fjrabon
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,644
- Reaction score
- 754
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
In a few of the more 'philosophical' threads we've had recently, I felt like this was a sort of sub-issue, that we might discuss a bit more on the surface.
On this board, of those that produce a lot of content we typically have two sorts of photographers, the 'working pros' and the 'diligent amateurs'. Both terms, I think, are really not particularly good ways to term what I mean, but I'm not particularly sure what they should be termed. I think the issue comes to the purpose of your craft.
One type produces content for a job, to fulfill a purpose. This isn't to say there isn't creativity and talent used in the production of this type of photography. The point is that it's primarily to fulfill a demand. And not an ephemeral demand for art or beauty, but a very specific demand for a certain image of a certain thing. Before the camera, this type of demand was often fulfilled by painters, and was in fact the primary thing that even the great masters did. The majority of Leonardo's work was commissioned and was to be of a certain thing. Leonardo was considered great in time not because he was creative (which he obviously was) but because he could realistically paint that which he was commissioned to paint. Today, a realistic depiction in a photograph doesn't take near the skill level that it took in Leonardo's day did with a paint brush, but it still does take some level of skill and know how. However, no matter how much skill and talent it might take to produce a great portrait, there's always a certain sense that 'if I wasn't here, somebody else would make this same image, probably reasonably similarly to the way in which I'm doing it right now." Sure, the lighting might be slightly different, and the pose might be slightly different, but probably not in a way that really matters to anybody who is ever going to view this photograph. But because it does take a certain amount of skill and equipment to produce such a work, you do get paid for it. You're essentially paid for your time, skill and usage of your equipment. This is what I mean by producing photography. It doesn't mean it's devoid of all creativity. It simply means that creativity is to serve the production. In some way you aren't creating something, you're an assembly line. Many times a self contained assembly line, but an assembly line none-the-less. I don't think you can say such work is or isn't art. That's sort of besides the point. The distinction is that you produced content to be consumed by a specific paying audience.
On the other hand, we have creating photography. This is the idea of taking a picture not because of demand, but because of the need, felt inside the photographer, to release this vision of something that probably wouldn't otherwise be created. It may or may not be beautiful or interesting, or even very good, but it's a release of something inside you. I take a lot of fairly moody cityscapes. Every now and again somebody likes them, and I've even had people buy prints of them a few times. But this is really only incidental. These works are created for me. They're created because I have an intense, personal desire to create a photograph capturing the feeling of the moment and place I was inhabiting at that time. I can't paint. I can sort of but not really write songs. So the camera was the medium I chose. While I may hope people like this type of work, the main point is that it's something of me, out in the world. To the extent that it is or isn't original is the extent to which I am or am not original, and my skill in capturing myself through the way I capture the world.
This isn't to say that it's not important for other people to like your creative work, but it's important for a different reason than your production type work. Whereas for production type work, where I am making something for somebody else, it's important that other people like it, because other people are the entire point. It's their work. I'm merely a vessel through which their desires are expressed. When it comes to my creative work, it's important to me that other people like my work, because it helps me connect to other people in a way that just isn't possible through normal discourse. When somebody gets my work, it's an affirmation that somebody else get me. However, when people don't get my work, it can be just as special. It either indicates that there is some aspect of who I am that people don't get in the first place, or it indicates that I'm not very good at expressing who I am. Neither of those realizations are particularly failures.
And this isn't to say that these two are some exclusive or exhaustive dichotomy. They're blended all the time. Maybe there are other types of photography besides those two as well. However, I do think a problem can arise when the two become unknowingly confused. I think it can be bad when a photographer called upon to produce a product for consumption by another person confuses that with creation of personal art. The photographer may get angry when their work isn't accepted in such scenarios, clients may get angry that their demands weren't fulfilled. The photographer may speak of staying true to his or her vision, yet create something that doesn't fully fulfill the needs of the client consumer. The photographer's self indulgence has made people in the world less happy. He has only created something for somebody who didn't want it. A great political philosopher once said (sorry I can't remember who) "the great failing of communism wasn't in motivating people to produce, it was in figuring out what people wanted to consume. We ended up making lots of things people didn't want and little of what they did." This is what happens when the producer confuses production with creation. The world is lessened by your creations, not bettered.
Similarly, when someone confuses creation with production we are equally worsened. When an artist is so desirous of acceptance of their art that they change their art to suit the tastes of consumers, they've confused creation with production. This sort of art never lasts long. It's what is often labelled as selling out. And the problem isn't that they're not being true to their artistic vision. The problem is that they have lost their artistic vision by bending it to a homogenized version of other people's desires. Producing work to be consumed is fine, but just don't let it cause you to lose the creative aspect of the art, if that's what you set out to do.
True, great, creative art is amazing because it allows you to experience another creative mind and find something out about yourself, and the other at the same time. It allows you to deepen your individuality, while also knowing you connect with somebody else. However, when we cheapen our creative work by making it easily consumable, and still pretend that it's our vision, that's when the process is cheapened for all involved.
In some sense, I think the age of the internet and easy theft of intellectual property is a bit of a boon to this dichotomy. There was a time when art for creation and art for production was often and easily confused. Because money was often demanded to experience creativity, creativity was often conflated with production. This was and is perhaps more of an issue in musical art, but is still something of an issue in photography as well.
In a sense creative work is the making of a new virus, one that is cultivated in the greatest virus maker in world history, our human brain, and then either keeping it there, or unleashing to see exactly how many people it can infect. Production is manufacturing viruses that are old, well established and work.
As far as payment goes, when it comes to production, it's quite obvious. In that you are fulfilling a demand, payment is fairly straight forward. There's a supply of capable photographers and a demand for images. As supply and demand fluctuates, so does payment, but it's relatively clear how it all works. For creative work, payment is sporadic and incidental. I don't think it is wrong to make money for creative work, but I think if you're aspiring to create, you shouldn't seek payment on purpose. It should merely, occasionally be the result. If you're a good creative photographer, you can easily produce work too, so it's not like you'll be left high and dry and destitute (though perhaps less well off than if you tried to do something harder with greater demand). When I make creative work, if somebody wants to take it, then so be it. If somebody wants to pay me for it, then so be it. I'm not producing the work for money, the 'payment' as such was releasing the work into the world int eh first place. If others arbitrarily like it, and desire to give me money for it, then that's sort of like finding a $20 bill on the ground. I'm not trying to say this is how everybody should feel about their art, but merely how I feel about art. Though it does mean I also have little sympathy for when people take the creative art of another (so long as they don't misrepresent it as their own work). Others may differ on that aspect, it's merely how I feel when it comes to creative art. When it's created, it's released, what happens after that is up to the world, not me.
Anyway, that got a lot more ramble-y than I intended and I fully comprehend that it's most likely "tl;dr" but it was something I wanted to kind of get out there and see what would happen if it was out there.
On this board, of those that produce a lot of content we typically have two sorts of photographers, the 'working pros' and the 'diligent amateurs'. Both terms, I think, are really not particularly good ways to term what I mean, but I'm not particularly sure what they should be termed. I think the issue comes to the purpose of your craft.
One type produces content for a job, to fulfill a purpose. This isn't to say there isn't creativity and talent used in the production of this type of photography. The point is that it's primarily to fulfill a demand. And not an ephemeral demand for art or beauty, but a very specific demand for a certain image of a certain thing. Before the camera, this type of demand was often fulfilled by painters, and was in fact the primary thing that even the great masters did. The majority of Leonardo's work was commissioned and was to be of a certain thing. Leonardo was considered great in time not because he was creative (which he obviously was) but because he could realistically paint that which he was commissioned to paint. Today, a realistic depiction in a photograph doesn't take near the skill level that it took in Leonardo's day did with a paint brush, but it still does take some level of skill and know how. However, no matter how much skill and talent it might take to produce a great portrait, there's always a certain sense that 'if I wasn't here, somebody else would make this same image, probably reasonably similarly to the way in which I'm doing it right now." Sure, the lighting might be slightly different, and the pose might be slightly different, but probably not in a way that really matters to anybody who is ever going to view this photograph. But because it does take a certain amount of skill and equipment to produce such a work, you do get paid for it. You're essentially paid for your time, skill and usage of your equipment. This is what I mean by producing photography. It doesn't mean it's devoid of all creativity. It simply means that creativity is to serve the production. In some way you aren't creating something, you're an assembly line. Many times a self contained assembly line, but an assembly line none-the-less. I don't think you can say such work is or isn't art. That's sort of besides the point. The distinction is that you produced content to be consumed by a specific paying audience.
On the other hand, we have creating photography. This is the idea of taking a picture not because of demand, but because of the need, felt inside the photographer, to release this vision of something that probably wouldn't otherwise be created. It may or may not be beautiful or interesting, or even very good, but it's a release of something inside you. I take a lot of fairly moody cityscapes. Every now and again somebody likes them, and I've even had people buy prints of them a few times. But this is really only incidental. These works are created for me. They're created because I have an intense, personal desire to create a photograph capturing the feeling of the moment and place I was inhabiting at that time. I can't paint. I can sort of but not really write songs. So the camera was the medium I chose. While I may hope people like this type of work, the main point is that it's something of me, out in the world. To the extent that it is or isn't original is the extent to which I am or am not original, and my skill in capturing myself through the way I capture the world.
This isn't to say that it's not important for other people to like your creative work, but it's important for a different reason than your production type work. Whereas for production type work, where I am making something for somebody else, it's important that other people like it, because other people are the entire point. It's their work. I'm merely a vessel through which their desires are expressed. When it comes to my creative work, it's important to me that other people like my work, because it helps me connect to other people in a way that just isn't possible through normal discourse. When somebody gets my work, it's an affirmation that somebody else get me. However, when people don't get my work, it can be just as special. It either indicates that there is some aspect of who I am that people don't get in the first place, or it indicates that I'm not very good at expressing who I am. Neither of those realizations are particularly failures.
And this isn't to say that these two are some exclusive or exhaustive dichotomy. They're blended all the time. Maybe there are other types of photography besides those two as well. However, I do think a problem can arise when the two become unknowingly confused. I think it can be bad when a photographer called upon to produce a product for consumption by another person confuses that with creation of personal art. The photographer may get angry when their work isn't accepted in such scenarios, clients may get angry that their demands weren't fulfilled. The photographer may speak of staying true to his or her vision, yet create something that doesn't fully fulfill the needs of the client consumer. The photographer's self indulgence has made people in the world less happy. He has only created something for somebody who didn't want it. A great political philosopher once said (sorry I can't remember who) "the great failing of communism wasn't in motivating people to produce, it was in figuring out what people wanted to consume. We ended up making lots of things people didn't want and little of what they did." This is what happens when the producer confuses production with creation. The world is lessened by your creations, not bettered.
Similarly, when someone confuses creation with production we are equally worsened. When an artist is so desirous of acceptance of their art that they change their art to suit the tastes of consumers, they've confused creation with production. This sort of art never lasts long. It's what is often labelled as selling out. And the problem isn't that they're not being true to their artistic vision. The problem is that they have lost their artistic vision by bending it to a homogenized version of other people's desires. Producing work to be consumed is fine, but just don't let it cause you to lose the creative aspect of the art, if that's what you set out to do.
True, great, creative art is amazing because it allows you to experience another creative mind and find something out about yourself, and the other at the same time. It allows you to deepen your individuality, while also knowing you connect with somebody else. However, when we cheapen our creative work by making it easily consumable, and still pretend that it's our vision, that's when the process is cheapened for all involved.
In some sense, I think the age of the internet and easy theft of intellectual property is a bit of a boon to this dichotomy. There was a time when art for creation and art for production was often and easily confused. Because money was often demanded to experience creativity, creativity was often conflated with production. This was and is perhaps more of an issue in musical art, but is still something of an issue in photography as well.
In a sense creative work is the making of a new virus, one that is cultivated in the greatest virus maker in world history, our human brain, and then either keeping it there, or unleashing to see exactly how many people it can infect. Production is manufacturing viruses that are old, well established and work.
As far as payment goes, when it comes to production, it's quite obvious. In that you are fulfilling a demand, payment is fairly straight forward. There's a supply of capable photographers and a demand for images. As supply and demand fluctuates, so does payment, but it's relatively clear how it all works. For creative work, payment is sporadic and incidental. I don't think it is wrong to make money for creative work, but I think if you're aspiring to create, you shouldn't seek payment on purpose. It should merely, occasionally be the result. If you're a good creative photographer, you can easily produce work too, so it's not like you'll be left high and dry and destitute (though perhaps less well off than if you tried to do something harder with greater demand). When I make creative work, if somebody wants to take it, then so be it. If somebody wants to pay me for it, then so be it. I'm not producing the work for money, the 'payment' as such was releasing the work into the world int eh first place. If others arbitrarily like it, and desire to give me money for it, then that's sort of like finding a $20 bill on the ground. I'm not trying to say this is how everybody should feel about their art, but merely how I feel about art. Though it does mean I also have little sympathy for when people take the creative art of another (so long as they don't misrepresent it as their own work). Others may differ on that aspect, it's merely how I feel when it comes to creative art. When it's created, it's released, what happens after that is up to the world, not me.
Anyway, that got a lot more ramble-y than I intended and I fully comprehend that it's most likely "tl;dr" but it was something I wanted to kind of get out there and see what would happen if it was out there.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/40/40287-4f839095000f74d779b90ed75df9dc62.jpg?1619739408)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/40/40289-d47f888aadd01e2147ff6cfe4b94f2be.jpg?1619739409)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/35/35929-8650428697cfb142a7b9a4e8ef731178.jpg?1619737232)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/35/35931-5e10675f3f7d827bc7ae4689f16bda8a.jpg?1619737234)