Bob has apparently forgotten his prior position that "Art's just fart
without the 'f'" Sorry, I can't join you guys in your angst. I just
take pictures.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/12/2012 6:11 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I'm going to challenge your thinking a little here. Feel free to challenge
> back.
>
> Profit=Hack. I think you've gotten yourself into the anti-Kinkade mode here
> where profit from art means being a hack. Kincade was a hack that managed
> to key in on the Norman Rockwell worshipers and Beanie Babie buyers and was
> able to turn it into an industry. Artist? Hardly. Successful illustrator
> and promoter? Absolutely. It's sad, but if you go to most art fairs around
> this country, you'll find that this kind of emotive "feel good 'art'" sells
> 10:1 over real art. But the reality is that Mr. Kinkade managed to anchor
> down one extreme end of the spectrum. Being able to turn mass-produced
> 4-color offset prints into a lucrative business where the stores would
> carry reprints instead of original art. A 4-color print selling for $1200?
> Amazing. The ones with actual paint on them even more!
>
> A successful artist will spend 90-95% of his/her effort and time promoting.
> That means that for every work of art that takes a full day to produce will
> require up to 20 days of effort to sell/promote. Do the math. This is the
> real world for real artists. It is the fact of life. Otherwise, what is the
> purpose of the art? Nobody is going to randomly knock on doors in your
> neighborhood asking if you are an artist and if you have anything to sell.
> Seeking out artists is not done in the same manner of people searching old
> barns looking for abandoned classic cars. Art is a message for the artist.
> If you have a message, don't you want it to be heard/seen?
>
> Craftsman vs. Artist. What is the difference? I think you have found
> yourself in the position of a craftsman. You're producing INCREDIBLE work,
> but for the express purpose of the sale, not the message. A craftsman is
> NOT a hack. A craftsman is an expert that usually lives a pretty good
> lifestyle and is able to support a spouse and put kids through school. A
> craftsman almost always possesses more skills and technical understanding
> of the art than the artist who is carving new paths forward. But the artist
> needs to live with somebody else who is paying the bills and usually
> raising the kids. The artist is mentally not there half the time. Yes, I'm
> stereotyping a bit, but not by much. Insert "musician" for "artist" if you
> want.
>
> Bob, you and I are craftsmen. We know how to produce whatever it is that we
> want. Our skills (although bent a bit differently to different areas) are
> comparable and we both know how to shoot pictures to make a buck. If the
> purpose is primarily to make a buck then we aren't fulfilling our own
> vision, but the vision of the customers. No different than a commercial
> photographer who does whatever the art director says. Or the wedding
> photographer that shoots a set of pictures that fulfill a very narrow
> purpose. Or the photojournalist that is shooting for the editors. Are all
> these "hacks"? Of course not. But by your broad definition of hack, they
> could be. They are just fulfilling the commitments of life where if you
> don't work you don't eat.
>
> What do you call the artist photographer that just broke up with his
> girlfriend? Homeless.
>
> I'm going to pick on NSURIT for a second. Bill is an exceptional
> photographer and very creative. But I recognize a distinct turning point
> where he went from capturing life, to capturing scenes with an unique
> vision to now expressing original vision. To pick on myself, I've gone from
> capturing life to expressing original vision to capturing scenes. I so
> desired to make money with my photography that I shifted my own vision to
> that of the customers' vision. Whatever sells, I shoot. At some point, we
> just burn out and don't want any part of it. That's one reason why I gave
> up on stock photography. Besides not making any money due to depressed
> prices and technology warfare, it's hard to be excited about spending time,
> effort and money shooting, editing, keywording and uploading stuff so
> somebody can buy it for 67 cents of which I get a third. All so it can be
> used to illustrate somebody's blog.
>
> Why do I want a new camera? Is it for the "art"? Of course not. It's for
> the money making opportunities. Does this make me anything other than a
> photographer whore? I'll sell myself (time, effort, energy and sometimes my
> own health) in exchange for money. The new camera is just a new set of
> clothes, heels and makeup.
>
> So, I've now turned this from being a "hack" to a "whore". I hope you feel
> a little better now. :)
>
> Seriously, this is a perspective change for me. What do I want to
> accomplish with my photography? Do I really give a rip about taking a
> picture of another barn at sunset? Please! Weddings? Hey, everybody has a
> price. Does this bright red leather skirt make my hips look big?
>
> No, just like you, I'm trying to find greater meaning in this endeavor.
> I've got something to say and I really don't care if people like the
> message or not because until I get it out, it's just sitting in there
> burning away. In my case, it's actually involves mixed-media, but that's
> another story.
>
> However, I'll toss another perspective out here. In my "day job" I've been
> able to do something extremely unique and original once in two different
> industries. Major technological shifts resulted from this creative vision.
> I literally created an original methodology to deployment of a network
> design which has since become the industry standard here in the USA. This
> happened all within the last 18 months and is now the model which everybody
> is copying. I would suggest that the underlying effort was 100% "art". I
> consider anybody who is able to stare at a blank sheet of paper and come up
> with something unique that has never been done before an artist. Being
> creative isn't necessarily being an artist. But an artist must be creative.
> An artist does push society forward. I would like to think that what I
> created 18 months ago is pushing society forward. At least your new 4G
> cellphone will thank me. Yes, it took 20x the effort/time to promote the
> idea. One of the best compliments I got was when the VP of engineering for
> one of the largest telecom companies in the world said "who is this guy and
> why the ---- isn't he working for us?" It did get me a small raise and a
> promotion.
>
> What the challenge is for me, is to apply the same creative and original
> mindset to my preferred medium. I'd rather do my creating in an Olympus OM
> than Microsoft Office.
>
> Bob, the question is this: Are you an artist that has successfully created
> "art" in a medium not of your choosing? Is this what is bothering you? Just
> like me, you want to do it through photography, but are you actually doing
> it through other means without realizing it? I'm not unique. I know there
> are many others on this list who are true artists in their own worlds. Just
> because the resulting artwork doesn't take on tangible form in a way that
> looks good hanging on a wall, or standing in the middle of a room or may be
> seen by the masses doesn't diminish its value.
>
> An artist needs to reinvent himself constantly. It's only art the first
> time you do something. That's it. We need to kick over the easel, throw the
> paints against the wall and take the knife to the canvas once in a while.
> All good artists throw hissy fits. It's necessary to get angry with what
> we've done and declare war on the customers.
>
> If all else fails, chop off an ear.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|