You Need More than ‘Natural Talent’ to Make it as a Photographer

Hsg said:
Talent, success, admired by others, all of these goals that photographers strive for, has nothing to do with photography, its a product of low self-esteem that wants to be elevated and made 'great'... Photography or something else, such people will do anything to escape their inferiority complex.
Click to expand...

This statement manages to be both pompous - and nonsensical.

Sorry to pile in - but what does that mean? Talent has nothing to do with photography? Success has nothing to do with photography?

If wanting to be good at something is the product of an inferiority complex, then that reduces most human advancements and achievements to a mere character flaw.
 
passion+effort+talent+marketing=success

lack of any one of these, and there's no success

throw in a bit of luck to fast track things
 
MIkhail said:
Couldn’t disagree more... :-(
History gives us many, many examples of just the opposite. In fact I would venture to say that great human and great talent have no cause-effect connection…
Click to expand...

Caravaggio killed a man in a duel. Have they removed his works from museums (and churches) because he was a murderer?

An artist who's unquestionably great can even be forgiven for murder, because a pity little human being with a fragile little ego can never produce great art... The work itself becomes a validation of the greatness of an artist, even as troubled as Caravaggio.
 
Hsg said:
...because a pity little human being with a fragile little ego can never produce great art...
Click to expand...

I tend to find that statements like this say more about the person saying them than the person (people) they are stated about...
 
Paul T. said:
This statement manages to be both pompous - and nonsensical.

Sorry to pile in - but what does that mean? Talent has nothing to do with photography? Success has nothing to do with photography?

If wanting to be good at something is the product of an inferiority complex, then that reduces most human advancements and achievements to a mere character flaw.
Click to expand...

Ambition and creation are mutually exclusive.

When you have an ambition you know what you want and what your goal is.

Creation is without any template, it has no precedence and no method, if it did, it would be production not creation.


Therefore, a creative photographer has no ambition while an ambitious photographer has no creativity.

This is all basic stuff and not pompous or absolute, its logical.
 
Hsg said:
Ambition and creation are mutually exclusive.

When you have an ambition you know what you want and what your goal is.

Creation is without any template, it has no precedence and no method, if it did, it would be production not creation.
Click to expand...

Picasso was creative - and incredibly ambitious.

Bowie was creative - and incredibly ambitious.

F Scott Fitzgerald was creative - and incredibly ambitious.

You speak as if serenely unencumbered by knowledge of both creativity - and ambition!
 
Hsg said:
Caravaggio killed a man in a duel. Have they removed his works from museums (and churches) because he was a murderer?

An artist who's unquestionably great can even be forgiven for murder, because a pity little human being with a fragile little ego can never produce great art... The work itself becomes a validation of the greatness of an artist, even as troubled as Caravaggio.
Click to expand...


Leaving aside the “unquestionably great” which is, in my opinion, something of oxymoron…
I am not speaking of all-forgiveness because the person is a great artist. That's a matter of opinions and you are entitled to your own.

I am merely stating, based in small portion on my own humble experience of communicating with, and mainly on historical facts: the great ones are more often than not are impossible to deal with on everyday level. Some are narcissistic morans. Some are vicious trolls, to use the modern terminology. Yet their talent, vision, perseverance and (sometimes – ability to step on other’s toes, hands, heads) brought them great achievements. Ansel Adams in photography. Steve Jobs. Andy Warhol. List goes on.
P.S.
Some are wonderful people, very likable. Alex Webb, for one.
Person who I consider my teacher (late Alexander Sliussarev) is another example.
 
ksb said:
Bingo. I have found that talent is only the beginning. And it's not even really necessary most of the time. It is the thousands of hours put in doing something for the obsessive love of it that makes one good. I wish I had been taught that as a kid instead of being given the idea that you either have it or you don't. For some reason people don't seem to value that idea that plain old hard work can get you there.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, I have been in this industry for nearly 30 years, worked very hard at it. But sometimes along comes someone who just thinks differently and therefore presents their viewpoint in an entirely different fashion. So they too, also work hard and that hard work translates into a bit of luck but coupled with some really unique innate talent. The result is they simply go further faster as they are celebrated for their genius as the other is celebrated for arriving at a vision that is the product of unwavering dedication, passion & experience.

And the only metric I am familiar with in terms of making it is being able to shoot what you want when you want because people pay you for it and pay you well. They want to see you continue to morph into your next iteration so they too, know that the only way you can do that is to prevent you from getting a job that is not your passion.

Call me biased but that is what I believe after doing this for 29 years, I simply know of no other way and therefore, no other measure.
 
Photography is just like everything else. Money and connections are really all that matter. Some people will say that talent matters, but with the way the photo world is today, you can buy that as well. You can buy the best retouchers, stylists, assistants (who will do all the lighting for you, just ask Leibowitz), etc. The idea that you have to work hard to be successful cracks me up because that just isn't the way the photo world works. If you are lacking money or connections then yes you have to work hard, but you are at a huge disadvantage.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
Photography is just like everything else. Money and connections are really all that matter. Some people will say that talent matters, but with the way the photo world is today, you can buy that as well. You can buy the best retouchers, stylists, assistants (who will do all the lighting for you, just ask Leibowitz), etc. The idea that you have to work hard to be successful cracks me up because that just isn't the way the photo world works. If you are lacking money or connections then yes you have to work hard, but you are at a huge disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Ah, the verdict of the bitter is always so simple.

Annie Liebowitz started out a hungry photographer pretty much just like anyone else.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
Photography is just like everything else. Money and connections are really all that matter. Some people will say that talent matters, but with the way the photo world is today, you can buy that as well. You can buy the best retouchers, stylists, assistants (who will do all the lighting for you, just ask Leibowitz), etc. The idea that you have to work hard to be successful cracks me up because that just isn't the way the photo world works. If you are lacking money or connections then yes you have to work hard, but you are at a huge disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Well, from where I am at in the industry, I see being able to network and make connections as part of the "hard work". And while I know of people who have literally bought Instagram followers, I don't see that those who have not but are good at what they do and work hard are at any distinct disadvantage over those who paid for followers.

And the photo world is not just one genre, there are many like there have always been so the level of networking, shmoozing, who you know, talent...it all varies greatly in terms of where one ends up.

Also, I can give direct examples, links, quotes, a lot of background in terms of where I get my info that creates the basis from which I share my opinions and experience....

Not meant as a jab but a real question....can you do that?
 
Then there's perspective of time. What may be genius to one generation, can be dismissed and forgotten by the coming ones.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
Not bitter. I don't really care, and you don't know what I do. :)
Click to expand...

I don't care what you do and assume that's reciprocated. But you cited Annie Liebovitz as an example of someone who got where she is by being rich. And that's rubbish.

It's so easy to assume everyone successful got there by nefarious means - easy, but wrong.

It's better learn from successful people rather than envy them.

I mean, if you're so envious of Liebovitz, what happens when one of your friends makes it?
 
I started to read this thread but stopped pretty quickly. I'm too busy trying to "make it" as a photographer to bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom