A Response To My Request To Show In a Local Gallery

[steve_mareno1]

<p>It's not a rant John. It's simply an opinion, just like you shared your opinion. I was only describing the difficulties film photographers have when attempting to show their work these days. The other gallery I approached in Daytona, which is not really a gallery but more of a store for a particular artist's work, told me flat out "no traditional photography" w/o even seeing anything! It's unfortunate that the thread went in the direction that it went in. I have no control over that. I'm sorry, I just do not share the love of authority or of expert opinion, whatever that is anyway, that some people seem to think is important. I did not wish to post any images here at all, but it seemed necessary at the end. It's really a matter of taste.</p>

<p>No one has to like anything that I do, although people that see the work seem to do so, and stuff has certainly sold. Does any of that even matter? No, not to me really. I was simply describing a silly letter from someone that obviously has no idea what she is talking about, and alerting people that this sort of thing is par for the course when dealing w/ "art types". I've shown paintings and prints in 12 states, had 14 solo exhibits, 22 group shows, and have friends w/ sculptures in public parks. The last photo here was bought by the owner of the store where it was taken for a tidy sum. FWIW, I do not use my real name when doing photography or painting/printing, I do not use my real name for this, and I do not use my real name for the book illustrations that also occur. Remaining somewhat anonymous is something important to me. I know what I'm doing, but it's not for those reasons at all, and it's stupid to have to defend myself when all I was doing was pointing out the absurdity of life sometimes.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Well, absurdity of life aside (and I agree with you on that score), remember that gallery owners can only stay in business if the works on their walls actually sell. It's not entirely a matter of her taste, or whether or not she knows squat about photography, but whether the work she accepts is marketable to her patrons. If you think it's worth pursuing, have a follow-up conversation with her about her needs or expectations. If it's not worth it to you, then move on...</p>

[mike dixon]

"It's really a matter of taste."

 

That's quite true, but you've managed to turn the gallery owner's difference in taste into a general bias against "traditional" photography (whatever that means). I currently have an exhibit running that, while shot with digital, isn't much different in content or style than what I've shot in the past with film. No manipulations other that what can be easily done with film (dodging, burning, color balance). Interestingly, the topic of whether I shoot with film or digital never came up in discussions with the gallery--those all focused on the content of the photos.

[john_h.1]

<p><br>

</p>

<p >"I was only describing the difficulties film photographers... "</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>"she's not an idiot because she disagrees w/ me. She's an idiot because she is an idiot. It's nothing more than that."</em></p>

<p ><em>"George Bush made it to the highest elected office in this country. Does anyone think for one second that he was a competent president?"</em></p>

<p ><em>"I emailed her a simple "You have to be kidding. Please!""</em></p>

<p ><em>"if anyone ever sees me putting any "artistic" stuff in my work I want them to please just shoot me."</em></p>

<p ><em>"The work in her gallery is uniformly dreadful"</em></p>

<p ><em>"I know what a good image is supposed to look like"</em></p>

<p ><em>"I'm not upset or disappointed or anything."</em></p>

<p ><em>"she is a total idiot."</em></p>

<p ><em>"her comments were so dumb, you know?"</em></p>

<p ><em>"They're fine in my book."</em></p>

<p ><em>"I know the work is good, and could care less what she thinks"</em></p>

<p ><em>"I was simply describing a silly letter from someone that obviously has no idea what she is talking about,"</em></p>

<p ><em>"I'm sorry, I just do not share the love of authority or of expert opinion"</em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p >

[dhbebb]

<p><strong>Short sharp critique - to be dismissed out of hand if it annoys you in any way:</strong><br>

