|
Search this group's discussions
|
Is Photography as Art Becoming Worthless?
|
I had a talk with someone (a ceramic artist) yesterday about photographers who sell their work as prints. It was his opinion that because anyone can take a picture these days (apparently they couldn't do that before "these days") photographers have to "take an extra step" with their photographs if they want to sell them. By that, he meant altering images drastically in Photoshop or giving them extra ornamentation such as handmade, "funky" frames.
I don't think he meant that photography was worthless itself, just that buyers wouldn't fork out cash for just a photo.
But if photographers have to create the equivalent of a blinking neon sign to sell their work, it means that the medium itself is worthless in the eyes of art buyers and it can only survive with gimmicks.
If that's true, I think that's a pretty sad thing.
However, there may be some truth to it. I've done Art-A-Whirl in Minneapolis for 7 years now and I've noticed that painting, printmaking and other mediums seemed to sell more than photography.
As an experiment, I displayed my photography this year at Art-A-Whirl, instead of my illustrated prints. On Flickr and in real life, I've gotten about equal amounts of comments/compliments/critisizm on both my photography and illustration. And at the show, the crowd was the biggest yet, and people seemed to love my photos.
However, my sales told a different story. I only sold 1 photo this year. I usually sell over 100 prints. The pricing was comparable.
I didn't expect to sell as many photos but I was surprised at the huge discrepancy. Now, the crowd, the economy, the way I display, and a bunch of other factors could play into it. But a 100 to 1 difference is hard to justify.
What do you guys think? Do you feel like you have to modify or ornament your images extensively in order to sell them? Do you think the state of photography as a sellable medium is changing?
Posted at 7:25AM, 20 May 2010 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
|
By the way, I didn't mean to make this sound like a "why didn't anyone buy my pictures?" post.
I really want this discussion to be about the state of selling photography as art - not about me.
So if you have a "because your photos suck" opinion, don't hold back because you don't want to hurt my feelings. I'm far from a professional photographer. Just speak your mind.
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
tubes. edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
I'm going to put out my opinion... I've never thought what sells at the art crawl, farmer's market, etc is necessarily art. Easily consumable crafts, perhaps, but not art. If what suburban tourists who head into the city buy to give as housewarming gifts dictates what's art, the art scene is in trouble. So I'd divorce "what sells" from "what counts as art..."
That being said, there's a certain democracy to technology allowing a medium to be distributed amongst the masses. I don't think it weakens fine-art photography because anyone can plunk down a chunk of money for a dSLR and rip off a copy of photoshop and propagate inane selective-coloration shots all over the place. It might make the really good stuff harder to find, but it certainly doesn't kill everything. That would be like saying garage bands killed music because not everyone should be able to play music. Or food-as-art died with the advent of the cookbook.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i think in your average person's mind, they see a photo and think they could do it themselves. even if they probably couldn't. i think it's because they understand the medium, they have a cheap digital camera, a camera in their phone, mp3 player, computer, refrigerator etc. they probably don't see photos as art, but they see a print or painting, something they are less likely to be able to do, as art.
i am surprised though that people would see your photos, if you were selling the toy ones, and think they could do that.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was speaking to the owner of a modern art gallery recently when I was in looking at paintings and such. First and foremost he is a photographer and I asked why he had decided to omit photography from his gallery, especially since he could seel some of his own work.
He went on to say that he used to show quite a lot and it was priced keenly. It didn't sell well (he showed me some and it was great) and the feedback he got was essentially "I have a digital camera, I can do this myself for free".
I was pretty speechless but the more i thought about it the more it made sense and explained some of my clients bartering with me more often.
I agree, to an extent, with the ceramic atrist you mention above. I do think that we as commercial photographers have to raise the bar, but this shouldn't neccesarily mean having superior Photoshop or craft skills than consumers. This situation is unlikely to go away, the prices of DSLR's now makes it affordable for anyone to grab one and start making thier own 'art'.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
agreed with all above, the technology makes it so easy to take a decent photo yourself for cheap, most people don't view photography with an artistic aura anymore. the average person still views most painting and sculpture and printmaking as something mysterious that they probably couldn't do themselves, but everyone can take a photo.
i'm a better photographer then 99% of the people out there (just sayin') but i have never sold a photo nor has a gallery wanted to show my photography because they know it won't sell. now if i add some shellac or acrylics all of the sudden it is interesting...oh, and the reason i started altering my photos in the first place is because in art school i already concluded that photography as art was dead...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had never thought of it from that perspective---digital photography/home printing making it more accessible to average hobbyists--but instead I kind of thought that it's because we are too used to viewing images digitally that it has "cheapened" the experience of owning an original photograph. Aaaand, I also agree up top with uberculture that those types of sales are not quite as geared to selling "fine art," but then again, I only went to one Art-a-Whirl (and actually, your illustrations are works of fine art, so who knows!). The internet/our computer screens provide revolving galleries and we have access to so many images daily that it seems less to me that "I could make that myself" than the case of "I could see that for free on my computer and save it to my desktop until I get sick of it and then rotate it out." I think we are accustomed to viewing images in quick succession and settling on one when there are hundreds of thousands being uploaded to flickr daily just seems like a poor consumer choice. Wait, this is not saying I agree with this, but I see how it may have influenced our thinking. What do you think?
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
e50e edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
Maybe a bit of it is based on appreciation and understanding. Anyone who has tried to paint, or carve a woodblock, or blow glass understands and appreciates how much work goes into it. Maybe the majority of the people who see photography, created with film (including polaroids) don't understand what goes into it, and those that do, shoot film and polaroids themselves, and therefor have no money left to buy other people's awesome prints :) Ha!
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
amyalisha, craig wk, p...kin...e, e50e:
I think that's the real question, isn't it? Do people not buy art they think they can make themselves? If so, that means many people place a lot of worth on the craft and skill side of art as opposed to the message or feeling.
uberculture:
While I agree that many art fairs offer a lot of lower priced items that may be seen more as craft, our building has a lot of people that I would call "real artists". Painting in the $500 - $2000 range move out of here all the time. And while the price doesn't make them art, nor should their worth be judged by the price tag, it does show that it's not just a low priced craft market. Now, whether or not most of it is good, is up to the individual.
I certainly agree though - it's important to divorce "what sells" from "what counts as art."
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As an art form I sometimes wonder if photography is a waning medium or is it more of the genesis of a medium. There is an evolution to all art, just like there is in literature and science, etc. History shows us that subsequent generations build on the next. There may no longer be an F-64 group, but something tells me that even those artists were all part of a changing medium as they looked at the next group of photo-journalists that came up. To this day, the only person of the F-64 group that anyone knows is Adams...and that's mostly because of his work with the Sierra Club. No one knows the other members like Imogen Cunningham or Sonya Noskowiak whose photography was just as, if not more, compelling than Ansel Adams prints.
As I’m laying on my belly, camera in hand for hours on end, waiting for the perfect moment to capture the big horn sheet looking in the right direction, right light, right stop and shutter speed and then I show it to someone...just to have them say, "I've got one like that too that I took while in my car at Yellowstone with my camera (point and shoot)" I die a little bit on the inside. I also need to take a whole heaping dose of humility and realize how many shots I took because of luck, not planning.
If I’m lucky enough to sell something, someday (aside from my mom who still thinks my macaroni art from 1st grade is “good”) I have a feeling what they choose as their favorite will be significantly different than what I feel is my favorite. I have the luxury of the experience in taking the picture and I wonder sometimes if part of what people buy is the story behind the art…not just the art itself. For me, as I look at everything here at Flickr, in galleries, private collections, etc., I always think about what the story could be behind the photo.
All 6 of you have very valid points. Part of it comes down to what we (if I may be so bold as to include myself with the other amazing photographers in the Twin Cities) choose to shoot. If the consumer looks at something and feels that they can "take that shot too," then they're probably not my "target" audience.
Thanks for the forum @Tubes. Great topic!
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Tubes great topic.
I agree with most of what's been said here. I went to your studio and definitely would have purchased a print but I'm low on dough, that was the only reason I didn't buy one. I gladly will once I have some extra cash.
I think another part of it is that people think, "well, I could just print that out myself and hang it." But I do believe the ubiquity of digital viewing is a HUGE part of it.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree with what's been said here about digital viewing as well as easy and inexpensive options for printing either at home or places like Walgreen's.
As far as photography as art, there's a slew of different opinions on that and then break it down to film purists vs. digital... ah, I can hear the rants now. :)
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
tubes: you know how when you hang out in a museum the real popular stuff is straight forward paintings (portraits and landscapes and street scenes) and i think it's because there is a supposed amount of skill in creating those. half the people that like that stuff will dismiss a rothko or pollock though, because the don't see the skill in it, let alone allow themselves to feel the emotional impact of a piece. and these are the folks who go to art-a-whirl and look for a nice painting of a lake to buy (and that's not meant a dis to them)...hmm, maybe i should take up painting lakes...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Fascinating discussion. tubes, I think one reason people think they can make it themselves is because they don't perceive the message or feeling the same way you do.
Most people view photography as a way to document things. (A photo of your girlfriend in front of the Eiffel tower shows "We were in Paris".) So to them, all that's important is the subject. They don't give much thought to how "good" the picture is. So the person who took the big horn sheep snapshot from their car really believes that it's the same as PowderDay Productions' perfect shot. The fact that the snapshot is a bit blurry and has a powerline running through the middle of it doesn't really matter to them. They both show that you saw a sheep, after all.
I don't mean to sound harsh. It's just a different way of looking at things. But I think that does make it hard for some people to appreciate photographs as "art", especially if the photographs are more about light and texture, and not subject based.
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
gamelaner edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
Great Question tubes. I really like gamelaner's point. I think most people see photography as just another way to document things. It's really evident when you get next to a photo happy person who loves taking photos but has never taken the time to learn anything about photography. For them it's just way to document and share the experience. At the end of the day a photograph that wasn't either taken by them or by someone they know who can tell them the story isn't as intriguing as a photo by a person at an art show.
I know my appreciation for photography has increased by a ton since I started actually learning about photography. I'm by no means a great photographer, but the more I learn the more I appreciate great photos. That being said I'm still more likely to buy drawings and paintings than photographs when I'm at an art show. Why? I honestly couldn't tell you, I think I just like the more abstract on my walls.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm coming to terms with the fact that in my old age, I'm showing signs of becoming a troll. In the interest of coming to terms with this, let my qualify my earlier post. I don't believe that everyone who participates in local art gatherings is a hack who makes trivets out of wine corks. But just as importantly, art gatherings are not the pulse of art. That's my point in a nutshell. Hopefully, I've not offended anyone who participates in any art crawls, a-whirls, or anything.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow. Really deep topic and something I've had to grapple with in various ways.
Let me start by saying these are observations and not anything with merit behind the people I represent in any capacity. In short: If it's an opinion, it's mine alone.
When I'm wearing a photographer hat, I know how much effort it takes to get That Good Shot, and the more effort you put into a shot the more effortless it looks. Earlier today I was walking downtown and noticed "a shot" and after about fifteen minutes of walking around looking for the right angle I knew where and when the shot would look the best. The average dude with a camera? Probably hold up their camera phone, take the shot, and have something that looked "good enough".
I'm also friends with a lot of photographers and I know that my "effort" pales in comparison to what some will do for That Shot. Compared to them, I just show up and push a button. That's partly why I'm embarrassed when people call my pictures "art" because I don't feel like I exerted enough effort.
Putting on a different hat, I also deal with photographers in an unpaid-yet-professional way. I know a lot of them strongly connect with photography-as-art and it can be difficult to convey a business aspect to it. But all forms of photography beyond personal use is business, and the business is brutal. People pay for perceived effort, not actual effort. One way to experience this is (if you're frugal) go to Macy's and walk through the crystalware section of the home department. Pick up pieces, estimate how much they cost, then look at the actual price. If you have no idea how much effort it takes to make crystal, you're likely to lowball. By a lot. I'm positive that making pieces from crystal is a thankless job and people slave away to make it. But unless you make it or know someone who does, you're not going to take that effort into account when you price something.
Sorry for the diversion, but it has a point. The average person does not see a difference between their photos and the ones for sale for a lot of money. The previous poster who said "I could do that for free" is dead on the money. I'm willing to accept that photography is an artform, even today. It's just not a commercially viable one.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm really enjoying all these responses and there are things I agree with and can relate to in each one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone. So much to think about.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think the next step is to go around at the next event with a recorder and asked people informally about their opinions regarding photography as "fine art" and about how they come to a decision on whether or not to purchase certain pieces. It could be good!
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I love that suggestion e50e. In fact I'll be a guinea pig at the next event tubes. and I are at.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think photography is still a worthwhile artistic medium, but photographers just have to work harder at making truly singular works. Part of the problem is that there are so many images out there that people don’t really know what a good photograph is anymore.
I’m not a big Ansel Adams fan but I agree with him when he said “Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.” Unfortunately, these words are diametrically opposed to the current zeitgeist, particularly with the boom of digital photography and the internet. The Twin Cities pool has over 68,000 images in it. That’s a lot to wade through.
Would there be any interest in a “Best of Twin Cities Photographers” group where there’s a draconian one photo per month limit for the pool? The purpose of the group would be to showcase the best of your best. The monthly limit would be there to make you think “What makes a good photograph? Is this a unique photograph? Can I make this an even better photograph?”
Depending on how many people want to play, the group might be a glacially slow place. But I bet it would be pretty interesting one year later.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As an art teacher, I can say that there is definitely an opinion of photography as being more attainable than other media. I have to teach my photo students that photography is more than just point and shoot, while I have to teach my drawing & painting students baby steps towards life drawing because they freak out, constantly complaining that they can't draw.
...and while technology certainly makes it easier for an amateur to get a good photo than a good screen print, oil painting, or whatever, this doesn't count out photo as an art form. The art world has to use an aesthetic system which accounts for commercial artwork, in order to validate teaching things like graphic design, fashion design, etc, and in an aesthetic system which considers intentional arrangement of visual elements in the aesthetic quality of the object, it doesn't matter what the art is used for.
So, selling prints of photos at Art-A-Whirl is great, but selling photos to a magazine or blog also counts.
I suspect that as the art-form goes even more commercial, there will be more competition to sell good photography, which would make skilled photographers even more valuable, as they are the ones who can consistently generate quality product. ...even artistic product, if the fashion world is any indication....
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
Mark Joesting edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
I think its an art form that still holds value. granted that b/c of digital technology and advancements in general technology "iphone" and other such stuff.. photography and the art of taking a picture has lost some of its value.
but being an avid film shooter/ lover, I have grown to appreciate the art form that much more. I've never really been one to care for paintings or drawings (mostly cause I cant do any of that....lol) but making "good" prints in a darkroom does take a hell of a lot of work. I have less appreciation for digital stuff as I just feel its rigid. I appreciate a good photograph, digital or otherwise and always try to figure the angles/ light/ aperture/ shutter speed/ of any picture that I come across.
in terms of marketing and selling photographs I do believe that it its harder, I think as a culture we have become rather lazy and will accept less from our artists. maybe not that the work is less but rather the creativity has slowed... either that or "everything has been done before"
but in speaking to a friend of mine I made that statement "everything has been done, film or otherwise" and she said to me... " its all been done but has it been stylized?" and I thought to myself wow, she's right... and its all about coming up with a fresh take on something. or a personal take on something.
I think what really makes a photograph good, is if you can see the photographers connection with the subject matter. just being able to recognize the connection whatever it may be. I don't think its enough to take a camera and shoot what you see, it's a representation of yourself, and maybe that is a serious take on it but i think it makes a huge difference in the eyes of the viewer. and the difference between the people who have talent and who don't.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
[sidebar]
I love the idea of a photo group with a 1 photo per month limit.
[/sidebar]
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
conner.mccall (a group admin) edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
As someone who has bought art in the past year (five pieces - two paintings, two photographic prints, and one woodblock print), my take is that it's art.
And heck, I buy art because I ended up liking the image. One of the disappointments I have with flickr is that I'll sometimes see what I think is a very promising image, only to discover that it was shot at low resolution and can't be printed at a size I want, or that the photographer has no idea of how to produce or price a print. So generally I end up buying prints only when I've seen actual paper from an artist, rather than just an image here.
I'd love to see a (moderated ?) local group showing only the best of the best. But I have no idea how to run such a thing. I'd love it even more if it were restricted to images that were offered as high quality prints (i.e. no prints for sale, no image in the group).
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Because I liked charcoal heather's idea so much, I went ahead and created a group to accomplish it. I'm considering it an offshoot of this group so I have disabled message boards. It's limited to 2 images per month per user. The rules currently just state that images will be removed if not Twin Cities focused, but if we get a lot of chaff I may update them to say at the moderator's discretion. If anyone has any interest in being a moderator, shoot me a message and we'll talk.
www.flickr.com/groups/botbtc/
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'd avoid overthinking the drop in sales. The crowd could have been affected by other displays or vendors, and ironically, the beautiful weather on Saturday may have made people less inclined to look at photos if they reflect a different mood.
Is photography as art becoming worthless? No, but the value may be changing. We keep seeing advancements in technology that make manipulating lighting and color cheaper and easier. Things like HDR tonemapping programs and Adobe Lightroom have had a big impact on image appearance. Many more digital photos now look more film-like.
I also think HDTV has made us more picky about imagery. Many of us have 40" or 50" TVs hanging on our walls now, giant picture frames that always bring us something new. Even watching a sitcom, I find myself wondering about the lenses being used, lighting, and what sort of tools they used for color grading afterward. Photographers have to compete with Hollywood much more directly today, but I don't think these things would account for a 100-to-1 drop over the course of a year.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I need to pipe up and disagree with the comment that magazines are paying for effort. There is an elite minority of magazines that go out of their way to get the best pictures to add value to their content. But their cheaper competition sees ubiquitous photography as an excellent way to save money. It's not worth the money to pay more for something if the readers aren't expecting quality images. Neither the editors nor the readers care, and as a result you will see magazines with nationwide circulation that have visual content with obvious technical flaws. It ranges from bad JPEG compression to obvious photoshop inversion and even out of focus subjects.
My main area of focus (ha!) is sports photography and magazines, and you have to look past SI or ESPN and look at the thinner, less prominent sports magazines to see what I'm talking about. A lot of stuff from Getty and/or fan photography that just looks... bad. It's actually quite depressing.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I tend to think works where the creativity is more completely a matter of thought and sort of "invisible" processes are fighting a tougher battle for status. In my own line of work (electronic music), it can be hard for people to readily sense the value in something where the process is largely invisible. Where it's kind of obvious to look at, say, Eddie Van Halen or Segovia and from the physical action recognize that something difficult to accomplish is going on, it can be hard to assess when the only outward evidence is the pushing of buttons, however complicated and full-of-effort the thought processes are behind it.
Even with wet darkroom work, it's hard to mentally get inside the work that produces a print.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think that the massification of photography afforded by digital technologies is changing the nature of what pictures mean to us. For individuals, it's becoming a very personal way of recording experiences or creating "art." For many people, it's making less-and-less sense to purchase prints from a seemingly "generic" vendor that's less connected with your soul than what you (or a friend) can create yourself. For me, this is exciting because it means that more-and-more of us can share ideas and experiences in new and creative ways.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree with the previous poster's assertion that the current era in photography "...is exciting because it means that more-and-more of us can share ideas and experiences in new and creative ways."
I have made considerable use on occasion of images other photographers have made available for this purpose via a "creative commons" license. The usage is understood to be non commercial. I'm pleased if the resultant images are considered to be a collaborative enterprise, and not simply a kind of "personal achievement" by me.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm not arguing for/against your point Bill, I have no strong opinion or definite ideas about the op's topic. What I do find interesting about your point is that you like to freely use others' work, and put into quotes a slam on photographers wanting to protect their work, yet all the images on your flickr photostream are © All Rights Reserved.
Hmmmm...
...???
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Perhaps I did not express my opinion as clearly as I intended to. What I meant was NOT to take issue with photographers desiring to protect their work (as I also wish to do), but rather to emphasize that selling one's work for use in magazines or through art galleries isn't a valid yardstick to gauge how successfull one's participation is in the community of photographers. If it were, I would have to consider myself to be a failure (and I don't)!
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well received, and I agree with your latest statement. I apologize for being a little snarly. :)
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Interesting topic. It's been something on my mind, as I view myself as someone who desires to be creative and create fine art in some form. However my interests are scattered and I struggle to hold motivation and become great at any particular thing.. I feel out of the hobbies related to art, I can perform the best taking pictures. I feel so even if photography may not be where I am the most creative.
Reflecting on gamelaner 's post:
I agree about the documenting things. A lot of my photos are just to catch something and for the challenge. After I shoot a few to "catch" it, then I try to be more creative and work on composition and lighting.
On a side thought, this topic reminds me of one of the point and shoot camera commercials of two people shooting a bird taking off. One has a SLR and one has a compact camera. The P&S person cheers they got the shot while the other struggles to set their camera.
As far as buying art, I'm not inclined to buy stuff. I may see stuff I like, but I'm afraid I don't have much space to show it or store it, let alone money to buy it. This applies with even my own artwork. Most of my art gets stuffed somewhere in an attic or closet. I have shown stuff in galleries (though not photos), but haven't sold much. Though a few times I have sold some paintings or computer art that was printed. Most of my photos are treated about the same, though I am trying to reach out more and volunteer my services and photos in hopes to gain experience and learn more about making better art.
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
MJIphotos edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
hi,I'm new to the group-good subject here,just recently got back into "photography" and have had good results in my opinion.when I show people my results of the day i get very mixed responses,which is fine.I do believe that in todays world we are so bombarded with very good images from many many places that people are now so acustomed to seeing very strong images that it has become not very interesting to them anymore.I personally don't see "photography" as art,i could care less about becoming a pro at photoshop,to me the real thing is what the photograph tells with a story for the viewer.they may buy they might not--i still like it for my own and if someone else enjoys it the better--thanks
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Apart from our own efforts to define ourselves as artists, or to define what "art" is, it appears to me that the art world, however you want to characterize it, still recognizes a broad range of photography as fine art. One example is a friend of long standing, who does not post on Flickr, or to my knowledge on a website of her own. She has been a photographer for most of her adult life, and two years ago she was given a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. One of her photos hangs in my living room, along with some of my own photos and paintings by my wife and other artists.The McKnight and Bush Foundations still recognize photography as fine art with their fellowships and grants.
I agree that taking photographs is accessible to more people than other art forms, and makes the general public less likely to take photography seriously as art. My wife is a published writer as well as a painter, but according to her there is a strong element of luck in what gets published and what does not. Given the fact that thousands of photos are created every minute and in light of what everybody agrees about the perception of photography, luck may be even more of a factor here.
Like others, I want to tell a story, show a piece of time or document my visit to an exotic locale. If somebody thinks I am an artist, great and better still if they want to buy one of my photos. If not, I am still doing something that is worth my time.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow, am I late to this parade. Not unusual. I have been a photo artist literally in that I got a major city art grant at 27 and have sold a smattering of prints lately with a lot of disenchantment in between.
I've also been a workaday photographer doing studio and event work, which was often preferably since shooting a great image is always easier than calling something art and asking people to accept it as such.
When I was printing cibachromes and shooting 4-5 different types of film, including the beautiful Scotch 1000 which made pointillist masterpieces out of almost any shot, I had a more elite position than I do now shooting the same digital SLRs that every wannabe gets their hands on. Plus, cibas were more precious than inkjets are, although the cost has actually gone up. Not only do you need to buy a 6-10k printer for large format, then chalk up 1k for toner refills. All this because some corporation is gouging its users. All this for 30x40 inch prints that can be ordered out for $20-40? Something's fraudulent in this equation, when painters can paint for less than inkjets, choose huge sizes to work with without restriction, and end up with a product that has far more value. At some point, you just have to think you're being a sucker. Projection and tracing is a cardinal sin to both painters and photogs, and I tend to agree, but I know photogs selling it. Why not, when the toner approach is so rigged? You can always whip out Hockney's camera obscura defense. Plus, a lot of these pricey machines aren't reliable.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Salvador Dali or Picasso or Da Vinci are better artists than any photographer, including the greats.
Of course, one factor is history, but another is that pixels are the same no matter who does them. Painting style is not. I've seen Wyeth paintings that took my breath away. As my painter friend says, photos are flat, and paintings are 3D interpretations. They're also one-of-a-kind. You can limit your prints to 10, but they're still not originals, and they're still easier to knock off than a painting, including forgeries.
It's little wonder arts organizations have scant interest in buying them.
The photo market is also in a weird state because of photoshop. There's a strong revulsion which I share with the sheer mass of bad collage work, including work which is brilliantly executed, but of super gimmicky value. The thought involved just seems very shallow. The photo art market has responded by banning photoshop and going back to forms of photography that are so purist as to not only be redundant (already covered territory) but also deliberately as boring as possible. People can defend it ad nauseum (common in the art world), but photoshop and digital are the current world we live in, and people doing new things with them should not be excluded from consideration.
I am guessing that photography represents either an artistic rendering of the moment OR a way of producing detail that is unduplicated by painting, and it needs to explore these routes. Painting, however, is much better at imagining the purely fantastic and impossible in a cogent manner. The problem with photo 'art' is that it is more conceptual and people may just not care as much as a painting that shows both skill and tells a story from scratch, as opposed to one that is clearly cobbled together. THis leads back to the personal mark of someone with a brushstroke.
So photography is in trouble both in terms of content and in terms of the value of its physical product, although so many people store so much on hard drives, actual large format prints may hold value simply as documents of the period - one of the classic problems with making a living as an artist in your own time - people need time to assess value. That said, I know painters that aren't selling either. The art market has everything to do with trends, some of which are millimeter deep.
At least photography can be sold for practical prices, unlike paintings, which take a good deal more labor. It's a toss-up, but photography as art is going to take some real deep thinkers, and people who think their same-old high resolution landscape work or BW nude work are bringing anything new to the table are simply delusional. Plus, as more and more of us are inundated with the digital, and familiar with the technology, there's simply a growing respect for people with other skills, especially traditional ones. This trend is holding true in music as well.
So yeah, I think photography has had it's day as an art form, though art is defined by never saying never. Ultimately, it's really about the interaction between one artist and one viewer. If you get them, it's art, and if you can get them to buy it, then you might make a living.
People will tell you whether something is art, but your heart and passion is the only thing that will keep you doing it when people don't like it. I think artists are really the people who don't give up, because they learn a lot trying over and over again, and become masters of their particular angle. Of course, some work you look at and just think - this person needs to give up, but that's usually because they aren't listening to criticism.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
Foto21 edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
Sorta appropo:
I was at a public building that had a large digital screen in lobby displaying picures. I asked: "How they decided which pics to display?" Contest among employees, winners displayed. But its a two track contest: One trophy round selected by jury of pro photographers and one trophy round by popular vote. Guess its no surprise that no agreement between the two selection processes....
The more pictures I take the more I appreciate other photographers skill, either to manipulate the image or to be exactly in the right place or to be patient or lucky or whatever. But I wonder in this American Idol age if we just don't appreciate "skill" "We can do that" we think.
Not sure if art has changed but I know I'm still awed by images OTOH I have no idea what sells in the web 2.0 age of "its all free"
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There's also the question of whether photography is art or media... and the deeper question of if media can be art. Again, I fall back on the idea that if something is consumable, it's more media than art. But that paradigm doesn't fit with the original question of "art" being "worthless." Then, I'm one of those folks who has everything under a CC license, so I'm part of the "its all free" problem...
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What an interesting discussion. There's a fascinating piece of research at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art that touches on this question. Some of the essays are pretty great.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The OP also suggested the economy. I think this is a huge factor. One can go on and on about what is art and the commoditization of photography via the digital camera, image processing, and the internet. But, when unemployment is as high as it is, wages are as low as they are, and job security is a passing fancy, why would anyone purchase something that is unnecessary. (Other than alcohol.)
I'm not suggesting that this is the sole reason but the lack of money/job/security does put a damper on discretionary spending.
Cheers!
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's kind of the same way for painting. People don't want prints or paintings as much as they want the art on something useful like a pendant or a mug or keychain. It's easier to justify spending money that way.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Worthless" in this case means equating value with money - if it can't be monetized, it has no worth.
That, in a nutshell, is everything wrong with our society.
Photography ALWAYS has worth. It's just becoming harder to sell.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Photography as art isn't becoming worthless but due to the sheer volume of photographs now being taken, it's becoming more crowded and as any form of creativity becomes more crowded it becomes harder to differentiate between good and bad.
With any crowded medium, telling the quality items apart from those which aren't quality becomes more difficult for the average consumer. Often times price equates quality but when it comes to art, and in this case photography, there aren't always prices involved. It does boil down to the "I can do that too" mentality but like any art form it takes time to hone your skills. I've seen increased quantity of product and availibility of tools vastly devalue my profession of graphic design and in my hobby of photography but that doesn't mean that everyone who can get their hands on the equipment can produce quality work.
I think that there is still a viable market for photography as art but people need to step up and stop worrying about hurting people's feelings when they see sub-par work being held up as high quality. High standards will, in turn, place high quality on top. In the end, just because you have a camera doesn't make you an art-quality photographer.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Adding to that, I think the barrier to entry has been substantially reduced by modern digital cameras. Back in the manual film days, capturing good, high quality photos at all required a solid understanding of exposure, and practice with focusing. Now, with auto-everything, someone with no experience can buy a new DSLR and take seemingly well-exposed, in-focus photos with no knowledge other than how to operate a credit card. So the leap from "I just bought a camera" to "I want to be a paid wedding photographer" (or whatever) becomes short enough to be problematic.
In other words, the average quality of photography has gone down, because it's easier for people to shoot without aquiring any real understanding. Meanwhile, more and more "professionals" than ever are available to people wanting the services or products of a photographer.
Personally, I cringe at a lot of the photos I was shooting five or six years ago, when I started taking photography seriously.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I take straight out of the camera light painting photos and nobody understands at all, but i love what i am trying to do and the fact that nobody can comprehend the medium makes it all the more valid. You should love photography as a form of expression, and the money and shows will come with time.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That's an awesome photo! I love light painting.
About the main post - this is the same argument as applied to any skilled or creative field. Over time, technology improves enough that more and more people can try their hand at it (in this case photography). At first glance, the quality and talent may appear diluted. This isn't bad - it's a natural evolution. When you think logically about it, it benefits everyone ...
There are many that cling to film format or other stylized but essentially obsolete conventions. They insist that "photography took skill" when these tools were the norm. They insist that ham-fisted HDR is proof positive that photography has gone down the tubes. They collect their old cameras and proudly strut around the city taking pictures of themselves in traditional hipster garb.
What they're really lamenting is the removal of barriers to entry. What they're really saying is, "Now it's not a mystery. Now I have a wider pool of competition" ... while it can be a little tedious to wade through 1000 photoshopped tilt-shift pictures, you get access to a much wider pool of creative inspiration, ideas and energies. Overall, it's still only about 5% of any group who are true artists ... maestro's if you like. The raw number is just that much larger.
Ask yourself this: What would Louis Daguerre think about modern photography?
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Bree R edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
|
Well, it goes both ways... sneering at the hipsters with their holgas and vintage film cameras isn't a far cry from the guys who sit around all day reading lens specs on the Internet rather than actually TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS. At least the hipsters are trying. They have an aesthetic and they are choosing gear and learning technique to suit it, rather than slapping another thousand bucks' worth of hope on the credit card whenever they start to suspect that their photos actually suck.
To a significant extent, your choice of gear governs your technique, and therefore your style. That can include conscious limitations. I recently started shooting with a Holga, my first serious foray into film since I got a DSLR back in 2006. On the DSLR, I shoot over 10,000 photos a year. Much of that is just crap, duplicates and bracketing and wild chances. With the Holga, every single frame I take costs me over a dollar in film/processing. It makes me much more thoughtful and deliberate, which I think makes me a better photographer. On the other hand, if the Holga is what I have with me, I'm GOING to miss shots that the DSLR might have gotten. I get around this neurosis by reminding myself that anytime I miss a shot due to the wrong gear at hand, somewhere on Earth something amazing is happening and I'm not there to photograph it at all.
Be there, and be aware. A good photographer is simply someone who takes good photos. You can take good photos with ANY camera. Certain kinds of photos require sophisticated gear, and/or technique that only comes with study and practice. Despite thousands of photos on my DSLR, the single best shot I took in 2010 was done in my iPhone. It's what I had with me when the image appeared. I daresay that if I had my DSLR with me then, I wouldn't have gotten the shot... it would have been the wrong lens, and I would have focused my attention on the wrong part of the subject.
Personally, I'm not lamenting the change in barriers to entry, and I'm not lamenting the dilution of the average quality of photography, and I'm not lamenting the terrible taste of the buying public. This is the world we live in today. I take photographs because I WANT photographs, not to make money at it. If I wanted to make money as a photographer, I'd be shooting weddings and high school graduations. If I just want people to share my work, I'll post it to Flickr and compete for eyeballs, not dollars.
Cheap automation and data sharing has changed the equation. What is expensive today is time and uniqueness, not data. If I'm going to pay money for art, I expect it to be unique, and to have taken significant effort to produce. That's part of the appeal of going back to film photography. Voluntarily accepting barriers to entry in a world where they aren't necessary shows a certain commitment.
Posted 17 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
dave- great point about the film vs. digital. I know that personally, I shoot with my digital because it's easier to capture those fleeting moments in a person's facial expression, which is one of my favorite things to photograph. But on occasion, I love to shoot with, say, my Pentax, and it's really fun because the kinds of photos you take with film and the kinds you take with digital are different in themselves in subject matter, composition, etc. The medium really effects what types of photos look good, IMO.
On the original topic, I really wish that people would recognize photography as an art, as well. I myself love putting up photographs and such in my room, and I wish others felt the same. Also, in my digital photography class, I hate the kind of praise kids are getting for really generic, mediocre shots taken with their point-and-shoots, or for the terrible Photoshop editing they did to it. I get that it's a class, and not everybody can be amazing (and we're in high school), but it just furthers the idea in the OP: that people see a photograph and think "oh, I could take that", but they really couldn't. It takes technical AND creative skills to make a good photo. My film photo class, which is required if you want to move on to digital, was a lot better, and I saw so much more creativity in the same people's photos.
That was kind of rambly.
Posted 17 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Some thoughts from F.F. Coppola that seem relevant to this conversation.
! Link !
Interesting?
Posted 17 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Twin Cities /
Discuss
I'm not arguing for/against your point Bill, I have no strong opinion or definite ideas about the op's topic. What I do find interesting about your point is that you like to freely use others' work, and put into quotes a slam on photographers wanting to protect their work, yet all the images on your flickr photostream are © All Rights Reserved.
Feed – Subscribe to Twin Cities discussion threads
