Burning my negatives

<b>Moved from the Philosophy forum because it's not the Rant forum.</b>

 

<p>By the beginning of 2010, I'll burn one of my latest work negatives, about 20 BW films (36 exposures).<br>

I know it's a bit harsh, but there is a sort of logic behind it (at least for me).<br>

Here is the story: I worked more or less for a year on an architecture project on the centennial of Tel-Aviv, at the demand of one of the best contemporary art gallery in Israel. Came out with a serie of about 80 pictures, twelve of them being printed on silver gelatin (60x90 cm). The exibition, six weeks early 2009 was a success with a huge press coverage, and incidently a very large frequentation of the gallery. A book was also published by the gallery with 80 pics, and text.<br>

The bad side now: Never, absolutly never in my 20 years carrer as a photographer, I had to face such a vampirism. I had of course positive or negative answers to previous works around the workd, sometime with important delays, but there, every single approach I had wanted my work to be... just for free!<br>

- El Al (israel airline) inflight magazine loved publishing my work and text on five pages, but were not willing to even give a courtesy ticket in exchange. I was even told that "some people were paying to be published in their magazine".<br>

- The most important insurance compagny in the country which has a cultural dpt and a large exibition room at the headquater, wanted (and had) the exibition for two months, but no money for the artist. I was told that it was due to the financial crisis.<br>

- The curator of the Museum of Modern Art in Tel-Aviv requested my gallery to have two of the prints displayed at the museum for three months, as part as an important exibition "Tel-Aviv by international photographers", but paid nothing to help.<br>

- Various gvt institutions contacted me to use my work to illustrate various brochures and catalogues on Tel-Aviv centennial but "had absolutly no budget to pay for the photographs"<br>

- Many communities in France, Luxembourg and Geneva would have loved to have the prints and set up an exibition to celebrate the centennial of the city, but had also no money to participate to the needs of the artist.<br>

- A french magazine published me on six pages to celebrate in their portfolio section the event of the centennial, but of course no money...</p>

<p>And so on...<br>

Of course, every single time I had the usual "you know, that will be such a good publicity for you!"<br>

With more than 40 pages of press on that work, plus web articles etc... I could live then on publicity till the end of my life!!!<br>

So I just got fed up.<br>

I believe that public and private institutions don't play their role into supporting the artistic life through the artists essential needs: money, grants, whatever you want to call it.<br>

So my work has to be for free! All right! As it has no value I don't see the need for it to physically exist much longer.<br>

I'll wait for the end of the centennial year and then burn the entire serie. Of course, I'll keep the set of these 12 large format silver gelatin prints, hoping they might (then) start to represent "something" on the market.<br>

Of course, the destruction of the negs will be done in public, filmed, displayed on medias like YouTube. I will even sent an invitation card to all these people and structures involved in such a fiasco. Don't think they'll come, don't even think they'll learn something about it :(<br>

Cheers<br>

JB</p>

<p>Luxembourg has no money? I don't believe it. I work there, and they were cultural capital when? Two years ago? They have such huge culture budgets that other cities start to cry when you even just mention it... apart from that, in Luxembourg, everything is established through personal contacts, so if you're an outsider, they really want you or someone else gets you in. Sad sad story.</p>

<p>Don't burn your films, though. Negatives are like your children, so don't treat them badly.</p>

 

<p>I understand you Jean. <br>

Vampires... yep!</p>

<p>Let me know when you post the video... I'll publish it everywhere.</p>

<p>It would be a tragedy for valuable negatives to be destroyed. You have no way of knowing what value they might have in some future application beyond your lifetime.</p>

<p> If El Al had no money, why did you let them publish your pictures? You could have said no.</p>

<p> Why did you give the insurance company your work to exhibit if you weren't happy with the arrangements?</p>

<p> You did not agree for Israeli government institutions to use your work w/o compensation, right?</p>

<p> Why did your pictures appear in a French magazine if you weren't happy with the deal?</p>

<p> How were the book sales? Print sales? Do you think all this exposure help with the sales?</p>

<p> Museums normally do not pay artists for exhibitions, though they help find sponsors to defray printing/framing costs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Do what you like. They're your negatives.</p>

<p>I'll be honnest, I will keep the digital files from scanned pictures. Nevertheless, the original files will be destroyed. For me, it will be like making a statement on how this "artistic" world is ridiculous... <br>

I had university scholars asking for my work, of course for free, to illustrate catalogues after seminars. They were surprised when I say I needed to make a living form my work!<br>

I has to remind them that at their bloody seminars and workshops, they had their fees to attempt. event the taxi driver taking them from the airport to the location of the congress didn't work for free. Even the waiter offering champagne at the opening ceremony was getting paid. For the photographer who's work will illustrate the object of their work: Nothing !</p>

<p>To Luis G,<br>

I "played" the game till I realized how systematic the "use for free" was.<br>

I agreed I said yes a reasonnable amount of time, till it appeared that it had to be a rule :(</p>

As Luis G said, make arrangements for payment before giving the images. If you don't agree with the terms, don't give them the images. If they take them anyway, sue them for copyright infringement.

 

Clearly, your pictures are wanted.. Destroying them won't benefit anyone. Store them in a bank vault until clients are willing to pay you for them. If that day doesn't come, safe them for future generations.

<p>Howard is right. Burning your negatives, as dramatic as that might be in the short term, would be a mistake that you would regret in the long term.</p>

<p>But, you have uncovered one crucial difference between film and digital photography: The drama. Imagine a digital photographer announcing a public file deletion...</p>

<p>The problem is that too many photographers let companies use their images for free, thinking that getting their name "out there" will pay off some day. Why would companies pay for images that they can get for free? Examples: An ad agency out of New York City wanted to use some of my images of the Calatrava addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum to put on city buses. I asked how much they were going to pay and they said that they couldn't pay me but would make sure they put my name in big bright letters. I told them to forget it, find some other chump. A major University was having an international architictural conference and wanted to use some of my Calatrava images for their website and brochures promoting the conference. Same old story, no money in the budget for the images but they would splash my name around. The University of course had money to fly people in from all over the world and put them up in nice hotels but no money for Timbo. I also told them, no th, find some other chump. I do let non-profits and charities use my photos for no charge on a case by case basis but I refuse to let money-making corporations use my photos for free. Every one of us has to do what we think is best for our particular situation and live with the consequences.</p>

<p>Before taking any actions, do this one thing first...<br>

Google your name.</p>

<p>It's up to you to decide how to use the name recognition factor. You might consider using this situation to both promote and publish your photos and make a more effective statement about your position on this situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, it will be like making a statement on how this "artistic" world is ridiculous...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a feeling that the only person who will care about this is you. Initially, you will think you have made a statement to the rest of the world. After a while you will realise how foolish you were.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=172915"><em>Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 20, 2009; 09:23 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Before taking any actions, do this one thing first...<br />Google your name.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I just did, and got several pages of hits on Jean .<br>

Tons o' free publicity that I wouldn't want to have to pay for.<br>

This whole thing sounds like a "cut off our nose to spite your face" situation.<br>

If you MUST burn something, burn the prints, but keep the negs, etc.<br>

I'd do something more positive, though.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p>I come from a family of artists, so let's avoid any notion that I'm just being contrary for the fun of it. <br /><br />If anyone has any doubt why much of the world rolls its eyes at artists, this is a grand example. The sense of entitlement to paying customers is appallingly pervasive. The reason there was no money to be had in that laundry list of venues? They didn't want or need the work badly enough to divert money from some other budget line item. Which means there was <em>no market for it where you were looking</em>. Two choices: produce work for which there <em>is</em> a market, or come to terms with the fact that the only <em>paying</em> customer that's interested is you, and you're buying the art from yourself with your time, instead of money.<br /><br />Perhaps, as mentoned above, a market for the work may appear later. Great. That means you've made an <em>investment</em> in creating the art. If you've made the art specifically to sell it, and nobody ever meets your necessary demands on price, then it was simply a bad investment - just like any other bad investment. It happens, and you move on, re-evaluating the market you're trying to capture.<br /><br />The tone of your post, J-B, would be a better fit if you had lined up paying customers, only to find that they'd changed their mind, later. Like the waiter and taxi driver you mentioned being told they'd get paid X for their work, and then getting stiffed. But they don't <em>do</em> their work without making arrangements to be paid. That taxi doesn't take on a passenger without an established understanding of the outcome. People need transportation more than they need a particular work of art, and that market is well defined as a result.<br /><br />Destroying your own work in a fit of pique is a tantrum in keeping with the sense of entitlement that seems to be at the heart of this whole rant. Unless this, like the proposed YouTube stunt, is all part of some indulgent performance art. There. How's that for a counter-rant. <br /><br />I definitely harbor my own frustrations when prospective customers don't understand the economics that drive what I have to ask for the photograph I sell them. But in my experience, the worst of those would-be customers are <em>at</em> their worst specifically because of the sense of entitlement that they're being trained to have as a world view. This is about to get even worse in the US, and it's up to people who actually create and produce and sell things and services to <em>educate</em> their fellow citizens about the reality and essential nature of markets.<br /><br />Stomp your feet over having wasted time pursuing a vaporous market for a particular product, or for having not done enough to <em>create</em> that market or demand within it. There's no point being personally indignant over the lack of prospective customers for any given service or product. The only fault, here, is in the misjudgement on your part over the actual value (to the market, as it operates at this moment, with the funds available) of your work. Nobody with a checkbook and a need for photographs is going to have their priorities changed by a video of you destroying your own work. Van Gogh's ear didn't buy him any respect at the time, either.<br /><br />I'm reminded of the classic scene from <em>Blazing Saddles</em>, where the new sherrif keeps the murderous lynch mob at bay by pointing a gun at his own head and promising to shoot himself if they don't change their tune. The difference is that I don't think you're producing satire, here. Unless you <em>are</em>, in which case it's truly sublime.</p>

