login info join!
Forums > Newbie Forum > GWC vs. Artist? Search   Reply
first12
Artist/Painter
Christopher Willingham
Posts: 21,859
Long Beach, California, US


One man's GWC is another man's Artist!
Jun 25 12 08:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
eos3_300
Posts: 1,495
Brooklyn, New York, US


-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

ROFL

No. Some of the worst GWCs have the best equipment money can buy, a fully equipped studio, maybe even a long list of paying clients...

It's about motivation, not glass.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Like Terry R ??

Jun 25 12 08:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Urbiefoto
Posts: 92
Arlington, Virginia, US


I think the whole thing is a bit overblown.  To me a GWC is someone who just wants to shoot models to shoot models and be around them.  The image isn't as important as being able to say "hey, I shoot models - naked ones too" to his friends. 

I don't think what you make from your photography matters as much as intent.  I've been shooting seriously for about two years now.  I don't have an MFA in photography and I've never apprenticed.  For those reasons alone, some would call me a GWC but I consider myself an artist (as egotistical as that may seem).

I also don't consider myself a professional even though I do make some money through Getty.  Because I don't make my living through photography is enough for some people to call me a GWC.  I also pay for bookings.  Another apparent GWC thing to some. 

Basic point?  Labels are labels.  Screw it.  Do you want to learn the craft of photography?  Are you seriously critiquing what you do and are you striving to move from the snapshot to a well composed photo?  Are you shooting cliches or concepts?  These are the things that matter.  The rest is fluff.
Jun 25 12 08:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 4,119
Alexandria, Virginia, US


False Dichotomy -

many definitely non-GWCs  are far from artists

many complete GWCs are actually very much artists
Jun 25 12 09:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darkroom Art
Posts: 646
JOBSTOWN, New Jersey, US


I've been called a GWC. After looking at the port of whoever made the statement, I didn't really worry about it. I've been in pleanty of shows, (took some awards in group shows) had my own solo shows & have been published. Even been tracked down by a musician took use an image for a CD cover. 
Just make the images you make & keep improving.
Jun 25 12 09:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Urbiefoto
Posts: 92
Arlington, Virginia, US


Fotografica Gregor wrote:
False Dichotomy -

many definitely non-GWCs  are far from artists

many complete GWCs are actually very much artists

+1

Good point

Jun 25 12 09:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Makeup Artist
ArtistryImage
Posts: 2,778
Washington, District of Columbia, US


CLiKK wrote:
...what differentiates...

The gender, age and thematic narrative mix of portraiture in one's book... the greater the diversity the more likely the maturity and tenure of artist... but this is Model Mayhem... might be wise ask your question to an art director and listen carefully to his/her reply...

Jun 26 12 01:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,571
San Diego, California, US


CLiKK wrote:
GWC vs. Artist?

GWC vs. Artist are among many generalized subsets that basically describe personality types.


I would say that new people learning photography have no correlation to a GWC.

A GWC is basically a guy using a camera as an excuse to meet some hot naked chicks. He thinks hanging a camera around his neck is his ticket for crashing the party.

Bewbs! Bewbs! Bewbs!  Woo-hoo!


To your list of subsets you can add Sluggo, White Knight, Drama Queen, Flake, Asshat, etc., etc., etc.


bunny

Jun 26 12 01:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Nelia
Posts: 2,152
San Francisco, California, US


Fotografica Gregor wrote:
False Dichotomy -

many definitely non-GWCs  are far from artists

many complete GWCs are actually very much artists

+1  I have also noticed that some here at Model Mayhem who claim to be "Professional" Photographers have and will used the term "GWC" in a manner that try's to degrade and put down beginning and amateur photographers. 

Obviously, the opinion of some of these people is, if you are not a "Professional" Photographers and you are taking images on women nude, then you must have a arterial motive.

The will make comments that "since their work in not very good, that the only reason they are involved in photography is with the hopes of getting women to pose naked for them for their perverted fantasies".

