Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you're in the 99% that doesn't believe you have the talent, you're not really qualified to make any comment on this.
If you're in the 1% that believes he does have the talent, and is wrong, you're still not qualified.
You may underestimate the importance of obsession in earning a living from any art, including photography. Fred's observation about peanut butter is apposite.
Not just photography. My late father-in-law, a brilliant pistol shot, lived on baked beans for three weeks in order to pay for his Colt National Match in 1932 or 1933.
AFFORD matters.
Cheers,
R.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
this thread has gone so far off the OP that I wonder what's up.
Tichy is a man who lived in a communist world, had no money, made homemade cameras and was known in his community for shooting these idiosyncratic machines. His work is less 'revelatory' than nude figurines in the Vatican.
I am continually amazed at people's drive to express themselves and the ways they find to do it. This man's work isn't what I'd want personally but I would have time for him to talk to me about his vision and it's realization. It's a pretty amazing story.
Tichy is a man who lived in a communist world, had no money, made homemade cameras and was known in his community for shooting these idiosyncratic machines. His work is less 'revelatory' than nude figurines in the Vatican.
I am continually amazed at people's drive to express themselves and the ways they find to do it. This man's work isn't what I'd want personally but I would have time for him to talk to me about his vision and it's realization. It's a pretty amazing story.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Paint with a broad brush, much?
Philly
-
I have no idea where you are coming from with this and believe you've got me completely wrong.
I am poor but have plenty of talent, enough to express myself perfectly well with equipment for which you hold disdain.
I don't make art to earn a living. I make art because I must.
I would only obsess over the finished print and not whether it was made with a chrome or black paint camera, nor how many pixels it had nor how much (or little) it cost.
If you want a status symbol, or something pretty for the shelf, yes.
To make art, NO.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
I think hed ask for a whiskey and enquire where the nearest brothel is........"oh and if you have a pair of scissors?"
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
I do!
But don't get me wrong - if those photographers are indeed creepy, then I appreciate creepiness. Hell - I may even be one myself.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, that's it really.
What puts food on your table?
Because I'll bet it's not art. If it is, I apologize. Perhaps you would be kind enough to come out from behind your web nickname and tell us where we can appreciate the fruits of your genius.
I've just been talking on the phone (for a couple of hours) to an old friend who is a very fine painter.
He was as amused as I am by your idea that art doesn't cost money. You've admitted that you don't understand obsession.That's pretty close to admitting that you don't understand how to create art. Either that or you're lying: "I make art because I must." If that's not obsession, what is?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Thanks Roger. I was just about to say to him that if you're REALLY poor as you claim then you DO need to worry about making a living and why not make it from art. In the last hundred years we've gotten this idiotic notion in our heads that artists can and should live on air and that they have no right to earn a living from their work. F--k that. I can assure you that EVERYONE else involved in the art world DOES make money or they wouldn't be running their gallery or museum or publisher or magazine or whatever. Without the artist there IS NO art world. Its about damned time we demanded our pay. Art is a legitimate profession or trade whose practitioners deserve to earn a decent living as much as do plumbers or factory workers or engineers. Any artist who claims he doesn't worry about making a living is either lying, a trustfunder, or a dabbler with no commitment because his REAL profession is something else.
KM-25
Well-known
Honestly, not all of us who make art for a living are starving and to be apologized for. Business is up for me so far this year, well enough to where I just booked a flight to Paris to spend three weeks making art on Kodachrome, 100 rolls ought to do nicely.
And by the way, the tool matters when you need *that* particular tool, but not to have a unique vision or take on the world, you just need an eye for that and that does not even have to always result in a photograph. A friend and I just got done doing a test in which we shot 20x24 inch litho film in a sharp as heck pinhole that will take 24x48. We did a contact print and it came out splendid.
I don't always need lots of tools but I have them because I live photography everyday.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
We are of one mind on this. You and I don't always agree, but that's partly personal opinion and partly personal accident. I am probably richer than you as a result of a combination of luck and judgement (and judgement is not worth much without luck), together with being older and having no children, but I am far from a rich man.
I get really pissed off with those who deny the importance of money in creating and selling art. Sure, it's not lucrative for the vast majority of artists, and I have a problem with the claim that an artist 'deserves' payment unless s/he is as competent as someone who drives a fork lift truck (which I've done for money). But those of us who do earn a living from our abilities with camera, airbrush or word processor are entitled to be disenchanted with those who tell us that money doesn't matter.
You presumably use your real name (I mean, it might be a pseudonym you use for art too) and so do I. When 'Philly' presents proof that s/he actually earns a living from his/her talent, I'll take his/her arguments about the low costs of art more seriously.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, I didn't mean to 'apologize' for those of us who use what creative talents we have in order to put food on the table, and I fully agree that we're not all starving. All I meant was that art costs money, and that non-artists don't always understand why. Why, for example, do you have to use real ultramarine when there are plenty of other blues available? Because you do... Likewise, to pretend that you can get by with a Konica IIIA is disingenuous at best, if your vision demands a Leica with a Thambar. Or indeed a 24x48 pinhole. Yes, the IIIA may be fine for a hobby, but may equally be of rather less use if you're trying to earn a living.
Cheers,
R.
Philly
-
I never professed to being a professional artist.
I am a housewife and mother of two.
My husband, a plumber, puts food on the table.
Neither did I profess to being a genius.
I have "talent enough to express myself".
How lucky you are.
I fully understand obsession, in obtaining the finished product.
Making art IS NOT EXPENSIVE. It is quite possible with a Zenith, a Zorki or a Holga. If you can't believe this, then go back to the Leica forum or the making $$$ forum.
The price of the material does not fall under the remit of this forum:
"Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography."
KM-25
Well-known
OK, I had to go back and read others rants of yours because after reading the last one, I was wondering just what the heck you are talking about.
But the statement above makes no sense at all. Case in point, what does price have to do with equipment you are happy with? I know a local editorial and fine art portrait shooter who just blows most out of the water and he has used and continues to use a Rollie TLR and nothing else, those are not that expensive. Talk about a happy guy.
I make a good living in doing my art, do you know what I buy with that money? I buy back my time so I can do more art. That means I have to pass on money sometimes because despite all this new technology, I still only have 24 hours in one day.
So do you, so spend it wisely
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ask someone who makes their living at it, not a plumber's wife.That's not anti-feminist: just anti-someone-who-doesn't-have-to-earn-a-living-and-pretends-to-know-what-she-is-talking-about. My wife Frances is a very good photographer, and contributes to our income via her photographic knowledge and skill, and she likes to use professional equipment: Zeiss, Alpa, Linhof, Leica.
Sorry, Philly, making 'art' that no-one buys is dead easy. Making art that people are willing to pay money for is likely to instill a different viewpoint. And it's quite demanding, and can't always be done with a Zenith, Zorkii or Holga. Ask Chris, who is a better Fine Art photographer than I.
If you don't believe that artists use the equipment that (a) suits their vision best and (b) they can afford, the only art you produce is likely to be the sort that doesn't have to sell.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I couldn't agree more. To spend money on kit you don't need/want is a complete waste of money. Guess where our money goes? Last year, for example, on a 7700 km, 6-week tour of central and southern Europe. Not counting Arles, among other trips.
Equally, it is foolish in the extreme to struggle with refractory kit when the right camera makes life easier. I've no doubt there are plenty here who regard a Rollei TLR as expensive, and struggle with something less. Are you saying they should stick with a Seagull or Lyubitel?
If you've got the kit you like, and it does what you want, you'd be crazy to waste money on replacing it. But if something comes along that does the job better, it makes sense to pass on more travel in order to afford the new kit.
'Can afford' is a very relative term. It includes how much money you have; how much time you have; and how much you can earn from the equipment you own. How is this a rant?
Cheers,
R.
Philly
-
Ah, you've said the magic "L" word.
In the beginning there was the word, And the lord saieth "There shall be no art without the "L" word".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah: so if you use Leicas, it can't be Art. The magic word, actually, was Thambar. What lenses do you know that can duplicate its effect?
How many other words do you want to exclude? Linhof? Gandolfi? Alpa? Ilford? Kodak?
Cheers,
R.
KM-25
Well-known
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 failing is 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 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.
Last edited:
Drewus
Established
Personally I think the vision now is more focused towards buying the most expensive equipment over taking good photos. Especially in the age of digital.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.