"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind."

When Aristotle said that, he probably wasn't thinking of professional

photographers, but do those of you who do commercial work feel that the demands

of the job detract from your abilities to do personal work?

 

As an amateur who occasionally likes to make a few bucks, I've found that

making pictures for someone else is usually less fun than my own projects, but

don't feel that it's had an influence on the quality of my own work. At one

point, when several prints of a particular subject began to sell well, I did

find myself chasing after other similar subjects -- not because I personally

found them appealing, but because they might also sell well.

 

I do feel that if photography were to be my livelihood, that I'd approach it

with a different perspective. Working within the strictures of an art director

would probably alter the flow of the creative juices and cause me to become

more aware of other people's reactions to my work. What do you think?

"When Aristotle said that, he probably wasn't thinking of professional photographers, but do

those of you who do commercial work feel that the demands of the job detract from your

abilities to do personal work?"

 

No.

Forgot to add, shame on you Met Museum for giving publicity to these hacks (Avedon and Penn). Vin Keller's comment is right on. I had a portrait photo studio for many years. Finally had the sense to quit. It took a long time to regain my love for photography.

Bruce -- respectfully completely disagree. I wonder whether your attack on Avedon applies to Penn, Horst, Munkasci. (By the way, it was the latter who inspired Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment.") Of course, Kertesz HATED commercial work. So you have examples of both.

By the way, I see no comment about Shakespeare. Was he a high class hack? (He almost certainly would have agreed!)

Some of the greatest fine art photographers -- Penn, Avedon, Horst, Munkasci -- were highly commercial artists. I think if you asked someone like Avedon whether he hated doing his shoots for money, whether they detracted from his art, he would have looked at you cross-eyed. Penn obviously loves his work for Yoji Yamamoto. Penn also did work for a cosmetics firm -- I can't recall which one just now. And he just did a shoot for Vogue -- although I thought he had retired. Remember, Shakespeare did what he did largely for the money -- and he became a very wealthy man, thank you. (He probably would have become a movie director had he lived in our time.)

Isn't that the same with just about everything in life?

 

Welcome to the real world. After many decades of having photography as my sole income, finding 'creative juices' is a rare happening.

 

Doug

There is a lively argument going on in the Linux world - it would appear that when developers who used to do volunteer work for Linux are paid or otherwise compensated for doing what they previously did for free, the quality of their work declines. No one is quite sure why (or even if this assertation is true) yet. But it is an interesting thought.

I disagree with you Bruce. While some of what you say might be true for the rank and file AD's, the majority of the ones I've worked with in NY and SF were accomplished fine artists on their own. They knew what they did was somewhat mercenary yet they also had their own stuff going that was in many cases excellent. Many of them represented the top of the commercially trained artists or they wouldn't have been hired by Doyle Dane or BBD&O etc. In NY, LA, Chicago and Atlanta the major Ad agencies didn't have the time or money to foster hacks. Quite a few AD's used to keep their portfolios packed and nearby because a screw-up meant you'd need to find a new job. The good ones stayed around and the mediocre ones were relatively quickly culled from the pack.

As for Avedon, Penn, Skrebneski etc., I personally found their fine art generally above reproach, of course, as in most cases, this is my personal opinion. Upon reviewing the few shots at your site I find myself understanding you viewpoint, but disagreeing with your conclusion. Could be "camera-envy".

I strongly disagree with Mr. David Schwartz's comments. The art -advertising guys he mentions, are, for the most part advertising photographers pretending to be artists. This comment particularly applies to Avedon, whose work was truly pathetic: technically poor, badly printed boring and predictable. Saw his retrospective at the Met Museum and found the level of pretense comical. To Avedon, Penn etc., you can't be and do everything. It is OK to be an ad photog. There is no disgrace in a life spent in the pursuit of dollars. You do not have to pretend to be something else. Admit it: you are high class hacks!

There's completely ample proof that many people are able to be creative in a commercial context and/or continue to be creative in their personal work while being employed in the same field. Other people can't -- so what? One person's inability does not disprove another's ability.

Tis true Ocean.

"All unpaid jobs absorb and degrade the belly and the bank account."

 

How true, how true ..., too.

 

So: Choose your profession very well, then!

I get to go to some wild places to work (heavy industry engineering), so I exercise my tech. brain as well as my problem solving bits quite a bit. These places are all quite different from "home" and from each other. This meshes well with one of my hobbies: photography. I haven't posted anything recently because I don't have a scanner and my company doesn't allow it. I used to have a couple of dozen in my folder, but they got too old for me, so I deleted them.

David Schwartz writes; "By the way, I see no comment about Shakespeare. Was he a high class hack? (He almost certainly would have agreed!)"

 

I prefer the Christopher Marlowe theory. The so-called Shakespearean plays were written in Italy. Shakespeare produced the plays and added a bit of local humour here and there. But Marlowe, who was an atheist by the way, faked an assasination to free himself from religious persecution and spent the rest of his life in Italy writing 'Shakespearean' plays.

 

The question raised here cuts across all artistic and scientific endeavour. Are we compromised by working for a client? Perhaps it depends on just how much control the client insists upon having. Science or art directed towards paying the bills seems compromised in some way to me. It might be good, but perhaps not of the finest ilk.

Vin Keller wrote:

 

"If you like photography then stay out of the business...

i make tons of money at a real job, with good hours. it frees me up to do photography i

like."

 

You probably ought to ask some top name pros, you will find a very different answer than

what you are getting on here. But then again, they are too busy enjoying a great life to

spend too much time on a site like photoshop.net.

 

I for one would never change what I am doing. Generally speaking, the images that sell the

best are the ones I enjoyed making the most.

 

There are two very distinct internet hype misinformation lines of thinking on sites like

these.