What really makes me laugh is many times those making the accusation of someone else being a "GWC", that their work is often times no better if not actually worse than that of those they accuse.

I would not worry about the label that someone else, probably from someone you do not know and also probably do not respect, bother you and continue with your creative adventure, endeavor and always strive to learn and get better with every shoot!

Jun 26 12 01:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8,841
Delphos, Ohio, US


As the term has evolved, in my opinion, GWC has become more annotation on behavior than a quantification of finished results.
Jun 26 12 02:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 9,422
Santa Barbara, California, US


Artist GWC here  http://mms.ibsrv.net/images/smilies/hienvy.gif
Jun 26 12 02:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CLiKK
Posts: 18
Bellingham, Washington, US


This post is awesome. I didn't intend to stir up a hornets nest, either!

So where does the guy selling stock photography fit? I don't mean Getty but like IStock? I've made some money there over the years, but I know it can be argued that "commercial" stock photography isn't the same as "artistic", right?
Jun 26 12 07:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 2,515
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US


CLiKK wrote:
This post is awesome. I didn't intend to stir up a hornets nest, either!

So where does the guy selling stock photography fit? I don't mean Getty but like IStock? I've made some money there over the years, but I know it can be argued that "commercial" stock photography isn't the same as "artistic", right?

Where do stock shooters fit in the GWC framework?  I don't think they are related issues. 

Off topic: As to the stocks in general?  The macro stocks have basically screwed the pooch on that whole stock business and it will never be the same.

As far as income I think for most of us it is more profitable to license photos from a privet stock list than even attempt the macros.

It's more work and you will not license nearly as often but at least there is money to be made.

Jun 26 12 08:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SB Glamour Photos
Posts: 712
Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia


The label is based on intentions, not quality of end result.
Jun 26 12 08:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,889
Olivet, Michigan, US


S B Photos wrote:
The label is based on intentions, not quality of end result.

Exactly.

What you shoot, how well you do it, or whether you make money, are not relevant.

Motivations and actions are.

Whether one makes a living from photography is no more relevant to being a "GWC" than what color shirt you wear.

Jun 27 12 11:54 am  Link  Quote 
Film/TV Producer
ButchArri
Posts: 53
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


I wanted to come back to this for a second.  Trying to debate about whether better equipment makes better art, in terms of photography, is futile in my opinion.  It's a necessity to be more than a one trick pony to have a fair amount of equipment, better glass etc. and it's nothing like painting in that regard.  Are there people that have a butt load of equipment and bad taste? ABSOLUTLEY, but photographers with good taste have to stockpile equipment be it commercially manufactured and/or self-designed and good glass to explore various styles of artistic expression.
Jan 22 13 06:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 4,119
Alexandria, Virginia, US


There are many very talented photographers - artists if you will - who are "GWCs" in that a main focus of their work is to be around naked girls and perhaps take a run at some of them. 

there are crappy photographers who are gentlemen as well

artist versus GWC is a faulty dichotomy


the ones who are really **dangerous** are the ones who are brilliant photographers because they draw in llamas - the llamas who work with them do not expect problems and may be more vulnerable due to the quality of their work.

back channel the ones I've heard about from highly trusted llamas  who got away with doing the most damage over time - or who still are -  are all very good photographers.
Jan 22 13 06:54 am  Link  Quote 
Film/TV Producer
ButchArri
Posts: 53
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


I don't know, talented photographers that are pervish sexual predators should just be called that instead of a newer-agey acronym that tends to define less pervasive people that are in and out of "The Industry" at almost the same rate as one bat an eyelash.
Jan 22 13 09:45 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Christina__Smith
Posts: 1,202
Modesto, California, US


Teila K Day Photography wrote:

My advice would be to not give-a-care what someone else might think about something so silly...  the definition of a GWC varies with who happens to be defining it at any given time.  It's mere opinion... just like the difference between "art" and "glamour" and "porn" is merely opinion.

Inexperience has nothing to do with whether or not you're going to be considered a GWC.  20 years of experience and if you're still shooting crotch shots, women in bikinis, butts with wide lenses, etc...  many will consider you a GWC  (I'd simply consider you a businessman trying to get paid if that type of photography is your hustle... and it's paying the mortgage).

Just get out there, click the shutter and forget about such trite things as what someone on MM may think a GWC is.  wink

Best in photography to you!

Exactly what I was thinking.

Jan 22 13 09:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


CLiKK wrote:
So I'm wondering what differentiates a GWC from a real photo artist.  I've been shooting photos for a while now, but am new to shooting themed model shoots... Does that relative inexperience shooting models automatically relegate me to that category?

No.

If your primary interest is in the images, the results then I'd say you're a photographer, regardless of skill or experience level. Whether you're a good photographer or not is a question for the Critique forum, not here.

However, if your primary interest is being around hot/naked models then you're a GWC regardless of the quality of your work.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jan 22 13 09:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Drew Smith Photography
Posts: 5,209
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom


CLiKK wrote:
This post is awesome. I didn't intend to stir up a hornets nest, either!

So where does the guy selling stock photography fit? I don't mean Getty but like IStock? I've made some money there over the years, but I know it can be argued that "commercial" stock photography isn't the same as "artistic", right?

STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY!?

*Spits on the floor.

You deviant - get the hell out of here!

Jan 22 13 10:22 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Abby Hawkins
Posts: 2,004
Boston, Massachusetts, US


These are my definitions:

Artist: someone who strives for art.  It doesn't matter about their level of experience or the fanciness of their gear -- but a willingness to learn, willingness to create something, a thought, a feeling, an aesthetic. 

GWC: A guy who likes looking at/taking pictures of pretty girls.  That's it.  Poetry, art...maybe those happen as an accidental side effect.

I've worked with plenty of GWCs who have had decades of experience, great gear, great understanding of how the gear works.  But they were only there to shoot pictures of a pretty girl, to spend time *around* a pretty girl.  That was it.
Jan 22 13 10:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mcary
Posts: 1,803
Fredericksburg, Virginia, US


A real GWC uses a large format camera but doesn't bother to load the film holders smile
Jan 22 13 10:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 22,550
Salem, Oregon, US


i think for glamour at least it's important to like the girls, to like spending time with them. hopefully that will translate into good chemistry on set, a happy model and good pictures. terry richardson certainly seems to have done ok for himself. and i remember an interview with one playboy photographer about why he got started and it was like "um, pretty girls?"  when i'm shooting glamour i want to crank up the music and feel happy and i want the model to be feeling good so they can give a good performance. otherwise i just can't get the pics i want.

i don't think liking pretty girls and making good pictures is mutually exclusive. in fact for glamour i think if you're too clinical about it you will get art nudes not glamour.

so maybe it partly depends on the genre.

for my part i don't care about art. i care about making money to pay the bills. and i do enjoy spending time with models. it's a fun hobby. i wouldn't keep doing it if it weren't fun (i get paid by brides, not models). local photographers come by the studio and we show&tell our latest model shoots. if that makes me a GWC then so be it.

but really i think we should be judged on our images (which can get into the whole "art vs. porn" thing), not on what may be going through our minds when we shoot those images. and of course the guys who prey on the models and harass them are bad. let's keep it respectful unless there is mutual interest in more.

as far as models are concerned i think they should be worried about PWCs (perverts with cameras). guys who may cross that line from thinking about something to doing something about it without permission.

Abby Hawkins wrote:
I've worked with plenty of GWCs who have had decades of experience, great gear, great understanding of how the gear works.  But they were only there to shoot pictures of a pretty girl, to spend time *around* a pretty girl.  That was it.

Jan 22 13 10:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bwhstudios
Posts: 74
Hingham, Massachusetts, US


Images by MR wrote:
I'm a GWC.... guy with camera smile

How original.  You must have lost several nights sleep thinking that up.

Jan 22 13 11:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jwmcnamara
Posts: 3,610
Long Beach, New York, US


Black Dog Studios RI wrote:
GWC has no meaning, so I would advise you to stop trying to measure yourself by it. Do the work that pleases you and enjoy life.

GWC means: a photographer that the writer or speaker wishes to denigrate.

It has no objective meaning.

I was going to write something along these lines, but you beat me to it and stated it so well. smile

Jan 22 13 11:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TallPix
Posts: 222
Miami Springs, Florida, US


I am just a GWC-WABL

That's 'With A Big Lens'
Jan 22 13 12:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Makeup Artist
Linda Chudomelova
Posts: 133
Prague, Prague, Czech Republic


CLiKK wrote:
So I'm wondering what differentiates a GWC from a real photo artist.  I've been shooting photos for a while now, but am new to shooting themed model shoots... Does that relative inexperience shooting models automatically relegate me to that category? If yes, why? And what is the threshold that an aspiring artist needs to cross to be a serious artist and not just a weekend warrior.

This is my hobby, but one I take seriously and put much effort into, so I'm curious to hear some feedback. smile

If you are worried whether you are GWC, chances are you're not. wink

Personally, I think it's about respect. Photographer respects the model (and others working on the shoot) for all the talent, energy and enthusiasm they bring to the photoshoot. GWCs take the model as a piece of meat in front of their camera, nothing more.

But I agree that the GWC definition vastly depends on who is the person defining it at the moment.

Jan 22 13 12:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rik Williams
Posts: 3,444
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Elvis has left the building hmm
Jan 22 13 12:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
New Art Photo
Posts: 701
Los Angeles, California, US


eos3_300 wrote:
Look up Terry Richardson

Ha ha ha !

I think it has something to do with treating the girls with respect...

Jan 22 13 12:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DAN CRUIKSHANK
Posts: 1,786
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

No.

If your primary interest is in the images, the results then I'd say you're a photographer, regardless of skill or experience level. Whether you're a good photographer or not is a question for the Critique forum, not here.

However, if your primary interest is being around hot/naked models then you're a GWC regardless of the quality of your work.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

+1

IMO it all comes down to purpose. WHY are you taking pictures of models? The answer will likely determine whether or not you fall into the GWC category.

Jan 22 13 12:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Francisco Castro
Posts: 1,723
Cincinnati, Ohio, US


-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
The term 'GWC' isn't related to your skill with a camera - it's about your motivation for taking pictures in the first place.

+1

Skill has little to do with being a GWC. Your reasons as to WHY you're shooting is what would relegate you to that category. Pervs can have mad skills too. But they're still pervs.

Although not always accurate, a GWC whose only motivation is to meet and hookup with models will not invest a lot of money and effort into getting great images.

Jan 22 13 12:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


ah, an old thread is like a fine wine....
Jan 22 13 12:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2,248
Naperville, Illinois, US


The Term GWC doesn't mean anything. its just a slang used to degrade someone.

But it could be a number of things. If you think about it.
Guy With Camera,Girl With Camera, Girl Without Clothes and so on!

But I think there is more appropriate way to describe someone.
Jan 22 13 01:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,889
Olivet, Michigan, US


ButchArri wrote:
Typically the GWC has mediocre glass.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
ROFL

No. Some of the worst GWCs have the best equipment money can buy, a fully equipped studio, maybe even a long list of paying clients...

It's about motivation, not glass.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

This.

Jan 22 13 02:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Makeup Artist
Linda Chudomelova
Posts: 133
Prague, Prague, Czech Republic


Rik Image wrote:
Elvis has left the building hmm

Oh, LOL, damn necro threads... big_smile

Jan 22 13 03:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
EdwardKristopher
Posts: 3,377
Tempe, Arizona, US


Be You!  Have Fun!  The rest is the white noise in the background!  :-)
Jan 22 13 03:03 pm  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply