Crowdfunding takes off

GSNfan said:
There is nothing wrong with crowdfunding a photographer to go and photograph poor and starving people, because paying directly to those poor and starving people is so without any backstage passes and free time with artists...

Lets get real, spend your money on a worthy cause that helps someone who actually needs the money, not some photographer down on his luck who's unwilling to shoot close to home and have a day job.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I am not sure the world really works like this. If everything boiled down to 'who really needed what' we would be living in a communist state and the average man or woman would still be taken for a ride by those yanking the strings.

So fundamental to crowd funding is that thing called choice. But you have to choose to let other people choose also.

As for what is worthy, individual personal development is something all societies take an interest in otherwise we would not pay taxes for national education programs. If one is in the advantageous position of being able to help someone in their creative (and very possibly professional) development and get something you'll appreciate in return, what is wrong with this.

Crowd funding is not an entirely charitable enterprise but one in which you might well get something (like a print from a photographer) at below market rate. It is not to be mistaken for an alternative to giving money to 'the people who really need it' and I think using this line of attack is entirely misguided. A lot of professionals use it as traditional funding sources dry up. Once again, you can choose to fund where you feel you are getting something worthwhile in return. If that is 'time with the artist' how would this be any different to paying $100 for a photography seminar with Mr Famous Photographer?

I think there are lots of sour grapes at play here. Bottom line is anyone can choose to take part or not to take part, either as a donor or recipient. If you don't like it, don't take part!
 
GSNfan said:
There is nothing wrong with crowdfunding a photographer to go and photograph poor and starving people, because paying directly to those poor and starving people is so without any backstage passes and free time with artists...

Lets get real, spend your money on a worthy cause that helps someone who actually need the money, not some photographer down on his luck who's unwilling to shoot close to home and have a day job.
Click to expand...


The fact that crowdfunding in its current state looks more like an artist's paypal store (a smart business model - based on the sale of items that could potentially increase in value based on success of future projects) is something that hasn't been mentioned, and surveying the spread of "donors" shows that many are using it in such a way. If you look at it as a way of connecting artists to their supporters/clients without a gallery between them, while also indicating how funds raised will be spent - it's really just business with a personal component. That's my opinion on it (in the context of Eskenazi's or Lohuizen's work).

That said. Your points start to gel when you look at something like Magnum's Emergency Fund, which has used crowdfunding. It's very name indicates something other than personal business, and the potential for raging arguments over the necessity of photography in our world is real, and WILL come to a head. At which point, jump right in and say that you should feed starving people instead. Somebody will tell you to go read Moyo, and then you're part of a real debate that stretches far beyond photography.

By the way, ever heard of UNICEF donor trips? charter flights, nice hotels, model clinics. Arguably, there is nothing wrong with that sort of "backstage pass", but it should be pointed out that this sort of thing exists across all sectors.
 
Turtle said:
Hmm, I am not sure the world really works like this. If everything boiled down to 'who really needed what' we would be living in a communist state and the average man or woman would still be taken for a ride by those yanking the strings.

So fundamental to crowd funding is that thing called choice. But you have to choose to let other people choose also.

As for what is worthy, individual personal development is something all societies take an interest in otherwise we would not pay taxes for national education programs. If one is in the advantageous position of being able to help someone in their creative (and very possibly professional) development and get something you'll appreciate in return, what is wrong with this.

Crowd funding is not an entirely charitable enterprise but one in which you might well get something (like a print from a photographer) at below market rate. It is not to be mistaken for an alternative to giving money to 'the people who really need it' and I think using this line of attack is entirely misguided. A lot of professionals use it as traditional funding sources dry up. Once again, you can choose to fund where you feel you are getting something worthwhile in return. If that is 'time with the artist' how would this be any different to paying $100 for a photography seminar with Mr Famous Photographer?

I think there are lots of sour grapes at play here. Bottom line is anyone can choose to take part or not to take part, either as a donor or recipient. If you don't like it, don't take part!
Click to expand...

What you're trying to say, rather verbosely is that we must take part in crowd funding of photography projects because it helps improve mankind. If that's what you think, fair enough, that's not what I think.
 
GSNfan said:
What you're trying to say, rather verbosely is that we must take part in crowd funding of photography projects because it helps improve mankind. If that's what you think, fair enough, that's not what I think.
Click to expand...

No, that is absolutely not what he said, quite on the contrary. But you seem to be showing a rather common albeit poor argumentation technique of twisting people's words and fishing out parts that are lost without whole context.
No, you don't have to participate. Yes, crowdfunding carries benefits for photographer, the subject and the donor. Whether they get "backstage passes" or not.
Talking about helping impoverished (first of all that's not all that's being covered) communities, how are we to find out about them if it they are not brought to our attention?
There are many ways to keep good photography afloat. In case of photojournalism the direct and traditional way would be to purchase the media which represents the topics and the photogs. Unfortunately it is a fact that the relationship between photogs and media is changing, and not for the better. So there is another way necessary to preserve the documented storys. Crowdfunding presents a perfect opportunity, even better, it allows you to be selective what you want to see and where you want to participate.
 
It appears that GSNfan does not agree with personal choice, in which case this is not about what others might or might not decide to partake in, but what GSNfan approves of (or does not). Judging by the way my words have been entirely misquoted/twisted, I can only conclude a similar lack of objectivity in the thought processes behind his objections to crowd funding.

Personally, I think crowd funding is a wonderful platform that costs nobody anything they don't wish to part with! I have a number of ideas I am likely to pitch in the future but being in the UK makes it a bit harder because kickstarter is US only it seems. Naturally, the rewards I would offer would be pitched desirably, otherwise I would have no hope of getting funding. Yes, I am a photographer (amongst other things) but no I would not be expecting funding out of the goodness of people's hearts. Getting some of my prints at below gallery rates will be a good start.

And actually, I will be supporting other people's programs because a small contribution on my part all helps them.... and when I am ready it would be nice to benefit from other's generosity, similarly. Its about a community, mutual support and mutual benefit. its cooperative therefore... something we human beings are supposed to be good at.

PS, although I am out of date, when I completed my university studies, there was not a single case of proven behavioural altruism (exhibited widely and over successive generations) in existence in the animal kingdom. Crowd funding is no different!
 
Turtle said:
........................... but being in the UK makes it a bit harder because kickstarter is US only it seems. ......................
Click to expand...

Marty / Freakscene here at RFF from Australia made the final contribution that put Sarah Hoskins "Homeplace" project over the threshold so she could collect on all the pledges. I see kickstarter being indicative of the global environment in which we now live.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Marty / Freakscene here at RFF from Australia made the final contribution that put Sarah Hoskins "Homeplace" project over the threshold so she could collect on all the pledges. I see kickstarter being indicative of the global environment in which we now live.
Click to expand...

Also to pick up on the point of location, and "Crowd Funding" if it has to have a name, there has been nothing except in some cases the lack of skills of the person trying to get funding (i.e. not being able build their own website/blog) to do this in the past.

From my experience of well, pushing 🙂 my book which I now have the go ahead for from the publishers, RFF was one of my key marketing areas, being organised and methodical can help regardless of technology.

Admittedly this is different from funding a project (as I've done that already, I'm fortunate to have had jobs where I have earnt reasonably -- not brilliantly -- but reasonably well to keep me on track with projects) but I think this is good, nobody is strong arming anybody into having to support anybody.

Anyway I think this is good, as there is probably a lot of very good photograpjy and subject matter of all kinds that doesn't get to happen due to a person's lack of funding to be able to make ends meet.

I've been pretty hand to mouth having spent was seems like endless trips backwards and forwards between home and project and as I say, I don't earn amazingly, but it's not dire; and it's sad to think that some great work or potential ideas don't come forward due to the photographer in question scraping by on £13,000 a year.

Anyway spend your money on what you see fit, that's up to you, none of my business 🙂

Vicky
 
GSNfan said:
There is nothing wrong with crowdfunding a photographer to go and photograph poor and starving people, because paying directly to those poor and starving people is so without any backstage passes and free time with artists...

Lets get real, spend your money on a worthy cause that helps someone who actually need the money, not some photographer down on his luck who's unwilling to shoot close to home and have a day job.
Click to expand...

As a funder of some projects, I can only say that you are F.O.S.
F = full
O = of
S = slang for fecal matter

Interestingly, the project where I had recent involvement, both as a direct contributor and fundraiser, Sarah Hopkins' - Homeplace had the largest contributing demographic being the residents of the area being documented. Did they need access to a "famous photographer?" No, they dealt with her constantly for an 11 year period. Were they looking for discounts for prints? No, she has been freely giving them prints all along.

The phrase "midget walking on stilts" comes to mind.
 
Here is what I think will happen. Eventually crowdfunding whether for artistic, non-profit purproses or with expectation of ROI will be regulated. Someone will get ripped off and cry foul. This is why hedge funds are not allowed to even have web sites. If you're soliciting investments, in US, you're going to get regulated. Even if a single individual is limited to $300, $500 or something like that.
 
Whats intresting

Whats intresting

Whats interesting is the fact that the internet has made possible the spread of ideas that we can choose to do with as we please . To fund or not,as a lark or for our own satisfaction.Be it Yeah or Nay the dynamic is there,the delivery is immediate.The question like in politics is lade out to sway the masses. Our task is to discern the answer for ourselves.
This would seem to be grant writing for the masses.Basic simple funding in small amounts the people could afford .
So maybe I'm simple minded ,but I like the approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom