COMPETITION

[akjack]

Even if you welcome it, embrace it and know your the best so it does not matter that a constant stream of amatures who stay in the market a few years advertising themselves as artistic (the new photography fad word), the best, the finest, premiere etc. when they are anything but, leaves a bad taste and poor image of the true pro photogs in the customers mouth as they get poor service, flake out on weddings, don't deliver a quality product etc., etc., etc ! from the newbies. Is this the the reason that many don't share the opinion that photography is a highly valued product. Many of you who shoot stock or commercial know it's always a problem to have the customer value your work as much as you do. Same goes with many portrait and wedding customers.

[thatcherphotography]

Are you going to post some of your work?

Thanks!

[akjack]

Whats the point...so I'm a clone of Helmut Newton ??? Know who he is ???

[sean_mcr]

Nah, Newton would not have bothered posting in the first place

[akjack]

Probably right about Newton. The trouble is with Art is that people only go with what others say is ART. Some would walk into a store selling velvet Elvis painting and Rembrant could be outside painting on the street. But if Rembrants name was Joe Schmo, no one would pay him any attention even if his work exceeded Rembrant. This is also why some with good marketing but poor or average photo skills may exceed in sales over a good photog with poor marketing and is why everyone strives to have a high tech web site (with their names in small type, you know that makes you look artistic) LOL Magazine articles that blow their skills completley out of proportion and braggin about "word of mouth" and how busy they are, when none of it is true.

[stuegan]

Hi,

No offence intended, but you seem bitter and jealous about someone else's success that you don't think is deserved. Isn't feeling like this just a waste of your time?

I don't hold with the view that recognition is the be all and end all of any artistic field. 99.9% of people taking photographs will never sell them or exhibit them or have them reproduced in a magazine, or for that matter even contemplate sales and marketing strategies, but simply do it for personal enjoyment. Much of it will still have artistic merit in a lot of people's eyes, even if the photographers are not internationally famous.

Photos, music, books, films - generally speaking the cream rises to the top and the stuff that lasts, the stuff that people talk about 100 years on, is not being discussed because it was sold or marketed expertly 100 years previously. Maybe that's why you mention Rembrandt as opposed to mentioning anyone that has made millions by selling Rembrandt.

As for "The trouble is with Art is that people only go with what others say is ART" I think this is patronising in the extreme. The vast majority of people can make their own minds up.

[sean_mcr]

Probably right about Newton. The trouble is with Art is that people only go with what others say is ART. Some would walk into a store selling velvet Elvis painting and Rembrant could be outside painting on the street. But if Rembrants name was Joe Schmo, no one would pay him any attention even if his work exceeded Rembrant. This is also why some with good marketing but poor or average photo skills may exceed in sales over a good photog with poor marketing and is why everyone strives to have a high tech web site (with their names in small type, you know that makes you look artistic) LOL Magazine articles that blow their skills completley out of proportion and braggin about "word of mouth" and how busy they are, when none of it is true.

The wife of Varmeer gave Lady writing a letter to a baker she was in debt to, it cost him a loaf. Many of the those artists that are considered masters died poor as i'm sure many great photographers will


I wish it were true that talent alone is enough to get you through, but it's never been the case and it never will be

Some people have never understood why John Szarkowski put so much faith in Gary Winogrand. He conisdered Winogrand to be the greatest photographer of his generation.

Just a week ago i had the good fortune to stand in front of Lady writing a letter. Now i'd like to think that i have some understanding of art and what makes it worthwhile, of course you may not agree and it's your right to do so and i would not try to change your mind, it is after all your own.

These are old debates, as old as art itself. They're spoken of in Szarkowskis' "The photographers eye"

This will eat away at you if you let it jack, no good is to come from it. Focus on what you care about and what you feel makes your life and work better and leave the rest to their own struggles

[madlights]

As far as I'm concerned...marketing only goes so far. It's true that fads and temporary 'styles' can be promoted and sold. Someone who does quality work often gains a reputation through "word of mouth" or sometimes people will notice but are cautious...all you've gotta do sometimes is hang in there long enough...and sometimes someone who values quality will find you. I think to some degree your statement is true about any endeavor from making cars to making pictures...that often times it's not the real quality but the perceived "need" created in the publics mind...but sooner or later to a small degree, quality floats to the top.

I think especially in the "States" there is not enough emphasis put into art education. It's all being put into math and science...which is needed, but not at the expense of art and literature. If you think of the legacy of a society you may think of it's scientific accomplishments, but I think more people would think of the architectural and artistic accomplishments of the ancient Greeks than the other (and really when societies are running on all 8 those things all go hand in hand). When I grew up I remember (and I certainly wasn't a studious person) a lot of great writers and artists...today ask an average kid to name a couple of current ones...and if the kid isn't actively involved or immersed in the arts, 5 to 1 they can't name a few. So thinking that's some of it too. That a lot of people haven't a clue if a velvet painting of Elvis as opposed to a Wyeth or a Hopper is art.