<strong>I find shots 4 and 8 to be just about starting to transcend the obvious. I find shots 1, 2, 3 and 5 to feature potentially interesting subjects but let down by weak composition. 6 and 7 are really snapshots. As for the last one, words fail me. For the last 100 years or more, amateurs have taken "character" portraits of whiskery hobos. I have photo annuals going back that far to prove it. This kind of shot is the ultimate cliché - if you're going to present work to contemporary art galleries, you must avoid clichés at all costs and raise your game by a factor of 100 or more. Try to at least take this awareness from this episode.</strong></p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>That's what's known as damning with faint praise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Confirmed by the images. She was indeed extremely kind. I, for one, can't tell if these are "traditional photography" or not.</p>

<p>I started exhibiting at cafes and libraries, etc. Even at those venues, I had a realistic expectation, with thick skins, and treated each one like a learning experience. OP may find my comments here of interest:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/learn/art-photo-galleries/three-tips-for-selling-showing-your-photos-in-a-gallery/</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"She was indeed extremely kind."</i><br>I'm afraid i must agree. Kind, yet rather obvious too (not so hard to read the "Don't you have anything interesting to show?" in the reply you got).<br>But why did you not ask what she meant, instead of assuming that anyone who dismisses your images must be an idiot? You let a chance to learn pass, turned it into an opportunity to make "unfriends" with someone new.

[spanky]

<p>Film, digital, darkroom, photoshop, blah blah blah. It doesn't matter any of it. Good work is good work period and most people couldn't care less how it was produced. Hell, if ones work is good, eventually offers to exhibit might start to roll in. In this case the lady didn't think she could sell your work. Gallaries need to make money so they want work they think will sale. Why are you taking this so personally Steve? As part of an independent studies course I took some years back at a city college I had to submit a portfolio for an exhibit. I chose (which probably every student does because it's nearby) an artsy bookstore in Pasadena which has a revolving exhibit of local artists work for sale. mostly water colors and oil paintings. I also got rejected but they were right for doing so. I shoot mostly street photography which is really hard to sell to the general public. They liked my work but said they could not sell it. Your work may be an easier sell to the public but it is also being done by huge numbers of other photographers. What is it about your work that makes it stand out from the rest? This is what you have to sell.</p>

[john_h.1]

We are delighted that others are buying and enjoying your work but we can see that you are taking this rejection personally. (Similar in some ways as people did in the old rating system). It should be no surprise that a gallery interested in abstracts isn't interested in cat pictures, routine photos of a kid sitting at a beach, some slightly out of focus older guy sitting down and a clinical documentary straight on shot of someone else's art. The entry was described as a 'what the heck' type lark. If there is an audience for such things, as you say, that doesn't mean the gallery person is an idiot. It means they are doing they're job because its not the same audience.

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid i must agree. Kind, yet rather obvious too (not so hard to read the "Don't you have anything interesting to show?" in the reply you got).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I called her kind because she went out of her way to treat OP with kid gloves, and provided some personal feedback. Perhaps her has honed great people skills from having been a mayor. That's more than can be said about the vast majority of the gallery owners I have encountered. Some would call for submissions and would never bother responding. Most would respond with form letters providing zero feedback, like "We have received so many wonderful submissions ... "</p>

<p>If I had started out with an overblown ego and a grandiose attitude that I was doing the galleries a favor to show my work, the responses from the owners would have stifled my development and sent me straight to a shrink.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>that doesn't mean the gallery person is an idiot. It means they are doing they're job because its not the same audience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Excellent point. The job of the gallery person is to select what appeals to their audience.<br>

<br>

However, looking at your photos and your use of the word "variety," it doesn't appear that there is any cohesiveness to what you have done. It doesn't speak to anything specific, it's all over the map. If you look at successful shows by unknowns, they usually get selected when they have a coherent vision and emotional framework. That they are all done with one sort of process or another is truly irrelevant.<br>

</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I may be missing something, but why does this rejection (something we all deal with from time to time) have anything to do with the "difficulties people have these days showing "traditional" film photography". This episode relates purely to the images you supplied and nothing further than that can be extrapolated.</p>

<p>You mentioned that you sent her scans, so did she know, or care, whether the images were film or digital - why would she? Art is about content above all else. I'm not even sure what the word "traditional" means in this context.</p>

<p>I would just accept that this selection of your work wasn't a good fit for this particular gallery and politely move on (it may be too late for that). Her rejection of your unsolicited submission in no way makes her an "idiot", or means that she has "no idea what's going on" it's just a simple difference of opinion and taste. There is no need for you to be getting a "good laugh" out if it (although it sounds a lot more like anger than amusement to me), it's just not that big a deal or particularly funny.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>Film, digital, darkroom, photoshop, blah blah blah. It doesn't matter any of it. Good work is good work period and most people couldn't care less how it was produced.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Is it film or digital?" Ranked number three on my list of most annoying questions.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I also got rejected but they were right for doing so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was painful getting rejected, but it drove me to work harder. Recalling some sales I made at my early exhibits, I now would dearly want to buy those prints back and burn them.</p>

[unangelino]

<p>What if she had added this to her response?</p>

<p>"Thank you for submitting the images, Steve. They are technically really good photographs. Do you have any where the subject matter is more unusual or of more artistic shapes and shadows? <strong><em>My taste is more toward the abstract end of the spectrum.</em></strong>"<br>

<br>

Ms. Mayor may know what she likes but not quite how to ask for it.<br>

<br>

</p>

[john_h.1]

"Good work is good work period and most people couldn't care less how it was produced."

 

People don't even care if its great work. They are interested in what they find appealing. Good work may help an image be appealing but its not the be all and end all. Great meticulous work is often seen in insect photos but they generally don't make it to anyone's wall for display. Poor work of other themes often does. It doesn't make people idiots.

[starshooter]

<p>I think you have a problem presuming that one gallery rejected your work so naturally there's somethig wrong with the people who run the gallery. I find most galleries have a "look" and a "style" based most likely on what they can sell. Not what sells in Manhattan or Paris, or what somebody else sells but what they can sell.<br>

Your photos are okay. But are they really, really, really good? Did you do due deligence in picking out a gallery or did you just pick one because it is down the road?<br>

Two galleries recently accepted my work in hoity toity Palm Springs CA. And frankly they were photographs blown up big from my photojournalism days. I have Elvis and the Beatles and so on. But they are the better examples of photos shot for magazines and newspapers. They were never shot to be "art" although one always tries one's best even under extreme conditions.<br>

Don't be too surprised if many gallery owners don't share your vision. After all, it's you own not theirs and I hope you don't have a McDonald's attitude of "whatever sells is okay.' Even fake pork ribs in a fake sauce.<br>

Se didn't think your art fit her walls and she is probably right. Move on. Did anybody say this business is easy?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>....She's an idiot because she is an idiot. It's nothing more than that....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The broader issue goes like this. How do we accept a negative view of one's photography without getting peevish. It is hard. But if we follow a fixed star all our lives, do we ever advance? At one time I felt that converting a landscape to a mosaic filter was a heresy. I tried it and came over to think it can be not bad. I look at portraits of people with a lot of tats and I still wince, but since they are what people are doing, I am gradually getting less repulsed (not the right word, but I look beyond skin deep I suppose). I follow a person on another web site whose work to me is banal and almost pure dreck. (All shadows and smoke, no substance. Artsy fartsy but not interesting artsy fartsy. <em>To me</em> (underlined)).... But give him his due; he gets to galleries and sells and makes books and has a following. So I take a second look now and then and I still persistently feel "pure drecksville." taste is taste)<br /> <br /> Anyway, steve / or pen name steve person, your position per your replies sounds solidly fixed and immutable and you are entitled to go that route as we all are. You get rewarded until the rewards stop coming in. Time to think on it. <br /> The only message I can derive from the story is that making and selling to the public images is never an immutable thing. In the public taste. And we are going to get burned if we can't live with that thought. If follows then" Why carry a large chip on the old shoulder?" Peace.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I have a theory that, once an artist becomes well known and his/her best works are increasingly in demand, even the crappy stuff suddenly becomes marketable. Not really art appreciation, just the ego-enhancing prestige of owning a genuine (fill in a name here - even your own).</p>

<p>So, hang on to those old shots, folks, because you just never know... ;-)</p>

 

[sfcole]

<p>They are pleasant photos, but in my opinion not incredibly artistic. I could sympathize with a gallery owner not wanting to have someone's kitty-kat photo on the wall.</p>

<p>I find it amusing that someone submits some pleasant (but unremarkable) photos to a gallery, gets rejected, and then bitches about it publicly. Talk about having a thin skin...</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Sample # 3, your shot of the finned Cadillac twin turret gunner lights was an icon of the times I must say. The front bumper grille had jutting chrome twin rams too and were amusingly named after a busty TV actress then.. Nice car. Fins were big for a while. Breasts and Maidenform bras too in that decade. The car airplane jutting fins went out of style. Probably a matter of taste.</p><div></div>

[sallymack]

Steve, as I understand it, you sent photos to a local gallery owner who asked to see more of your work and gave you guidelines of what she would like to see. And she's an idiot?

 

Granted, her wording could have been better but I didn't read her response as dismissive.

 

Her reply has nothing to do with "traditional" or film or anything else. I currently have an exhibit of MF photos taken on film and printed through an enlarger. Earlier this year I had an exhibit of digital photos. Most people aren't interested in how the pictures were taken although photo buffs (and others) may be interested in seeing photos printed through an enlarger.

 

--Sally

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Well, this went awry. No good deed goes unpunished apparently. Just to make a small and most definitely final attempt to try and clean up this mess: It's interesting how misdirected this thread went, almost from the get go. After racking my brain trying to figure out why so many people's responses were so off target of the original post (and where absolutely no one got the humor that I so clearly saw), I called a few of my artist friends and asked them why they thought I was getting pillared here. Two reasons came up. First, I'm an painter that also shoots "fine art photography" at times. I am not a "photographer". Huge difference in mind sets. When I described the email I got back from the gallery owner/manager, both of my artists buddies, who are people I've known for decades and respect, said exactly what I said regarding the gallery rep. Her reply to my polite and business like inquiry was just nuts. That's my opinion, and theirs too. It also explains why the work there in the gallery is what it is. Do I even care about that? Nope.</p>

<p>Therein lies the problem w/ communication. I had no need to get my work in that or any gallery. I've been showing for 25 years, but that was paintings and prints. So my ego was not involved. Often, in art settings, ego maniacs rule the roost, but that's not how I work, and life is too short to hang w/ those that go that way. That comes from insecurity. I simply wanted to get some feedback from people who came into the gallery. I like what I'm doing w/ my traditional approach, but what do other people think? It's necessary to see the work, not a web image. No matter the feedback, I'm going to do what I'm going to do, but I was and still am just curious. Trust me, showing traditional/straight B&W film photography is not done much these days. It's good to see what the reaction to it is.</p>

<p>First mistake: posting my results and opinions here on a photography site. Photographers are not artists, although occasionally a photographer may show in a fine art setting, and some actually are both. Not many though. Photographers work for other people in most cases. That's the nature of the craft. Wedding clients, advertising clients, portrait clients, etc. Artists work for themselves, and if someone likes it, fine. If they don't, that's fine too. If you are a photographer and working for other people (even if you have your own business or agency), other people besides yourself will dictate what type of work is desired, how much, when, where, etc. An artist (not a Sunday painter) absolutely will not do that. We have our own ideas as to what the image looks like, and people can like it, or not. You can never ever let other people dictate what your work should be about or look like. So, two totally different mindsets. The commercial photographer has to satisfy a client, and that will dictate the look of the images. An artist has to satisfy themselves. Period.</p>

<p>Second mistake: allowing myself to get baited and react to other people who either did not wish to stay on track, or were incapable of it. This is after all a public website. The only qualifications for joining this or any similar site is to have an active email address. That's it. So, who knows where people are coming from? Obviously few people had gallery experience, or even understood the process. The art game is very, very strange. You meet some of the strangest people on the planet in there, and some you can deal with, others you can't. For sure you have to be thick skinned and let negative or confrontational comments just go. Otherwise you'd go pretty nutty. There are huge egos involved, some unbalanced people, lots and lots of phonies. It is what it is, and it isn't for everyone, and until you get involved w/ bigger galleries, which mean bigger problems, you just don't know.</p>

<p>All I wanted to do was show how difficult it is to get shown if your work consists of traditional photography in a digital world, and what sort of characters you are probably going to run into. The people running galleries are not the final arbitrator of what is good and what isn't. They are the last people who should be involved in that. That task falls to the individual that is creating the work. Often the tail wags the dog. I, nor any other artist, have absolutely no need for a gallery. We can, and do, start our own galleries. Ive been a part of many co ops where we ran things ourselves. We're going to do the work because we enjoy it, and whether or not anyone else sees it is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, what's a gallery w/o artists? Nothing. Zip. So yes, I am the final decision maker when it comes to how my work looks, not a gallery, and if someone who represents a gallery is telling me to look for work w/ artistic shadows, she/he has no business running anything in this field. I mean, what a ludicrous thing to say. To any artist, the idea that the look and style of a piece is the sole responsibility of the artist is basic understanding number one. This seems to be a novel approach to non artists. In the end, it was a fascinating study in how wrong something can go when there is a misunderstanding from the very beginning, and how the cumulative effects can go even more wrong when others begin commenting on comments, not on the original idea.</p>

<p>Gerry, that photo of the caddy is just gorgeous, Really, really nice.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Your biggest mistake, it appears, is that - unless they agree with you - you don't trust other people to be right about something. It's always possible to find a reason why other people don't get it, isn't it...?<br><br>From the very moment you showed your pictures, the hunch that what you were told by the gallery owner was that your pictures aren't interesting in any way was confirmed.<br>Yes, you - the artists - decide what you want to put in your pictures, how they should look. Power to the artist! And we, everybody else, get to judge them, get to decide whether they are worth our, anybody's while. And what a rotten bunch of philistines we are, aren't we? Terrible...<br>You got a very decent reply from the gallery owner. If only you were willing to understand what you were being told, instead of finding it hilariously funny, idiotic even.

[john_bellenis]

<p>Steve, that was a very long post that simply reiterated everything you have already said, without taking a single thing from any of the very pertinent and intelligent posts that have been made.</p>

<p>Professionally I am an advertising photographer - not an artist - however in my personal life I am very much an artist, working in many different media and with four years of art school in London in my past. I am still at a loss to understand why her rejection of your unsolicited submission, and her (poorly worded) question about other work you may have that better suited her needs, is "nuts" or makes her an "idiot"? I agree that the artist is always the decision maker regarding the look of their artwork, but you have to be gracious enough to recognize that the gallery owner is the decision maker of what is right for their gallery. If the two are at odds with each other, politely move on.</p>

<p>Finally, the list of comments you have made - so perfectly chronicled by John H - do not seem to indicate that you are thick skinned, amused and devoid of ego - quite the opposite in fact. I think that is the main reason that this thread went "awry".</p>

<p>Addendum: I am also confused as to why you think this experience reflects on "traditional photography", "film versus digital" or any other issue whatsoever beyond one gallery owner's opinion of the set of images that you submitted. There is nothing further than that specific rejection that can be extrapolated about anything else.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>All I wanted to do was show how difficult it is to get shown if your work consists of traditional photography in a digital world</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well you completely failed at that. You only showed your unwillingness to listen, to the gallery curator or to anyone here.</p>