Jump to content

Where will you settle?


Recommended Posts

<p>Do you want continued personal growth with associated risk, or do you want to find the formula that results in the most attention and popularity and then stick with it? To me, this is different than asking what you would do if you won the lottery.<br>

The altruistic answer is the former; but, do you really see that in the photographic community? After all, one does need to be pragmatic. Are we all headed to the same fate?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, I have read over your OP now, three or four times, but I am still having trouble with your questions, which are succeeded or preceded by a couple of apparently (to me) dissimilar or incomplete statements. Philosophical questions often lead to a wide divergence of responses, which is to be expected, but it helps to focus the discussion if the original question or postulate is precisely defined.</p>

<p>Would it be possible to reformulate your question as to be clearer? I don't see the point about altruism (although you seem to believe that it is characteristic of continued personal growth with risk attached). Maybe you are thinking of something specific but unmentioned. By the need to be pragmatic, are you suggesting that if one seeks attention and popularity one should play to the popular likes of Photo.Net or other photography circles (flowers, birds, dramatic landscapes, enigmatic figures, whatever)?</p>

<p>Although I am still a bit puzzled by the intent of your OP, I may presume that you are contrasting the approach of experimental photography to that of the well-beaten and popular paths. When I first started and wanted to progress and saw that as compatible with winning competitions, I had a different mindset than present. For a while, I stopped doing what I initially wanted to do and tried to do what the other succesful photographerswere doing, but hopefully even better. It must have paid off within that limited horizon to some degree, because I started getting prizes and eventually was awarded top amateur overall category photographer in my jurisdiction's (a Canadian province) yearly salons of photography a few times running, and once also as best B&W photographer. Probably a good thing, because there was nothing else to do but to then follow my own personal growth approach with its risks (I am still far from achieving what I want to). My need for other photographers to notice is now much less important to me than that of personal creative effort andobtaining a sense of accomplishment in my projects. The risks are creative ones, coupled to the observation that to sell more than ten photographic prints of my liking each year is not a certainty.</p>

<p>I don't know if that is what you are questioning. If it is, then it is essentially a personal question of what drives you, creative growth as an experimental photographer or artist-photographer, or the pleasure of making beautiful images that may not be creative in the same way but will be easily recognised by your peers or other viewers you wish to visually commiunicate with? I prefer the former.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You'll set what ever limits you want to on yourself and will find a way to justify them being there.Picasso never set limits on what he was willing to explore and I can think of several very successful well known photographers who work hard at making sure what they do doesn't turn into schtick: Elliot Erwitt, Jay Maisel, Gregory Heisler, Dan Winters, Martin Schoeller, Chris Callis, Mark Seliger, Greg Gorman, even Annie Leibovitz works at making her work evolve ...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Where would work-for-hire grunts like Michelangelo, Leonardo, Rembrandt, all those anonymous Egyptian, Mayan, Incan, Native American, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, spaghetti-monster, pagan artists (probably not all in one artist, all at the same time), etc. fit into this dichotomy?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, is it not likely that they straddled that dichotomy by combining popular or financed attention with a consideration of how they wanted to produce the deliverables, and that the how was part of a continuing personal evolution, an exploration? </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Do <strong>you</strong> want continued personal growth with associated risk, or do <strong>you</strong> want to find the formula that results in the most attention and popularity and then stick with it?"</em></p>

<p>I want enough of the latter to be coherent, not necessarily popular. Also enough of the latter to get some work doing portraits or documenting events for people. (This may be associated with a kind of sought after commercial viability/popularity.) I seek more of the former (personal growth and risk) for what I consider my more personal work. And the two overlap and blend. Formulas are good for certain things. Knowing some formulas (how to deal with backlighting, how to deal with low light in the studio, what are the good times of day in certain locations for certain kinds of shooting) can help with the more personal non-formula stuff. But even my more commercial endeavors will need always to envelop growth and risk in order to keep me going.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Personally, continued personal growth.... but also because I am realistic enough to know whatever I do won't become popular (nor do I aspire it), nor that I feel I'd stay calm enough to stick with some proven formula. I would probably get very bored.</p>

<p>I find artists who are vastly popular with one formula and dare to change that or do something completely different, more fascinating very often. Seeing Robbie Williams do a Sinatra-style show is more of a gamble and creatively inspiring than the Stones still playing Satisfaction....well, just in my opinion anyway.<br>

Sticking with a formula can work, as long as you develop within it. Else, it becomes a continuous copy of itself. So, to me, it's not really one or the other either way.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After 40 years I am still doing portraits with a 50mm lens on a slr type camera (now digital), but I feel I still am getting better with experience. I don't have a particular style of posing or lighting since I shoot documentary style. Each photo that I like personally is a new benchmark for the next. I've noticed art galleries have trended towards newer definitions of "portraiture" which are going in a different direction than my typical head and shoulders shot. So be it. I'm sticking with what works naturally for me and I feel I continue to grow in it. The people I photograph love my photos.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, I think you misunderstand the world of work. Although you might like a sort of mechanical approach to things that one might describe as a "cookie cutter" approach, the truth is that you will be presented a series of challenges in the form of specific projects. Each one will be a little different from the ones before. You will find that your cookie cutter approach will only make part of the cookie at hand. You will of course have various collections of tools and skills to draw upon (I like to call them "kits"), but you will always have to adapt something to get things right. Every project gives you a fresh and unique opportunity to get something new into your head.</p>

<p>The paradigm is "I did it - I succeeded." or "I can't figure it out - I screwed something up." This is where you take the application of your skills and abilities to heart to either figure out what you need to know to make a go of things, or to figure out what you need to do to find another direction for yourself. Please excuse my crudeness, but it helps to think a little like an earthworm, that is, eat the soil under your nose and keep it up forever. Let the place where you wind up take care of itself. If you find that you are starving then you are probably in the wrong garden!</p>

<p>I think that after you actually begin working you will develop a more pragmatic approach to things that will offer genuine satisfaction instead of a vague concern about whether you will wind up in some sort of rut.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>[<em>Albert, I love your post. Wonderful; it prompted me to think further ... see below ...]</em></p>

<p>Responding to Arthur's, "Julie, is it not likely that they straddled that dichotomy by combining popular or financed attention with a consideration of how they wanted to produce the deliverables, and that the how was part of a continuing personal evolution, an exploration?"</p>

<p>-- and partially reframing the OP (over-simplifying it, but I hope in a useful way): the dichotomy could be restated as "Do you settle for 'good enough' or do you always try to go beyond 'good enough'?" That 'enough' is a stopping point. It's sufficient. To want to go beyond 'enough' is to surpass the scope of Albert's earthworm, which presumably is not capable of dissatisfaction. (Dare I assume that there are not curious/creative/inventive/ambitious earthworm's? Yes! I shall live dangerously this Wednesday morning!)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The earthworm, humble guru, seems too tolerant of the OT's oppressed-seeming belief system - which invents fate, restricts choices and presumes the worthiness of some unspecified "photographic community." \</p>

<p>Either-or? Two options, not thousands? Fate? Flickr? Photo.net? </p>

<p>The worm metaphor teaches a poignant lesson, but maybe we shouldn't expect too much from it http://www.nyworms.com/LiveBait.htm http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/worms/</p>

 

 

<p>Why does one "need to be pragmatic?" Where is that written? Do we want to live our lives without idealism? The pragmatic thing might be to get a government job. Is that a worthwhile investment of a life? What's wrong with trying and failing? </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me, photography is analogous to a mirror or stethoscope or roadmap: A tool that provides hints about certain aspects of life, about my own perception and values. I don't particularly like the activity itself (prefer cooking), but it serves.</p>

<p>It was easy to please architects and advertising agencies when I decided to pursue those lines of photographic work. Good money, limited personal horizons. Earlier, it had been easy to convince myself, and a certain range of photographer, that I was on an artist path. I think my work is now fairly independent, perhaps has a life of its own. Not more fun (it's been occasionally fun forever), but it delivers more surprises and raises more questions...it feels more worthwhile. The challenges are tougher because they're less well-defined.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The earthworm image <em>is</em> a great simplification. I am never sure of my assessment of strangers, but the OP seems to me to lack the experience to have ever explored either of the options he proposes for himself. I will grant that there are many jobs one might have that have already been designed to be a part of some mechanical process. These jobs - from making hamburgers to making electronic assemblies - have already had the juice boiled out of them: most of the time you will be individually creative at you own peril! I'm not writing to this sort of thing.</p>

<p>The earthworm simplification overlooks the fact that you never know when you'll find the opportunity that lies in front of you. It leads one to think of some repetitious thing you do pretty much the same way forever. John Kelly makes the point that someone who lives life in such a dull way will be rewarded by finding himself to be fish food! The truth is that every project brings something new to the table that will keep you busy. What is more you will be able to make the bigger leaps in method, style or what have you when you recognize and decide to take advantage of some larger opportunity you find. The earthworm story cannot tell you that things are really dynamic instead of static because that complicates things to the point of screwing up the telling!</p>

<p>Anyway, good luck, and please have the competence, intelligence and patience to wait for things to develop and then go after the good stuff when you find it! </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Albert,<br /> Nice resumé and advice. John, how do they count (75, 1000, 2000, instead of weight or volume) those little crawlies or wigglies, by optical sorting detectors on a conveyor, difference in density of the worm and its milieu, or what? Curious, but I'm counting on your stewardship of the reference and subject uou cited.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To me photography is like fishing. Although you need fish for fishing, you can still come back home, satisfied, having taken no fish. Photography is different to taking pictures. Photography makes/helps you look differently to your world.<br>

Therefore, I never settle. Photography to me is a way of life. It is the journey, not the destination. Journey needs a destination, but is different to it.</p><div>00YHZR-335203684.jpg.90acb748d1dcb0dcf5f8c5093d7f8882.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you all for your responses. This is a stimulating discussion. I'm not suggesting that the debate is over.<br>

A question was raised by Arthur that I can offer some insight into since I have been a research soil scientist for the past 32 years. We used to count earthworms by driving them out of the soil with a mild formaldehyde solution. That also helped to preserve them for species identification later. Since formaldehyde is now recognized as a carcinogen, other techniques have been developed involving electroshocking and simple flooding.<br>

I hope that none of these techniques are applied to photographers. I know that this is not what Arthur was getting at; but I thought you might be interested.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter, maybe my experience is a bit different than that of other PN members. I've only been a paid member for a very short time. I have been asked several times through direct emails what could be done to improve ratings and critiques. The average of the photos that I have rated is 4.84, which is much better than what I have received, so I am perplexed why my opinion would matter. On top of that, there was a forum post in which the OP asked whether they could ever be a 'great' photographer.<br>

That got me thinking. If you take risks, you will likely have images that are not going to be well received and some that are hits biased heavily towards the former. Taking the lessons from the hits and applying them regularly has the potential to drive one to consistently produce 'winners'; but at what cost?<br>

I really like Nozar's response. Personally, I learn most from my mistakes and I'm not afraid to make them, even if I could have avoided making them by researching technique before shooting. I don't have anything to lose. But, as I mentioned at the outset, it appears that others have a different perspective for assorted reasons. And maybe my perspective will change if I, by mistake, find the magic repeatable formula.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...