Fame and Photography

<p>To what extent does (and has) the desire for fame motivated photographers? </p>

<p>If fame (or even the love of money, for that matter) has motivated some of the most highly esteemed photographers, what has been the fruit of that motivation? Falsified "documentary" shots, etc.? What else comes to mind?</p>

<p>(This thread, too, was inspired by a Phil Ochs song:

)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>One should not confuse personal persuades of creativity and talent with editoreal jiving. On the other hand life being that it is and great photographers have to pay the bills, same as the rest of us. So the apparent answer is: to a necessary extent.</p>

<p> I think that back when it was cool, the coolness of it motivated more people into doing it than possible fame. Movies like <em>Funny Face, Blow-Up, Pretty Baby, Pecker, Under Fire, etc</em> brought waves of people to photography.</p>

<p> A sobering word on fame and photography. Back in the day when Ansel Adams was at the peak of his popularity, Gallup (I think) ran a poll to see how his name recognition compared to that of <em>Gilligan, </em>of Gilligan's Island fame. Gilligan won, by something like 6X. That trimmed more than a few egos.</p>

<p> If you know your photo-history, a lot of famous photographer's lives have as hard a falling trajectory as they did a rise.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In an age when some people are famous for being famous, I think the attribute is both oversold and overbought. My quest for recognition will be satisfied when galleries come looking for me instead of vice-versa. Of course, as with many poets, artists and prophets, it probably won't happen until after I'm gone.....if then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you know your photo-history, a lot of famous photographer's lives have as hard a falling trajectory as they did a rise.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I might add, Luis, that, even if one does<em> not</em> know one's photo history, a lot of famous photographers' lives have had "as hard a falling trajectory as they did a rise."</p>

<p>Not too many months ago, I read of speculations that the great Bob Capa might even have fabricated the shot of the falling Republican soldier in la Guerra Civil de España. The photo is included in this very nice coverage of his photos in that war, although that issue is not addressed:</p>

<p>

<p>A photography columnist at the <em>The New York Times</em> has also raised some similar concerns regarding other photos by at least one other photographer, but I forget the details. Perhaps I can find the article and link it here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My quest for recognition will be satisfied when galleries come looking for me instead of vice-versa. Of course, as with many poets, artists and prophets, it probably won't happen until after I'm gone.....if then.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>William, I am quite sure that none of my writings, to which I have devoted my entire adult life, will ever get that kind of attention. As for my photos, I should probably just go ahead and put them in the public domain.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, actually your question does raise another for me: how does the rise of popularity of photography <em>(*)</em> contribute to those quests for fame, and/or make it far less feasible to happen? The pond is very full of fish.<br>

Publishing photos is easier over internet, and that does allow a way into fame. So many photography blogs/sites, so much ways to get exposure without having to fight your way into the publishing world or art world. So,the pond is bigger too. Yet, I don't think there is more "place" for famous photographers than there used to be, so there ought to be more disappointed photographers according to this logic...<br>

Also, what makes the one famous and the other not? To me, the better (and famous) photographers have a seemingly artistic purity; a signature style that seems genuine and not overly fabricated. So maybe, their fame (to me) is in what they did not sacrifice? But I don't think I would dare to stretch this statement too far, it's just a string of thoughts really...</p>

<p>In a more direct response to your question; I think for many people it might have made them less adventurous in their pusblished photos. Once a level of fame has been reached, it is kind of hard to change styles, do something new, break new grounds. But whether that is result of the quest for fame, versus the actual fame itself... hard to distinguish, I guess.</p>

<p>I have no illusions about fame with my photos. And it doesn't drive me either.</p>

<p><em>(*) Please no, no, no... no film versus digital nonsens because of this remark. Just to be sure we won't go there.</em></p>

<p>Digitized photography via the internet has indeed made a difference in terms of broader exposure <em>qua</em> reaching a broader audience, Wouter, regardless of how the image was captured.</p>

<p>I think that more persons might thus be impelled to seek a kind of recognition through photography via the internet, but I doubt that most expect other than the approval of their peers. If they seek national or international recognition, they are likely to be in for a disappointment.</p>

<p>Whether efforts to gain more recognition might result in a higher percentage of persons trying to fabricate or falsify photography is much more problematic for me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I don't see the camera as a passport to fame. Name one photographer who is as "famous" as Brangelina or Paris Hilton or Kobe Bryant or, for that matter, Susan Boyle.</p>

<p>What outlets are there for a photographer seeking fame (i.e. to be recognized immediately by a substantial percentage of the population)? Life Magazine is . National Geographic isn't read widely anymore. The pin-up and the great Hollywood portrait are trappings of an age gone by.</p>

<p>(1) become a cast member on a "reality TV" show<br>

(2) create your own "viral video" on YouTube<br>

(3) do something outrageous and newsworthy (this one could involve using a camera)<br>

(4) write (and SING) a hit song<br>

(5) become a film director<br>

(6) create a hit TV show<br>

(7) be a stand-out blogger or stand-up comedian</p>

<p>A camera is a tool for making images. If you want to make images buy a camera and work your butt off. If you want to "be famous," plenty of other pursuits would make more sense than photography.</p>

 

<p>I agree on every point, Dan, but the question stands.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Dan, but there is fame and there is fame. Ask 100 persons, how many people actually ever heard of Cartier-Bresson? But none here will deny he's famous, I think?<br>

One can also strive for the relative fame among "peers", this is at least how I explained the original question.</p>

<p>Becoming reknowned, becoming popular, becoming a celebrity, acquiring fame is of minor importance, compared to the ultimate value of the photographic (art) contribution. Mahler almost disappeared from the public perception shortly after his death, as did many others. Today he is a household word. The world is gaining additional appreciation for the great Polish figure, Chopin, 200 years after his birth. Armida, Rossini's 1817 opera, was most successfully ressurected in 1952 in Florence and again last weekend in the HD worldwide cinema communication. It's fame was not palpable before, but it was nevertheless latent, solid enough to be brought forward to view.</p>

<p>Fame on the short timescale of decades or even longer is fickle. America and other political/cultural jurisdictions thrive on popularity, on a continual communication of both the insignificant and the significant. Fame is not an efficient mechanism to separate out the two. Will Avedon or Burtynsky or Brandt be popular one hundred years from now? Only, I think, if they have something that transcends the paradigms and cliches of 20th century values, a something that reaches out and is understandable by all subsequent ages. That's possible, but fame today is often a simple transient gilding.</p>

<p>Fame is also communication. It is often portrayed by that as potential long term value. I see so little in photography that is truly original (I humbly include my own work in that) and whether it is attached to fame or not is hardly persuasive.</p>

<p>Give me something that is jaw dropping in its creativity, not gimmicky, cliched or popular, and whether fame or not is attached to it is of little importance. The canvass of fame is often an open window on a far away view, or a wasteland waiting to be filled by more credible matter.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what "fame" is, except that recognition appears to be a central element: being recognized for one's work, being recognized for one's commercial success, being recognized by "the public", being recognized by one's peers, being recognized through shows, etc., etc.</p>

<p>In my case, the only honest answer I can, and will, provide is that recognition in my case will be limited to that which is given by my own immediate circle. And that's OK. I have no desire or intent ever to sell a photograph, so I don't give a crap about commercial success. And I have learned to live with occasional and sporadic recognition by peers - my responsibility, not theirs.</p>

<p>The only living photographer I can think of who's really well-known is Annie Leibovitz, and what is the subject matter for which she's well-known? People who are well-known.</p>

<p>John Keats is famous for speaking out against fame, not only for his wonderful peotry: "I never gave a moment's thought to the public reception to my work," or words to that effect.</p>

<p>In other words, the quest for fame can kill the very creative impulse that might have made one famous in the first place.</p>

<p>Even Keats had his paradoxes: "I think that I shall be numbered among the English poets after I am gone" (or, again, words to that effect). I think that he died before his twenty-seventh birthday--and he is still with us.</p>

<p>The words of Phil Ochs come back to haunt me: "God help the troubadour whot tries to be a star."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie:</p>

<p>Great post! The Phil Ochs quote reminds me of the character Jeff Bridges plays in "Crazy Heart".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree on every point, Dan, but the question stands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mmm, okay, I'll attempt to paraphrase.</p>

<p>There are people who long for fame, and there are people who spend their lives taking photos. In my experience I haven't seen a lot of crossover between these two groups.</p>

<p>Learning to be a photographer takes a significant investment of time and effort. Fame is more easily attained via means other than photography, so a camera isn't the ideal tool for a fame seeker.</p>

<p>People who become photographers do so for reasons other than a fleeting chance at fame. Those reasons include journalistic and/or artistic impulses, a sense of self-expression, a sense of accomplishment, fascination with cameras and processing, love of nature, a desire to work with models, etc.</p>

 

<p>Dan, fame is always relative, and for some persons recognition among their professional peers would surely qualify. The very best photographers have been quite famous, from Ansel Adams to Bob Capa to Cindy Sherman and beyond. While some of these names (Sherman, for example) are virtually unknown outside the photographic community, being known within that community fits the criteria that I was thinking of when I spoke of "fame." People like Adams are, of course, more widely known.</p>

<p>You seem to equate "fame" with being a celebrity, but if a chemist speaks of Woodward and his synthesis of quinine, then that is probably enough to meet my conception of fame when I started this thread. He is famous in his field, even if he is unknown to the populace.</p>

<p>I certainly have no aspirations for fame as a photographer, but I would like to be able to produce just one photo that was truly memorable and recognized by the masses--even if no one ever seemed to remember the name of the photographer. Imagine hearing, "Oh, I love that photo" said by a stranger about one of one's own images.<br>

<br />--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You seem to equate "fame" with being a celebrity</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's usually what "fame" means. In your initial post you didn't specify that you wanted "fame" to mean notoriety within the photography community. If I may quote you:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To what extent does (and has) the desire for fame motivated photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I answered the question as I read it. Now that you have explained that you meant something different, I can try to come up with a reply in that context.</p>

<p>By the say, some otherwise famous people are also skilled photographers:</p>

<p><em>Stephen Stills, Leonard Nimoy, Linda McCartney (née Eastman)</em></p>

<p>Where does that fit into the equation?</p>

 

<p>How on earth you read "fame as notoriety" into that is beyond me, Don, given the usual connotation of "notoriety," etc. Even so, I should have offered some kind of qualifier to the term "fame" if I really wanted to be understood. I did not see myself as rebutting you, in any case, simply clarifying my own use of the term "fame."</p>

<p>Thanks for contributing, Dan. The internet is a treacherous place for these discussions, it seems.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Ah, Nimoy--I saw a link to him on one of Zoe Wiseman's sites. I think that she has modeled for him. Linda Eastman. . . . That one is worth looking up.</p>

<p>Thanks for the entry into further areas of inquiry, Dan.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Fame has its cultural boundaries. Cindy Sherman and even Adams are mostly unknown outsaide of English speaking countries, and, even within those countries, some photographers famous in someregions are completely unknown to others. A visit to Ottawa's Museum of Contemporary Photography provides several such examples.</p>

<p>I really don't think it matters very much because when you speak of an Adams (American) or Frank (Swiss) or Munkazi (Hungarian) photograph, as you are really speaking of an approach or a sub-approach which has achieved at least some measure of temporary fame. William Notman in Montreal and Ernest Livernois in Quebec City are two examples of very well-known photographers of their time, who are recognised today mainly by students of photography or museum curators and (sometimes, when another monograph appears on their work) to a segment of the book-buying public. But thay are not very well known or famous to most today, notwithstanding their innovations in photography and their specific views of society of the mid to late nineteenth century. They may not have had famous historians or photography schools study their work. Dr Lessard, a local art historian, produced in 1989 a small volume to celebrate the 150 years of negative-positive photography, in which all the great names were presented. Mr Marc Hardy and myself were the only two amateur photographers to have a couple of photographs each presented in the book. Neither will likely achieve the fame of the well-known photographers, which simply says that even a monograph of ten to twenty thousand copies will not assure any fame, which is fine as it was never sought after and the inclusion of images was someone else's choice.</p>

<p>Sometimes the subject out-fames the photographer. The National Geographic photographer who supplied an image of a poor green-eyed Afghan woman is much less known than his subject (nameless, and who remains still in her desperate economic situation), who has become some sort of famous icon of a whole people.</p>

<p>I think the green-eyed woman's name is known...the photographer provided it.</p>

<p>Steve McCurry may be as "famous" as any contemporary photojournalist, especially among gallery-goers. He's had some major exhibitions...remarkably fine color prints. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.stevemccurry.com">www.stevemccurry.com</a></p>

<p>The print of that woman did stand out as one of the several most dramatic in a traveling exhibition (Santa Fe?), perhaps mostly for her eye color. But in her region, green eyes are reportedly more common than in the West.</p>

<p>Okay, since the "fame" word has gotten me into some trouble in this discussion, I'd like to invent a new word.</p>

<p><strong>ZOME</strong> - a degree of notoriety and/or recognition amongst one's peers in a particular career or field of interest. People with <strong>zome</strong> in a given field are not necessarily well-known to the layperson. Further, having <strong>zome</strong> does not necessarily imply that someone is respected or admired by one's peers, only that they and their work are known widely.</p>

<p>Now let's rephrase the original questions using this new word.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To what extent does (and has) the desire for <strong>ZOME</strong> motivated photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Being well-known can be important from a marketing standpoint. If it's known that you have expertise in some type of photography, people who need that service will be more likely to hire you or consult with you. One might try to demonstrate their mastery in this field by entering contests, for example. The pursuit of professional notoriety is a practical matter, IMO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If <strong>ZOME</strong> (or even the love of money, for that matter) has motivated some of the most highly esteemed photographers, what has been the fruit of that motivation? Falsified "documentary" shots, etc.? What else comes to mind?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure. A commercial photographer once told me that one has to "watch once's back" in his business, but he declined to furnish specific examples. Perhaps negative comments are offered: <em>"Oh you don't want to hire Mr. X! He's a drunk and he's unreliable and his studio manager is a total nitwit."</em></p>

 

<p>Dan: <a href="http://zomeworks.com/">http://zomeworks.com/</a></p>

<p><strong>Zomeworks</strong> was a big deal among my Whole Earth Catalog devouring, Easy Rider viewing friends in 1968 (I think a Zome near Taos figured in the movie).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbY9ePebWB8&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbY9ePebWB8&feature=related</a> ..no Zome, but...</p>

<p>It's still around, an elderly hippie-flavored business (despite the look of the website), but I don't think it makes Zomes anymore. And it looks like Dennis Hopper's about to exuent stage left.<br /><a href="http://www.wholeearth.com">www.wholeearth.com</a><br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dennis-Hopper-Photographs-1961-1967-Limited/dp/3836500574/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273097399&sr=8-2">http://www.amazon.com/Dennis-Hopper-Photographs-1961-1967-Limited/dp/3836500574/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273097399&sr=8-2</a> <br>

(Dennis Hopper's famous $700 book)</p>