead they just make things because they want to, much like
the folks in this thread have suggested that they do.

i don't really understand why there is such animosity towards people who just do what they
want, just because it might be a bit different than what you might do.

[John Kasaian]

i have a few friends who by the definitions given here are "conceptual artists".
they don't "make" for galleries, but for themselves, friends and family.
they have not lost their spark, and do not make their " stuff " to get big-money
or for fame. instead they just make things because they want to, much like
the folks in this thread have suggested that they do.

i don't really understand why there is such animosity towards people who just do what they
want, just because it might be a bit different than what you might do.

hi john!

This is an interesting thread--it's really made me think a lot about photography as it applies to how images are marketed in some quarters and it seems to follow what we see in the marketing of most all art forms from photography to literature to music.

I don't see it as knocking financially successful photographers as it is recognizing that such a passionate interest can be spoiled when other considerations (such as maintaining the expectations of investors) become important issues. It is ironic when I hear post card and calender shooters demeaned by photographic art collectors (or even other photographers) for "pandering" to the public, when it is possible that very successful "fine art" photographers just might only be "pandering" to a more affluent public.

A satisfied client is a good thing and good business too, but I think there is a difference between going out to satisfy a client and going out to satisfy yourself while being confident that if the results satisfy you, they'll probably satisfy others as well (and if they don't who cares?)

I do recognize the lure of entrapment. Imagine being first creatively moved to cleverly pose a Weimereimer or stick an infant in a flower pot, only to forever after being sought out for more of the same images with any substantially different subject matter not being identified as something (insert the name of a famous 'tog here) "would do." Wouldn't that tend to foster a "pose the dog/plant the kid or languish into obscurity" mentality? It makes obscurity (in the parallel universe) sound far more desireable!

These are my thoughts anyway. Fortunately I don't have to personally deal with such issues!

[Jim Galli]

I began the thread because I felt somewhat identified with the fellow who was complaining that the Foto 3 contest was rigged. I'll confess that after about 1960 there is very little contemporary photography I understand or like.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could photograph rocks and trees like no one had ever done before and be noticed for it. I think that clock timed out well before 1960 actually. So most of us, not being very sophisticated and educated go out and photograph the rocks and trees anyway. At first we think we'll certainly be recognized as the "next" Ansel Adams or Edward Weston, then little by little the lights come on and we learn that no one but our cousins and brothers-in-law really give a flying rip about our rock and tree pictures.

At this juncture we step back, size up the situation, go to galleries and look at photographic art that is getting big licks, and typically choose a path. Some try to copy the nasty stuff they see, except theirs must of course be even nastier. Some just shrug and move on to tube amps and guitars. Some put the cameras in the closet and take up position in front of the computer and talk a huge game while never making another picture. Some move off quietly in their own unique (but uninteresting to 'high art') direction and simply enjoy their hobby, their art.

This last group is perhaps the luckiest. Whether or not the folks in the know ever swoop in and recognize how fabulous my pictures are...or not, my creative spark is being fulfilled, and I hope I'm still making pictures every day when I'm 90.

[QT Luong]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. That's easier if your art is infused with new concepts and concerned about the contemporary world, but looking at some well-known names, I'd think if you photograph rock and trees, you can still get a fair amount of recognition in the art world, reach a substantial audience, and make a good living along the way. For instance, aren't at least two bodies of work of Friedlander (Cherry Blossom and Olmstedt Landscapes) concerned mostly with rock and trees ?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I began the thread because I felt somewhat identified with the fellow who was complaining that the Foto 3 contest was rigged.

Of course it's impossible to know that without seeing any of the results. The only winning image was revealed as a Xerox, evidently, so it's hard to judge anything by that.

[Michael T. Murphy]

i instead they just make things because they want to, much like the folks in this thread have suggested that they do.

i don't really understand why there is such animosity towards people who just do what they want, just because it might be a bit different than what you might do.

Thank you jnanian!

I am reminded of a young woman at a Buddhist meditation session complaining about how her Catholic parents were hypocrits.

I responded that, although we had just chanted a sutra on compassion, by Wednesday we would be swearing at people on the freeway!

We are all the same. We invest our energy in what we value. And we feel threatened by people who have different values, that we somehow think threaten our beliefs.

[Michael T. Murphy]

I don't see it as knocking financially successful photographers as it is recognizing that such a passionate interest can be spoiled when other considerations (such as maintaining the expectations of investors) become important issues. . .. when it is possible that very successful "fine art" photographers just might only be "pandering" to a more affluent public.

Ironically enough, one of the core rebellions inherent in conceptual art was a protest *against* the fine art marketplace. What was/is there valuable to own or possess about a "concept?" That applies, in particular, to performance art.

Some people make a living at this. For some it is a hobby. We all struggle with what it means to be "true to ourselves" as artists, and what is "selling out."

I think our perspective on that changes dramatically over time, especially after you have children and mortgages.

A friend who is a ceramic artist was vehemently against the commercial marketplace for pottery when we were in college. Later, he said the few years he worked as a production potter at Pewabic - a commercial manufacturerer of mosaic tiles, etc. - taught him more than all of his previous work. He valued it greatly.

Keith Carter said at a talk a few years ago that all of his galleries except one had sent his most recent work back because they did not think they could not sell it.

We just try to make a path and follow it as best we can. Sometimes we err on one side, sometimes on the other.

[Schaubild]

...

This last group is perhaps the luckiest. Whether or not the folks in the know ever swoop in and recognize how fabulous my pictures are...or not, my creative spark is being fulfilled, and I hope I'm still making pictures every day when I'm 90.

A beautiful statement.
Couldn't agree more with the observations and especially the conclusions out of it. I just wish I had found that out for myself much earlier instead of wasting time chasing concepts that weren't mine.
Downside: I suck in almost every photo competition. But this could be interpreted as confirmation that I'm on my own way

Just my 5 cents.

[John Kasaian]

FWIW I don't see the idea of this parallel universe thing threatening to anyone. If you want to play, you gotta pay. Is the price worth it? For some it is. The point being that this has very little to do with trying to take the best photographs that you're capable of if your energy is spent on being a personality identified as being the darling of an artsy fartsy crowd. HIstorically there have been photographers that have been very good at markeing their persona just as there have been long dead photographers who basically have been forgottten until some photographs are discovered in a trunk somewhere and thier photographic merits are "discovered" by posterity. There are plenty of very fine photographers who go thier own way and do quite nicely without being caught up in egoistic banality.

As a photographer I think it is definately more fun and as a photograph looker-atter I find the images "ring truer" and are far more fun to look at and enjoy.

I have a modest collection of a few pieces of unsigned sculpture that are very fine indeed (not exactly pretty, but they hold meaning and evoke emotion) and though practically worthless from a monetary sense and hailing from a culture and time long passed it reminds me that there is a world of excellent art made by artisans who worked quietly to make beautiful objects. Thier legacy wasn't subjected to investment portfoliio strategies or areputations that make auctioneers and art historians swoon--no, their legacy was a few really cool little pieces of stone that still passionately speak long after the artist have died.

Maybe the photographs printed in our "parallel universe" are like that.

I think people feel threatened more by what they don't understand, but there are exceptions even to that.

Photography (and all art I think) is not a dead wieght set out in the darkeness for the unwary traveller to stumble into and be impaled upon (or break a toe or something) but rather like a pair of strong glasses you pick up and put on to see more clearly.

That art can take many forms is a no-brainer but I'd like to go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with photo competitions or galleries but which I feel is worth mentioning because these kinds of discussions often end up in broad generalizations about fear, threats and values:

That art can be used as a weapon is also well known (look at some propaganda posters and films) People can justifiably feel threatened by art they do understand if the artist's message being sent is threatening Often the most broadly published stuff has a threatening message aimed at a specific population or culture. Check out http://vintagraph.com for some fun retro examples, but the meaning of these messages share a common task--to evolve a culture not as a culture would naturally evolve, but evolve as an "elite" desires it to.

Another form of enslavement as insideous as any other.

My 2-cents anyway