How to succeed as a photographer

<a

href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/10/how-to-succeed-.html">This

</a> should take you a recent article by Mike Johnston.

Success here means as a successful photographer, not a commercially successful photographer, necessarily. Although an occasional opinion stung just a little, it's actually pretty much on target in my opinion. Of course, I just reread Susan Sontag, so what do I know about acquisition and appropriation of images?

Lakhinder, Take a risk. The link's OK, but what's your own answer?

 

IMO "succeed" means either paying all living bills with photography or satisfying oneself in some less tangible way, such as producing something of significance or becoming a celebrity.

 

I succeeded with bills, quit that, have only occasionally been satisfied in other ways.

 

Satisfaction suggests low aspirations. Therefore "succeed" could mean something similar.

Keeping in mind a recent thread here about (paraphrasing just a bit) "how to make a living from photography," I'm struck by one of the author's key points: if you try to show your prospective audience/customers a portfolio that shows you to be a jack of all trades and master of none, or some sort of stylistic shape-shifter, you'll fail. Not for lack of talent, but because of the signal-to-noise problem. I figure I'll have SOME sense of personal style hashed out in the next ten years (um, beyond being in the dubious niche of "guys who like contrast too much").

<br><br>

His point about cultivating and exposing your own style is that it's both personally gratifying and, given the millions of photographers out there, perhaps the only way to ever rise above the noise and find your specific audience. "Mere" technical competency, or the ability to mimic another's style, is a shallow achievement that won't brighten your own day or pay the bills. It seems certain to me that there is no culture-wide audience for any creative work at this point, and with the internet there to help form style-tribes in an instant, I think he's right. Get <i>more</i> into your own turf, not less. Hmmm... must delete some images from my lame portfolio!

Interesting theory, probably partly correct. Making real money in photography takes the same things as it does in other fields. Political acumen, the drive to make money, knowing what behinds to kiss and how to kiss them. I might add that in the New York gallery world you may have to kiss more than behinds.

What about the intrinsic rewards of photography? I made a decent living in advertising

and editorial photography for much of the 70's and 80's. By 1987 I hated everything to do

with the craft of photography. Now that I'm a graphic designer, I love making photographs

again. I do want to show them, but mostly for a circle of about 30-40 friends.

 

I've been playing guitar for about ten years now. I'm just now feeling like I can play in front

of friends. So I'm no natural talent. But I've learned more about what music is, how it's

structured and how to read charts in these years that it hardly matters that my interest in

being a musician did not lead me to be able to 'wow' people or make a dime.<div></div>

I think the article gave some excellent advice.

 

The best situation, I feel, is to have a way of paying the bills without intruding on what gives you the most personal satisfaction - making pictures.

 

When I was in business, I'd take a camera with me and managed to squeeze in time for some shots in the field. Since retiring from that scene, I spend much of my time trying to become a better photographer while keeping the wolf from the door with a few hours a day at the computer chasing stocks. I much prefer the latter.

 

Without consciously attempting to find a style, I dealt with an inability to travel by working with flowers at home, using natural window light and direct scanning of blossoms and even arrangements on a large flatbed scanner. I began to win juried shows with these, sales followed and now I'm trying, perhaps erroneously, to change my image as a "one-trick pony" by showing other types of work, but with far less success. I'd like to find another signature style, but imagine I'll always be identified as "the flower picture guy."

"Whenever you get a picture that looks wrong but that you kinda like anyway, a picture

that you like even though something about it bothers you, a picture that appeals to your

eye but that you assume no one else will like, quietly put it into the Significant Failures

folder. Don't show these to anybody. Use them as clues..... ...Ponder over them. Over

time, I'll bet the pictures in that folder can help point you in a new direction, and help tell

you what you are really all about, and indicate what makes you different and unique and

not like everybody else."

 

That's the spirit when all is said and done. Reading contact sheets is a good way to start as

it gives you a record of your struggles and triumphs in seeing in sequential order. My

failures are often eloquent about what the initial idea really was.

Art and the success with/in it can only be measured by the artist's inner success. Van Gogh in his own time was very, dismally unsuccessful in the money and fame categories of success. But ...

 

To be successful as an artist, you, the one who tries to be or become has the only valid measure of success inside.

 

You will know when you have succeeded. No one else, no outer measure means anything in art. Not the front cover of x mag, not the Bentley in the garage, nor the exhibit at MOMA, ... Face yourself and do your best. And when you do that, no one will recognize you except you yourself and maybe your brother Theo, see v.G. ...

I agree with Jeff Cosloy about "intrinsic rewards" (and I play badly at Django Reinhardt-style guitar) but there seems no philosophic justification (nobody's bothered to try on this Forum) to elevate "art"/"personal" over "paying bills"/"commercial." Philosophers have to eat, "art photography" is commonly mere motel decor, if that.

 

1) Commercial photographers as a class have more skills than "art photographers" (years of experience with each): their elevated photo craft deserves respect IMO.

 

2) Many or most commercial photographers come from strong "art photography" backgrounds, including artsy degrees. Who are we to treat them as inferior?