<p>I feel your frustration but don't burn the negs.</p>

<p>That would just be selfish and that is precisely what we need to change.</p>

<p>We all have to really stop giving usage for free and the entire micro stock thing is just a farce.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I get a lot of inquiries about using my images for commercial stuff. I'm represented by an agency that deals with all that, so I just refer everybody to them. The agency usually scares the person off with demands for lots of money, which is fine by me. Once in awhile the person pays up; usually they give up. I'm one of those people that hates to disappoint others, and since I don't need to make a living from photography, my tendency is to just give things away. So it's nice to have a "bad cop" to look out for me. You should look into it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2344388"><em>Matt Laur</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 20, 2009; 09:49 a.m.</em><br>

<em>There. How's that for a counter-rant......</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, a well thought out and presented outlook on the situation.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>One wonders if on plumber.net if plumbers also give away their work too?<br /> <br /> At some point you have to decide if you are business or a charity.<br /> <br /> Even Mr. Norton on the Honeymooners TV show got paid to clean out the sewers.<br /> <br /> One can shoot weddings for free; replace toilets for free; shovel manure for free; give away paintings or photos for free; give away furniture one makes for free too.<br /> <br /> The plumber can consider a tough job a work of art too; but usually they tend to charge for their work.<br>

<br /> Some charity in all businesses is a part of sales ie advertising.<br /> <br /> ****This lack of income is really is NOT a photography issue; but one of a lack of proper business plan/model.<br /> <br /> It is as old as man, At some point one has to charge something for ones spears; grain; corn; labor; whatever.</p>

<p>Thank's to all for your comments & advices.<br>

What I'm trying to do is just to raise an issue, not among photographers (we all know what this job is about) but among people having some responsabilities within the art/communication market.<br>

Hundred of thousand of people in this field make a very decent monthly salary using the work of dead artists who died (for most of them) in poverty.<br>

You're right Matt, I'm staging this thing. Already with a cameraman friend, we're talking about how and where.<br>

I don't care about the negs in a way. The important was to do the work and to see that the result went accordingly to my vision of it. The important is, I believe, the mental ability to create something. The object is just an object.<br>

The point is to have some people (if it could happen) facing their responsabilities while they are confortably seated behind their desks.<br>

I've checked the web, and burning negs is an extremely rare things (but I know, the web is NOT everything).<br>

We'll see if it works! I'll keep you guys posted :)<br>

Cheers, and thank's!<br>

JB</p>

<p>I'm trying to figure out which is more ridiculous...</p>

<p>Letting people and businesses using you images for free and then ranting and raving about people and entities because the used your images for free.</p>

<p>-or-</p>

<p>Claiming you will burn you negatives in protest of the images not being worthy of existing anymore while keeping scans of them because of your desire that they continue to exist.</p>

<p>-or-</p>

<p>Wailing about others not valuing the work of artists while contributing to the devaluation of art by giving it out for free.</p>

<p>It is a bit too late to copyright thge images,<br>

as the world has freely used these images and they<br>

have been published,.<br>

the actual inmages do exist in some form in the archives<br>

of el al and that french magazine.<br>

burning the negatives would only be symbolic.<br>

If they wanted to re-publish they could.</p>

<p>Best option would be some kind of "time capsule"<br>

so future generations would have the ability to<br>

see the images as a historical record.<br>

However , viewing it another way, as an Evanelical Christian,<br>

the way things are going in this world and particularly in the USA,<br>

this old world as we know it now,<br>

may come to an unexpected and very sudden end.</p>

 

<p><em>What I'm trying to do is just to raise an issue, not among photographers (we all know what this job is about) but among people having some responsabilities within the art/communication market.</em></p>

<p>I very seriously doubt whether those people would agree that providing you with an income is among their responsibilities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is a bit too late to copyright thge images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Assuming that the copyright laws of the country of the original poster are similar to those of the US, this is just not true. The images are automatically copyrighted.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I very seriously doubt whether those people would agree that providing you with an income is among their responsibilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed.</p>

Early in his career, Ansel Adams would make a set amount of prints and then burn the negative. The idea was it would make the prints more valuable since no more prints could be made. He always regretted that decision.