Photography, craft vs. artistry.

elrick · Jan 29, 2005

Hertz van Rental said:
If you create a piece of work for yourself and someone likes it and buys it - well, that is the dream. In my experience, though, when it happens you find it is either a one-off or that subsequent patrons want more of the same thing.

And for some Nature photographs it's just impossible to do the "same thing" again...as much as I would like to do so...

walter23 · Jan 29, 2005

I erased my original reply to this in favor of something a little more clear.

I think there are two capabilities that are important for an artist to have. I also think that thinking of it in this way answers a lot of common philosophical problems, particularly regarding the actual definition of art. Okay, that's a bold assertion... but anyway.

First a definition: If you've ever taken an intro psychology, philosophy, religious studies, or probably any humanities course you probably have encountered the widespread belief that we can't actually ever really see the world, all we have is limited sense data that's been filtered to death by our brains, trimmed down and categorized and labelled and fed to our conscious mind in small doses. These small doses, this limited little view of the world, is what I'll call "internal representation" of the world.

The two abilities: 1. Artistic ability - The ability to redefine one's internal representation of the world, probably in some novel way that hasn't necessarily been taught directly to you by someone else. This is a lot harder than it might sound, because all these little things you take for granted about the way your brain processes the world aren't exactly screaming "Hey, I'm just an arbitrary decision made by your nervous system!" or anything, so it's hard to recognize where there is some freedom in interpretation. 2. Technical ability - the ability to manifest this internal representation as something tangible, material - either some work of art, a piece of technology, some communication (writing or speech), etc.

People have these two abilities in different doses. A good artist has both - he can see the world in a new way AND communicate this through whatever medium he is technically proficient with. Someone we might call a technician maybe has no ability to manipulate his worldview, but is skilled at manifesting it in (for example) photography - he takes technically perfect photos with excellent exposure, but they are boring, because they do not show us anything novel - he is simply transcribing an unquestioned representation of the world that his brain fed him automatically, which usually means it's some consensus view of things that isn't going to surprise and amaze anybody. People always have symmetrical faces. Cities are best viewed as rows of tall buildings as seen from a distance. Kittens play with balls of yarn on piles of soft pillows.

On the other hand, there are dreamers, who can rearrange their view of the world inside their heads at will, but aren't very good at communicating this view, probably because they are lacking in some technical ability like painting or sculpture or photography or speech writing.

So the issue of "is it art or not" I guess is still a matter of being in the eye of the beholder. The beholder in this case will say something is art if it communicates some new way of viewing things to him, and it will be nothing but technical tripe if the critic has already been exposed to the artist's particular view of the world. This is why different weird phenomena like cubism and abstraction and whatnot are exciting to people for awhile and then become boring and derivative - the first person to conceive of it (I'm no art historian, sorry) did a literal rearrangement of his own sensory & cognitive processes and then transcribed it and communicated it, everyone since just stole this view and regurgitated it and reinterpreted it ad nauseum and the critics would call it derivative and boring - simply because it no longer amazes them with a new idea of how the world can be perceived.

danalec99 · Jan 29, 2005

Jeff Ascough is one of the contemporary photographers that I admire in the wedding world. As far as I know of him, he thoroughly enjoys every minute of it and getting handsomely paid for it. His style sets him apart form the pack. Is he selling his soul? By looking at his work, I highly doubt it.
Another prime example is Rodney Smith.

I think if the artist has the caliber to set the rules, the commercial world will not make him another "salesman".

Another great thread! :thumbup:

elrick · Jan 30, 2005

danalec99 said:
I think if the artist has the caliber to set the rules, the commercial world will not make him another "salesman".

With that I agree. And Thank You for the above links, I didn't know about these photographers, but now I do

Hertz van Rental · Jan 31, 2005

danalec99 said:
Jeff Ascough is one of the contemporary photographers that I admire in the wedding world. As far as I know of him, he thoroughly enjoys every minute of it and getting handsomely paid for it. His style sets him apart form the pack. Is he selling his soul? By looking at his work, I highly doubt it.
Another prime example is Rodney Smith.

I think if the artist has the caliber to set the rules, the commercial world will not make him another "salesman".

Another great thread! :thumbup:

I agree - he is a cut well above the usual wedding photographer, largely because he is looking at weddings from a different angle. But you must remember that when a photographer shows a portfolio they are being very selective. You are seeing what they want you to see because they are selling themselves and projecting an image so they only show you the best. The only way you can make a true assesment is to look at his entire output over his career. I think that you may find that the pictures in his portfolio are the exceptions not the rule and that if you compared all the weddings he has done then they would all start looking pretty similar. I say this (as a cynical ex-pro) not to put him down or denigrate his work but to point out the economic realities of being a professional.

danalec99 · Jan 31, 2005

Disclaimer: I'm aware that I am way off the charts compared to the veterans in this forum, when it comes to experience and exposure. My words are purely from the observations that I have been making. It could be plain dumb!

I totally agree with you on the portfolio. But "Sales" is involved in any profession, unless one is "discovered". Jeff has to update his portfolio every often, since wedding photography is his primary business and he is not the only "reportage wedding photographer" in the United Kingdom. But the fact that it does not make him change his style, allows him to find the balance bewteen being true to himself and being 'commercial'.

Check this article, which I found a while ago. Nick Nichols is a veteran photographer with the society. It is hard for me to think that his motivating factor might be money.

I'm not saying there aren't instances where money speaks in the commercial world. It could be the main language. But there are some folks who will not succumb to prostitution, no matter what.

mal · Jan 31, 2005

Wow, I love Jeff Ascough's work. The way he uses DOF is amazing.

Hertz van Rental · Jan 31, 2005

You say that Jeff Ascough does not change his style - if this is the case then it supports my argument. He does not change his style because that is what he is known for and that is what people want. In short he sticks with that style because it is commercially viable. People would not go to him if they did not know what they were going to get.
When you set yourself up in business you become - first and foremost - a businessman. Wether you are a businessman who builds houses, irons shirts, writes novels or takes pictures is immaterial - your prime concern is to make money or go bust. It is a fact of life.

danalec99 · Jan 31, 2005

My point is, if he is enjoying what he does, the income is his bonus. Job satisfaction + money. What more does one need?
I think the important question is, how long will the honeymoon last. I think that is the point which you are trying to highlight; when it all really boils down to hard cash, and when work is no more fun filled. hmmm.