 

1. That amateurs get more enjoyment and satisfaction out of photography than pros so.

 

2. That amateurs are getting better and are taking away work from lesser pros.

 

False, very false.

 

Until, you all go talk to the top of the game, the best in the business, you are contributing

to the hype that we pros love.

 

We love it because all the hype works in our favor...:-)

Number two is not "bull". As an amateur I've gotten work that didn't go to the pro (although the pro got the cover).

I'll throw the hand grenade in --

Great art is what great artists produce when they need the cash!

Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. Dickens and his novels. Dostoevsky and his novels.

(I'm being a bit facetious, but truly am interested in how far this reflects some truth....)

"I'll throw the hand grenade in -- Great art is what great artists produce when they need the cash! Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. Dickens and his novels. Dostoevsky and his novels. (I'm being a bit facetious, but truly am interested in how far this reflects some truth....)"

 

Interesting! But we can't test this theory. We can't reconstruct history and find out what Dostoevsky would have written had he inherited early in his career a large sum of money.

 

As regards the Sistine Chapel, clearly it couldn't have been painted without the order/invitation of Pope Sixtus 4, and without doing some extensive research I don't know to what extent the work was compromised, but there certainly seems to have been some conflict between Pope and Michelangelo. If Michelangelo had had his unfettered way, would the work have been even more marvelous?

 

I'm reminded of the Sydney Opera House (I'm Australian). There was a conflict there between architect and client. It's a great building on the outside, but the interior is mundane because the architect was sacked before completion.

<i>Perhaps it depends on just how much control the client insists upon having.</i><p>

 

and..... the photographer, their psychology, the context, the clients personality (level of control aside), the weather that day, what they ate for breakfast, the alignment of the stars blah blah blah. <p>

 

then WHO is judging whether or not the commercial work has negatively impacted the personal work. is the photographer? their gallery rep? some self appointed "top name pro" with a hilariously outsized ego on an internet forum? <p>

 

I"m a commercial photographer. I've found it to be fundamentally like any other trade I've worked, i.e. populated by individuals. some are hacks, some are stars, some are creative, some really aren't, some have time for their own work, others have been ruined by the job etc. draw sweeping conclusions if you'd like, can't see the point really, but whatever floats your assorted boats. <p>

 

those who would position their own opinions as fact and proclaim the truth or falsehood of other peoples opinions or experiences have my sympathy. Living with that kind of insecurity must be real bitch.

Of course now that I've said that, I can think of all the counter examples! Weston. Strand. etc.

"1. That amateurs get more enjoyment and satisfaction out of photography than pros so.

 

2. That amateurs are getting better and are taking away work from lesser pros. "

 

I have to say I haven't heard those, but I'd agree that they're bull.

<i>This comment particularly applies to Avedon, whose work was truly pathetic: technically poor, badly printed boring and predictable</i><p>

 

Having just seen Avedon's show <i>In the American West</i>, I couldn't disagree more. I would have to say that you don't know much about printing if you think Earl Steinbicken's printing is poor, (Steinbickin is generally regarded as one of the greats of printing), or about lighting if you think Avedon's photos are technically poor.

 

The number of examples of photographers who do paid work and great personal work, and paid work that resembles personal work (Avedon is a good example here) is huge.<p>

 

I'm wondering who paid for Aristotle's food...

Wow!

Some of the very best photography anywhere is done for commerce. The National Geographic? Poor? Stilted? Formula? Not in my eyes. Yet it is done to illustrate a story. Or at least to create the bones for one.

I photographed a rodeo recently. It was gas. It was fun. It allowed me to experiment and express myself. Yea it did. And I did it knowing that it was for publication under an editor's direction. I guess I am to be sorry they paid me for it. Seems so cheap and tawdry. Is that hack work? Unworthy of an artist?

 

Iconoclastic slamming of the "greats" in photography, such as Avedon and Penn is arrogant and amateur. I liken it to the slamming of popular movies by critics. They have forgotten what the movies were made for?

 

A commercial photographer first and foremost must possess the skill of making another person's vision come alive. Show me a bad communicator and I will show you a person who will never be a successful commercial photographer. It is a different and complimentary skill set to the artistic side. Also do not confuse artistic and experimental.

 

First its flowers. Then kittens. Then blood. Then bloody nudes. Then just nudes. Then street. Pretty much the photography student?s progression. At this point students usually start slamming photographers who have wowed the world. They call them hacks and sellouts. We forgive them because they just don?t understand commercial photography and don?t respect what commercial photographers do. (Or professional models for that matter.)

An amateur can stumble around and after a few years and 10,000 pictures put together a pretty good 50 picture portfolio. Now try doing it every month. Put your reputation on the line with every assignment. Create beautiful AND useful images everyday. And when you have finally mastered the ability to do this watch some wannabe call you a hack.

 

Sheesh!

 

It is possible for a great philosopher to be dead wrong. And in this case Aristotle proved it. But just for the record he also said... "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work."

 

Silly old man.

Don, I guess it depends where on the spectrum one puts the word "pro" and what one's criteria is. One man's pro is another man's small time operator. Is the local wedding photographer on the same level as the New York commercial studio?

For some of us there's something exciting about getting a call from the editor at the last minute that really primes the creative juices, knowing you've got to get someplace fast and come up with useable images to illustrate the story. There's always a touch of competition to make the cover of a magazine or front page of the newspaper. In some situations you'll have total control while in others the editor will be thrilled that you even managed to talk your way past security and perhaps even hit it off with the subjects so that they appear totally at ease in your pictures. All this while keeping in mind layout cosiderations, like where the magazine's name will print over the picture, or not having a face dead center in a horizontal shot in case the photo runs double truck. Not degrading at all!