grandmas wrote:
Sure, but look at the number of photos we see over and over done exactly the same way.
Walk into art galleries in much of central Europe, or Banff or Jasper, and tell me you don't see painting after painting that have mountains, trees, streams/lakes and skies that are a mix of blue and white. It is formulaic because they are commercial artists and they are creating what will sell ("give the people what they want").
It should not be a surprise that we are seeing a lot of photos with the same subjects. First, there are lots of photographic devices out there. Second, you're on a photography forum with about 350k photographers who are posting photos. As mentioned above not all are created equal. There are millions of doctors in the world but some are better than others. There are millions of athletes, but some are better than others. There are millions of painters (both fine art and house walls, ), but some are better than others. Same goes for photographers.
A person's perception is that person's reality. Many people's perception of photography is based on how easy it is to take a "picture". Anybody can do it but few do it extremely well. Perhaps one day Joe public will better understand that (although I am not holding my breath).
Camperjim wrote:
1. Certainly that is true of the general public.
2. Many photographers still misunderstand and underappreciate. For a while I belonged to a local camera club. Most of the members had little idea of "fine art" photography. Shock and awe and winning formula driven competitions was it. Later on I was invited to join a selective group of experienced photographers. The members have a lot of technical skill and most continue to do well and worry about club competitions. In spite of the skill and ability to produce powerful photos, most still seem to downplay the fine art aspects of what they do. Two of the members drifted off into the world of digital art and one of them doesn't even use their own photographs as starting points. A couple more seem embarrassed that their work is not "art". They have taken the route of the very early photographers who had the same doubts and produce "pictorials". Every photo needs some sort of filter, or grain, or some sort of artsy approach. They seem to love the old Topaz and more sophisticated "filters". Straight photography seems to be just an embarrassment. Two other members are On1 (I think that is correct) fans and produce work that all seems to have a highly processed "grunge" character.
If the general public and most photographers do not aspire to achieve "fine art", how can we expect the art world, curators, and gallerists to see our endeavors in that light?
EverLearning wrote:
Walk into art galleries in much of central Europe, or Banff or Jasper, and tell me you don't see painting after painting that have mountains, trees, streams/lakes and skies that are a mix of blue and white. It is formulaic because they are commercial artists and they are creating what will sell ("give the people what they want").
It should not be a surprise that we are seeing a lot of photos with the same subjects. First, there are lots of photographic devices out there. Second, you're on a photography forum with about 350k photographers who are posting photos. As mentioned above not all are created equal. There are millions of doctors in the world but some are better than others. There are millions of athletes, but some are better than others. There are millions of painters (both fine art and house walls, ), but some are better than others. Same goes for photographers.
A person's perception is that person's reality. Many people's perception of photography is based on how easy it is to take a "picture". Anybody can do it but few do it extremely well. Perhaps one day Joe public will better understand that (although I am not holding my breath)....Show more →
I agree. I believe technology will forever keep prices low on photography (with the exception of weddings and event photography). People do not care if photography is good or bad, and they have the ability to look at a photo of anything they want with a couple of mouse clicks. I see technology as working both with and against photographers.
Also many folks think that the best photos are made with the best cameras. I have been told many times that, “you must have a really good camera.”
I shoot commercial advertising because first it is a lot more stable than weddings these days. Working with corporations that have budgets and visual professionals making creative decisions is a lot different from working with the general public and personal finances. It is a lot more stable and profitable. There certainly are some wedding photogrpahers making really good living doing it but there are so many more that do it part time and have full time jobs that really pay the bills.
There has always been a disparity even 80 years ago between a Weston and say Joe _______. If you are a photographer getting into the right gallery for your work is part of selling your work. A gallery that has a client base that appreciates and has a tendency to buy the type of work you produce is key.
And yes there is now as there always has been those that think the equipment will suddenly give them the ability to see. We all now it doesn't but that is certainly nothing new. Abams addressed this over 75 years ago.
"Simplicity is a prime requisite. The equipment of Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston represent less in cost and variety than many an amateur "can barely get along with." Their magnificent photographs were made with intelligence and sympathy-not with merely the machines. Many fields of photography demand specific equipment of a higher order of complexity and precision; yet economy and simplicity are relative, and the more complex a man's work becomes, the more efficient his equipment and methods must be."-Ansel Adams
And there is this from Ernst Haas.
“The camera doesn’t make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE.” – Ernst Haas
EverLearning wrote:
That photography is misunderstood and under-appreciated, there is no doubt.
I think there's a "chicken and egg" correlation in play here a bit, too ... as it pertains to the realm of "fine art".
That being:
That photographer's misunderstand and under-appreciate fine art, there is no doubt.
Given the fact that the masses have been steered to photography for its convenience and ease of production ... to avoid the rigors of "fine art" ... the reliance on the tool to do the work has retarded the depth of understanding and learning.
I mean, ask 100 people with a camera what they know about physiological response or Trompe' L'oeil in regard to image making ... and you'll likely get 100 people that will go " Huh "
Imo, most folks who enter into photography do so learning from the informal and popular means of learning the craft, self included. We head down a variety of paths that are NOT targeted to developing an understanding of fine art. Rather, we get taught tips, tricks a variety of synthesized "rules" ... never really being taught to think, nor to see ... as the important part. Instead, much of photography is chasing the next tip, trick or technique to "raise the bar" of what can be done, to set one's self apart from the pack. And the herd, then plays follow the leader. But, just where is that leading the herd?
So, I tend to wonder how much of the "misunderstanding" is self-inflicted.
Bear in mind, that given the 1,000,000's of folks with cameras, and the 1,000,000,000 of images that are proliferated ... the percentage of folks who actually aspire toward fine art are miniscule. Those who foster a strong development of understanding and appreciation toward fine art ... approaching infinitesimal by comparison.
The "we get no respect" thing ... well, I think there's a way to garner that respect in the fine art realm. But it likely isn't in the same way that popular, commercial, portraiture or event photography goes about things.
RustyBug wrote:
The "we get no respect" thing ... well, I think there's a way to garner that respect in the fine art realm. But it likely isn't in the same way that popular, commercial, portraiture or event photography goes about things.
I do agree with Adams that a good photograph is a good photograph no matter what label is put on it. And that those labels are really kinda silly. Winogrand hated labels and never liked the term "street photography". Adams called them stupid. See below.
"Let us hope that categories will be less rigid in the future; there has been too much of placing photography in little niches-commercial, pictorial, documentary, and creative (a dismal term). Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it.I would think just "photography" ; of each and every photograph containing the best qualities degree to achieve its purpose. We have all been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit."-Ansel Adams
It seems the discussion has taken a step back from merely "pricing" FA photography. We are instead discussing what is fine art? The Winogrand video hits on what I see as a core definition. He calls it a "transformation" going beyond depiction. That transformation is a creative endeavor to communicate some sort of aesthetic, emotional or intellectual interpretation that the photographer brings to the scene.
What does that mean in practice I will tell a little story to illustrate how difficult it can be to move beyond mere recording/depiction/making a snapshot. I visited Yosemite once. It is the land of Ansel Adams and even includes a museum dedicated to his work. There are some really majestic scenic vistas. Every one of them was photographed by Adams and there is an adjacent parking lot to make it easy to duplicate his photographs. Many knowledgeable photographers seek to plant their tripods in the exact locations Adams used. So where is the transformation, the originality, the vision, the appeal? One common approach I call shock and awe. The "transformation" becomes an attempt to create impact. That has always been a part of photography and with Photoshop the possibilities are endless and start with the saturation slider. It helps and is all but a necessity to shoot only during golden hour or blue hour. Weather conditions, lightning storms, double rainbows and more can help and often can be manufactured with Photoshop. All of that has been done to death and much of it can be done with a cellphone camera. The next transformation I see a lot of goes beyond the cellphone camera. It has become very popular to blend a night milky way shot to create a composite with an iconic foreground. Of course, there is one of the ultimate artsy approaches which is to convert to black and white.
I face the same sort of "transformation" issue with my botanicals. For that reason I rarely take a picture of an entire flower. They are indeed pretty but I find I am merely recording. Instead I am often trying to depict what the inside of the flower looks like to a bug, or perhaps I just look at the balance and "rhythm" that I feel. Does anyone care but me? I doubt it. Most people would prefer to see a picture of a pretty flower. So potential buyers probably care little about the "fine art" aspects of what many of us attempt. What about exhibition jurists, gallery or museum managers and curators?
I think Adams was an amazing artist. I love his work but I can never understand why anybody would want to be an imitation of someone else. As much as I love Adams I don't want to recreate what he has already created.
I think the important thing as an artist is one first needs to have something to say. Then they need to find the medium which is the best way for them to communicate. Some are writers, Some are painters. Some are photographers.
Yes Jim like you and like Weston I see no need to record the obvious. And yes there are many that care besides you. And I say create for you. A true artist creates because he has to. And I hate that term fine art. Is there a slightly less than fine art? Almost fine art. Semi fine art, Silly. And why worry about labels? Just go out and create. Do it honestly without thinking about will whether it will sell.
Winogrand was shocked when his work started selling. He didn't think anyone buy photographs with strangers in them. He photographed becasue he had to. There is a scene in one of his documentaries where he takes someones picture and they ask him what he is doing. He responded, "just surviving." To him making images was like breathing. If he didn't do it he wouldn't be able to survive. The art to him was the act of photographing.
Point is just do it. Do it for you and nobody else. I have my pro work to pay the bills so I have no pressure to create anything but for me. And I feel because I don't create for any other reason, that I can create honestly. And I feel because of that I have had some success in the art world with my personal work. Not near enough to give the family any standard of living if it were just that I had to pay the bills with.
You will never be taken seriously in the art world if you are an imitation of someone else.
airfrogusmc wrote:
You will never be taken seriously in the art world if you are an imitation of someone else.
Profound.
For many, first we learn to emulate, then we learn to create.
To create ... is to make the unseen, visible.
So, to imitate is the antethesis of to create.
Study, learn, observe ... but, not to emulate, rather to increase understanding. From which, one's own creations should develop and arise of their own accord.
Allen, amusing juxtaposition. One post about the need for originality to be taken seriously by the art world followed by a post showing the unbelievable prices being paid in the high end collector market.
Jim,
If you look at Gursky's work his work looks like his work. I have never seen work like his. 12 ft wide and insane detail. He was honest to himself as an artist. Thus supporting the point that being honest with yourself and your work is so important. If the collectors jump on then so be it. It does show that photography can fetch big prices which IIRC I read ealier it for the most part can't.
I sell my photos through a interior design company and they price my work knowing their market and clients. A $5 million dollar client will pay much more for the same photo than someone buying a $1 million dollar house. I leave it up to the interior designers to price accordingly.
Now I have a special arrangement with the firm. I provide the prints for free to use as they wish to decorate the home and they give me 100% of the sale price if the client decides they want the prints that are on the walls.
As far as duplicating a photo that was already taken many times before...I personally don't think this really matters much as far as sales go. If a photo sets the mood for a given room...then it will sell no matter if that same scene was taken a million times before. After all, does anyone think their work is really unique, never been done before?
I realize this is a 12ft print. Clyde Butcher makes some even bigger with even more details. Beyond that technical aspect, for a blind, digital submission, what would you expect for acceptance for a juried exhibition at even a local gallery? One chance out of 10, 50, 100? Could you make a modest sized canvas print and sell it for over a $100 or so at a flea market level venue?
Personally I would never sell my work for $100 and would never never put my work on canvas. I don't think Clyde or Gursky would do a blind digital submission.Especially when scale is important to the way the work is viewed. I have been selected for many juried shows over the years that way(blind digital) but it is not my preferred way of having my work judged.
My last exhibit is Hamburg in 2019 was because someone that was involved with the gallery in Hamburg Germany, saw my work at an exhibit here. I don't print that large, 12 X 18 usually, so 12 ft really doesn't apply to me. But I doubt Gursky would sell small prints for $100. Kinda defeats what he does.
I do know from a documentary I saw a few years back that the painter Mark Rothko made a series of paintings commissioned by the 4 Seasons restaurant in New York. Got what would be over 1 million in todays money for the work. He went to the restaurant for dinner and saw the space and the venue his work was to be displayed in. The next day he returned the check and said it wasn't the way he wanted his work to be viewed. He was true to himself. I think that is the key. We all need to be true to ourselves first.
I wont put anyone down that does but I would never make decorative art for mass consumption. It's just not me and my work isn't what would be considered.
I do love this quote by DeCarava
"You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me."-Roy DeCarava
I am just trying to make a simple point. Based solely on the "quality" of the image, not counting printing, it is doubtful that there would be much general acceptance for the Gursky. That would include exhibition jurors, gallerists, curators. Nor would the general public be likely to spend much for this work. Name, reputation, collectability are different issues. Those factors seem to define the art world.
And my point is a real artist doesn't care about any of that. Thus my statements about Rothko and Winogrand. And you have to remember that at one time Gursky didn't have name or a reputation just like Winogrand and Rothko. They were just artists creating. I doubt any of these artists ever cared about what the general public thought of their work. But yet they all wound up being very important artists.
I persoanlly have no desire to appeal to the general public. If I did you would see me shooting the obvious instead of what I shoot. These are personal decisions we al have to make. I've said this many times I think It is key to know who you are as a photographer. I know who I am both professionally and in my personal work.
It just depend who you as a photography want to be. You can follow all the same rules as everyone else, make images that look like everyone else and be king of that world or......
Nothing wrong with any of it. Just choices we make. And then there are some like Winogrand that have to create. It's like they don't have a choice. And it doesn't matter whether the masses like it or if anyone else likes what they are creating becasue they do it for themselves, And if they get others to appreiate it then so be it.
But if you are making images like the herd makes then the odds of there being anything special in that work are slim. Becasue it looks like everything else. Nothing special then. Meaning a lot of the opportunity in the art world beyond the world wide web and/or the general public will be very limited.
), but some are better than others. Same goes for photographers.
" 