John Malloch Caldwell wrote: I consider too many as Legends in their own Minds. If one is looking for fame in the photography business then you have to study the science of hype. You will find that fame is not essentially based on talent but in many cases from being controversial.
Leibovitz is not considered controversial...
But "science of hype" is apparently an important business tool...
Being known has nothing to do with what you created, how many there are or whether something is "disposable" (whatever that means) or not. You get known because, just like basic marketing in the business of photography, you have to get your name in front of a lot of eyes. THAT is the only thing. AND why so many photographers fail as business people in general. They think it's only about their work. It's not. A lot of people can take a great image. If you don't get that work AND your NAME in front of people, you won't make a dime and no one will know you. It's really simple.
I knew of David Baily long before I became interested in photography. In the early 70s he did a series of commercial for Olympus. Face in front of millions of people. I didn't know his work. I just knew the name. I know the name Jay Z. Can't name one song or even what he does. Hear his name all the time in entertainment type news.
Know who Justin Beiber is? Know any of his songs? (god I hope not). Neither do I. But we hear his name all the time. Name in front millions of eyes/ears.
How many photographers are ever really in the spotlight, in the news, tabloids, etc? Very few if any. That is the only reason very few are very well known. At least to the general pubic.
David Lean (Lawrence Of Arabia, The Bridge Over River Kwai, Dr Shivago)
Hayao Miyazaki (Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away)
Yeah, if these dudes who are great creative producers are virtually unknowns... what more our chances? **sigh**
.
Okay... David Lean...
But... I did watch Princess Mononoke once and didn't see Spirited Away... and I do think that Miyazaki-san may not qualify yet to be named on the same list as Kurosawa or David Lean..., those, even I didn't recognize Lean, made movie history over a long time period... Miyazaki did not yet...
I agree with those stated that the public views us as people who press a button. As a photographer, you hear things like "Your camera takes nice pictures!" I don't think many other types of artists hear things like that. "Wow, your paintbrush makes nice paintings!", "I could sculpt like that too if I had a chisel 2000!"
It's kind of a backhanded compliment, that people don't give proper credit to those in this industry. They see an outstanding photo and have no idea why it is what it is. It meens that all involved busted their asses to get it that way but all people know is that they like it. They have no or little idea why so I guess that meens we're doing our jobs well.
Pictures of places or faces can be known, yet the authors are not.
Photography has always been capturing or creating a moment which is timeless in itself yet not a freeze frame on an authors style.
Most photography seen by the public anyway is purpose driven for commercial reasons, thus globally the photography seen in magazines is pacifier material lasting as long as it is viewed.
Neil Snape wrote: Pictures of places or faces can be known, yet the authors are not.
Photography has always been capturing or creating a moment which is timeless in itself yet not a freeze frame on an authors style.
Most photography seen by the public anyway is purpose driven for commercial reasons, thus globally the photography seen in magazines is pacifier material lasting as long as it is viewed.
Internet is around the same then too>
Chris gave me a clip about Duffy, the man who shot the sixties... I did watch the whole documentary and he said way back then... the photographer was the superstar, the celebrity and not the llama.
Times changed, but the fact that it was once the other way around, could be an indicator that there is still potential for another turnaround in favor of the photographer.
Many of these are well known, but within the closed circle of the industry.
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"
udor wrote: Chris gave me a clip about Duffy, the man who shot the sixties... I did watch the whole documentary and he said way back then... the photographer was the superstar, the celebrity and not the model.
Times changed, but the fact that it was once the other way around, could be an indicator that there is still potential for another turnaround in favor of the photographer.
History often repeats itself!
I have watched all the videos I can on the trio Duffy, Bailey , and the little there is on Donovan.
Although they were the names for the fashion world as well as the t=others such as Scavullo, Penn, Avedon, they are still not know as a household name, nor really in the arts as were the big names as Warhol, etc.
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...
Why did I think you were talking about Terry Richardson?
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,038
Beverly Hills, California, US
udor wrote:
Chris gave me a clip about Duffy, the man who shot the sixties... I did watch the whole documentary and he said way back then... the photographer was the superstar, the celebrity and not the model.
Times changed, but the fact that it was once the other way around, could be an indicator that there is still potential for another turnaround in favor of the photographer.
History often repeats itself!
You have more photographers now in terms of ratio to the population so unlikely that history will repeat itself. If you look at the ratio of photographers on MM to models in some markets it's one photographer to 2 models.
In the days of film because it was so highly technical and you couldn't review what you were doing as you did it it and meant that a lot of people couldn't shoot a great image. It was quite a skill. It is still a skill to shoot a great image but now that the processing cost has dropped there is a flood of images which in some markets of photography has dramatically dropped the income of photographers. For example portfolio development for models: digital has decimated it as a way to earn a substantial amount of money. So many models due to market forces generated by photographers themselves will get work for free. In film days TF? It cost a bundle to shoot a lot of images in film, thus setups were often more deliberate, and no photographer of ability would shoot for free, because it was never close to free for the photographer.
One example: a good friend of mine shoot an elite model back in the nineties. He often got requests to elite models' books. So, he caved in and did one as she was a friend.. I think she spent $7000 dollars and the film cost $3000 for stock and processing. He always shot on a 4X5. He could have done about 20 of those a year and also being in line for campaigns. Because he was a cinematographer as well as a movie director, and knew the fundamentals of lighting so well, along with a great eye, he could do stills very easy.
In this market if Helmut Newton were to start out no one might ever know who he was and he would probably have to TF. He might never make it into the magazines or have an exhibition of his work.
Most markets in most countries didn't seriously consider photography a form of fine art until about 50 years ago. Yes, that's after Adams, Weston, Strand, etc. All people who are respected as artists NOW.
Painting has been considered art since ... well, a long time. But there are very few existing works from before the Middle Ages where we know who the artist was.
So that means that there should be at least twenty times as many well-known painters as well-known photographers.
On top of that, is has always been infinitely harder to make a living as a painter than as a photographer. Unless you happen to also teach, or your work sells for gonzo dollars, you're painting because you love painting. How many photographers do you know that do it to put food on the table? A painter is going to be more involved and motivated in their own work.
Plus anyone could get really lucky and take a gorgeous photograph. Nobody has ever 'lucked into' painting a Rembrandt.
I could keep going, but I've made my point. There is good reason why photographers are not household names. Be the next Gursky and change that.
| 
| 
| edu