 

3) Many "artists" are successful commercially (Avedon, Penn, Ansel Adams, not to mention the lesser lights, such as Winogrand, Helmut Newton and Annie Leibowitz.

 

4) Absence of money doesn't correlate to merit. That one cannot sell one's photo "art" may suggest something very specific.

 

5) Quite a bit of "art photography" causes a sucking sound...a simple advertising shot can be a joy by comparison.

Ouch. On a personal level, it's very timely to come across this article. I recently had a photographer in LA comment upon my work, the upshot of which was: "no discernible style". He went on to explain how he meant that as a compliment. Regardless, I have to admit that it is largely true and certainly does not redound to my credit on the basis of Johnston's article.

 

Then again, although I am 53-years-old, I am very immature in terms of photographic technique, experience, and overall knowledge. Maturation, and hopefully "style", will come with time and honest effort. ("Honest effort" -- what a wide range of definitions that could unleash.) In the end, I find the article uplifting and inspiring.

 

As for "success", paying the bills, and all of that jazz -- I go by instinct. I enjoy, daresay "love", photography. I'm sure there are thousands of macro flower, and HDR sunset "specialists" on sites like flickr who can say the same thing. It does not diminish my love, nor stop me from studying the work of knowns, and unknowns, that I find appealing. And, speaking to John Kelly's comments on commercial photographers, I probably find as much inspiration on the ad pages of Vanity Fair as I do perusing the work of "serious" or "art" photographers. I probably sound like a 19-year-old, first year fine arts photography student, but if I should ever entirely lose my sense of joy and enthusiasm, why would I want to continue?

Steve, looking at your stuff I'd say you could easily edit into a "discernible style." Take out the simple graphics and quiet scenes and you're home. I like the stocking masks (?)

Well thank you, John. Both kind and motivating of you to say that.

 

It was interesting to read some of the comments that followed the article. One person spoke of some photojournalists he knew and how their work, regardless of subject matter, was always recognizable. I know some people who seem to confuse style with processing or subject matter. Or at least I think they have it confused. Doing nothing but landscapes or HDR processing, for example, is not a style to me. I believe style grows out of world view, temperament, and personal vision...whether one is conscious of it or not.

"there seems no philosophic justification (nobody's bothered to try on this Forum) to

elevate "art"/"personal" over "paying bills"/"commercial."

 

Not by bread alone do we live. Author Anne Lamott says in her book, 'Bird by Bird, most

students who flock to her writing seminars want to know one thing only: "How to get

published and make it big." Her answer goes (paraphrase): Writers are those who are

compelled to write, no matter what." It is how they make deeper sense of the world.

 

It would only be the self-styled purist, slaving away in his unheated garrett and coughing

up a consumptive lung twice a day who wouldn't have first arranged for making a living in

some way, shape,or fashion. (see Saul Bellow's Adventures of Augie March for some crazy

careerism)

Jeff, nice. Good to see somebody grappling with the issue.

 

I'll note that you didn't "try to elevate art," you simply cited two authors who touch the issue...I do like that approach, however.

 

How are compulsive("compelled") writers/artists "deeper" than those who do it intentionally, as a discipline?

 

And doesn't someone who sells writing seminars of necessity tell the audience what they hope to hear? Feed their sense of superiority?

 

I don't think "careerism" is quite the same as whole-hearted devotion to one's work, and I don't think "personal" is necessarily different from "commercial." What about the chemists who created Rodinal? Were they mere "careerists"? :-)

 

Few would argue that the "commercialism" of Avedon, Penn, or Adams reduced their claim to "artistry." A question then might be "chicken or egg?"

I see a difference between those who look to communicate with their own interior nascent

intentions. then midwife them into concreteness and those on the other hand who come

up with it in a cooler, more logic-based manner. It's only a difference of process. The

results need not necessarily reflect the process.

 

The seminar dilemma is bound up with that of the exhibition as you point out. Getting

asses in the seats has always been a condition of public exhibition. Plus, 'careerism' can be

viewed in a non-perjorative way. If I'm spending ten years to master a medium, what kind

of career can I envision for myself. A matter of planning.

 

But I think your use of 'careerism' is meant to imply self-promotion and not rational

examination of one's strengths and expectations.

 

Commercialism? I liked Adams. I think he'd be touched to think that families dressed in

Lowe's Dress for Less or even from Goodwill, see and buy his magnificent views of the

American wilderness. Most of us have only seen the Mona Lisa on a postcard, for which

someone made some money. Wegman (though not on my top forty) seems to straddle the

line comfortably.

Jeff...by "crazy careerism" maybe you meant "crazy careers" rather than what I imagined, which implied career Vs family, career Vs "deep," career Vs freedom etc.

 

I last read Augie March and the rest (then) of Bellow to impress the daughter of a famous WWII admiral who was, with Alfa Romeo in her 1963 sophomore year, surprisingly unattracted to a wanna-beatnik with borrowed VW and suburban roots.

 

Just found the following commentary, which does evoke the AM I barely recall..he might briefly have called himself as an "artist" if he'd owned a digicam.

 

"Augie is playful, subversive, adventurous, and ever optimistic. He is a new American Adam, innocently poised for a future full of promise in a land full of possibilities. No profession, no lover, no commitment can capture him. He risks his job as a book thief because he can't resist the desire to keep and read the books he has stolen. Although this very adaptability, this lack of firm obligations makes him hard to characterize or define, his first-person narrative conveys a compelling vision of American freedom, a fresh spirit of irresistible charm."

Being a comercial photographer in no way excludes the realization of one's 'art' anymore than being a corn farmer excludes one from raising award winning roses.

 

Is style one thing or may a photographer have several styles that are situational? Might one have a distinctive, one might even say signature portrait 'style' and have a quite different yet very well developed style of photojournalism. And it may be a real stretch to try and find commonality in the two.

 

Making a living with the camera can include the opportunity to explore different assignments with passion and inventiveness. I would maintain that those who believe that a photographer should remain "true" to their style seek to put that photographer in a box so that they can more easily understand his/her work.

I maintain that it is far more fun to approach each assignment or project with a more playful and experimental attitude.

 

Of course the title of this thread is "how to succeed as a photographer." If this includes making a living as a photographer it is an essential skill to be able to bring other people's vision to the project. If I am commissioned to do a portrait I have to understand that I owe the client not only the benefit of my expertise but also the benefit of my professional empathy. They deserve to get a product with which they are happy. They get to participate in the project rather than being looked upon as 'clay'. In photojournalism one often illustrates a writers vision and should include this vision in the image making process.

 

I often think of Mapplethorpe. Is he essentially flowers or homoerotica? Is he statuary or Patty Smith? He was a damned good photograher who had well defined "styles" across a variety of subjects. I don't think there is any one thing essentially Mapplethorpe.

"If I am commissioned to do a portrait I have to understand that I owe the client not only

the benefit of my expertise but also the benefit of my professional empathy. They deserve

to get a product with which they are happy. They get to participate in the project rather

than being looked upon as 'clay'. "

 

Pulling that off is an art in its self. Artists have had to interact with patrons and customers

throughout all of civilization. My approach to graphic design is that it 'happens' (or not)

between the chemically-soaked (naturally occurring) brains of designer, editor, author,

and reader: not on the page. The page becomes a meeting ground for group consensus.

The creative process, which as I maintain, is 'wet'. is the art. This may partially explain the

popularity of performance art as this form is experienced communally and

contemporaneously.

I am a succesful artist and commercial photographer. 100% of my income is derived from

photography. I am proud of it. It took many years. I feel, I still fight with having a "style",

commercially at least. The main thing is to give yourself limitations. I have always given

myself assignments- for decades. Within these 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, ongoing-

assignments- I work within the limitations of the given assignment. It could be shooting

street scenes- in B&W, with a rangefinder, with ISO 400 film in NY-only! I keep to the

guidelines. The work can't help but emote a style, due to your parameters. Don't shoot

color one day and B&W the next. 35mm and medium format. Portraits and Landscapes.

What I am trying to say is, give yourself precise goals, and you will emerge with a style,

and more importantly a better understanding of the particulars of your work and

photography in general.

I was quite amused at the scope of the responses to the article, as well as VERY amused at the article itself. Success as an artist in ANY field, can be measured by the monetary rewards, that can oftentimes far outweigh the critical, personal rewards. To say that the college degreed photographers have in ANY way more of anything but technical "book: knowledge, is ludicrous, and quite honestly downright narrowminded and STUPID. One developes one's talent by trial and error and instinctive abilities, fine tuned and perfected over time by an INNER sense of accomplishment, and success. To measure one's success by the ability to "pay your bills" or make ends meet, would mean that Mozart was a total failure, for example. To also say that one must " kiss many behinds", to get ahead, is another new millenium yuppie "attitude" which now, unfortunatly prevails, and has given us the amazingly abundant quantity of GARBAGE photography that we see all throughout the media. One's work sells when one BELIEVES in one's work, ability, course and CLEAR vision of their art. I have been and AM quite successful in my field, and one of the reasons is my REFUSAL to compromise that vision, no matter HOW HARD the monetary rewards had been in returning. It iis also AMAZINGLY ignorant to say " stick with one style...." etc, etc.. Photography is an art or perception, that should touch a deep place in the publics' eye...regardless of the " style". As Beethoven said, " I care little for following, or learning structured technique, my desire is to CREATE technique." When I overhear an observer at one of my exhibitions comment on how moved they are by the work, or watch them study it and restudy it, and then comment on the ORIGINALITY of the image.. THAT to me says success. The rest does, and will come to all who follow that vision and hold on to that dream. So, to be a bit crude, to all who believe that success in photography comes from $$$ or media status, or "degrees", etc etc, I say..hold to THAT vision and when you measure your accomplishments when it's all over and done...you're going to have LITTLE to look back on, but paper....and that all too quickly dissappears...TALENT, and VISION remain, forever.