JoJo wrote:
One photographer has become a household name but because of his devious/unscrupulous/unethical methods has cast a tainted view on all photographers... some guy named "Papa Razzi"

I find it remarkable that Mr. Razzi hasn't lost his driver's license yet. He seems to constantly be causing fender benders in LA.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
In the end we simply aren't as important as we think we are.

+1


Photographers on reality shows like ANTM and similar aberrations of the industry do not count either. Their popularity is only as big as the size of their relatively naive television audiences.

"Live life as a tragedy. Leave a wake of artistry during your voyage through its sea."

Once that wake touches enough people, you will become famous. Unfortunately, that happens long after you completed the trip.

LLOYD WRIGHT wrote:
you mean you hadn't heard of me!!! hehehe

Frankly, I thought that you were an architect!

Isn't that the likely outcome, if you're not particular interested in something, why would you bother yourself finding out about it. I've never studied poetry, famous poets, apart from Shakespeare, and that's because we did some lessons on him, I don't particular care, his not relevant to me. some peope like to learn a bit about everything, but I'm lazy.

Enclosing: I wouldn't be bothered to learn about something that didn't intrigue me.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Compared to other artistic endeavors it seems like photographers are the least well known. What brought this to mind is the calendar shoot by  Steve McCurry. Now everyone has seen his most famous work but I doubt many outside of photography has a clue who shot it. I know I didn't until I saw that calander thread.

The layman can name many painters, writers, directors etc but very few photographers. I know that before I started photography I could probably name maybe Adams and Annie Leibovitz.

You would think with the scandals and the high profile work of Terry Richardson would make him well known but I doubt the man on the street has ever heard of him.

Saturation of the industry.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Even now Newton is the only one I have heard of. But I doubt the average person does which is what this thread is about.

I will guarantee that most anyone you ask this question to who isn't into photography will not have heard of any of them.

Isn't that the likely outcome, if you're not particularly interested in something, why would you bother yourself finding out about it. I've never studied poetry, I don't know of any famous poets, apart from Shakespeare, and that's because we did some lessons on him in school, I don't particular care, his not relevant to me. some people like to learn a bit about everything, but I'm lazy.

Enclosing: I wouldn't be bothered to learn about something that didn't intrigue me.

Dan K Photography wrote:

Even now Newton is the only one I have heard of. But I doubt the average person does which is what this thread is about.

I will guarantee that most anyone you ask this question to who isn't into photography will not have heard of any of them.

if someone is not into photography, why SHOULD they know of these people?  If someone doesn't watch movies.  They only read books, etc. I would not expect them to know Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
if someone is not into photography, why SHOULD they know of these people?  If someone doesn't watch movies.  They only read books, etc. I would not expect them to know Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas.

Fair point but I think your examples are not very good. I would guess that people who never saw any of Spielberg's or Lucas' Movies have heard of them. Heck they probably read a book that referenced them.

There are many rap artists for instance that I have never heard there music but I can identify them if I saw them or at least acknowledge that I heard of there name even if I dislike and don't listen to rap music at all.

There is a certain level of fame that allows most people even outside there direct sphere to hear of them. Annie Leibovitz for instance has done so. Most people would acknowledge they know the name and that she is a tog even if they never saw her work.

How did she do it and so few others? Many work with high end celebrities and nothing.

Richardson sticks his thumb into celebrities mouths and has sex scandals and still nothing. He is the most puzzling one to me actually.

toesup wrote:
So if those here don't know of photographers of the recent past, how do you expect the public to know their names...

Mathew Brady
Irving Klaw
Richard Avedon
Bill Brandt
Cartier-Bresson
Elliott Erwitt
Edward and Brett Weston
Horst P. Horst
George Hurrell
Yousuf Karsh
Man Ray
Irving Penn
Herb Ritts
Andy Warhol

How many of those do you know of?..

PS One of the photographers on my original list was American!

This list is more "Masters of Photography" than your last...if you remove Warhol (pop icon not as much associated with his photos by the GenPop) and Klaw (Vintage pulp erotica) and add some glaring omissions like Ansel Adams (DEFINITE Household name outside the photography world) and a few dozen others.

Dan K Photography wrote:

Fair point but I think your examples are not very good. I would guess that people who never saw any of Spielberg's or Lucas' Movies have heard of them. Heck they probably read a book that referenced them.

There are many rap artists for instance that I have never heard there music but I can identify them if I saw them or at least acknowledge that I heard of there name even if I dislike and don't listen to rap music at all.

There is a certain level of fame that allows most people even outside there direct sphere to hear of them. Annie Leibovitz for instance has done so. Most people would acknowledge they know the name and that she is a tog even if they never saw her work.

How did she do it and so few others? Many work with high end celebrities and nothing.

Richardson sticks his thumb into celebrities mouths and has sex scandals and still nothing. He is the most puzzling one to me actually.

Maybe we need to start hanging out and causing a ruckus in areas that TMZ frequents so that we get noticed.

Erin Dawson Photography wrote:
The greats remain unknown because they didn't plaster their logo big enough through the center of all their photos.


Seriously though, it's a behind the scenes kinda craft. Like director, writer, painter, etc only a few of any craft are well known. Models & actors are just elements used to convey a story; they'll always be more recognizable than us. It's their job. I like the anonymity.
Reminds me of a Modest Mouse lyric:

"All the pretty actors
Gladly take the credit
For the words created by
The people tucked away from sight."

This.

It's one of the reasons I like the medium.

nyk fury wrote:
cause all we do is click.

It could be that in the public's imagination, painters and sculptors "create" art, while photographers just "record" art.

Learning to use brushes or chisels takes talent and years of practice, but a monkey can push a button, they may think.

That said, some of Man Ray's photos have sold for very large sums of money.

brian selway wrote:
I like to think i'm unknown because I'm a bit crap. But in general, most well published shoots tend to have the subject's name as a headline, the name of the photographer is often just stuck in the list of features in the index...nobody reads that!

Actually, the two images (so far) of mine that have been published were captioned with my name, not the model's name.  That's probably because they were not commercial pictures, they were competition entries.

18+  https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/24363619

18+  https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/24825301

Lars R Peterson wrote:

Does Dale Chihuly count?

Gesundheit!

Optix  wrote:
Photographers on reality shows like ANTM and similar aberrations of the industry do not count either. Their popularity is only as big as the size of their relatively naive television audiences.

Yeah, it's only a few 10's of Milllions of girls plus some of their moms who have to listen to the smarmy comments at the breakfast table.

Dan K Photography wrote:

Even now Newton is the only one I have heard of. But I doubt the average person does which is what this thread is about.

I will guarantee that most anyone you ask this question to who isn't into photography will not have heard of any of them.

I think more or less everyone over 30 in the UK knows who Patrick Lichfield was and who David Bailey is.

A. KAYE wrote:
Haven't done much history research?
MM has ken marcus, arny freytag, and other famous for their Plaboy work and other erotic art. Besides all the previous names mentioned read photo credits in magazines, newspapers, and films you'll be awakened to many great photo artists.
Newspapers supply endless pulitzer winners. No great ad campaigns without great photographers.Take a look at National Geographic sometime.
And what's your definiton of fame?

I thought my definition was quite clear. Do people in the general public know who they are? Nobody has a clue who Ken Marcus is.

Considering the timeline he was at Playboy there is a good chance I lost my fap virginity to one of Ken Marcus's photos but I didn't have a clue who he was until I joined MM.

A M U L wrote:
Isn't that the likely outcome, if you're not particularly interested in something, why would you bother yourself finding out about it. I've never studied poetry, I don't know of any famous poets, apart from Shakespeare, and that's because we did some lessons on him in school, I don't particular care, his not relevant to me. some people like to learn a bit about everything, but I'm lazy.

Enclosing: I wouldn't be bothered to learn about something that didn't intrigue me.

That may be true. I've never studied nor been particularly interested in poetry either but we all know the names Robert Frost and Emily Dickinson. I'm sure people who don't even know what a basketball looks like can at least name Michael Jordan.

I've never been a student of mass murder but I know the names of at least 5 serial killers. Oh my, what a sad commentary on our society (or myself) that is lol.

Maybe that's the answer. There are certain names that transcend the genre and seep into popular culture.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Fair point but I think your examples are not very good. I would guess that people who never saw any of Spielberg's or Lucas' Movies have heard of them. Heck they probably read a book that referenced them.

There are many rap artists for instance that I have never heard there music but I can identify them if I saw them or at least acknowledge that I heard of there name even if I dislike and don't listen to rap music at all.

There is a certain level of fame that allows most people even outside there direct sphere to hear of them. Annie Leibovitz for instance has done so. Most people would acknowledge they know the name and that she is a tog even if they never saw her work.

How did she do it and so few others? Many work with high end celebrities and nothing.

Richardson sticks his thumb into celebrities mouths and has sex scandals and still nothing. He is the most puzzling one to me actually.

Does an image impact the average person like a musical piece? I often wake up with a tune in my head.  Even some I don't like.  And they won't go away.  Mostly because of the quiet around me.  I hear the same song over and over on the radio, even if I am listening to the oldie stations which could go all week or more without repeating a song.  I don't have the same photograph shoved in front of my face 20 times a day.  I rarely watch TV, but even then, TV is video which  I am bombarded with, not photos.  I am forced to learn songs through repetition, not so with photographs.

If I wake up with an image from a photo in my mind, it fades quickly as my eyes are constantly stimulated by my surroundings.  My ears don't get that until I turn something on to stimulate them.

If Ansel Adams did his work today, would he achieve the recognition, even after his death?  I doubt it.  Not only did he market his art, he created his art of things that Americans were interested in, fascinated by, and had no other chance of ever seeing, at least not in person, in their lifetime.  His images were the first they saw of that subject.   Does a new photograph of Half Dome replace the one in your mind that Adams shot?  I have seen threads in MM that talk about how we don't shoot anything new.  It has all been done, but we continue to do it because "I" haven't done that, or I haven't done that with her.   True, some music gets to be a hit when someone else has already recorded the song.  Some songs get to be a hit when someone else already made them a hit.  If you like "I Will Always Love You" preformed by Whitney Houston, someone else will like the Dolly Pardon version that came first. 

So, how does a photographer or artist create an image that is powerful enough to overwhelm the senses of the masses, and be more memorable than the image just like it, in the mind of the masses, that came before our image? I know of two things that have to happen for that type of response.  The first: Striving for excellence!  The second: Create your work to please yourself!  Not everything is going to sell, especially photos.  We can create hundreds and thousands of pieces of art each day with a digital camera.  If our work pleases ourselves than we should be pleased with our work.   Let the general population say to themselves, "I can take a shot that good with my phone!  I'm not going to give that guy $25.00 for a copy of that photo!"  Those people aren't your market.  Only those that know art will make you famous, unless you get a marketing whiz working for you.   Please yourself.

toesup wrote:
So you dont know of the works of..

John Swannell
Elmer Batters
Helmut Newton
Bob Carlos Clarke
David Bailey
Terrence Donovan
Don McCullin
Patrick Lichfield

I was going to list a few of those myself but it occurs to me that most of the ones I know (Baily. Donovan. Lichfield) were as much famed because they had distinct personalties as for their skills (which they undoubtedly had). David Bailey was very much the working class 60's guy who hung with all the celebrity models.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Compared to other artistic endeavors it seems like photographers are the least well known. What brought this to mind is the calendar shoot by  Steve McCurry. Now everyone has seen his most famous work but I doubt many outside of photography has a clue who shot it. I know I didn't until I saw that calander thread.

Name 5 "famous", living painters (without resorting to Google, of course.) I could say the same for sculptors. Hell, ANY of the fine arts.

People can name directors, actors and musicians because their endeavors are actively marketed. New "talent" is pushed with millions of dollars. If that same level of interest and focus were funneled into the fine arts, we might see a shift in the paradigm (but I doubt it.) Plus, movies and music are accessible. There's no interpretation required. Asking the general population to think is a veritable kiss of death.

Photography is, with few exceptions, viewed as expendable and disposable. I doubt that will ever change.

BTHPhoto wrote:
...Just like the writers and directors who write and direct the scripts that well-known actors are the faces for, photographers are the talent behind the art, not the face of the art.  I'm not certain that is a bad thing.

this is encouraging, because i have a face that was made for bylines.

Hunter Wald wrote:

Does an image impact the average person like a musical piece? I often wake up with a tune in my head.  Even some I don't like.  And they won't go away.  Mostly because of the quiet around me.  I hear the same song over and over on the radio, even if I am listening to the oldie stations which could go all week or more without repeating a song.  I don't have the same photograph shoved in front of my face 20 times a day.  I rarely watch TV, but even then, TV is video which  I am bombarded with, not photos.  I am forced to learn songs through repetition, not so with photographs.

If I wake up with an image from a photo in my mind, it fades quickly as my eyes are constantly stimulated by my surroundings.  My ears don't get that until I turn something on to stimulate them.

If Ansel Adams did his work today, would he achieve the recognition, even after his death?  I doubt it.  Not only did he market his art, he created his art of things that Americans were interested in, fascinated by, and had no other chance of ever seeing, at least not in person, in their lifetime.  His images were the first they saw of that subject.   Does a new photograph of Half Dome replace the one in your mind that Adams shot?  I have seen threads in MM that talk about how we don't shoot anything new.  It has all been done, but we continue to do it because "I" haven't done that, or I haven't done that with her.   True, some music gets to be a hit when someone else has already recorded the song.  Some songs get to be a hit when someone else already made them a hit.  If you like "I Will Always Love You" preformed by Whitney Houston, someone else will like the Dolly Pardon version that came first. 

So, how does a photographer or artist create an image that is powerful enough to overwhelm the senses of the masses, and be more memorable than the image just like it, in the mind of the masses, that came before our image? I know of two things that have to happen for that type of response.  The first: Striving for excellence!  The second: Create your work to please yourself!  Not everything is going to sell, especially photos.  We can create hundreds and thousands of pieces of art each day with a digital camera.  If our work pleases ourselves than we should be pleased with our work.   Let the general population say to themselves, "I can take a shot that good with my phone!  I'm not going to give that guy $25.00 for a copy of that photo!"  Those people aren't your market.  Only those that know art will make you famous, unless you get a marketing whiz working for you.   Please yourself.

The answer is without a doubt yes.

Not every piece of music has that effect. Far less than 1% does. It's the same with photos. Most aren't good enough to have that effect.

William Kious wrote:
Name 5 "famous", living painters (without resorting to Google, of course.) I could say the same for sculptors. Hell, ANY of the fine arts.

I was going to say; I can only name a very small number of current artists in any field. I don't think photography is any worse of than things like painting when it comes tor recognition of those working now, it's just too new to have the background cast of long dead "legendary" painters which are probably all who most of the general public could manage.

Caustic Disco wrote:
normal people don't understand the work and time put into making images that they enjoy. they think anyone with a camera can do what photographers do.

That's why when you shoot a great photo of a layperson... the reaction is "wow... that's a great camera!"

Happened to me just in the week before Thanksgiving, when I shot a thanksgiving party...