Sam Abell on "The life of a photograph"

Glenn-

 

"How would everybody feel if this artist sold this work for loads of money?"

 

I was referring to the work in the link I provided- here it is again

 

 

http://www.whitecolumns.org/view.html?type=exhibitions&status=current&id=395

 

The question is still open- see my last post.

 

As to all this "artist" talk- wow what a load! Actually, I agree with just about everything about the "title". The term

"artist" is over-used and often misused. So are photographer, writer, businessman and entrepreneur, and probably a

whole slew of "titles". The whole concept of "titles" is pretty ugly to most people, but alas we have to communicate and

describe what we do, hence a title. How many people on PN call themselves "photographers" because they have more

than just an interest in the medium- but they certainly aren't professionals, by any means. Someone takes a couple

dozen great looking landscapes and they are a PHOTOGRAPHER! Really, it isn't just "artist".

 

I am a photographer and artist. I use the title "artist" because that is what I spend most of my time working on. That is

where I put in my effort to build a body of work and attempt to speak in a vernacular of my own, yet be understood by

many. "Artist" is where income is derived, my studio is maintained, my grant writing, my residency submission

processes, my time and money are spent, going to seminars to learn and expand my potential as an "artist" and

"business man". I use that title very specifically because it lets my clients know who I am- a professional in New York. I

referred to the person in my original post as "artist" because that's what they are- at least to me. They have work in a

gallery in NY. They may be more- just as Glenn says- but I don't know what. I don't care. The term artist is totally valid

and should be used- not abused.

 

John-

 

"Many of us, as photographers, are aesthetically and philosophically head-and-shoulders above "artists." However,

Velvet Elvis painters, sunset snappers, and pole dancers deserve as much respect as anybody else."

 

What makes you so sure you are head and shoulders above anyone- talk about narcissistic. Maybe you care to fill us in

on your extensive knowledge of aesthetics. I know you know philosophy- you would fit right in with Diogenes and the

Cynics- Schopenhauer's pessimism must have sunk in too.

Martin--

 

I agree with you. I was going to suggest that it's not the title "artist" that is problematic, it's the assumption that all artists

are *good* artists that seems to be the cause of some strange thinking on the subject. We readily accept that there are

good and bad car mechanics, but somehow we get our panties in a twist when a bad artist calls him or herself an artist. I'm

not sure why. Maybe some are mistakenly thinking of artists as gods and so they get confused.

I do wonder "who has taken it" when it's compelling.

 

Natural curiosity methinks. However a photograph is capable of standing on it's own regardless of the

photographers other works whether they are of equal statue or not.....a philosophical observation..

 

That was the point I was making.

 

The word Artist is a label of understanding it's really that simple to understand. Why some folks get so hung

about it, or feel

it should have a special secret meaning, is a mystery. Somewhat on a equal par as to where all my ballpoint pens

have disappeared over the years;)

"What makes you so sure you are head and shoulders above anyone- talk about narcissistic. Maybe you care to fill us in on your extensive knowledge of aesthetics." - Martin Sobey

 

Three part answer:

 

1) The tiny sample of your photography, posted on P.N., is well executed and derivative (as is mine, at best). That means you're head and shoulders over some, like I am, and some are head and shoulders over both of us.

 

2) Aesthetics isn't "knowledge." It is a study, like philosophy. You are misusing a big word.

 

3) Narcissism: Again, you're misusing a big word. Narcissism isn't pride, self confidence, bragging, or arrogance. Look it up.

" We readily accept that there are good and bad car mechanics, but somehow we get our panties in a twist when a bad artist calls him or

herself an artist. "

 

Don't know if there's such a thing as a bad artist ( or good artist for that matter ). There either is an artist or there is not an artist. If my car

was fixed improperly I would not consider it to have been worked on by a car mechanic, not even a bad one. I would have been left with an

unfixed car, making it slightly awkward to connect the reality of the unfixed car, after it has been ' worked ' on, with the notion of a car

mechanic or what it means for a car mechanic to be a car mechanic. When I see bad art ( a subjective impossibility almost ) I don't consider

it to have been

made by an artist, same as I don't consider the improperly fixed car to have been fixed by a car mechanic. If the car was fixed properly, it

would have been just that, a properly fixed car worked on by a car mechanic. But it would not have been a 'good' properly fixed car just like

the improperly fixed car would not have been a ' bad ' improperly fixed car. You either have the reality of a properly fixed car or you either

have the reality of an improperly fixed car. Same with art I think. You either have the reality of art or you either have the reality of no art.

Notions of good and bad are too fluffy.

"Why some folks get so hung about it, or feel it should have a special secret meaning, is a mystery."

-Allen H

 

I won't argue with that. "Some folks" think it does have a special meaning, others don't. Yes, it's a mystery.

 

"Artist is a label of understanding"....hmm..a bit more murky. Everybody's an artist, right? Where's the "understanding" in a word whose meaning is so dilute that it refers to nothing, or that as often (my opinion) refers to beloved kitsch as to the transcendent?

 

"We readily accept that there are good and bad car mechanics, but somehow we get our panties in a twist when a bad artist calls him or herself an artist. I'm not sure why. " - Fred G

 

Fred, the reason for your confusion is that some of us DO associate art with higher value...for us isn't just utilitarian.

 

Although I disagree, many here say commercial photographers cannot be artists for that specific reason. Perhaps because I have known some of their work and portfolios directly, I know it's common for their work to be superior to many famous non-commercial photographers. And of course, Mapplethorpe, Prince, and other purely commercial "artists" twist those lines again.

 

Some of us do find our fellows to be gods, or potential gods. When degraded value systems conclude that we aren't gods, or can't be, we lose a spark. Christians say Jesus was a god (or version of The), and they awkwardly admit he called us brothers and sisters. Your beloved Greeks thought gods walked among us. Read any poetry? I struggle with that, but I've read through Seamus Heaney's Beowulf a few times (a great potboiler, and beautiful), and listened to his reading of it. That's to the point.

 

Perhaps your idea that artists are equivalent to auto mechanics is regional, suburban. Some backwoods low-rider mechanics seem to be magicians, but that's another topic...

John. Analogous is not equivalence. You know that. Your intentionally conflating the two terms is trolling.

John

 

Aesthetics isn't just a study, it's a by-product of technique influenced by study- sorry semantics (also philosophy). I'm not

sure if only studying aesthetics, however, gives one the full grasp of the aesthetic involved in something.

 

Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection - I'm not so sure you grasp the hilarity and simultaneous smallness of your

comment- just because a person uses the term "artist" in reference to themselves doesn't mean they are in love with

themselves. I do however love what I do - not always what I make, but the doing is quite fulfilling. As Robert Rauschenberg

once said, "You (as an artist) have to create your own religion." To me, that means you have to believe in your work so

wholly, so completely as to have the faith of a zealot and that what you are creating has some meaning, some relevance.

Sometimes that faith come across as narcissism, and sometimes it is, but generally I would considerer it personal belief.

 

The work I have on my PN portfolio is just a sample of work I done- it shows the competency of a professional - and yes

it's derivative, there are very few photographs that aren't. Photography is a derivative medium by nature- something I am

trying to break free of with my fine art. Look at my website (link on my bio page) and I'm sure you may understand me and

my work a bit better.

Phylo--

 

Interesting thoughts but a little too Platonic for me, whereby everything has to participate completely in its reality in order

to be what it is. I perceive the world much more in shades of gray and I don't mind making value judgments, where

appropriate, about what's good and bad.

 

Medical Malpractice cases-- Because some doctors are bad. They are very much doctors as can be attested to by the fact

that they have licenses, insurance, scalpels, and privileges to do surgery at recognized hospitals. Nevertheless, the

occasional bad one hacks off the wrong leg. Ask the patient. I'll bet that patient will say it was the doctor who did a bad

thing and he will sue that doctor, not for being a fake, but for being a bad one. A fake doctor is a different thing. He's a

guy without a license who poses as a doctor. A bad doctor makes all kinds of mistakes, as do humans.

 

Bad carpenters build things and a lot of people are happy with what they build, for the moment. But often the things they

build don't last or the doors on the cabinets don't work for too long after they've finished the job. They did the work of a

carpenter, so I don't know what else to call them, but they did it badly.

 

Bad artists set out to do what good artists do. Commercialism is not the main goal. It would take too long to describe

what art is but we all kind of know what it is, despite our penchant for overthinking it. So, they may sculpt, for example,

in order to create something "beautiful" or esthetically pleasing. But they may not do it well. They may be bad at

everything they attempt or bad at some of things they attempt. I doubt many of the great artists didn't have some awful

experiments as well as some grand accidents.

 

Hitchcock's Family Plot, especially when compared to Vertigo, could be considered a bad work of art, but it's art. Scorcese's Cape Fear,

contrasted for example to Goodfellas, is no great accomplishment. Art? Yes.

Given the amount of photoshopping that goes into much of today's photography maybe the result of clicking the shutter is just as generic as the subject itself and all the art is clicking the mouse that goes on afterwards.

Ansel Adams and others clicked a shutter and then worked up a sweat in the darkroom. My guess is that art was and is

taking place throughout the process.

Martin, I'm glad that you understood what I meant by "derivative."

 

"Narcissism" is used by shrinks to mean a specific malady. It's not mere vanity or egotism.

 

Your belief that your work "stands apart" is not "narcissistic," nor is my claim that my work is better than some

(and not as good as others).

 

IMO labeling yourself "artist" and distinguishing between your commercial work and your "art" seems contrived.

 

You indicate that your commercial work is not "art," despite the fact that you seem to believe everything can be

"art" if it's labeled that way. Why not apply that label to your commercial work as well?

 

You have comfortably expressed pride in your work, and I have in mine. From what I've seen of Fred's nudes, he's

a better photographer than he'll admit, and closer than most of us to what I think of as artist. I think he

clings to the "artist" label out of insecurity. He might assert more ego and speak more about his responses to

images, even risking narcissism...rather than losing himself in academics.

John-

 

"You indicate that your commercial work is not "art," despite the fact that you seem to believe everything can be "art" if

it's labeled that way. Why not apply that label to your commercial work as well?"

 

You bring up a very good point, one that has been brought to my attention before. IMO I feel that what I bring to the table

in either commercial or fine art photography is basically the same, yet technically and philisophically miles apart.

Generally speaking though, the people with which I am associating need to be steered in a direction. Just like any

creative field, when the stakes are high and there are a plethora of competing agents, you need to have a very specific

vision to fulfill a clients needs. That being said, although the two markets, commercial and art, are really starting to

share a singular voice, I feel my work needs to be separated. That being said, I don't hesitate to let my ideas or

concepts co-mingle, and I find that the cross-pollination of my work is quite important in many respects.

Sorry isn't Prince's Marlboro images "soft" advertising? Marlboro couldn't have been anything less than pleased by the great publicity when one of their images by Prince set an all time high record for a photograph at auction. Otherwise they'd have taken him to task. I think Prince has some interesting work/ideas. I mean if we're going to get angry with Prince we could look a little nearer home, say on these threads here, where individuals, it seems to me, clearly promote products to their unsuspecting fellow photographers for ............. reward presumably.

Martin...I agree entirely.

Martin,

 

I agree about your saying about artists. I understand what you mean by "Business man", totally. If you want to sell your work, you have to know how. I consider myself an artist. Not just because of doing interesting ideas and vision, but here in Croatia where people are not interested in a new artistic world - they live in a past regarding the art, you really have to be an artist to sell your ideas, and a good businessman too, the same as the one who is doing much greater financial turns. I'm not a businessman. For that I have my marketing guru. I think I am on my path to build more recognized identity of my work.

 

What might be good is to have some great professional art historian who would give you some rank and recognition, or judgement in a form of a critique essay.

I know few art historians in Croatia, but I'm not sure with their course of consciousness. Because I am reading what is going on in the U.S. regarding art world.

JK: "<i>The first "Marlboro Man" died of AIDS shortly after the disease was first properly identified </i>"... No, he didn't.<p> Leo Burnett's first M Man started in 1954 and there were many actors and cowboys who portrayed that shill. Two of them did die of lung cancer (which may appeal even more to those who so enjoy irony).<p>I think Mr. Abell's attitude on this is correct. He thinks it sucks, but so what? He has no dog in this fight, having borrowed someone else's dog. If you don't like it, you can always complain about it on an internet forum. <p>But a more productive use of your time might be to work to protect your copyright and it's actual meaning... (and stay current with metadata technology, because this fight is <a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003801084">very important</a> to people who earn their living creating artworks in these "interesting" times)... t

OK Tom, I'm only 64. You go back waaay further than I do.

 

You chose not to recognize that I was honoring an individual.

 

The Marlboro guy I mentioned is the first one I knew of, and he did die of AIDs. Turned into a skeleton and went away. Hideous as he'd become, he toured high schools in my town (San Francisco), advocating condoms on his way out. Talked about lost friends. There was no effective treatment yet.

 

I never knew a professional photographer who called models "shills" or disdained advertising agencies (mine mostly JWT, Botsford, Y&R). I didn't love them, but they delivered for their clients, paid me very well.

 

I don't think Marlboro is more evil than General Motors, Coca Cola, Halliburton or General Electric. Do you?

I saw Sam Abell speak at a University a couple years ago. He is a very interesting person and I would recomend going to a lecture of his if the opportunity arises. He photographed for National Geographic.

If you know a guy who was a Marlboro Man and he died of Aids, perhaps you should update that <a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_Man#Controversy">WikiPedia page</a>. <p>According to my dictionary a

shill is "One who poses as a satisfied customer... to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle". I think

that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McLean_%28actor%29"> David McLean</a> himself might agree with

that description which I meant to apply to the Marlboro Man character, not the "model" portraying that character.

I assumed you might understand the difference between a fictional character and an actor that portrays that

character... my

mistake. <p>Let me clarify my position: The Marlboro Man was a shill. David McLean and others who played the

Marlboro Man were actors. <p>It seems every time I enter a debate with you, I am forced to quote myself, to

enforce clarity..."<i>there were many actors and cowboys who portrayed that shill</i>". A seemingly clear enough

distinction.<p>Defining "evil" is a complex issue made even more so by your comparative choices. And that leads this

conversation even further from the photographic nature of this forum. And so, I retire from the field... t

Tom, I ignore WikiPedia, but feel free.

 

I understand "shill" to be more hostile than the definition you've provided...mine comes from being around Yiddish/cockney businessmen, who used it as a denunciation (which seemed your intent as well) .

 

A few of the "actors" you've written off (as if "actor" wasn't respectable) were actual cowboys: Western guys who made their livings on horses. I'm in cowboy country and many of them actually do smoke, even today.Those "shills" and "actors" did their jobs for money, just as you and I do. Back in Marlboro man times, many doctors took money to defend big tobacco. Look it up...maybe Wicki will tell you.

 

Some of their doctor ancestors actually posed in ads, promoting Kools (specifically) as healthful. Some docs do the same today for various drugs that we suspect are harmful, or to peddle medical imaging technology in which they've invested, despite its suspected risk to patients. It's tough to make these distinctions sometimes, don't you think?

 

I imagine it's tougher for starving actors and models. You DO deal with models, don't you?

you are somethin else John. It obviously doesn't matter what I say or how clearly or emphatically I say it. I do not write off actors or call them, or smokin cowboys, "shills", and I cannot imagine how a rational person could interpret my words in that manner... t

I must share this with you, Ellis:

 

At the end your theme made me to make one more self-portrait, using the slide which I never used it before -Kodak E100VS, just to see how much life can I breath into myself. It was very fomenting for me.

I titled it "Summer" and it is about light and shadow in natural environment.