What makes a photographer serious about photography?

[Roger Hicks]

I agree with photomoof in that "seriousness" is not necessarily relevant to art. There are artists/photographers that build careers out of being flippant, IMO some of the best artists I know often treat their work as a sort of trivial game, sometimes they were making art because it wasn't a serious thing to do. Not that being serious is also not often desirable, because it is often goes hand in hand with discipline, criticality, determination, professionalism and so on, but seriousness can just as easily be the enemy of creativity as well - to care too much, to be too serious, is often crippling.

An article in parallel:
http://momus.ca/how-to-be-an-unprofessional-artist/

I often wish I cared less and were less serious, I would probably get more and better work done.

All entirely fair, but it still comes back to what I've said about doing it, not bloviating about it. I don't regard http://rogerandfrances.eu/galleries/secret-life-of-chairs as "serious" in the context of Great Meaningful Art, but at least I've got off my arse; made a series of pictures; and put them in front of people, instead of saying I Am Serious About Photography And Can Give Meaningful Advice To Others Even Though I Have Never Shown Any Evidence Of Even Taking Pictures.

This is pretty much what I meant by "serious" vs. "someone who calls himself serious but is apparently unclear on the concept".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michael Markey]

Plenty of food for thought in this thread and worth reading if only for the term "bloviating".
I wasn`t familiar with the word but then again I`ve never been to Ohio.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes I was trying to work it in with my favorite word "festooned."

Perhaps --- "this thread is festooned with bloviators." ??

Where do the theorists fit in, like Duchamp?

Now you're just taking the piss.

But then, as Picasso allegedly said, "I often fake Picassos".

Cheers,

R. (Mutt)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes I was trying to work it in with my favorite word "festooned." . . .

Do not neglect the wondrous word "plinth". Or indeed "coruscating"". For that matter "cephalopod" has its charms.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

Then why don't all photographers use Box Brownies? There must surely be some reason other than elitism, snobbism, etc.

Cheers,

R.

Admittedly i was being cheeky this particular comment. I do believe there is a grain of truth in the statement though. At least my experience has taught me such.

I do agree that when most folks who dedicated a lot of time and energy toward producing photographs get together, they arent much interested in gear conversations

 

[David Hughes]

Now you're just taking the piss.

But then, as Picasso allegedly said, "I often fake Picassos".

Cheers,

R. (Mutt)

Hi,

Yes, I remember the uproar when all the duplicates were found and often wondered what happened to them...

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Admittedly i was being cheeky this particular comment. I do believe there is a grain of truth in the statement though. At least my experience has taught me such.

I do agree that when most folks who dedicated a lot of time and energy toward producing photographs get together, they arent much interested in gear conversations

There is, no doubt. But there's a large grain of nonsense in it too. That's what makes it so dangerous: people who recognize one or the other, but not both.

Maybe recognizing both is one of the criteria of "serious".

Cheers,

R.

 

[nongfuspring]

All entirely fair, but it still comes back to what I've said about doing it, not bloviating about it. I don't regard http://rogerandfrances.eu/galleries/secret-life-of-chairs as "serious" in the context of Great Meaningful Art, but at least I've got off my arse; made a series of pictures; and put them in front of people, instead of saying I Am Serious About Photography And Can Give Meaningful Advice To Others Even Though I Have Never Shown Any Evidence Of Even Taking Pictures.

This is pretty much what I meant by "serious" vs. "someone who calls himself serious but is apparently unclear on the concept".

Cheers,

R.

If you don't need to be serious to do it, and you don't need to do it to give good advice on it, then the bigger problem is that seriousness as a podium for superior advice is a misnomer.

My personal pet peeve with photo forums is not so much people faking expertise for attention so much as that photographers only ever seem interested in paying attention to other photographers - and generally only the "classics" at that. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but people could get just as good if not better advice from a graphic designer, painter, chemist, or (horror of horrors) a theorist.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you don't need to be serious to do it, and you don't need to do it to give good advice on it, then the bigger problem is that seriousness as a podium for superior advice is a misnomer.

My personal pet peeve with photo forums is not so much people faking expertise for attention so much as that photographers only ever seem interested in paying attention to other photographers - and generally only the "classics" at that. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but people could get just as good if not better advice from a graphic designer, painter, chemist, or (horror of horrors) a theorist.

All sort of true. But "getting better" seldom involves taking advice from people who have no idea whatsoever of what they are talking about; or at least, who give no evidence that they have any idea of what they are talking about, and obsess about the prices (and marques) of cameras.

As for "just as good if not better advice from a graphic designer, painter, chemist, or (horror of horrors) a theorist" isn't this a bit apples and oranges? Different kinds of advice, after all.

In my weekly "Final Analysis" column I try to keep "classics" to a minimum, for precisely the reasons you imply.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nongfuspring]

As for "just as good if not better advice from a graphic designer, painter, chemist, or (horror of horrors) a theorist" isn't this a bit apples and oranges? Different kinds of advice, after all.

In my weekly "Final Analysis" column I try to keep "classics" to a minimum, for precisely the reasons you imply.

Yes, apples and oranges, but I generally think the best insights are cross disciplinary. Looking generally over the history of photography (or culture in general) progress is almost exclusively made through the synthesis of different areas of human knowledge. If we're talking about very medium specific advice like how to expose a slide properly, then you're right, a graphic designer won't be of much use and a physicist will probably give too a tedious an explanation. Still, I think within photography these pieces of technical information are few and far between and generally arbitrary to the ideas that are (ideally) supposed to be what drive someone to make something in the first place.

