Spinning the Wheels, and the Inherent Qualities of Success

rexbobcat

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
5,014
Reaction score
1,967
Location
United States
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I'm a fairly analytical person. Granted, my analytics are wrong about 80% of the time, but it's my nature to at least try. I'm like a Vulcan, only dumber.

So when I'm confronted by a problem that can't definitely be solved or at least lessened by using deductive reasoning or some colloquial form of the scientific method, I just...can't...compute...

Where I'm going with this is that I don't think I'll ever understand the public recognition of creativity. Does anyone else feel like this?

I'm not even talking about making lots of money. I couldn't care less about it. I'm just referring to this pervasive concept of general fame/adoration/acclaim that follows some photographers by the general public, fellow creatives, or companies.

Now, I'm not trying to discount their hardwork. There's no doubt most have busted their asses to get to where they are, but I can't help but feel this itch in my brain that maybe they have a predisposition for it - not for success, but for the right alignment of qualities to lead toward success.

My portfolio isn't as consistent. My eye isn't the same. Maybe my eye isn't as developed? But how would I know if it's not if I only have my own point of reference. I can't/won't post-process like they do. I'm awkward to a fault, but not in that quirky eccentric way. I have the wrong personality. My aesthetic tastes are different. And different is supposed to be good, right? But what if it's not. What if it's mediocre. My uniqueness is mediocre by the culmination of everything that has been put into my craft. It's not even an intentional mediocrity out of which I can climb. What if it's inherent? F*ck.

Different is good, unless it's a certain kind of different, a bland kind of different. A kind of different that isn't marketable, because it's inconsistent and ordinary.

It's enigmatic and it hurts my Vulcan brain, because there's no definitive answer to the equation.

It's like asking Einstein what it's like to be a genius. He only has a frame of reference as a genius, so it would be like trying to describe the color red.

I just wonder if some people have predispositions and a way about how they think and interact that will put them ahead of those who don't, regardless of the amount of work put in, like how Usain Bolt could train half as hard as his competitors and still be twice as fast.

I don't really know where I'm going with this.

And geez this is long.

I'm just going to go to bed.
 
Where I'm going with this is that I don't think I'll ever understand the public recognition of creativity. Does anyone else feel like this?

I think you're over-thinking it.

The way people seem to go ape-poop over some questionable "art" or some famous person when the rest of us are scratching our heads in wonder is something to consider.

The way I see it is; everyone is different, artists and the public, so what some people like, others will not.

Gee, I hope that helps.
 
Where I'm going with this is that I don't think I'll ever understand the public recognition of creativity. Does anyone else feel like this?

I think you're over-thinking it.

The way people seem to go ape-poop over some questionable "art" or some famous person when the rest of us are scratching our heads in wonder is something to consider.

The way I see it is; everyone is different, artists and the public, so what some people like, others will not.

Gee, I hope that helps.
I've always felt that the majority of the 'ape-poopers' are only 'ape-poopers' because they feel that they're supposed to be. "Oh... that's hanging on a wall, it must be good!" or "So-and-so says it's the best he's ever seen, and he's on television, so it must be true!". I think a good measure of modern "success" is due solely to marketing. Don't sweat it!
 
There is definitely more success than just being excellent at what you do. Some people in this world are really good at dealing with other people and building relationships. Because of this they can open themselves to a wide range of oppertunities and if the have the self confidence to run with it essentially create more opertunities for themseves
 
Last edited:
I'm a fairly analytical person. Granted, my analytics are wrong about 80% of the time, but it's my nature to at least try. I'm like a Vulcan, only dumber.

So when I'm confronted by a problem that can't definitely be solved or at least lessened by using deductive reasoning or some colloquial form of the scientific method, I just...can't...compute...

Where I'm going with this is that I don't think I'll ever understand the public recognition of creativity. Does anyone else feel like this?

I'm not even talking about making lots of money. I couldn't care less about it. I'm just referring to this pervasive concept of general fame/adoration/acclaim that follows some photographers by the general public, fellow creatives, or companies.

Now, I'm not trying to discount their hardwork. There's no doubt most have busted their asses to get to where they are, but I can't help but feel this itch in my brain that maybe they have a predisposition for it - not for success, but for the right alignment of qualities to lead toward success.

My portfolio isn't as consistent. My eye isn't the same. Maybe my eye isn't as developed? But how would I know if it's not if I only have my own point of reference. I can't/won't post-process like they do. I'm awkward to a fault, but not in that quirky eccentric way. I have the wrong personality. My aesthetic tastes are different. And different is supposed to be good, right? But what if it's not. What if it's mediocre. My uniqueness is mediocre by the culmination of everything that has been put into my craft. It's not even an intentional mediocrity out of which I can climb. What if it's inherent? F*ck.

Different is good, unless it's a certain kind of different, a bland kind of different. A kind of different that isn't marketable, because it's inconsistent and ordinary.

It's enigmatic and it hurts my Vulcan brain, because there's no definitive answer to the equation.

It's like asking Einstein what it's like to be a genius. He only has a frame of reference as a genius, so it would be like trying to describe the color red.

I just wonder if some people have predispositions and a way about how they think and interact that will put them ahead of those who don't, regardless of the amount of work put in, like how Usain Bolt could train half as hard as his competitors and still be twice as fast.

I don't really know where I'm going with this.

And geez this is long.

I'm just going to go to bed.
You have to find yourself before you can find your art.
 
There is definitely more success than just being excellent at what you do. Some people in this world are really good at dealing with other people and building relationships. Because of this they can open themselves to a wide range of oppertunities and if the have the self confidence to run with it essentially create more opertunities for themseves

Agreed. There's skill at marketing, at selling yourself, at getting noticed. It's a business skill, really. And I think the people who develop these business skills are either people who firmly believe in how much they deserve the recognition and success, and crave that kind of validation of worthiness.

But there's also something to be said about a certain indefinable quality that some people seem to either have or not have. Charisma, chemistry, presence...whatever you call it, some people seem to have been born with It in spades, and It can sometimes be the difference between being noticed or not noticed, regardless of the quality of the work the person actually produces. The people who have It rub some of It off on their work, and we become convinced in the solidity of the emperor's new clothes.
 
Where I'm going with this is that I don't think I'll ever understand the public recognition of creativity. Does anyone else feel like this?

I think you're over-thinking it.

The way people seem to go ape-poop over some questionable "art" or some famous person when the rest of us are scratching our heads in wonder is something to consider.

The way I see it is; everyone is different, artists and the public, so what some people like, others will not.

Gee, I hope that helps.

Yeah I mean, logically, I understand that. Variety is a good thing.

However, I can't help but think of the phrase "There's someone out there for everyone." While that might be true to an extent, it's also a reality that some people will have romantic interests falling all over themselves, while others really might have the right combination of attributes to make them unattractive to 95% of the population. :icon_pale:
 
The Work is typically underrated. They don't call a fellow's portfolio "his play" or "his fun" they call it "his work".

Let's pull some examples. Cindy Sherman is my favorite, mainly because I don't much like her images. She burst on the scene with a series of photos called "untitled film stills" which numbered, I think, 59. Can you wrap your head around producing fifty-nine finished, good quality, inter-related and yet different, photographs on a single theme? That is labor, and lots of it.

Guys like Eric Kim? Labor. Years of work on flickr, shoveling images into groups, favoriting other people's pictures, following them in hopes of being followed back, social networking his tail off.

Peter Lik? Labor. Works his butt off.

Does labor guarantee "success"? Nope, it sure doesn't. It's definitely a pre-requisite, though, no matter how you define success.

Go poke around Shifter Shift-er noun a person or thing that shifts our perspective. and you'll find more examples. The successful artist, whatever you mean by "artist," seems to always be a monomaniac.
 
There is definitely more success than just being excellent at what you do. Some people in this world are really good at dealing with other people and building relationships. Because of this they can open themselves to a wide range of oppertunities and if the have the self confidence to run with it essentially create more opertunities for themseves

Agreed. There's skill at marketing, at selling yourself, at getting noticed. It's a business skill, really. And I think the people who develop these business skills are either people who firmly believe in how much they deserve the recognition and success, and crave that kind of validation of worthiness.

But there's also something to be said about a certain indefinable quality that some people seem to either have or not have. Charisma, chemistry, presence...whatever you call it, some people seem to have been born with It in spades, and It can sometimes be the difference between being noticed or not noticed, regardless of the quality of the work the person actually produces. The people who have It rub some of It off on their work, and we become convinced in the solidity of the emperor's new clothes.

Yeah, I'm not trying to say that that business acumen and knowledge isn't very, very important. It's more important than the photography in terms of growing your "personal brand" or whatever.

However, when it does come to the photography, I'll look at portfolios of people who have shot for large-circulation publications and large brands, and my reasoning will go:

These brands/publications like the way these photographers photograph.
I do not take photos like these people.
Therefore, I won't be able to photograph for them.

And yes, these qualities are what I was referring to. I had a professor in college like that. Everything about him just...worked, and coupled with a rigorous work ethic, boom. While, on the other hand, I know other photographers who try hard, but struggle every day because of their lack of that thing.
 
The Work is typically underrated. They don't call a fellow's portfolio "his play" or "his fun" they call it "his work".

Let's pull some examples. Cindy Sherman is my favorite, mainly because I don't much like her images. She burst on the scene with a series of photos called "untitled film stills" which numbered, I think, 59. Can you wrap your head around producing fifty-nine finished, good quality, inter-related and yet different, photographs on a single theme? That is labor, and lots of it.

Guys like Eric Kim? Labor. Years of work on flickr, shoveling images into groups, favoriting other people's pictures, following them in hopes of being followed back, social networking his tail off.

Peter Lik? Labor. Works his butt off.

Does labor guarantee "success"? Nope, it sure doesn't. It's definitely a pre-requisite, though, no matter how you define success.

Go poke around Shifter Shift-er noun a person or thing that shifts our perspective. and you'll find more examples. The successful artist, whatever you mean by "artist," seems to always be a monomaniac.

But that's not what I was supposing. I know a lot of work goes into it. Success entails hard work (in most situations at least). But, at the same time, there's an eccentricity and an understanding among the people featured on that site, whether that understanding be how to market their skills/brand, how to network, how to create work that is good, along with those inherent qualities about them that tie it all together in a package that works. How do you compete against extraordinary with ordinary?

If people can have difficulty with more empirical areas such as science and math, it makes sense that there would be same struggles in creative areas as well; that maybe not everyone's work is conducive to getting beyond a certain point.
 
However, when it does come to the photography, I'll look at portfolios of people who have shot for large-circulation publications and large brands, and my reasoning will go:

These brands/publications like the way these photographers photograph.
I do not take photos like these people.
Therefore, I won't be able to photograph for them.

How about this reasoning:
"These brands/publication like the way these photographers photograph because those photographers know how to convince these brands/publications that they want his/her photographs.
I don't know how to convince them that they want my photographs.
I can either accept that or learn how to fake It as best as I can and get better at selling myself."
 
I don't have a clear answer to what the X-factor is. In some cases, I am convinced it's simply luck. I am convinced that in all cases luck plays a large role.

There does seem to be some sort of "different enough to be distinctive but not so different as to be alarming" but that's not a reliable indicator - plenty of "success" of various sorts has been accomplished with the same-old/same-old. Consistent voice seems also to matter, but again we see (occasional) "success" built on what appears to be no voice at all.

My suggestion for those seeking success is: A clear, distinctive, voice and a monomaniacal devotion to making and promoting your art.

But it's not a guarantee. It does get you ahead of a lot of folks, though.
 
Predispositions are often important. That is natural talent does matter. But it doesn't matter for the reasons you think.

Natural talent matters because it makes it easier to achieve a few "early wins" then decide something is your life's purpose and then really put in the work. People with natural talent don't question their ability to get better. They are motivated by their talent, instead of resting on it.

But, what ultimately matters is the amount of work you do, what you're working at and how hard you work at getting better.

That last part is the key, a lot of people work really hard, but they don't work hard at getting better. They don't think about what they could and should do differently, they don't think about why they chose what they chose and what they should have scene at the time that would tell them to do differently. Hard work doesn't pay off, hard work at self improvement pays off. Some people work hard in circles, some people work hard all the way the way to the top.

The next time you failed to capture a good image, really think not just about why the image failed, but what should have told you to do differently. People always think about why an image failed, people even think about what they should do differently, but they rarely ask themselves "why should I have known to do different, what was the key that I missed that said do this and not that?"

To use an example from Street photography, the key is the decisive moment. The question is how do we find decisive moments? When you miss one, most people will simply say "ah, that was the decisive moment and I missed it, ugh!" What they should instead be focusing on isn't that they missed the decisive moment, but that they missed the signs indicating that the decisive moment was coming in such and such a way.

Also, shoot more. Think about shooting more. Think about what you want to capture more.

These are just my thoughts anyway.
 
However, when it does come to the photography, I'll look at portfolios of people who have shot for large-circulation publications and large brands, and my reasoning will go:

These brands/publications like the way these photographers photograph.
I do not take photos like these people.
Therefore, I won't be able to photograph for them.

How about this reasoning:
"These brands/publication like the way these photographers photograph because those photographers know how to convince these brands/publications that they want his/her photographs.
I don't know how to convince them that they want my photographs.
I can either accept that or learn how to fake It as best as I can and get better at selling myself."

Often the convincing doesn't seem intentional, though, which is what I'm trying to figure out. In most cases, from what I can tell, the photographer doesn't explicitly sell themselves to these companies. I mean, in editorial photography it's slightly different because you often do have to make an appeal to publications, however in commercial and adver-torial areas, this doesn't seem to be the case.

It's like, "I did this personal project that got picked up by the Huff Post, and then I got contacted by Vogue and Coca-Cola."

I'm trying to understand it, because I'm a very straightforward person. If I want to work with someone, I want to tell them. But that's often not very tactful. It seems to require navigating channels guarded by this invisible gatekeeper. If I could understand what the gatekeeper wants, then maybe I could better oblige.

But maybe I'm overthinking it. It seems so enigmatic like I stated above, because of the nature of the industry, but at the same time, it's been accomplished before by people who were formerly unknown and irrelevant, so maybe...uh...I don't know.

I'm one of those people who struggle with perfectionist tendencies without having the skills to uphold my own standards. As such, I will look 5-10-15 years in future without actually knowing how or if I can accomplish those goals. And I'm not good at making a contingency plan for any derailments along the way. lol :BangHead:
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top