What makes a photographer serious about photography?

What makes a photographer serious about photography?
Click to expand...
When you get to the point that you just can't help yourself, you are serious about photography.

When you have sweated clear through your Domke camera strap more than once is also a good indicator, as is when your wife finally gives up and just rolls her eyes and shakes her head over it all.
 
Ahh, that whole mention of being a "Professional" thingy. If you are a "Professional" and:

A. You can not afford at least some top of the line gear.

B. It is taking the fun out of photography for you.

Then you are doing it wrong....like seriously.

And speaking of being "serious" in photography, what ever does it for you, really.
 
That Rembrandt, he didn't use the best brushes. Dirty no-good painter, he was obviously no serious painter.

That Pietro Di Donato, he wrote on borrowed typewriters and worked as a bricklayer. Clearly not a serious writer.

Those things being discussed with much head-nodding and harrumphs from the Brahmins may make one well-heeled, and they may certainly indicate commercial success, public recognition, and even photographic prowess. I do not think they have anything at all to do with 'seriousness'.

What is a photographer? A person who takes photographs.
What is a 'serious' photographer? It would appear to be someone who resembles the fellow one sees in the mirror in the morning. That's the impression that I get, anyway.

I guess I am an unserious photographer. Oh dear me. Whatever shall I do.
 
Being "serious about photography" is not about money.

Van Gogh was serious about painting; he lived in such dire economic straits that at times he had to choose between buying paints and food. He chose paints and was often malnourished as a result. In his lifetime of 37 years, he created around 2000 paintings. He sold one - to is brother Theo.

Being serious about photography, painting, writing or any other artistic endeavor is about passion, not money.
 
noisycheese said:
Being serious about photography, painting, writing or any other artistic endeavor is about passion, not money.
Click to expand...

Why is passion necessary for artwork to be taken seriously?

I don't ask if the chef has real passion for cooking or if he is just a guy who likes to cook when I eat a tasty burger.

I didn't ask the guy who mowed my lawn if he had a passion for it. I only cared about the mowing. (Oh, by the way, that lawnmowing guy is me)

But I'm supposed to look at a photograph in a gallery, and if the photographer did not have a passion for his work, I'm not supposed to consider his photograph worthy.

Maybe he or she just likes to take photographs and he or she is good at it. At least in my case, the photograph is what I care about, not the torment level of the soul that produced it.
 
bmattock said:
Why is passion necessary for artwork to be taken seriously?

I don't ask if the chef has real passion for cooking or if he is just a guy who likes to cook when I eat a tasty burger.

I didn't ask the guy who mowed my lawn if he had a passion for it. I only cared about the mowing. (Oh, by the way, that lawnmowing guy is me)

But I'm supposed to look at a photograph in a gallery, and if the photographer did not have a passion for his work, I'm not supposed to consider his photograph worthy.

Maybe he or she just likes to take photographs and he or she is good at it. At least in my case, the photograph is what I care about, not the torment level of the soul that produced it.
Click to expand...

That is a question of whether the art is a means or an end. Some people make great photographs, but only as a means to make money. It could be argued they're serious about money, less so about photography. Other people make photographs, and the photographs are the most important thing to them - they may still sell them, but the money is a secondary consideration. In either case, the photographs may be fine, but the intent is different.
 
noisycheese said:
When you have sweated clear through your Domke camera strap more than once is also a good indicator, as is when your wife finally gives up and just rolls her eyes and shakes her head over it all.
Click to expand...

I have actually worn through several pairs of jeans from daily carrying of a large DSLR on a Black Rapid sling-strap. I also wore through the metal carabiner that attaches the camera to the strap, and I carefully choose clothing without metal that could damage a camera...

Unfortunately, "obsessive-compulsive" is not the same thing as "serious"...

As an aside, it was struggling with the weight of this setup for several years that eventually led to moving to the GR and M7 for daily photography.
 
noisycheese said:
Being "serious about photography" is not about money.

Van Gogh was serious about painting; he lived in such dire economic straits that at times he had to choose between buying paints and food. He chose paints and was often malnourished as a result. In his lifetime of 37 years, he created around 2000 paintings. He sold one - to is brother Theo.

Being serious about photography, painting, writing or any other artistic endeavor is about passion, not money.
Click to expand...

Hi,

But isn't starving in cold attics part of the specification for a serious artist? Although I think that's a cultural thing based on 19th century opera plots; Puccini etc...

Regards, David
 
tunalegs said:
That is a question of whether the art is a means or an end. Some people make great photographs, but only as a means to make money. It could be argued they're serious about money, less so about photography. Other people make photographs, and the photographs are the most important thing to them - they may still sell them, but the money is a secondary consideration. In either case, the photographs may be fine, but the intent is different.
Click to expand...

I guess the question I have still remains. Why does it matter?
 
It has been truly interesting to read the comments thus far. One question that has been briefly skimmed but mostly missing from the discussion is, does your photography have to be exceptional to be considered a serious photographer? I don't believe so. While it is likely that most very successful and collected photographers are "serious" (you would need to be as the line of work is not easy or fast) the inverse is not true. Success is not a prerequisite for passion. Though I consider my own work largely mediocre, I consider myself a serious photographer due to the following criteria:

*Disciplined practice. A "serious" photographer doesn't rely on happy accidents. He or she elevates quality of output through study of light and composition, and applies the knowledge with control on a regular basis.

*Time spent. "Serious" photographers spend a large percentage of discretionary time working on the craft. Notice I said "large percentage of discretionary time" and did not mention an absolute number. A person working two jobs with only an hour of free time that spends the entire hour of time on photography may be more driven and passionate than a part-time professional photographer who can't wait to get home and dump the camera in the closet the second he or she arrives at work.

*Passion. A "serious" photographer sees the importance of the photographic medium as an art form, and/or method of documentation extending beyond his or her own bubble of work. The photographic work of others is sought out and considered for artistic and/or documentary merit. Passionate photographers are always looking for a great image, even when without a camera.

*Equipment agnostic. We're talking about photographers, not camera collectors, right? A "serious" photographer realizes that while specific equipment may make the task at hand easier, in the end it's the creativity and ingenuity of the photographer that makes the image.​
 
photomoof said:
By that measure I am not even close to serious.
Click to expand...

May I ask why not? I don't mean a person must be so disciplined that there is no room for fun or experimentation.

photomoof said:
On a more serious note, for those who want to show, an artist needs finished work, or the ability to convince anyone investing in their work (gallery owner) that they can produce product.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take. There needs to be finished "product" which has been created for the purpose of consumption by others. Where does that put photographers such as Vivian Maier? Was she not serious? She certainly was prolific. Defining "serious" is a practically impossible task.
 
Do you actually get out there and shoot, and learn from what you shoot instead of talking endlessly about shooting? Then you are serious about photography.
 
photomoof said:
I have no idea how Vivian Maier felt about photography, or if she had any interest in showing or being "successful."

She appeared to be very prolific, however there is very limited provenance on most of the images credited to her.

"Serious" is kind a useless concept in this context, VM might have been "serious" about wanting to show her work, but she clearly did not do so.

Of course I might say to a friend -- "if you are "serious" about showing your work you have to call some dealers." To which he might reply "dealers call me all the time, I make enough money from teaching."
Click to expand...

I think we can safely say Vivian wasn't serious - after all, she never posted her photos on this forum to prove to us how serious she was.
 
giganova said:
That's easy:

  1. You have a Leica. The more collectable, the more serious you are as a photographer.
  2. You take photos of your Leica all the time, preferably with a vintage watch, a fountain pen, and a cup of espresso.
  3. You rub into everyone's face that the Leica has the softest shutter release ("music to my ears!") and that your Noctilux gives the best bokeh.
  4. You sigh and walk away if someone asks what bokeh is.
  5. You tell everyone that you see in black & white.
  6. You lie to everyone that you have a wet dark room and only enlarge on fiber paper.
  7. You consider buying a salt mine to store your photos for eternity.
  8. You cry when you see someone take an iPhone selfie.
  9. You wear a "Shoot film not bullets" button.
  10. You sport a tan photographer's vest and have dark rimmed glasses.
  11. You tell party guests anecdotes about your best friend Henri Cartier-Bresson and how you inspired him "to get our more and shoot".
  12. You tell people that you only flip burgers as research for your next photo project.
  13. When asked "What's your best photo?" you tell a story how your photo has saved the life of a poor Afghan girl.
  14. You constantly complain about your (imaginary) editor.
  15. You scream at people "Act naturally!"
Click to expand...

LOL! Add: You tell stories about how your Leica saved your life when it stopped a bullet in "the war".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

caila77
letters to a young photographer - the meaning of photography
Replies
4
Views
607
Godfrey
Godfrey
boojum
Who Is Michael Jang?
Replies
2
Views
492
boojum
boojum
peterm1
Who is your favorite photographer in history - who has influenced you the most?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
mconnealy
mconnealy
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
boojum
boojum
Jake Mongey
A Few Frames From a Short Film Shot Back In The Summer
Replies
0
Views
381
Jake Mongey
Jake Mongey
Back
Top Bottom