"I could have done that"

[Roger Hicks]

How about "I could do that, but I couldn't sell it."

Selling your work/yourself often requires even more determination and application that creating it. The creation process is what you want to do. The selling process... Well, if you'd wanted to do that, you could have been a travelling salesman.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gb hill]

How about "I could do that, but I couldn't sell it."

Selling your work/yourself often requires even more determination and application that creating it. The creation process is what you want to do. The selling process... Well, if you'd wanted to do that, you could have been a travelling salesman.

Cheers,

R.

You write for Shutterbug. I can't believe your not pushing the mags Shutterbug Storefront where you sell your photo's through them. You missed an excellent opportunity Roger.

 

[jsrockit]

Szarkowski elaborated a little bit on that response on the last page of his book, Looking at Photographs. He said (I'm paraphrasing), "You probably could have done that, but only with a couple of important conditions. First, that you could recognize 'That', since there would have been nothing to guide you or point it out. And second, that you would have considered 'That' worth doing".

Yes, that is the key. Can you really "see" for yourself or can you only see after the fact once someone else points it out?

 

[muser53]

"I could have done that.",except you haven't. Whether you appreciate a particular work or not is somewhat immaterial. What often gets overlooked is the dedication (ie hard work) and privation that often goes into making art your career. To pursue your passion in life is an act of courage. I have nothing but admiration for those who choose this path.

Paul

Oh yes, I'll take this opportunity to say to our own Chris Crawford I admire both your work and dedication to both the art and craft of photography.

 

[wafflecakee]

every time I hear that being said my response is always the same.
"i could do that."
"but you didn't."

 

[robert blu]

Bruno Munari, italian artist and designer said that when someone says "I could have done that" in the best of cases he mean "I could copy that".
robert

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I have trouble understanding why some get so bent out of shape when viewing famous or popular photos made by others. The Gursky thread comes to mind (I don't want to start a war over artists). I just mean it is easy to say. "I could do that" - but have you actually tried? The HCB image of the man jumping the puddle also comes to mind. We could make a long list. The point is
I am not sure what it is about photographers that makes us reluctant to celebrate the quality work of others.

I am curious to know if anyone else has thought "they could do that" when looking at an image only to find it more challenging than they anticipated?

I believe it's really just insecurity. Photographers work with the knowledge that we're really just Pushing A Button.

I'm quite certain each of the various types of photography are much more difficult than 'outsiders' know. I've tried fashion photography for a bit, and know that a lot of people think it's merely about getting a beautiful girl and pushing the button. With 'street,' same thing. So many people try, and wind up making pictures that aren't compelling to anyone but the original photographer. Landscapes.... Nudes.... Portraiture....

The other issue is that not enough people have a level of taste to allow them to discern between what is truly 'high level' versus imitative, substandard drivel. Someone will post an image claiming it to be "like what Famous Photographer X" does, and it very simply is not. God is in the details.

 

[monochrome_joy]

I did do that

I did do that

Almost two years ago I visited a friend of mine in Vietnam. Kevin is a professional photographer and co-founder of Luceo Images, a photo collective/agency.

It was this trip the helped me realize that in order to make better photos, I needed to spend more time making photos. Which led to a long trip down personal discovery lane.

Anyway, one of the great takeaways from the trip was realizing that the wonderful photos he was producing were achievable by even somebody like me.

Example:
Kevin's photo: http://kgerman.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Ben-Tre-Vietnam/G0000jClLnWkiSWw/I0000wHsqGu6bRqs

My photo: http://jjohnson.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Vietnam/G00002OQNf8B0ERw/I0000FdaYgkfZNro

While they're slightly different, I consider his the better photo for various cultural and socio-economic reasons that I was too overwhelmed to realize at the time.

My point here is that most celebrated photographers have not only excellent control an awareness of their gear, but more importantly an artistic vision that they actively nurture and constantly work towards. Work being the operative word. Also, I don't mean "artistic vision" in some touchy feely artsy way, I mean a a well thought out list of achievable goals to produce a body of work that makes sense.

 

[bobbyrab]

I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of photographers, and I include myself in this, think they're quite a bit better than they actually are. This is not necessarily a bad thing, good for the morale and the aspiration, but this is probably as much to do with the "I could have done that" thoughts as anything else. You can test this by revisiting the first photos of your own that you thought had merit, do you still feel the same about them now?

 

[sevo]

I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of photographers, and I include myself in this, think they're quite a bit better than they actually are.

I absolutely agree, at least when it concerns the ability to accurately duplicate another work. In reproducing arts like music or theatre, accurately repeating a work is a very complex process that requires formalisation of many parameters and repeated training - it is very naive to believe that you can somehow immediately achieve the same in photography even though it is not taught or trained.

 

[Tompas]

I strongly suspect that there's a bit of the artist's soul evident in every work of art. I may not be able to see it (as in that Gursky) but I usually can still somehow sense that there is something, somebody. If there really is no soul in it, then it's simply not art [to me. Yes, I know that this is a highly subjective and unsharp definition of art. I've had others; currently this one seems to work best.]

If that's true, nobody 'could also have done that' work of art -- at least not as long as you believe every soul is unique. Or you've just found your soulmate.