Connect the Dots

[jonk]

<p>I found the topic interesting because it is something that many talented people are struggling with. Sharing your vision with a wide audience is something that appeals to a lot of photographers. Debating the philosophy of doing that is irrelevant. </p>

[mizore]

<p>One of the things about art is that none of us can really be cargo-culted beyond our own abilities and all we can do is cultivate what we have, our insights.</p>

<p>I took a look at the favorite Flickr images and most of them wouldn't have appealed to me -- a lot of what's popular is what looks like famous work, or typical advertising shots. I think the most popular stuff here is naked women, if you look at the very top ranked photographers.</p>

<p>What the sites are useful for to me is finding people who are interesting enough to me, who think about photography, who do photography that shows something beyond "it looks just like a ______" shot, or "it looks good enough to be in a magazine."</p>

<p>And sometimes people like me are merely being defensive, but if it's either do the cargo cult imitations or something that reflects my best judgment and abilities, I'm going with the latter. Now, I'm still learning.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Debating the philosophy of doing that is irrelevant." <strong>--Jon</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will now shut up and assume this was posted in the wrong forum. Thanks for the simple answer, Jon.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Bill. I am glad to have your attention in this case but your Okey is not enough to start me expounding. The rising is a matter of personal and require degrees of cooperation not to mention the seeing reason in it. Please, don't expect somebody just come aroung and tell.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The more I read over some of the responses, and the more I consider how I personally reacted to the OP of "rising above the crowd", and what "rising above" might mean to different persons (which seems to have been perceived primarily on the basis of the acquisition of fame and fortune, and much less so on the question of the development of a creative approach that is highly original and thus uncommon), I have come to the conclusion, also stated by the original poster and by Fred, that this is not at all a philosophical discussion.</p>

<p>Perhaps it would have best been addressed in either the Business or Casual Conversations forums.</p>

<p>America, and to some extent my own country of Canada, is acknowledged to be mildly, if not highly, obsessed by fame and fortune as criteria of personal success or accomplishment. Some of the greatest philosophers and thinkers, and I would like to also believe many other thinking people (and some artists and photographers), place fame and power very low on the scale of what is important for happiness and fulfillment, preferring instead the pleasure of creative activity, the search for new expressions, freedom and communication with others, as well as a search for wisdom and content through art and through its relationship to the human experience.</p>

<p>Perhaps those considerations are more the key than is fame for "rising above" in photography, as well as in other pursuits?</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<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; 07:11 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill. I am glad to have your attention in this case but your <strong>Okey</strong> is not enough to start me expounding. The rising is a matter of personal and require degrees of cooperation not to mention the seeing reason in it. Please, don't expect somebody just come <strong>aroung</strong> and tell.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilia, I'm not clear on what you're saying here.<br>

I looked up "Okey" and it relates to a Turkish game.<br>

I'm guessing that "aroung" is a typo.<br>

If you mean "around". then I shouldn't expect somebody ...."just to come around and tell".... what ?<br>

Please explain, thanks.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Hey, Bill. Looks like you caught me on typo error. Sorry about that. Well. Okey should be Okay and aroung should be around. You dont need Turkish game here.<br>

My suggestion is simple. If we dispense with the metaphoric and rather pathetic "how can someone rise above the crowd today?" expression and assume for a moment it actually means "how can someone be a better [then average] photographer?" the answer is easy. Take some formal education in photography. Find a tutor or curator. Work in systematic and dedicated way, cultivate your talent, communicate rationally with other practitioners. Even here on PN you can find few photographers whos work you admire and ask them to look into your portfolio and comment. Ask questions regarding technique and gear.</p>

<p>The thing is, people who do have know-haw and technology do not explain how to achieve the result because they usually are in business and marketing their results.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<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 07, 2009; 01:10 p.m.</em><br>

<em>The thing is, people who do have know-haw and technology do not explain how to achieve the result because they usually are in business and marketing their results.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilia, that's a true statement, and it's been my experience that many such people are afraid that if they show someone a new technique, they might lose business because of it. Shallow thinking, I'd say, but that's what I've found.<br>

I took the OP to mean "getting known" as opposed to getting better in the craft. <br>

I've seen many great artists get nowhere due to lack of exposure, etc., and I've seen many "artists" who shouldn't have made it into their first art show, but they have great press relations, etc., and they reach some degree of notoriety, usually short lived.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>According to Descartes human being ought to have passions. The passion for success is one of very common kind. Following it put one as average in very big crowd. One way off would be in stoping craving for success, i guess.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Jon W's observation appeals to me personally :<br /><strong>"Sharing your vision with a wide audience is something that appeals to a lot of photographers." </strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Yes. And that relates <strong>generosity</strong> (sharing)...but it adds an honesty hook: generosity doesn't mean wasting our work: we want "certain people" to "relate to" it, and we probably do want that audience to widen. We want the increasing feedback that brings us, which means our "sharing" and "generosity" isn't entirely selfless. (when I say "we" I mean "me")<br>

<br />Does that logically lead down the <strong>Michael Jackson-Alex Soth</strong> path? How are/were they differerent from each other?<br>

<br />Assuming OT's report was as accurate as it probably is, Alex Soth's idea of "recognition" referred specifically to Michael Jackson-like fame, rather than to "sharing." The difference may be other than quantitative, just as most values seem to be.</p>