Camera Clubs

Steve; perhaps you could help me with your definition of “fine art”. You defined it earlier as "something made without initial commercial intent" and I’m having difficulty in applying that definition to almost all western art since the renaissance.

Almost every artist I can think of was trying to make money through either patronage or sales; in fact, some of their studios were regular factories with many specialist artists working on a single piece. Even van Gogh, the apocryphal starving artist, was thinking commercially as is clear in the letters to his brother Theo … so the question has to be asked who are these fine artists, who make your fine art?
 
Sparrow said:
Steve; perhaps you could help me with your definition of “fine art”. You defined it earlier as "something made without initial commercial intent" and I’m having difficulty in applying that definition to almost all western art since the renaissance.

Almost every artist I can think of was trying to make money through either patronage or sales; in fact, some of their studios were regular factories with many specialist artists working on a single piece. Even van Gogh, the apocryphal starving artist, was thinking commercially as is clear in the letters to his brother Theo … so the question has to be asked who are these fine artists, who make your fine art?
Click to expand...

The distinction between fine art and commercial art didn't really come about until the late 19th century when advertising became an important industry thanks to the growth of magazines and newspapers. Today commercial art is art commissioned by a client who is using the art for business purposes. So, an artist who illustrates magazine articles is doing commercial art, as is a photographer hired to photograph bowls of cereal to use on product packaging. A painter hired to paint your portrait is considered fine art. That is not the case with photographers who do portraits, strangely enough. A photographer who photographs landscapes doesn't have commercial intent even if he hopes to sell prints, because he wasn't commissioned or hired to do the photo before making it.
 
The one I attended was mostly inhabited by ghastly old men who seemed to enjoy tea more than anything. And most of them weren't even from the area, they all seemed to have English accents, which makes me think they just started the thing to get council funding for them to have ex pat/moved somewhere else(depending on your politics) meetings.
 
Two years ago I joined a local camera club because I mainly learned about photographing through websites and books so I'd like to see what was going on in "the real world".
The most annoying thing about the club are the tecnical discussions about "how did you do it" since I'd rather discuss about "why did you do it". Except that it's still an interesting exerience because I can show my photos and get back some useful, both positive and negative, criticism; furthermore, showing prints (and not files only) improved my printing skills and in general my PP skills. There are not great discussions about digital or analog, the members are quite relaxed about it (even though most of them went to digital) and about styles and genres, everyone is free to do what he prefers: some like to show single images or some like to work on larger project and the quality may vary but the average level is interesting. Every two years the club organize a national b/w competition and every now and then members of other clubs are invited to show their photos.
Ater 2 years of membership I still feel it as a positive experience that helped me to improved my skill together with reading photo books and joining internet forums. The camera club experience is, for me, a part of my neverending learning path but it has to be mixed with other different experiences like forums, lots of books, workshops etc.
Just my 2 cents.
Ciao
 
I had a similar experience to Michael Markey. About a year ago my local camera club put up an exhibit of members' work at the local library, with members on hand to explain how the club worked and sign up new recruits. Since my London suburb is home to many retirees, I thought I might find at least a few people who still used film cameras and a wet darkroom, like me. Not a chance. Everyone in the club had gone digital, I was told. And when I asked what the club did exactly, they went on and on about all the keen competitions they held. What a bore! The odd thing is, the photos in the exhibit were generally quite good. But I decided I'd probably be out of place there, so I never joined.
 
Don't know how I missed this thread!

Yes there are some REALLY nice people and a few very good photographers at camera clubs, and the best photographers ae often the nicest, most generous and most helpful people. Then there is the remaining 90%...

Ignore the arseholes and you can learn a lot from a camera club. But it requires a thick skin and a discerning mentality in most cases, or a monstrous ego.

Cheers,

R.
 
I went through a long camera club experience in the 70s through mid 90s. I must say I learned a lot, up to a point. I also went through the PSA (Photographic Society of America) experience, too. I think I achieved several degrees of awards for photojournalism and for contributing articles to the PSA Journal. It wasn't easy to compete at that level.

That said, the local camera club tended to be pedantic, inflexible, conventional, resistant to change and originality and exhibited an inexorable tendency to age without the benefit of new blood or younger people.

Around here, the local club's death knell sounded with the widespread adoption of digital and the depletion of their ranks from natural causes. There is no camera club now and several attempts to start a new one have failed. I can't imagine that PSA is very healthy either these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom