Art vs Equipment

[Drewus]

I think this can be and is the case for a lot of good income earning artists, but it is not necessarily where it all starts. That is the problem I have with this because it keeps falling back on what I think is a big failing of these online forums, the perception that gear matters more than raw talent when it clearly does not when one looks at the portfolios of a lot of the work associated with online photo communities.

I guess it boils down to what your idea of a good photo is. If you place priority on composition, then gear shouldn't matter at all. However if you're focusing on the best quality out of the image, then I suppose the best lenses and cameras are where you look.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think this can be and is the case for a lot of good income earning artists, but it is not necessarily where it all starts. That is the problem I have with this because it keeps falling back on what I think is a big failing of these online forums, the perception that gear matters more than raw talent when it clearly does not when one looks at the portfolios of a lot of the work associated with online photo communities.

Earning an income or not, what matters more than ever is raw talent because like it or not, you are now competing with millions of camera toting people who think think nothing of giving away a print or an image for free just to feel artistically accepted by said peers.

I was up shooting a magazine assignment Saturday at a local ski area. I was using a Blad on a tripod for one of my shots. Nearby was one of the on mountain photogs, the ones who do the posed photos of skiers that may or may not be purchased. We got to talking and he told me he wants to shoot fine art landscapes, asked how does he break in.

I told him what he was up against and that it is pretty much like being the next rock star, American Idol. You have to have brilliant vision and bring something new to the table....a table that is pretty much full of the treats we expect.

Yes, great and sometimes expensive gear is good to have, but look at all the mediocre work out there, grainless and technically perfect 30x40 enlargements of the most boring images you have ever seen.

Just because you spent 8K on the latest and greatest, make sharp prints and then expect and income to follow does not mean it will. That takes talent, drive and tons of perseverance which hopefully will turn into luck.

Once again, we are in 100% agreement. There is an omitted middle here. Dull, talentless prints with $10,000 worth of equipment will fare poorly against the work of a genius with a Zenith. On the other hand, a skilled photographer will have a greater chance of success with good equipment -- the best he or she can afford, to allow the best possible realization of his/her talent -- than with a Zenith. Why would professionals use anything else, otherwise? Using cheap, nasty equipment will not guarantee success unless (a) you are totally happy with that equipment AND (b) you are a genius AND (c) you are lucky.

Cheers,

R.

 

[KM-25]

I guess it boils down to what your idea of a good photo is. If you place priority on composition, then gear shouldn't matter at all. However if you're focusing on the best quality out of the image, then I suppose the best lenses and cameras are where you look.

The more I look at photography, the more I change my perception of what "Image Quality" is. What Image Quality is to me now is the quality of the light, moment, the convergence of visual attributes and the vision someone uses to bring finality to the journey that is the photograph for them.

Of course sharp lenses and great technical pairing is not to be put aside, but what you wrote above this reply really said it all, yes?

 

[Drewus]

The more I look at photography, the more I change my perception of what "Image Quality" is. What Image Quality is to me now is the quality of the light, moment, the convergence of visual attributes and the vision someone uses to bring finality to the journey that is the photograph for them.

Of course sharp lenses and great technical pairing is not to be put aside, but what you wrote above this reply really said it all, yes?

Oh, i totally agree. I would go on and say that a great photo is 100% composition based. Geometry, shapes and lighting. All stuff that can be accomplished on the most primitive cameras.

But then it is all based on opinion anyway. And by saying what a great photo is, i'm disregarding what other people might love about their favourite photos.

All said and done, composition is needed regardless of how sharp the image is. And you can practice that on a $5 camera.

 

[outfitter]

I agree. Sometimes it isn't the tool... but sometimes it is the tool.[/QUOTE]

And knowing which tool to use, and how to use the tool you choose...

@ Outfitter, yes, I think you made that clear, but equally, the header of the thread sets up a counter-expectation.

Cheers,

R.

No doubt you appreciate the value of a headline to grab attention. How many people would look at "you might like this"?

 

[outfitter]

Maybe I'm not as rich as you and therefore money impinges upon my consciousness more. There's a story about George Bernard Shaw saying to Henry Ford, "There, Mr. Ford, is the difference between us. You think only of art, and I think only of money."

Cheers,

R.

Point well taken.

Back in the day when I was a young prosperous and bored professional I used to hang out at Ken Hanson's shop. I bought so much stuff I had storeroom privileges and browsed at will behind the counter. One day a hard working world hopping photojournalist watching me load up on Leica lenses said "you must be a lawyer or doctor" I said "how do you know" and he said a professional couldn't afford the things I was buying. To me the lesson was that a professional buys only what he needs and what he can afford.

 

[BishT]

Wow,

Amazing comments. I've added two posters to my ignore list from a single thread. I'm with you Roger.

 

[KM-25]

Oh boy, this is a tad ugly for me, I am signing off.

I just found out to my relief I don't have a separated AC joint from hitting a brick hard mogul shoulder first yesterday, just a bruise. That's what I get for riding without a camera, usually making me take it easy on the slopes....:angel:

 

[steamer]

These days they're calling Terry Richardson a creep.

A bit more on topic, I think if you take a really close look at Mr Tichy, you will find his story a bit implausible, and that he may be nothing more than a brilliant piece of conceptual art.

 

[jan normandale]

Thats interesting....what do you think he might say?

I think hed ask for a whiskey and enquire where the nearest brothel is........"oh and if you have a pair of scissors?"

...answering your own post directed at me a while after your initial post seems a little strange. Why not just write what you just wrote? I guess you really didn't want an answer you wanted to write something derogatory about someone you don't know and who isn't here to defend themselves.

I'll give you one thing I'm sure he'd discuss. A life of oppression in a communist regime where people live in penury and fear while enduring constant scrutiny by police, informers, KGB and Communist Party members.

 

[Damaso]

Not a fan of his work at all. I feel like it's mostly marketing....

 

[wgerrard]

I call him a creep because I find many of his photographs of women -- especially the ones obtained "surreptitiously" to be stalkerish and creepy.

I tend to agree. We need to ignore the photos when we consider the photographer's behavior.

If you are behaving in a way many people would find creepy -- moving stealthily around public places looking at women -- then modifying that behavior by carrying a camera isn't going to alter the creepiness factor.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I must express that attacking "the plumber's wife" is a pretty low blow.
So she's not a professional.
You say you are a professional artist and make your living from it.
Where can I see your work? Not at rogerandfrances.com, that is all free and anyway, it's not art. More like snap-shots.

Where is your professional artwork?

First, note that I referred to Christopher as a far more skilled fine artist than I.

Second, my art is more about writing than about photography, though equally, unless I could illustrate some of my writings (not just on photography -- also cookery, the American Civil War, the Tibetan cause, travel...) I'd not sell as widely. You may choose to regard my photographs as 'snap-shots': I don't really care. Some have been kind enough to refer to some of them as art. So have some readers of some of my books and magazine articles, which are what I get paid for. A good deal of what I produce is, of course, merely illustration.

Third, my frustration with Philly is her assumption that 'afford' (as applied to the choice of camera gear) is irrelevant and somehow reprehensible. If you're rich and can afford whatever you like, that's one thing; if you are poor and are content with what you have, that's another thing; but I do not think that anyone can really deny my original point that artists -- regardless of whether you choose to regard me as an artist or not -- are normally far more constrained by financial considerations than rich amateurs whose income does not derive from their photography. I would cheerfully add that anyone who does earn a living from photography, whether as an artist or from any other form of photography, may also have very different priorities from an amateur.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

Roger,

I have a day job and that is how I pay my bills. I never expected to make a living making art that was meaningful to me.

Under your terms and definition I am not a professional artist because I do not make a living at it, but I have an undergraduate degree in visual arts, a MFA, and another Masters degree in broadcast journalism. Even though with all this education, I did not ever use any of my education mentioned above for gainful employment, and perhaps these things that make my life meaningful and rich are being disreguarded, and is held of little value by you and others.

I am sure people like Philly and me will continue reguardless, and I guess it is hard for some to give value or respect if one does not receive money for hard work. I am no poser and have been in the art world for over three decades; I don't make art for money, never did; but art has enriched my life and I have been able to extend that richness to others through my art.

Most recently I was surveyed by the New York Council on the Arts because they consider me a real artist. In their study over eighty percent of New York artists that were selected to participate did not or could not support themselves making art. Another interesting fact discovered by this study was the surprising commitment of financial resources to support creating art reguardless.

This study was trying to determine the economic impact of the recent downturn on New York artists and surprisingly they found that most artists are optomistic about the future reguardless of economic downturn and loss of income. Most also felt that making art was more important than ever. Its not all about money Roger.

Cal

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Cal,

The problem is that the entire argument has been derailed.

I originally made the simple and incontrovertible statement that an artist -- with no attempt to define artist as either professional or amateur -- uses the cameras s/he is happy with and can afford.

Philly took exception to 'and can afford', for reasons I still do not understand.

Strip out all the nonsense from both sides since then, and see whether you agree with the original simple statement. You're quite right. It's not all about money. But any artist chooses a medium and tools, and it is clearly nonsensical to maintain that the affordability of media and tools is irrelevant in every case.

I never said that anyone HAD to spend large sums of money on creating art, nor that spending large sums of money will create art. That would be nonsense too. But I do suggest (from extensive experience, and knowledge of artists professional and amateur) that some people don't use the equipment they would prefer because they can't afford it.

Whether or not this hinders their attempts to create art is completely irrelevant. They use the equipment and materials that are best for them and that they can afford, because if they couldn't afford them, they wouldn't use them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul T.]

Hmmm.

Yet another thread about a photographer - someone with a unique vision, like it or loathe it - ends up as an argument about gear. Oh, and let's not forget the predictable dismissal that "it's all marketing."

 

[Calzone]

Roger,

A lot has been said; and yes clarity has gotten muddled. I went back and read through the thread again.

I agree with how you summed up affordability, and there is no arguement. I am fortunate that at this point in life I have the equipment I only once dreamed of, but most others remained constrained.

What threw me off was the inference that art was being commodified. Read back through the thread and perhaps you may see where I was thrown off track. In particular what derailed me was when writing about and including earning a living.

The data from the survey supports what you say.

Cal

 

[Jamie123]

Hmmm.

Yet another thread about a photographer - someone with a unique vision, like it or loathe it - ends up as an argument about gear. Oh, and let's not forget the predictable dismissal that "it's all marketing."

Ok, so let's get back to the work of the photographer.

I must admit that I've never been even remotely impressed by Tichy's work. It just doesn't do anything for me. I also fail to see the unique vision in his work (other than the obvious technical aspects). At times it reminds me a tiny bit of Man Ray but not near as good.

I don't agree that it's ALL marketing but it's definitely a part of it. People seem to be fascinated with the quirky camera and the bearded homeless looking guy. But then again, marketing is just a necessary part of the contemporary art market.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hmmm.

Yet another thread about a photographer - someone with a unique vision, like it or loathe it - ends up as an argument about gear. Oh, and let's not forget the predictable dismissal that "it's all marketing."

A lot of contemporary art is pure marketing. That's a simple fact. Most 'high art' today is completely irrelevant to 99% of the people. It doesn't form part of their culture, it doesn't document history or illustrate their religion or celebrate their cultural traditions or entertain them. Its empty. Marketing makes empty art valuable to those who buy art. Like it or not, television popular music, comic books, and other 'lowbrow' arts are the only real art done today because the 'high art' world has divorced itself from the national cultures of the places where it is produced.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think Roger Hicks is more than right... He's -with his arguments- defended a true artist's feeling and way of life: no matter if he/she can't afford the most desired materials or tools, his/her need for expression ends up finding its way out no matter how adverse the situation is... The other part of Roger's post is just as important and true: the artist uses what makes him/her feel comfortable to express, and even if other materials or tools would be rationally preferred for expression, the intense need of expressing finds a way through his/her pleasure, and wins and passes over other desires, placing them below l'ouvre... But not l'ouvre as "my big ouvre", but as "my most basic need"...

Cheers,

Juan