MarkS
Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 503
I believe that it was Robert Adams who said something to the effect that, the sad part about photography was that he could make more money talking about his photography than from his photographs.
This is the nature of creative work. Any successful photographer is running a small business, and up to a point, following the money. But it's a disorganized field, unlike the "trades", where labor unions have made it possible to specialize in one thing (carpentry, pipe fitting, etc.) and make a decent living. So you have to do what it takes.
If you look at any of the famous photographers whose work you see in the history books, almost all of them were working professionals on assignment. The exceptions, like Alfred Stieglitz who orated endlessly about how photography was ART, had private incomes. Edward Steichen made a fortune shooting for "Vanity Fair". Paul Strand had a movie camera, and made his living in the 1920s by filming college football games and selling copies. Edward Weston made his living as a commercial portrait photographer; so did Dorothea Lange and Imogen Cunningham. Ansel Adams was a working commercial/advertising/industrial photographer until he was in his 70s. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The point being that the "artists" did professional work to support and inform their creative work.
In 45 years in professional photography, I've been unusual in the I spent 25 years working as an industrial shooter for a couple of corporations, two years at a portrait studio chain, several stints as a custom lab technician, a fair amount of architecture work, etc. I've had gallery representation in New York (and sold some that way too). So a great deal of journeyman's work along with the creative side, and in fact I'm proud of that.
But were I to actively promote my personal work again I wouldn't emphasize those experiences- as I'd want the audience to concentrate on the photographs, and not my varied history. So if you wonder how Alec Soth et. al. make their livings, they're scrambling to find anything that fits and lets them do their personal work.
This is the nature of creative work. Any successful photographer is running a small business, and up to a point, following the money. But it's a disorganized field, unlike the "trades", where labor unions have made it possible to specialize in one thing (carpentry, pipe fitting, etc.) and make a decent living. So you have to do what it takes.
If you look at any of the famous photographers whose work you see in the history books, almost all of them were working professionals on assignment. The exceptions, like Alfred Stieglitz who orated endlessly about how photography was ART, had private incomes. Edward Steichen made a fortune shooting for "Vanity Fair". Paul Strand had a movie camera, and made his living in the 1920s by filming college football games and selling copies. Edward Weston made his living as a commercial portrait photographer; so did Dorothea Lange and Imogen Cunningham. Ansel Adams was a working commercial/advertising/industrial photographer until he was in his 70s. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The point being that the "artists" did professional work to support and inform their creative work.
In 45 years in professional photography, I've been unusual in the I spent 25 years working as an industrial shooter for a couple of corporations, two years at a portrait studio chain, several stints as a custom lab technician, a fair amount of architecture work, etc. I've had gallery representation in New York (and sold some that way too). So a great deal of journeyman's work along with the creative side, and in fact I'm proud of that.
But were I to actively promote my personal work again I wouldn't emphasize those experiences- as I'd want the audience to concentrate on the photographs, and not my varied history. So if you wonder how Alec Soth et. al. make their livings, they're scrambling to find anything that fits and lets them do their personal work.