A Response To My Request To Show In a Local Gallery

<p>Recently, I submitted a few scans of my work via email to the Big Kahuna at a gallery in New Smyrna Beach, just down the road from us. This is a person that I have never met by the way. I do know that she is a former mayor of said town, for whatever that may be worth.The establishment has no photography on it's walls currently, but I thought "what the heck". Yesterday I received a reply, and it is priceless. I hope anyone that is considering exhibiting traditional photography reads this, because it shows what we are sometimes up against. Here is her response, verbatim.</p>

<p>"Thank you for submitting the images, Steve. They are technically really good photographs. Do you have any where the subject matter is more unusual or of more artistic shapes and shadows?"<br /> <br /> I don't know. Maybe I could photoshop some in?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"They are technically really good photographs."</p>

<p>That's what's known as damning with faint praise. Maybe you can discuss the matter with the gallery owner, and see what her expectations are...</p>

After reading several books on exhibiting, including the unforgettabke title, Getting

Hung," they make a rather big pointmof getting to know the gallery's style, tastes and

likes. It makes sense, because they know who their audience is, much like mercedes

benz probably would be marketing hemi engines or ram anything.

 

In fact, your images may be perfect for another gallery, of no less quality, but to

whose audience is more in sync with your style.

 

Move on and try another gallery, would be my suggestion. Personally, I exhibit only

with galleries I like, and whose owners I have gotten to know through other artist

openings.

<p>Why don't you post some, since you have scans, here, and ask what we think it meant? Words without the photos isn't very useful.</p>

<p>I don't think the ex-mayor knows anything about photography.</p>

"it shows what we are sometimes up against. Here is her response, verbatim. "Thank you for submitting the images, Steve. They are technically really good photographs. Do you have any where the subject matter is more unusual or of more artistic shapes and shadows?""

 

How does that show 'what we are up against'?

<p>John, if you don't know....it means the difficulties people have these days showing "traditional" film photography.</p>

<p>Are you sure Jeff? I mean, there aren't any of those artistic things she mentioned in the photos.</p>

<p>I don't want to post stuff everyone has already seen. I have a few shots on the forums here and there, if anyone is interested, but those are mostly about how a particular camera or lens is performing. I've shown in galleries in the past, sold a little now and then (which doesn't mean diddley squat in terms of whether the work is any good or not). Frankly, Ian has nailed it, in my (or our) opinion. It's quite clear what she meant. It means, to me, that she is a total idiot. The work in her gallery is uniformly dreadful, but here in this part of the world, there is The Hub, and there is Fine Arts On Douglas. We have now exhausted the only "real" galleries within 50 miles of where I live, and FAOD is run as if it were a realty office, not a gallery. Both of these places lose money actually. Whatever clients that may have don't buy much. They stay open with sweetheart deals with the city, grants, donations, and arts fund raising schemes. But that is neither here nor there. I just naively thought it might be a good place to hang a couple of big enlargements of my straight B&W film photography. That isn't done much these days, and I am curious to see if people can even relate to it anymore.</p>

<p>I emailed her a simple "You have to be kidding. Please!", and that is that. I'm not some hot shot, big time photographer, but I know what a good image is supposed to look like, and if anyone ever sees me putting any "artistic" stuff in my work I want them to please just shoot me. I'm not upset or disappointed or anything. Quite the contrary, I think it's hilarious, and am still getting quite a good laugh out of it. The whole episode just reminds me that often the people that run things actually have no idea about what's going on.</p>

<p>....whose owners I have gotten to know through other artist openings.</p>

<p>Yeah, I mean isn' t there a personal touch or art to this display for sale business. Getting huffy which it sounds to be doesn't tell much about photographers and galleries, unless she is a lone exception to admirers of one's <em>traditional,</em> whatever that means in this day and age- work. A rejection is a rejection, bad news, even if incomprehensible in wording, but it can be turned to some use.<br /> I am just thinking I might have used the exchange to get a better fix on things. She and you have the same goal. Make sales. A start in discussion. <br /> What would be so bad about visiting the owner face to face and exploring her ideas of public taste and sales appeal and get some for instances of her taste. You might even wind up educating her some. Or moving on. Or trying some new themes.</p>

<p><em>I hope anyone that is considering exhibiting traditional photography reads this, because it shows what we are sometimes up against.</em><br>

Without seeing the images, it's impossible to comment in detail, but in general the principle applies in art photography of "Anything but ordinary!" It is further the case that if you work in a traditional style, or what LOOKS like a traditional style, viewers' prejudices in the form that they have seen it all before may kick in before they have even really viewed your work at all. Thirdly, it is the case that the type of photography practised by some enthusiasts, in which high technical quality and craft skills are accorded priority over, or are present to the total exclusion of, emotional content, is not likely to be well received outside the ranks of similar enthusiasts.<br>

Please note that I am not saying that any of these factors apply to you, merely that they CAN as a general principle.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think the ex-mayor knows anything about photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An assumption based on what, exactly? </p>

<p>Sounds to me like she has a <em>very</em> clear idea of what works for her, artistically and aesthetically - in which it hardly matters whether or not she "knows" about photography.</p>

<p>And as others have said, without sight of Steve's work, who knows? Maybe "traditional" equates to "boring", "trite", "pedestrian", "uninspired", "uninspiring"? (<em>Not to say that your work is any of those, Steve</em>).</p>

<p>I know a little about photography, and I find the vast majority of images I see to be boring and banal. </p>

<p>In fact, what does "traditional" even mean in this context?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The work in her gallery is uniformly dreadful</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet she runs a (successful?) gallery that you obviously want to exhibit in, and that you're clearly really bent out of shape your work has been (in effect) rejected for.</p>

<p>A cynic might read a lot into your reaction and subsequent comments.</p>

<p>I'll say it again: the owner's level of knowledge of photography is <em>irrelevant</em> here - she clearly knows what works for her.</p>

<p>So yeah, let's see some examples, Steve - let's see just how wrong the gallery owner is.</p>

<p>Is this the sort of thing you usually shoot?<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bgbw</p>

<p>If it is, personally I'd be on the side of the gallery owner.</p>

<p>""It means, to me, that she is a total idiot. The work in her gallery is uniformly dreadful""<br>

<br>

How the heck did you get the perverse idea to send your photos to exactly that gallery, and yet be astonished and seemly distress about her answer ? You should be happy.</p>

<p>Is this the sort of thing you usually shoot?<br /><a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bgbw" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bgbw</a></p>

<p>Obviously not Keith: the subject matter is "unusual" and filled with "artistic shapes and shadows".</p>

<p>Right, so she's an idiot who doesn't know photography, but when somebody asks to show your photos here so we can understand what you're on about, we just need to understand what "traditional film photography" is like, and take your word on it? Because I really don't know.... Cartier-Bresson shot film, Ansel Adams did, Weston did... so, what exactly does traditional film photography look like?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...but I know what a good image is supposed to look like,....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. And she's an idiot because she does not share your opinion?<br>

Now, I can agree that "<em>Do you have any where the subject matter is more unusual or of more artistic shapes and shadows?</em>" does not sound particularly great. But that doesn't exactly mean your taste and knowledge in photography is by definition better. Maybe you should actually talk to her, and listen to her point of view. Dismiss her for one badly constructed sentence, and use a public forum to ridicule it (and as a side-effect put yourself out as a connaisseur of "traditional film photography") sounds more idiotic to me than whatever she did.<br>

But then again, I have no idea what "traditional film photography" is, so I'm an idiot too.</p>

<p>These are some of what I showed her. They're fine in my book. Big enlargements on fiber paper are quite nice.</p><div></div>

<p>sample two</p><div></div>

<p>sample three</p><div></div>

<p>sample four</p><div></div>

<p>sample five</p><div></div>

<p>sample six</p><div></div>

<p>sample seven</p><div></div>

<p>sample eight</p><div></div>

<p>last</p><div></div>

<p>There's enough variety there to get the point across. There's also enough in each type of look around the house here to have 10 shows, but I thought it would be nice to present some different styles to her. I'm working w/ medium format primarily now, and working mostly in the city (street shooting I guess you would call it, or reportage, or something) that the gallery is located in. Alas, no artistic shadows though. No, she's not an idiot because she disagrees w/ me. She's an idiot because she is an idiot. It's nothing more than that. George Bush made it to the highest elected office in this country. Does anyone think for one second that he was a competent president? Titles mean nothing, nor does the fact that she runs a gallery. I know the work is good, and could care less what she thinks, but her comments were so dumb, you know? You would have to see the pieces in the gallery to understand I guess.</p>

<p>"Titles mean nothing, nor does the fact that she runs a gallery."<br /><br />The first part may not but the second does because that's the only part that matters.</p>

 

<p>"I know the work is good, and could care less what she thinks"<br /><br />Obviously you do since you launched an entire rant thread about it. In any event, she didn't say the work wasn't good. She asked if about providing something different. </p>