It doesn't help when bands are playing for free for "exposure" or artists are giving their art away as valueless, and to some degree it is why I don't post a "creative commons" license even though I've given a few photos away to non profits (If they ask since that signifies that there is some value). I had an instructor in school who always said "no money, no art" Why should art be devalued like it is?...some of the people who make it have no less time, effort, education,or intelligence involved in making it than a doctor or lawyer does in their field...and yet if a reasonable amount is asked for a work of art...well we all know some of the ignorant comments heard. Yeah...well it's up to us to change it. To promote education in art, literature etc.

The whole western society (at least in the U.S.A.) devalues art in general. I think that is saying something about our society as opposed say to the Ancient Greeks or the Renaissance world. I'm getting long winded. I agree pretty much, but find different forces to blame.

[akjack]

Today I believe that people are so completely conditioned by advertizing that they have almost become unable to make decisions on their own. In the past they could'nt "get no satisfaction" now, they don't even know what real satisfaction is. We are told about "Rap" artists and believe they are about art. Commercial photogs strut about their art and craft when in reality at least to me they are mearly a cog in a extortion ring that con and force consumers to buy junk they don't need. They may create a type of "art" in the process, but in the end, like the aspiring models and washed up actors in info-commercials only become "product prostitutes".

You mention the difference between lawyers and photogs which is interesting because lawyers have a system of bar exams and such that tend to keep just anyone from picking up a digital briefcase(camera), shooting a thousand words (images) and making any kind of money at it. Just maybe, that is why they have more preceived value than us.

I'm not jealous or have much envy but am just waiting for the new HOME DEPOT PHOTOGRAPHY store next to WAL-SHOTS to arrive in my town with some new grads from a internet photography school who go to a new "make big $ in photography" seminar every week.

Yes, the Greeks probably argued this same type of stuff way back when. I wonder if they had exclusive territory for their artists...you know... like modern sucessful car dealerships, fast food and other real $ makers ? Wanna buy a photography franchise ???

[dougj]

The best will continue to rise to the top, regardless the profession, and the customer decides the ranking.

Markets are usually segmented based on cost of the goods or services provided, and customer desires - the classic value pyramid that has withstood the test of time. Pick a segment, deliver differentiating value and go for it.

[akjack]

Ah, yes, the free market...... Snoop dog rose to the top, George Bush too...China sure has risen....even fergie too.....

[sean_mcr]

[alangrant]

this is also why some with good marketing but poor or average photo skills may exceed in sales over a good photog with poor marketing

But isn't that true of most fields of endeavour, not just photography? Suppose you are a scientific genius and come up with some brilliant invention capable of making the world a better place. On its own that wouldn't be any guarantee that you would get anywhere. You still have to persuade other people that the invention will work, that it's worth building, worth investing in, and ultimately worth buying. All of that means that you either need to have marketing/influencing skills that are quite separate from your inventing skills, or you need to team up with someone else with that ability.

It stands to reason that if you want to sell something, you'll do better if you have good selling skills. I don't think there is anything different about art in this context.

[akjack]

Yes, This is true enough, But not what the cartoon as above is making a great point of .....Photography has become marketing of product, mainly equipment. seminalrs, etc. Pick up other professional journals or magaziines and this is not the case, at least to the extent photography is. There is a magazine that comes to my studio every month and always says this is yor last copy, unless you get a subscription which I never do and they always come again. The magazine has all these glowing articles about how this new photographer opened a studio and by their great markteing skills take over the locale market, hire 5 employees and a making BIG profits. Many times if you check out their website, it is either not in existance or very new. The articles themselves seem like advertizments and markteting and not the truth, but what they want to accomplish....

this is also why some with good marketing but poor or average photo skills may exceed in sales over a good photog with poor marketing

But isn't that true of most fields of endeavour, not just photography? Suppose you are a scientific genius and come up with some brilliant invention capable of making the world a better place. On its own that wouldn't be any guarantee that you would get anywhere. You still have to persuade other people that the invention will work, that it's worth building, worth investing in, and ultimately worth buying. All of that means that you either need to have marketing/influencing skills that are quite separate from your inventing skills, or you need to team up with someone else with that ability.

It stands to reason that if you want to sell something, you'll do better if you have good selling skills. I don't think there is anything different about art in this context.

[jellophoto]

Akjack,

I tend to agree with Sean and the others. Personally I think technology has democratised photography and overall that is a good thing, as more people are taking photographs. A lot are mediocre but some do rise to the top and inspire others. Marketing hype has always been with us, though I do find it a bit relentless sometimes. You do not need the latest gear to take quality photographs, but some will always want the latest most expensive gear, as a status thing.

As for making a living from it, I think that probably gets harder every day, as commercial work, like most forms of human activity can be reduced to an hourly rate. It is then largely a case of how fast you can deliver and how consistent. That allows you to build a reputation and a contact list who will recommend you to others.

You also seem to be suggesting that one can not call oneself a 'photographer' unless you have studied and passed your exams? Not sure that is the right approach. Art colleges, with some exceptions tend to turn out a lot of critics and art teachers and not much else. I don't think Rembrant passed any exams, or had a diploma on his wall. He did a lot of painting though!

I note you have not posted any of your work on this site, I would have thought pbase was an ideal vehicle to show your work and build you own reputation, or do you think that posting sites are contributing to your perceived problem.

Regards John