Is there a course on not being easily offended? Because you need a thick skin to succeed in the world.
Is this the point at which Koraks clutches the pearls while taking offense at your insult?He's a moderator. Insulting your customers is not good business practice. You shouldn't need an advanced course in an academic facility to learn that. It's just common sense which apparently, they don't teach.
He's a moderator. Insulting your customers is not good business practice. You shouldn't need an advanced course in an academic facility to learn that. It's just common sense which apparently, they don't teach.
Alan:
I struggle with the meaning of the text in the threads in Photro here that are specialized discussions between the trained chemists.
That is because I'm not a trained chemist.
And I wouldn't be offended in any way if someone noted that struggle.
Nothing in anything you have posted here on Photrio indicates you have experience in the academic realm that the study referenced inhabits.
Why do you expect not to struggle with it? I do! It is hard, hard work to read it! And I have at least some academic background.
You did it again. For such a smart guy, you must have missed the course on The Art of Communicating Without Being Offensive.
Matt: Your comments are put-down as well. I can read. So can most people here at Photrio even though it is not a scientific forum. Especially as photographers and often wannabe artists, I think we know more about this subject than most academics. In any case, their Abstract clearly defines that they were not looking at commercial success to provide access to high-prestige venues. So we should discount the Avedons and the Annie Leibovitz's.
Abstract
In areas of human activity where performance is difficult to quantify in an objective fashion, reputation and networks of influence play a key role in determining access to resources and rewards. To understand the role of these factors, we reconstructed the exhibition history of half a million artists, mapping out the coexhibition network that captures the movement of art between institutions. Centrality within this network captured institutional prestige, allowing us to explore the career trajectory of individual artists in terms of access to coveted institutions. Early access to prestigious central institutions offered life-long access to high-prestige venues and reduced dropout rate. By contrast, starting at the network periphery resulted in a high dropout rate, limiting access to central institutions. A Markov model predicts the career trajectory of individual artists and documents the strong path and history dependence of valuation in art.
Is this the point at which Koraks clutches the pearls while taking offense at your insult?
Where I come from, we call that "hypocrisy," regardless of its source.I'm allowed more flexibility. I'm neither a moderator nor an academic.
Where I come from, we call that "hypocrisy," regardless of its source.
……They should moderate and keep their opinions to themselves.
I disagree. The moderators have provided lots of high quality information, both technical and otherwise, as well as their opinions on on a variety of topics.
As to the subject study, I found it both valuable and enlightening and would have been good supplemental material in the Professional Practices classes I took at the university a couple years ago. Over the years I’ve read LOTS of academic studies and I found this one neither “flawed” or “deficient in scope.” The authors stated their goals and kept the scope narrow to control the variables. That the “scope” may not have satisfied some readers is just an invitation for those readers to mount their own study. To challenge a study as flawed, it’s really necessary to point out its errors, such as in its data analysis methods, not that the scope was too narrow.
Matt: Your comments are put-down as well. I can read. So can most people here at Photrio even though it is not a scientific forum. Especially as photographers and often wannabe artists, I think we know more about this subject than most academics. In any case, their Abstract clearly defines that they were not looking at commercial success to provide access to high-prestige venues. So we should discount the Avedons and the Annie Leibovitz's.
the huge number of famous artists' and photographers' commercial successes catapulted them to fame in museums and galleries?
My second one man show was B&W prints from a six month sea kayaking trip on BC's coast, using a 4x5 field camera.
While discussing the shows installation and opening night reception, the museums curator said something like, "This would have been really interesting if you had photographed the people who live on the coast".
A grand idea, but my wife (and paddling partner) got her shoulder wrecked in a car accident. Highly advise adventuring while young, fit, & healthy...before careers and before a house mortgage or children.You could just take another 6 months off and do it again.
Seat-of-the-pants analysis tells me there are very few artists who have been able to cross the line from commercial to fine art based on their commercial success. Sure, many fine art photographers and painters have worked commercially, but that is not what got them into galleries and museums. But beyond talent, luck, hard work and perseverance it is, as the study reinforces, early success and connections in major art schools and major markets. Obviously there are and will be exceptions.
Avedon tried hard for years to get recognized as a legitimate artist, could not get a museum or gallery show until later in his life--despite his enormous commercial success. It is only recently that editorial and fashion photography has been deemed bona fide, shown and acquired as part of a collection.
Is this the point at which Koraks clutches the pearls while taking offense at your insult?
their Abstract clearly defines that they were not looking at commercial success to provide access to high-prestige venues. So we should discount the Avedons and the Annie Leibovitz's.
In keeping with the scope of the research, the authors reflect on the trajectories of these 'break-through' artists only in terms of how they exhibited their work in the kinds of ways that are central to the definition of career success used here: at venues with great centrality (which happens to correlate to high monetary valuation of sold art). The Avedons and Leibovitzes wouldn't be excluded from the research. Their achievements are just not the focal point, in the same way that the particular career paths and achievements of sculptors, pilots, bakers and postmen who turned photographers weren't central to this research.As Fig. 2F illustrates, 240 artists who began their career in low-prestige institutions did break through, having the average prestige of their last five recorded exhibits in high-prestige institutions. We find that those who do break through do so within the first 10 years of their careers (fig. S10a). We also find that among their first five exhibits, breakout artists exhibit in institutions with a wider range of rankings, their initial prestige standard deviation being 18.6%, compared to 10.3% for those who did not break through (p = 10−22, fig. S10b)
The study isn't flawed; it's too narrow.
The point is it left out important analysis that may have been available from the data they had.
If I was a parent with a child with artistic intent, I would like to show him that he can use his talents commercially, feed his family, and still look for artistic recognition.
I'm not your supplier. You're not my customer. This is not business. Your statement is out of place and not applicable here.Insulting your customers is not good business practice.
There have been a lot of fine art photographers who made a living doing their work by selling directly to collectors or selling through local galleries, but weren't famous in the 'art world' until late in life
(emphasis mine)We also focused on success measures tied to institutional access, ignoring multiple dimensions through which art and artists enrich our society (18). Yet, even with this limited focus [...]
Not a put-down Alan. It wasn't intended as one, but if you read it that way, I'm sorry for that.
It is a specialized study, and just like almost any specialized treatise it is a struggle to wade through it without first being steeped in the specialty.
Being able to read isn't enough to avoid the struggle.
That is all I'm saying. It isn't a comment on your intelligence or your photographic experience - just an observation about your viewing a typically dense academic product through non-academic eyes.
The academic world is often a strange beast indeed. And there is nothing wrong or embarrassing or demeaning about having to struggle ones way through something written for use in it.
And to be clear, no moderation is involved in anything I've said - I'm just a member who has enough mostly tangential experience with the academic world to know that the practical applicability of much that has been written is usually extremely narrow and limited. I would have posted the same thing during the 15+ years before I became a moderator.
When I've needed to glean value from a particular academic work, it almost always mean that I've got a lot of work ahead of me. I have no trouble acknowledging my struggle.
Seat-of-the-pants analysis tells me there are very few artists who have been able to cross the line from commercial to fine art based on their commercial success. Sure, many fine art photographers and painters have worked commercially, but that is not what got them into galleries and museums. But beyond talent, luck, hard work and perseverance it is, as the study reinforces, early success and connections in major art schools and major markets. Obviously there are and will be exceptions.
Avedon tried hard for years to get recognized as a legitimate artist, could not get a museum or gallery show until later in his life--despite his enormous commercial success. It is only recently that editorial and fashion photography has been deemed bona fide, shown and acquired as part of a collection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?