Connect the Dots

<p>I recently attended an Alec Soth speech on the future of recognition/success in fine art photography. His initial comment was that 500,000 pictures are now estimated to be uploaded to the internet per second and, while a small percentage, there are huge numbers of excellent pictures uploaded each day. If, in the past, a photographer could make a reputation on relatively few excellent pictures, how can someone rise above the crowd today?<br>

Soth's answer was that individual pictures are like dots on a paper. In order to be recognized today, a photographer has to connect the dots to produce a meaningful artistic creation. Creative photo books or slide shows would be specific examples. Robert Frank's "The Americans" is an accomplishment to emulate.<br>

While not Frank quality, there are, however, probably thousands of photo books now created each day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How can someone rise above the crowd today?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By the subject one chooses to photograph and the audience to whom will view it.</p>

<p>Jon, Thanks for introducing the importance of context regarding photos. A body of work, a book, a presentation, may indeed allow for a more unique voice to emerge. </p>

<p>Edmund, Thanks for that. It makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>Not everyone has to rise to the level of worldwide master photographer in order to rise above the crowd. It's what you speak about and to whom you speak that may be of great importance.</p>

<p>It is the single photo that has to catch your attention to entice someone to want to view your whole portfolio. therefore the single dot (photo) is the most important thing.</p>

<p>btw, where on earth did that guy dream up the number of 500,000 images? that's almost like guestimating the number of times per second people in the world fart...</p>

<p>"5,625 uploads in the last minute" -- Opening screen @ Flickr.</p>

<p><strong>John Wilbrecht typed: "...</strong> 500,000 pictures are now estimated to be uploaded to the internet per second and, while a small percentage, there are huge numbers of excellent pictures uploaded each day. If, in the past, a photographer could make a reputation on relatively few excellent pictures, how can someone rise above the crowd today?"</p>

<p>The easy answer is: By producing stronger, better work than the rest. I agree with Soth's response, and think that's only part of it.</p>

<p>All places on the web are not created equal. What do you want from your pictures? Who is your intended audience? Why are you uploading to one place instead of another? One of the side effects of doing a book is having to edit and pare your work to the bone, hopefully raising thematic consistency, clarity, and quality. These are good habits to learn, because as the cliche' goes, it's not what you shoot, but what you <em>show</em> . A string of strong images, however small, makes a stronger impact than a few flawless pearls lost among acres of seaweed. Or listings at <em>Blurb.</em></p>

<p>Most people have no idea of how difficult it was for Robert Frank to get <em>Les Americains </em> published. No one would do it in the US. He had to go to France, and a friend to get it out, and at first, as often happens with works of genius, it was a dismal failure in both the French and American editions. If Kerouac hadn't written the intro, it may have taken a lot longer for it to break through the ice. Frank worked incredibly hard to get the book out, and so should we.</p>

<p>The great majority of the zillions of pictures being uploaded per nanosecond end up in a few places. What these places have in common is affordability, ease of use, the ability to create enormous folders, and a total lack of filtration. If you go there, be advised that anyone looking for standout work is going to drown in all those pictures, unless they look at those highly rated by the residents. This skews the search towards the endemic cultural aesthetic. You can key into the dominant aesthetic by looking at the highly-rated pictures and try to stand out. This is a colossal waste of time. Do you want to be seen in general and get some generic attention, or seen by a particular audience? The harder it is to get onto a particular site, the odds of standing out <em>increase</em> . This means a site that has an <em>editor(s)</em> who filters things in and out. These sites usually have a very clear mission and vision of their place in the world, and your work has to fit that naturally in order to have a snowball's chance in hell to get in.</p>

<p>These well-edited sites and blogs tend to have a very different readership than the populist sites (which makes them neither better nor worse). They also rotate their exhibitions, so that one or a handful of photographers gets spotlighted for a usually brief amount of time. Those photographers are keyworded and advertised on-site and elsewhere.</p>

<p>Don't let the sheer numbers get you down. The strength of your work is a given on any particular day. One should always push themselves to the limits, <em>and </em> think carefully about where one is going to upload their images and why. Few people do. My advice is to put them wherever you want to, but if you want to be noticed, take the steeper, less traveled road.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Direct exhibition of your images, whether on an internet site, in a café, or in a gallery is not likely to do the job of getting you known and (hopefully) appreciated, except possibly by a few persons, or as a result of very good fotune.</p>

<p>Perhaps one way is to initially piggyback yourself onto a creative project that has a better chance of visibility. A work together with an author of poetry or of a monograph on a particular subject, or promotion or analysis of a project of civil importance (environment, urban development, human rights, community efforts for the needy,....), or a book dealing with some issue that must be developed visually by the author, or a needed guide (touristic?) to a region, or other work directed to a large public and requiring a visual component that might match your photographic approach and personal objectives. Doing free or essentially free work for a worthy and recognized community organization may also afford an initial boost to a career.</p>

<p>I think a fundamental question in response to<br>

"If, in the past, a photographer could make a reputation on relatively few excellent pictures, how can someone rise above the crowd today?"<br>

is 'Why do they want to rise above the crowd?" - is it because they have an ego that needs to be stroked? Is it because they have lack of confidence? Do they think they are more important?<br>

To 'rise above the crowd' in a area where 'output' is everyday/common/easy, the age old rules apply. ie, it's not what you know, what you do, but who you know. If you spend long enough telling somebody you're a good photographer, they start to believe you. You have to believe in yourself and in what you're doing - there needs to be a reason behind the work - some random bunch of landscape photographs is never going to cut it in the long term.<br>

i suppose the other thing most of us will have to accept is that we'll always be one of the crowd, we can fight it for the rest of our days, of course, but there is a danger of becoming twisted and angry, or worse perhaps, creating photographs to somebody else's tune - I wonder how many of us already do this - which of course leads to conformity and mediocrity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2419065"><em>Jon Wilbrecht</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 05, 2009; 01:39 p.m.</em><br>

<em>"....how can someone rise above the crowd today?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><em>"P.R. is 98 percent of it"</em><br>

Miles Davis to Bryant Gumbel, "Today Show", 1982. (3:04 in)<br>

<a href="

<p>Picasso knew it, Dali knew it, all the big noises knew it.<br>

Now you know it.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I don't think most of the people posting to Flickr, Facebook, or SmugMug really care about being famous. They're doing the contemporary equivalent of inviting the neighbors over for a slide show, or showing the baby pictures. In the 1950s, someone didn't expect to get a reputation showing slides to neighbors, they submitted work to magazines, put together portfolios for ad agencies or galleries. Likewise, the audience now that pays money for pictures isn't trawling the general public on-line web collections anymore than scouts for the National Geographic would have traveled around looking at people's home slide shows.</p>

<p>P.R., that's what Miles Davis told someone in the PR business. </p>

<p>The general public photo sites are like boxes of photos that we used to only see when we visited our grandparents or took on family holidays and mailed everyone. They're just spectacularly more visible these days, but they're still up there to share with friends and family, not to make reputations or build careers.</p>

<p>If we end up with a general public that develops a taste for photography that goes beyond visual souvenirs, they'll let each other know what the best photos are. If all they want is visual souvenirs that mean something to them, they don't want to see a stranger's visual souvenirs. Other people's slide shows were notoriously boring.</p>

<p>Don't confuse boxes of photos in the closet with work in National Geographic or in a gallery.</p>

<p>Some net-released things go viral: "Badgers, Badgers, Badgers" comes to mind, but that was, if I remember correctly, done by a advertising firm. Most don't.</p>

<p>PR, as publishers know, is only useful if the book has an audience waiting for it. The best promotion for a new writer is word of mouth. People resist self-promoters if the work isn't giving them something that they couldn't get from any number of other works. Naked displays of ego without work to back it up are embarrassing to witness. Wannabes who are sure they're as good as the people who get published are all too common, and all too wrong.</p>

<p>Ultimately, the test is that the work matters to strangers. They may be a select group of strangers with taste and money; they may be the people using your work for wallpaper on their computers; they may be someone who thinks your work is compelling enough to make a good vehicle for promoting a project; or they may be people who can never afford to buy anything at a gallery but who spend Sunday in Soho. Alll sorts of audiences; you may not matter to more than 4,000 people; you may do work that matters to millions.</p>

<p>People who consume your art don't care if they know you or not. They either get their needs met by the work or they don't. They can have good taste, bad taste, mediocre taste. They can read or see something because all their friends are seeing or reading the thing; they can see or read something that they never discuss with their friends because the transaction with that work is intensely private. Most don't even care about the artist. I've loved and remembered photos without bothering to remember who did them. Putting the names to the works is more of interest to people to help find other possibly work that will give them an equivalent experience.</p>

<p>The viewer or reader has a relationship with the work. The artist isn't important unless the work is. Often the work is more welcome in people's lives than the artist. The artist is like the father of the person you love. You're grateful to him for bringing this person into the world, but you don't love him.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2116036"><em>Rebecca Brown</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 06, 2009; 07:33 a.m.</em><br>

<em>P.R., that's what Miles Davis told someone in the PR business.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When Bryant Gumbel did this interview with Miles, he was a staff reporter for NBC. That's journalism, not Public Relations.<br>

Regardless of who Miles was talking with, that does not diminish the statement.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>"Ultimately, the test is that the work matters to strangers." Maybe so...but to me, the more important "ultimate test" is that the work, and the continued persuit of the work, matters to the one doing the work.</p>

<p>It's interesting that the PR quote comes from Miles Davis, probably one of the most brilliant musicians to come along. It's often amusing how artists will either puff themselves up with statements or, like Miles, be somewhat self-deprecating (as if his genius is all PR, right!). I take this statement by Miles, though it has a ring of truth and probably applies in many cases of commercial success, with the same grain of salt I take many artist's statement . . . true within a certain context, true in capturing a certain aspect of something, and just as false as true.</p>

<p>Who the work matters to is an interesting question. Yes, to me first, whether I'm the artist or the viewer, which sets up a seeming contradiction though I can live with it. If it matters most to me as the viewer then that puts the artist to whom it matters most in a pickle, but that's just the way it might be.</p>

<p>Rebecca, I can relate to where you're coming from about the work mattering to strangers. After all, once the work is created it is a thing in the world to be appreciated for what it is as a thing in the world. But I wouldn't want to discount situations where the photographer is important to how the photos will feel. This documentary I'm working on right now would not mean the same to the people of the community if they didn't feel the way they do about me and I didn't feel the way I do about them. They might get very different, even more technically proficient, photos from a more experienced documentarian than me, but the relationship we have is important enough to all of us and that's very much part of what they want from the pictures. My hope is that that relationship will come through in the photos, even to strangers, but one of the prime groups of viewers here are the people themselves whose lives are being documented and their feelings about the photographer do and, it seems to me, should matter.</p>

<p>My experience has been that putting individual photos into a portfolio builds up a picture of the artist and does add a dimension to each photo and each additional photo adds a dimension to the portfolio. As L. J. Leonard suggests, particularly with regard to PN's critique forum and top-rated-photos pages, photos do stand alone and only if they strike the viewer (and strike from a small thumbnail size) do they seem to be effective. Subtlety and nuance, in this method of viewing, are less important than boldness and contrast. But many, even on PN, that I've talked to will immediately go to a portfolio, which is where an assessment of the work will actually take place, precisely because photos do not always stand on their own. Much documentary work is made to be seen as a group and each photo, in itself, is not nearly as important as the group. Many portraits are done in series and focusing on only one of the photos may miss the point. My impression of a particular photo may change a lot when I see it in the context of a body of work and that body of work may often be more significant than each individual photo. I think there are cases where each photo can hang alone on a wall and be most commanding and I think there are many cases where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.</p>

<p>I agree with some of the comments that suggest that thematic or series work is important. Individual photos, unless you are Guersky, do not have the same "radius of influence" as thematic works (and, indeed, I understand that Guersky works within a particular thematic context with his individual well acknowledged works). But the theme or philosophy behind the photo series has to touch the strangers as well as the community or friends; it has to have either a universality of objective or statement, or at least a specific one that really connects with the stranger, before he or she will consider acquiring all or a part of it.</p>

<p>How you get that thematic project to the eyes and minds of potential buyers is obviously not easy. Many possibilities come to mind: Piggybacking onto other compatible creative projects (books, poetry, causes), a friendly patron, an undersatnding art critic, word of mouth, systematic PR initiative, gallery submissions, state grants to the arts? There are no doubt other avenues as well, and it certainly helps if you don't have to do all the PR work yourself, as that is a major and persistent undertaking (especially when starting from zero) in itself.</p>

<p>Arthur--</p>

<p>Thanks. I think what you point out is obviously good for any photographer to remember who is trying to reach a broader audience. A lot depends on the goal. Sometimes documentary work is really specifically geared to a target audience of already-familiar folks and is meant to reinforce something already known or felt. There are web sites and slide shows created strictly for fundraising among an already known or given base of people. Or, the purpose may be to increase awareness and involvement of people already involved to some extent. Take Michael Moore as a very wide example of someone who will not likely appeal to those with differing views from his. He is seeking to emphasize and motivate a group already in tune and familiar with what he's doing. That can be seen on much smaller scales all over the place. I think much political and social documentary work is not, in fact, meant to reach strangers, and the strength of that work lies in furthering the sense of familiarity with very small groups already established. I'm not necessarily always talking about reaching wide audiences and commercial success. Sometimes success is measured in very intimate and familiar terms. Building on your idea of the specific statement that winds up reaching the stranger, I think probably a job well done which is very local and very personal, such as I'm describing, will often reach the unknown (stranger) viewer precisely because of the intensity of the personal dynamics that were the motivating force behind the work. The <em>goal</em> of reaching strangers, in some cases, might actually undermine one's ability to reach strangers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong> Rebecca typed - "</strong> Likewise, the audience now that pays money for pictures isn't trawling the general public on-line web collections anymore than scouts for the National Geographic would have traveled around looking at people's home slide shows."</p>

<p> This may come as a shock to you, but many corporations and other agencies mine Flickr based on the assumption that being a star on Flickr is the result of the vox populi (of people who have enough disposable income to buy photo gear and leisure time to use it) favoring their imagery. Many Flickerites have sold work and done ads out of it. It's like free marketing research. And there are famous photographers on Flickr under assumed names. Curiously, they're not very highly rated, which tells me there's another aesthetic at play there. </p>

<p> While it is true that a majority of people aren't in it for the money (As Ralph Gibson said "commercial photographers photograph to make money, artists make money to photograph"), only a naif would fail to see the intensely competitive nature of many at Flickr.</p>

<p> Recognition by millions is a good thing, but, don't kid yourself, validation via monetary means or real-world accolades is important to many.</p>

<p><strong>Edmund typed: </strong> "By the subject one chooses to photograph and the audience to whom will view it."</p>

<p> It takes much more than what one photographs.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur typed - "</strong> Direct exhibition of your images, whether on an internet site, in a café, or in a gallery is not likely to do the job of getting you known and (hopefully) appreciated, except possibly by a few persons, or as a result of very good fotune."</p>

<p> Good advice, but cafes & galleries are in real life. The question was about the web, and that's a vast subject as it is.</p>

<p> Gursky has consistent conceptual thematic consistency, as you point out.</p>

<p><strong>Steve Hipperson - </strong> Yes, we are part of a crowd and individuals simultaneously. Ego? In 2009? We agree on succumbing to demand characteristics of potential or real audiences. This relates to another post in this forum and comments re: "Working for yourself".</p>

<p><strong>Bill P - </strong> Yes, PR and marketing. It's not just talent and 10K hrs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Regarding Miles Davis saying it was mostly promotion, I don't read that as factual either, much as something people tell reporters. I told people I got a reading at SF State because I knew the Poetry Director. I knew the Poetry Director because we liked each others work. Sometimes, statements like that are to deflect envy.</p>

<p>I think we all have our natural audiences -- and there are works we do for a small number (I've got a friend who's hanging one of my photos on his wall and who wants me to come out to St. Louis to do another one) and others that have a wider appeal.</p>

<p>A photographer in Philadelphia does book projects, and shows initial concept photos on line, then goes with the project that gets a book contract. His bread and butter photography appears to be album covers. He's currently having a blast getting involved with the SF world. He loves meeting people. Not all of us are that extroverted.</p>

<p>I think too often I've wanted a guarantee that if I do X, something Y will come out of it. Sometimes, I sold 30,000 copies of a book; sometimes 4,000. The 30,000 wasn't my natural audience, just people scoping out a new writer in a field. 4,000 readers means not making a living at writing, but those may be a far more discriminating audience than the natural audience for the 200,000 copy best seller. Or not, no guarantees.<br>

Frank O'Hara's comment was:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> You just go on your nerve. If someone’s chasing you down the street with a knife you just run, you don’t turn around and shout, "Give it up! I was a track star for Mineola Prep."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You might like reading the whole essay, but O'Hara was Harvard educated and an award-winning graduate student at the University of Michigan, so some of what he's saying is a bit like Mile Davis's comment. It's here:<br>

http://www.personism.com/works-by-frank-ohara/personism/</p>

<p>O'Hara worked as a museum curator, never went for the academic teaching jobs, loved New York, loved mentoring younger writers as he chose, and wrote poems that look artless at first glance.</p>

<p>According to a friend in publishing, nobody thought <em>Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</em> was going to be a best seller, or a consistent seller. And the editor was fired later because he couldn't duplicate that success with new projects.</p>

<p>If you don't already know O'Hara's work, Fred, you might take a look at it.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 06, 2009; 12:07 p.m. </em><br>

<em>....And there are famous photographers on Flickr under assumed names. Curiously, they're not very highly rated, which tells me there's another aesthetic at play there.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, that's where I gotta smile. Like I mentioned about Miles, I wonder what reviews he'd get if he was released as a "Miles Copycat", or with an assumed name, like Sid Glickman.<br>

I can read the reviews now ".... a simplistic and naive attempt to rip off the true genius of Miles", etc. </p>

<p>In reality, Steve Allen did just that, with an album named "Buck Hammer", and it worked in reverse, as Steve intended.<br>

Here's the link....<br>

<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/hammer-castlevania-1">http://www.answers.com/topic/hammer-castlevania-1</a></p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>"...how can someone rise above the crowd today?"</p>

<p>There are ways.</p>

<p>But it basically depends on how high you you want to rise "above the crowd". Half-a-head? Head and shoulder? 10f? A 100? How long do you wish to stay up there? And why, most of all?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2336926"><em>Ilia Farniev</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 06, 2009; 02:44 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>"...how can someone rise above the crowd today?"</em><br>

<em>There are ways.</em></p>

 

<p><em>But it basically depends on how high you you want to rise "above the crowd".</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay then, tell us the ways.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I'm puzzled, as usual, by a purported concept: Does "rise above the crowd" mean something, and is it a positive?</p>

<p>Soth was mentioned..is he a standard? ...it's just the money?</p>

<p>I love Miles, but have never thought of him as being "above" anybody. I think that's somebody else's 1960s Playboy Jazz Poll idea (my cohort didn't "read" Playboy, just grumbled about the staples). He wasn't "above" Coltrane, Parker, Dexter Gordon et al...one hell of a "crowd." Fortunately he had Gill Evans, who could have elevated the marketability of Dick Cheney with kazoo. "Bitches Brew" was a watershed, they say...I love that, but doubt I'd have listened if I hadn't already loved "Sketches of Spain" and "Quiet Nights," Quicksilver Messenger Service, and San Francisco's Fillmore Auditorium :-)</p>

<p>I guess I think "rising above" is a Walmart idea.</p>

<p>Are you folks finding your own recognition increasing? Rising above somebody? :-)</p>

<p>I'm recently up a little in my inconsequential community...portraits, leading to referrals by relatively high-profile types who actually do appreciate photography. I'm struggling to see better, print better...maybe that will feed on itself, but the goal is worthiness...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Nov 06, 2009; 03:26 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I'm puzzled, as usual, by a purported concept: Does "rise above the crowd" mean something, and is it a positive?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I'm taking the post to mean something like this....<br>

When someone mentioned "pop music", even my grandmother had heard of the Beatles.<br>

Put another way, I don'y follow sports, but I was always a fan of "Broadway" Joe, Ali, Pete Rose (He would've paid you to play the game),Yogi Berra, etc. I could watch Lynn Swann catch footballs on the fly all day long. Don't ask me what team he played for.<br>

Is that good, bad ?<br>

Beats me.....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p><strong>John K - "</strong> Does "rise above the crowd" mean something, and is it a positive?"</p>

<p>["Meaning" has no "meaning" except by verbal approximation" <strong>-</strong> <strong>JK</strong> ]</p>

<p>No one put a moral value on it. The OP merely wanted to know <em>how-to, not </em> <strong>why</strong> <em> he should or shouldn't </em> get there. Some people, of course, feel empoweredor compelled to tell him anyway.</p>

<p><strong>JK "</strong> Soth was mentioned..is he a standard? ...it's just the money?"</p>

<p> Neither. If you read the OP, he was talking about being at a real event where Soth was speaking. You are projecting the usual into Soth and the OP. Soth is Soth.</p>

<p> <strong>John plopped one into the punch bowl with: "</strong> I guess I think "rising above" is a Walmart idea."</p>

<p> There goes the Miss Congeniality Award. Instead of telling us about how inadequate others' language and ideas are, why not <em><strong>show </strong> </em> us what worthy ideas and language are by <strong>example?</strong></p>

<p><strong>JK - "</strong> I'm recently a little <strong>up</strong> in my inconsequential community"</p>

<p> Did John say "<strong>up</strong> " ? UP? Doesn't that imply vertical rise? Above who or what? Walmart's whispering John's name into the hazy, bronzing afternoon light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Note: Luis G has just reminded us not to ask unauthorized questions. </p>

<p>Soth was addressing an audience of mainly photography college students and educators at a SPE conference. I think that Soth was voicing something I've heard from other successful professional photographers, i.e. given current trends, how can we still make money in the future doing what we do? <br>

I'm sure the students were focused on how they could be the next Alec Soth.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jon--</p>

<p>I tended to answer you more philosophically than practically because this was posted in the Philosophy forum. Are you approaching this from just a business perspective, wanting to know what will achieve financial success or "fame" or are you approaching it from a more philosophical perspective, which I assume then would include some consideration of what "success" is and whether or not that is "desired"?</p>

<p>Some clarification might help. Thanks.</p>