$3,890,500!!!

zumbido said:

No, it's not. Your logic is faulty (in part) because there isn't just "photography". You know how to make something that sells in the areas in which you try to sell. That doesn't mean you have any credibility about any other part of the very large beast that is "photography", much less "art".

And I don't mean that offensively or personally, it applies to anyone anywhere and their professional experience. I can only know a tiny portion of software development.

Click to expand...

So you're a software developer and you are espousing opinions about photography as though you have actual expertise? And to make matters worse you are arguing about the professional aspects of photography with someone who has been a professional photographer for more than 3 decades while you have zero background in it? Just how much credibility would you place in my opinions about how you should write code? I own a whole bunch of computers and know how to use photo shop and excel, I guess that must make me a software developer right?

It's not that I know how to make something that sells in some given area, I was paid for my photographic knowledge. I was paid for my expertise and experience. Major corporations and magazines would hire me to produce a photograph that solved a problem, communicated a concept or just made their product or service desirable. You would not understand that given that you have no experience in that area.

brian

there is no accreditation to be a commercial photographer
and no license required
.
anyone with a camera and the will to use it
can make product photographs, portraits
and do location work.

and stock houses and advertising agencies troll flickr
to find photographs rather than pay professionals to make them.

Early Riser said:

Thomas I respect you, but that doesn't mean that I am going to give you credibility in every area as compared to people who are educated, trained and heavily experienced in that area. If I'm feeling ill, I'll go see a doctor and get his/her opinion, I won't seek a medical opinion from a gardener, or a lawyer, or an electrician.

The problem is when it comes to photography, the designation of it being a profession has been blurred. An amateur will look at their photographs and think they are just as good as what a professional does, not realizing that in their case only the images that worked see the light of day, all the failures fade away, while for the professional EVERY image gets scrutinized. When every photo you take faces a possible audience of millions of people it's a whole different game. An amateur photographer has no clue as to how much they don't know. A professional knows that they can never learn all there is about photography.

I can understand the amateur point of view, because I was an amateur at one point. But how many of you have anything approaching the experience I have as a photographer?

And it's not a matter of my thinking I know more about photography than most of you, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Would you assume that I know as much about your full time occupations as you do? So why is the assumption that my 34 years as a full time professional photographer, working in the most competitive area of photography and the most competitive market, doesn't count as having more photographic knowledge and wisdom than a decade or so as a part time amateur?

So who is being disrespectful? Me for assuming that decades of hard work, thorough training and study, thousands of assignments for demanding clients and tens of thousands of published images actually means something, or you for treating all those decades of hard work on my part as being meaningless.

Thomas you're the one insisting that I respect the opinion of others, even when I consider that opinion to be meritless. I don't have to respect anyone's opinion, but that does not mean I don't respect them.

Click to expand...

I agree that your experience counts for something. I agree that your exposure to the photographic world is many times that of mine, and probably most others. That makes you very knowledgeable about photography, and maybe even how other people perceive photographs.

In fact, I agree with most everything you say. I would not ask a roofing contractor to perform the the work of a doctor either. But if I want the best treatment I can find, I might seek the opinion of three doctors before I go ahead with an important procedure. That's surgery, though, and not an artistic endeavor. If I wanted to purchase a photograph, I would make sure it's one that I can hang on my walls and be proud of it hanging there, where I can enjoy it. I sure as heck wouldn't consult any professional photographer (or anyone else) whether I should buy it or not, neither would I ask their opinion of what they think of it.
And I would argue that this is where the professional photographer and the art appreciator may differ. Someone buying art may not need advice, let alone want it. If they want it, they will seek it. A professional photographer can take a difficult lighting scenario, a dangerous situation, or a seemingly impossible task, and make a photograph out of it. That is a great skill to have, and obviously one that you can rely on for income if you so choose. You should know, for you have done it.
But please don't liken that to a photographer that photographs only what they feel like photographing, and not what everybody else asks them to photograph. That is different all together, it doesn't even have to appeal to anyone else. All its purpose is is to satisfy the photographer. That is art. That's how I practice photography. I wouldn't for the life of me want to be a professional photographer. That would kill my passion in a hurry.

So you think Sherman's work is pointless. I also am not moved by it. But others clearly are. Maybe it's best for them to decide what they like and don't like for themselves, because nobody else can do that for them.
I can listen to your opinion, that's all I will promise (and I have done so, and even admired it). Then I can dismiss it or embrace it, but I will make that choice. Nobody else is going to do that for me.

Early Riser said:

So you're a software developer and you are espousing opinions about photography as though you have actual expertise? And to make matters worse you are arguing about the professional aspects of photography with someone who has been a professional photographer for more than 3 decades while you have zero background in it? Just how much credibility would you place in my opinions about how you should write code? I own a whole bunch of computers and know how to use photo shop and excel, I guess that must make me a software developer right?

It's not that I know how to make something that sells in some given area, I was paid for my photographic knowledge. I was paid for my expertise and experience. Major corporations and magazines would hire me to produce a photograph that solved a problem, communicated a concept or just made their product or service desirable. You would not understand that given that you have no experience in that area.

Click to expand...

Since you took a pretty combative and offensive tone here, I'm not going to worry about saying this bluntly: you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried. I'm saying that you ARE NOT in the same area of expertise as Cindy Sherman. "Photography" is an act, a means to an end. I work a computer all day, that doesn't mean I can say anything at all relevant about the work of someone who implements aerospace navigation systems. I said exactly that in my first reply. Is that parallel clear now?

Greg Davis said:

Are you so quick to dismiss those of us that have educations and years of experience in fine art photography? I hold two degrees in photography as fine art and have several publications and exhibitions of my work. Not to mention my time as a professor teaching art and photography, including theory and criticism. By your own standards, I am less inclined to listen to your opinion since your photographs are meant for the purpose of commercial advertising, not creative expression as the photograph in question falls.

Click to expand...

Greg thanks for the CV. All it tells me is that all your experience is academic. In the commercial world your background would only qualify you as an assistant. You would have started in my studio as a gofer. You don't have the experience to shoot commercially. I'm not saying that to be insulting, but that might give you some idea of the qualifications required.

Don't assume that because I was an advertising photographer that I lack art credentials, or that I only produced photographs for money. I started out as a sculptor, my first solo NYC photography show was at age 18, it made the NYTimes short list (recommended). I've made that list again since then. I studied and taught at SVA so I also have knowledge of the academic world as both student and teacher. But you don't have ANY of my experience when it comes to producing thousands of consistently high quality images for very experienced and demanding clients, clients who can hire pretty much anyone in the world. And I doubt that you have anything approaching the experience that I had assisting great photographers.

But what's funny is that when you spoke of Sherman's work you said, "This one was made in the early 1980's. That period of post-modernism was using advertising and commercial images as visual inspiration for artwork. I doubt the similarity to catalog imagery was coincidence." Really she used advertising and commercial work of the early 1980's as inspiration? What a coincidence! I was shooting advertising and commercial work in the early 1980's! I wonder if I was her inspiration!!

So you state that my having done commercial work disqualifies my opinions, but after you had already stated that it was commercial work that INSPIRED her work. Maybe I have a better insight on this than you do.

The post facto story of the creation of an image tends to be somewhat more idealized then the reality. And I've seen enough of my own work analyzed by others who have discovered details, hidden meanings and relationships that I never imagined, but of course I will now attest to having been pre planned. It's good marketing for a fine art photographer to embellish the creation of, or significance of an image, and no one can deny that Sherman has been an excellent self promoter. So unless you were there when she actually shot the image, I would take much of those colorful descriptors with a grain of salt.

zumbido said:

Since you took a pretty combative and offensive tone here, I'm not going to worry about saying this bluntly: you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried. I'm saying that you ARE NOT in the same area of expertise as Cindy Sherman. "Photography" is an act, a means to an end. I work a computer all day, that doesn't mean I can say anything at all relevant about the work of someone who implements aerospace navigation systems. I said exactly that in my first reply. Is that parallel clear now?

Click to expand...

I'm NOT in the same area of expertise as Sherman? Really? How is that? Is her work so technically difficult and demanding that an extra special set of skills are required?

I've made my living for the last 10 years selling prints through galleries so I'm not just a commercial photographer, and in fact I'm retired from commercial photography and have not accepted any assignments in a decade. I've professionally shot nearly every genre of photography out there, including portrait and I've assisted photographers of far higher stature than Sherman.

You lack ANY understanding of the photography world, yet feel justified in making statements that clearly illustrate that. So I'll make this easy for you to understand. Sherman's work is at a difficulty level for me that programming a vcr would be for you. Most likely half of the photographers on APUG could do work at the same level or better than Sherman's. Maybe even you. And that is why I don't respect her work.

jnanian said:

brian

there is no accreditation to be a commercial photographer
and no license required
.
anyone with a camera and the will to use it
can make product photographs, portraits
and do location work.

and stock houses and advertising agencies troll flickr
to find photographs rather than pay professionals to make them.

Click to expand...

But John, if you want to piss in the tall grass with the big dogs you need a portfolio that gets you there. That's the license.

You want to make $200 a day shooting weddings, you can fake it. You want to get $5k- 10k a day on assignment for the big agencies, you'd better bring your "A" game.

Early Riser said:

But John, if you want to piss in the tall grass with the big dogs you need a portfolio that gets you there. That's the license.

You want to make $200 a day shooting weddings, you can fake it. You want to get $5k- 10k a day on assignment for the big agencies, you'd better bring your "A" game.

Click to expand...

Pissing on grass? Dogs? Come on, aim higher. If you want to crap on trees like a, um, really friggin' tall giraffe or something, you're going to need work better than the dog-pissing-on-grass stuff. if you want to make $5k- 10k a day you can do that, fine, but if you want to sell prints for $3,890,500 you'll need to bring your A++ game.

Apparently Cindy did.

Early Riser said:

I'm NOT in the same area of expertise as Sherman? Really? How is that? Is her work so technically difficult and demanding that an extra special set of skills are required?

I've made my living for the last 10 years selling prints through galleries so I'm not just a commercial photographer, and in fact I'm retired from commercial photography and have not accepted any assignments in a decade. I've professionally shot nearly every genre of photography out there, including portrait and I've assisted photographers of far higher stature than Sherman.

You lack ANY understanding of the photography world, yet feel justified in making statements that clearly illustrate that. So I'll make this easy for you to understand. Sherman's work is at a difficulty level for me that programming a vcr would be for you. Most likely half of the photographers on APUG could do work at the same level or better than Sherman's. Maybe even you. And that is why I don't respect her work.

Click to expand...

My field has people like you, too. I get paid a lot of money to come and clean up after them, because surprisingly the execution level never matches the volume.

Your claim that you have shot every single "genre of photography out there" says it all. That, and your very strong conviction that an image must be without merit unless it's framed the way you would do it for a Montgomery Ward catalog. Or yet another pointless imitation of Ansel Adams bound for a $0.99 poster-print that hangs over the bed of some unfortunate freshman at the very moment they contract their very first venereal disease.

And thanks for the sideways complement, but I have no desire to shoot what she does. I don't care about her work one way or the other. Don't find it terribly interesting, don't find it objectionable. I'm not defending the image in question, I'm observing that your criteria are narcissistic and laughable.

Early Riser said:

You say I sound miffed? Maybe you're right, I'm miffed that for political reasons a mediocre female photographer who was aided by the wave of feminism has been able to eclipse other women photographers who possessed vastly more talent AND had to face the strong head winds against women photographers decades before the feminist movement. As an example look at the work of Ruth Bernhard, who did exceptional work in both still life and figurative. Her creativity, mastery and versatility is in a different league than Sherman. And she had to produce that work in a completely male dominated profession 40 years before Sherman, and it was women like Bernhard that paved the way for Sherman. So why Sherman and not Bernhard? Really who is the more significant photographer when it comes down to the body of work and not the hype?

Photographing almost nothing else but yourself for 30 years doesn't scream narcissism to you???????? And quite literally 30 years of taking the same photograph, so big deal if the hair and makeup changes, it's basically the same image over and over again.

Click to expand...

I think Ruth Bernhard's work has a distinct place in the history of the medium, and I don't think Cindy Sherman's work has done anything to diminish Bernhard's place in that history. That said, I am sure there are a lot of women photographers in the history of the medium who have been largely ignored, but certainly not because of Cindy Sherman's work. In my view, both Sherman and Bernhard are significant in the history of the medium of photography.

Your work, Brian, on the other hand, is not.

being "a big dog" ... seems like a lot more trouble than its worth
seeing after you are "a big dog" you probably expect
to be "a big dog" in everything you do, and get pissed off when you
have to pay your dues all over again ...

Greg Davis said:

What is your expectation from all this argument? Do you think you are going to brow beat those of us that appreciate art made after 1959 to suddenly agree with you that all photographs made after then are terrible and shouldn't be viewed? Do you expect us to bow down before you as the all great and powerful voice of what art should be in the universe? I don't see why you continue to come here and talk about work you don't like and refuse to accept that some people have different opinions, or that anybody is even allowed to have an opinion. Yes, my work is academic, but maybe you haven't realized that photographs in the field of fine art are academic now. The days of Adams and Weston are over. They have been over for a very long time. You also don't have any idea of my commercial experience. I have done thousands of HABS photographs, museum and private collection art work reproduction, and even packaging for Kodak. But since my main interest is in fine art, that is what I focus on here.

Click to expand...

What is my expectation from this argument? Analysis, dissection, discussion. This is a process of criticism of work. If you had a compelling argument I might be swayed to your point of view. At the very least some comments of merit are being put out there. And while I may disagree with you I do respect the fact that you have seriously studied photography and have opinions based on study of the subject and are not one of those who have strong opinions about something they have no knowledge of. Something far too common today.

And I do realize that fine art has become academic, and that IS the problem. You should know well that for hundreds of years art was in the hands of professionals. All of those wonderful frescoes at the Vatican, all those portraits and landscapes in Europe were assignments. Their artists were paid to produce them. It wasn't until the mid 1800's that art as a hobby, mostly for the affluent, started to take off. And even then most of the art being produced was for the purpose of being sold. With the exception of the dilettantes art was a JOB. And as a job there was a professionalism to it. In addition, the teaching of future artists was done by working professional artists and those apprenticing and learning art were doing so while producing the commercial assignments for their masters. And that is how I learned the most. It is still in practice today but on a limited level.

But now art has become more a hobby, or an academic exercise, and with it professionalism, that is the requirement for professional qualities and standards are rapidly declining. And being a professional has not stopped photographers from being artists. Irving Penn and Arnold Newman did extensive commercial work, are they not also great artists? And photographers doing commercial work also had to have their work understood by a large number of people, not necessarily the lowest common denominator but at least at a level where the average person could relate to it.

But now with the academicizing of photography you're getting work that only a MFA can relate to because often that work is reaction to, or in relation to another, often obscure, art work. Art is too often about art and not about anything else. It's becoming too elite and that's why the average person is finding it hard to relate to it, why politicians are loathe to fund it, why school boards are viewing art classes as an extravagance, and are cutting funding.

And when everyone who owns a camera is now a "fine artist" selling work online at a price that they actually lose money on, what will happen to the overall quality? Devaluation and mass marketing of a product doesn't usually result in that product becoming better.

Early Riser said:

But now with the academicizing of photography you're getting work that only a MFA can relate to because often that work is reaction to, or in relation to another, often obscure, art work. Art is too often about art and not about anything else. It's becoming too elite and that's why the average person is finding it hard to relate to it, why politicians are loathe to fund it, why school boards are viewing art classes as an extravagance, and are cutting funding.

Click to expand...

Bingo... Something I articulated in my MFA pursuit. I felt I needed to make work that my parents could appreciate, and that Arnold Newman wouldn't scoff at as being technically crap.

zumbido said:

My field has people like you, too. I get paid a lot of money to come and clean up after them, because surprisingly the execution level never matches the volume.

Your claim that you have shot every single "genre of photography out there" says it all. That, and your very strong conviction that an image must be without merit unless it's framed the way you would do it for a Montgomery Ward catalog. Or yet another pointless imitation of Ansel Adams bound for a $0.99 poster-print that hangs over the bed of some unfortunate freshman at the very moment they contract their very first venereal disease.

And thanks for the sideways complement, but I have no desire to shoot what she does. I don't care about her work one way or the other. Don't find it terribly interesting, don't find it objectionable. I'm not defending the image in question, I'm observing that your criteria are narcissistic and laughable.

Click to expand...

All one need do is look at the two images that you have chosen to post on APUG to see just how much your skills match your opinions.

vpwphoto said:

Bingo... Something I articulated in my MFA pursuit. I felt I needed to make work that my parents could appreciate, and that Arnold Newman wouldn't scoff at as being technically crap.

Click to expand...

I assisted Arnold Newman, he had little patience for crap, or anything else for that matter.

Early Riser said:

All one need do is look at the two images that you have chosen to post on APUG to see just how much your skills match your opinions.

Click to expand...

I'll give you this, you are steadfast in your determination to miss the point. Which, again, is that your evaluation is flawed because it's explicitly based on the assumption that you know everything there is to know about a field, and your criteria are the only criteria that matter. This is a failure on your part that transcends any particular field or skill.

I do software, so I'm a lot more talented at spotting flaws in logic than choosing tests for a pinhole camera that will impress a belligerent stranger on the internet.

Early Riser said:

All one need do is look at the two images that you have chosen to post on APUG to see just how much your skills match your opinions.

Click to expand...

i can't imagine you believe and say such nonsense -

SuzanneR said:

I think Ruth Bernhard's work has a distinct place in the history of the medium, and I don't think Cindy Sherman's work has done anything to diminish Bernhard's place in that history. That said, I am sure there are a lot of women photographers in the history of the medium who have been largely ignored, but certainly not because of Cindy Sherman's work. In my view, both Sherman and Bernhard are significant in the history of the medium of photography.

Your work, Brian, on the other hand, is not.

Click to expand...

Suzanne you might be right, I most likely will not get much notoriety, unless of course I start shooting controversial things, or shoot things that curators are into, and I'm fine with that.

Fortunately a fair number of people happen to like, even value my work, and that's enough for me. I'm choosing to shoot what I want to and I could care less what people think of it. I travel anywhere in the world I want, for as long as I want, shooting whatever I want. I'll just have to console myself with the fact that I was able to do what I loved as my job for my entire life, was appreciated for it, was honored and respected for it by my peers , and was very well paid for it. So don't be sad for me Suzanne, I'll be fine.

jnanian said:

i can't imagine you believe and say such nonsense -

Click to expand...

John, like I should value the photographic opinion of someone who can't shoot for shit? Are you kidding me? Is that how you learn? Find someone really bad at something and then take their advice on it?

Early Riser said:

John, like I should value the photographic opinion of someone who can't shoot for shit? Are you kidding me? Is that how you learn? Find someone really bad at something and then take their advice on it?

Click to expand...

Interesting. Where did I offer advice on shooting?

Also, you mentioned in your last post how great it is that so many people love your work, then in the very next sentence said you couldn't care less about how people see your work.

You make some nice photographs (though they're way too imitative for my taste, personally) but your comprehension and analysis--which was the topic here, not shooting skill--are as poor as your attitude.

If I had money to burn, I just wouldn't buy this photo. I think it's ok, if not a bit boring, and not to my taste.
If I cared so much about my peers or what people thought of me owning an expensive Cindy Sherman photo, then I _might_ buy it.. naah, probably not.
Orange.. just isn't my colour.

I always had this funny notion whenever I'd visit somebody's house and see art on the walls. I used to think "when I get my own house, I'm going to make my own images to put on the wall".
Art is so subjective. I believe that if you have a connection with the image or the subject or are moved by it somehow, then you're probably going to want to own it to some degree.
So, I have a few vintage paintings and artworks from here and there, but I'm going to be happy when I move to a bigger place and put some of my own framed work up.

Well, it's been fun, and has given me something to do while I'm stuck at home with a cold, but it's time to go. Night all.

Man, what a read. I was going to post further opinions, but since I am a high school drop out, never went to university and photography is only a hobby, I am horribly under qualified.

Once I rectify the situation (not likely), I'll post again...................................................

hoffy said:

Man, what a read. I was going to post further opinions, but since I am a high school drop out, never went to university and photography is only a hobby, I am horribly under qualified.

Once I rectify the situation (not likely), I'll post again...................................................

Click to expand...

Most useful post of the useless thread.
Thanks Hoffy.

hoffy said:

Man, what a read. I was going to post further opinions, but since I am a high school drop out, never went to university and photography is only a hobby, I am horribly under qualified.

Once I rectify the situation (not likely), I'll post again...................................................

Click to expand...

There's a blowhard ready to look down on us at every party, huh?

I'm a relative newbie here and have found most folks to be agreeable and helpful too. I've picked up a lot from the level-headed Thomas B. who manages to share his knowledge and technique without the swell-chested boorishness we've seen here.

Thanks Thomas, and all the other helpful souls too.