 

[Daryl J.]

A distinct absence of any form of levity while taking a photo?
The size of the DSLR?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, apples and oranges, but I generally think the best insights are cross disciplinary. Looking generally over the history of photography (or culture in general) progress is almost exclusively made through the synthesis of different areas of human knowledge. If we're talking about very medium specific advice like how to expose a slide properly, then you're right, a graphic designer won't be of much use and a physicist will probably give too a tedious an explanation. Still, I think within photography these pieces of technical information are few and far between and generally arbitrary to the ideas that are (ideally) supposed to be what drive someone to make something in the first place.

Broad agreement. Any arguments would be trivial and hardly worth pursuing. They would be fit for the internet, as one might say.

Cheers,

R

 

[Lss]

1. You sport a tan photographer's vest and have dark rimmed glasses.

A photographer's-vest tan would be pretty serious.

 

[unixrevolution]

Or possibly self-delusion. "Serious" requires a degree of commitment that some apparently fail to understand.

Cheers,

R.

I can definitely agree with that, and I can agree also that to be "serious" you have to have some level of commitment about taking photos and sharing them.

I have seen people be dead-set-serious about photography with iPhones and holgas. And people who are dead-set-serious about photography with an 8x10.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I can definitely agree with that, and I can agree also that to be "serious" you have to have some level of commitment about taking photos and sharing them.

I have seen people be dead-set-serious about photography with iPhones and holgas. And people who are dead-set-serious about photography with an 8x10.

Exactly. Kit really need not affect matters. Try this one for size:

I'm REALLY SERIOUS about photography. I take pictures of whatever grabs my attention, using a mid-range DSLR. Anything cheaper wouldn't be serious; anything more expensive is just for poseurs. No-one uses film any more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Highway 61]

A serious photographer takes his camera to bed.

Erik.

Exactly. At some point I was knowing a friend who used to take his iPad to bed while being married with someone looking like an Italian movie actress. There was something serious there for sure.

I'm REALLY SERIOUS about photography. I take pictures of whatever grabs my attention, using a mid-range DSLR. Anything cheaper wouldn't be serious; anything more expensive is just for poseurs. No-one uses film any more.

Again, Roger Hicks, you should make this one your livre de chevet for a while :

That has been first published in 1976 with a 1982 reprint and there is nothing to change to it. There is even a chapter about the future of digital photography - go figure.

Lots of clever thoughts, lots of 1st class humour (even if none of the authors were British people), no bitter carpet-levelled caricature of ways of looking at "philosophical" concepts surrounding photography.

 

[tunalegs]

The more I think about this and read others replies I wonder;

"Can one be serious about photography while not taking it seriously?"

I suppose it depends a lot on definitions, but in my case I know what I like to take photos of, I know my strengths and weaknesses, I know where I would like to improve, I enjoy looking at photos and reading about photography. Yet when I'm out taking photos I have fun and am not at all serious; if I miss a shot who cares, if I leave the lens cap on then so what, if a photo doesn't turn out how I hoped then I don't worry about it only think about what I could have done differently (not that I'd remember to do it next time anyway).

I'm comfortable with my skill level and just enjoy it. Am I "serious about photography"?

All that really matters is that one is devoted and passionate. It's why even some "lomographers" can be serious about what they're doing, even though by most standards what they're doing is careless and stupid. It's just a different way of working, to get a different sort of result. But it can still be serious.

 

[Richard G]

I don't believe a photographer has to seek the satisfaction of others to be serious about photography.

This is a key element in seriousness getting one's photography anywhere significant. Working for oneself, departing from fashion and ignoring camera club feedback about what one ought to be doing.

 

[Highway 61]

This is a key element in seriousness getting one's photography anywhere significant. Working for oneself, departing from fashion and ignoring camera club feedback about what one ought to be doing.

Not false.

Yet at the risk of ceasing photography from time to time, because not discussing and not showing are difficult to stand with after a while.

Anyway - there is nothing wrong with ceasing photography from time to time. There are many great photographers who did it that way.

OTOH I wonder what people keeping displaying their photos on a very regular basis (online for instance) in this world totally saturated with images can really gain by doing so. Even with websites they've built on purpose.

Exhibitions and printed publications (what I've been lucky enough to go through) still rule. The rest... never mind.

One who gets noticed and published.

Yes, but there are tons who don't. And there are thousands of unknown masterpieces out there. Not only since the maturity of the digital age.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Not false.

Yet at the risk of ceasing photography from time to time, because not discussing and not showing are difficult to stand with after a while.

Anyway - there is nothing wrong with ceasing photography from time to time. There are many great photographers who did it that way.

OTOH I wonder what people keeping displaying their photos on a very regular basis (online for instance) in this world totally saturated with images can really gain by doing so. Even with websites they've built on purpose.

Exhibitions and printed publications (what I've been lucky enough to go through) still rule. The rest... never mind.



Yes, but there are tons who don't. And there are thousands of unknown masterpieces out there. Not only since the maturity of the digital age.

The internet has made it possible for me to make a living selling my work. Thanks to my website, people all around the world have seen my work and bought it.