I Could Have Done That

[lxdude]

Have, have, have!


Steve.

Or at least 've, 've, 've!

 

[David Brown]

I Could Have Done That ...

It was an honest-to-goodness-made-a-career-of-it artist (painter), who set me straight.

We were in a museum, looking at Peit Mondrian. And (so help me) I said exactly that: "I could have done that!"

She wheeled around, looked me square in the eye and said: "Yes. But you didn't!"

 

[removed account4]

Or at least 've, 've, 've!

- a, -a. -a

 

[MaximusM3]

Neil Peart of Rush speaks of wearing very light shoes when drumming because it allows him the ease of lifting his feet very fast and effortlessly , who'd of thunk...

Long live Neil!

 

[blansky]

It was an honest-to-goodness-made-a-career-of-it artist (painter), who set me straight.

We were in a museum, looking at Peit Mondrian. And (so help me) I said exactly that: "I could have done that!"

She wheeled around, looked me square in the eye and said: "Yes. But you didn't!"

Which brings us to access.

Even if you had done it, you may not have had access to exposure or distribution so anyone would have seen it.

A great deal of life is about access, connections, luck or fate.

A great article I once read by Fran Liebowitz (sp?) was a rant about access. It was along the lines of actors/actresses who have famous parents, and their stating that YES, they got their foot in the door because of their parents, BUT it was their talent that got them hired regularly in their TV series.

And Liebowitz's claim, that the foot in the door is actually the only hard part. The actual acting 90 percent of the population could do it.

Remember she wasn't talking about great actors, but about the shlock acting that is regularly regurgitated on TV.

I wish I could find the article again.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Access or the thourough understanding of your subject matter.

 

[Maris]

I'm in and out of art galleries often. I watch the production, display, and acclaim-seeking of a lot of camera-based art these days and I'll say that most of it is discovered rather than created.

Modern digital picture-making enables innumerable images to be captured without effortful thought, without technical skill, and without cost. A successful "artist" shoot (I've watched a few) may be no more challenging than gathering evocative materials, models, sets, props, and lights, and banging away at promising juxtapositions several thousand times in succession until fatigue or boredom sets in. The next step is to bring art into being. Somewhere in the winnowing and editing process quirky, weird, or striking images will be found. If not found then processed into existence. There is genuine art, major or minor, in recognising which images go over well in contemporary galleries.

Assuming an exhibition venue is already organised the next step is to call up one's funding and order production of very large versions of the selected images. Finally value has to be imbued into the art-work by a process called valorisation. Valorisation is achieved by discourse. And discourse is all the publicity, talk, critical acclaim, artist interviews, auctioneering, and conspicuous prices bid by millionaires that power the contemporary art cycle.

This is all very different to a traditional approach of making pictures out of light-sensitive materials. Light-sensitive materials are expensive, cannot be un-exposed and re-used, require refined technical knowledge, and impose extended effort in merely making lookable pictures to check one's progress.

If you have read this far you will know which side I am on. Classic APUG style photography, by way of contrast with the contemporary picture-making, is preservation of what fine photography has always been. It offers a rich experience for people who love rarity, singularity, fully realized handcraft, fine materials, archival durability, coherent scholarship, and interesting content. It remains worth looking at.

 

[removed account4]

huh?

there is very little of what you have described that can not relate to film and paper as well .. ?
there is a lot of stuff that is poorly thought and executed no matter the medium

 

[markbarendt]

huh?

there is very little of what you have described that can not relate to film and paper as well .. ?
there is a lot of stuff that is poorly thought and executed no matter the medium

I think there is a bit of "Valorisation" being done.

 

[MattKing]

There are many barriers to attaining artistic success.

A number of the barriers have been reduced in recent years - primarily some of the technical ones, as well as barriers relating to issues of access and distribution - but that does not remove most of the really important ones. Those being the ones related to creativity, perception, vision, dedication, intuitive and objective understanding, salesmanship and ability to understand finances.

One thing I do know - I certainly couldn't do what Cindy Sherman does .

 

[Chris Lange]

people that whine about the art scene are spending too much time being experts and not enough time actively believing in themselves and pushing their work in front of the right people.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I'm gonna take up poetry.

There once was a hack from Nantucket.
He kept all the fix in a bucket.
He kicked it one day and it all washed away,
So he threw up his hands and said

"You gotta be kidding me!"

Think I got skill? See, I could have done that.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It is part of the artistic process to make what is very difficult appear to be very simple. This tempts people to say "I could have done that" when in reality they can't. To take an example from music, it is much harder to correctly play a quiet and contemplative piece like the Bach Prelude in C major from the Well Tempered Clavicord or the Sarabande from the Goldberg variations than some fast and loud piece. The slightest mistake will be glaringly obvious with the two Bach examples.

 

[Truzi]

It is part of the artistic process to make what is very difficult appear to be very simple. This tempts people to say "I could have done that" when in reality they can't. To take an example from music, it is much harder to correctly play a piece like the Bach Prelude in C major from the Well Tempered Clavicord or the Sarabande from the Goldberg variations than some fast and loud piece. The slightest mistake will be glaringly obvious with the Bach.

Not a fair example... one mistake while playing Bach and your fingers end up tangled together, lol.

 

[Toffle]

Not a fair example... one mistake while playing Bach and your fingers end up tangled together, lol.

When I was studying music at University, I would always get this nervous feeling when student pianists would play Bach. The intricacy of Bach often defies the phrasing practices of more modern music. Even highly-skilled musicians would have to un-learn long practiced habits to properly navigate the landscape of a "simple" Bach fugue. Myself, I was a trumpet player, so little Bach for me. Nonetheless, I had much unlearning to do before I was ready to properly break rules.

Tom

 

[blansky]

people that whine about the art scene are spending too much time being experts and not enough time actively believing in themselves and pushing their work in front of the right people.

How's that working for you?

 

[NJH]

I think a lot of this comes down to clear and strong themes which are followed through to create a body of work.

As an example I was stunned to see a photograph very very similar to some of my family snaps as a finalist in one of those major art prizes a few years back. The guy had a theme which was about his Dad, an Irish man who was often a bit drunk, sometimes a bit shambolic, sometimes very funny and this came across in the images. What struck me though was two things, firstly I never thought of using snaps of my Dad when a bit drunk as a theme, secondly I certainly never thought of then weaving together a set of such pictures for public display as a form of art. So yes 100% could have but I didn't.

I did find seeing those images inspiring though to come up with some of my own themes with a tight clear vision of what I am trying to achieve with them right from the subject through the processing. The problem now though is that one such theme I started, started with 2 images very quickly but hasn't progressed in about 18 months. I guess its much harder than it sounds or looks than as a bunch of words talking about doing it.

 

[Bill Burk]

To the question who is the right person to get that work in front of... I think that would be someone like Maris.

 

[blansky]

To the question who is the right person to get that work in front of... I think that would be someone like Maris.

For critique perhaps.

Not sure that will get you into a gallery, if that is your goal.

I think you are confusing excellence and marketing.

 

[pdeeh]

One doesn't have to have undertaken academic study to recognise or understand what's going on in "modern art"; an open mind, however, is an absolute pre-requisite

 

[markbarendt]

I think you are confusing excellence and marketing.

Yes, yes, yes. And IMO that confusion exists in the photographic industry on an epic scale.

They say hindsight is 20/20. The biggest mistake I made when I got into the photo/studio business was spending way to much time and effort on being good at "the craft". What I learned the hard way is that that is what hobbyists do. It is also why IMO many hobbyists do technically better photography that many pros.

What pros who are serious about making a living the business of photography do (actually what people in any business that requires active sales does) is spend most of their time and effort schmoozing/doing marketing/finding new work. They are almost always in marketing and sales mode.

By most here I mean somewhere close to 80%, number comes from business coaches not me. When I applied this rule I was successful, when I didn't I wasn't.

Successful photographers/sales people will spend 7-8 hours a day talking with clients, calling galleries, going to openings, wedding shows, asking for referrals, following up leads, blah, blah, blah. The other 2-3 hours a day would be spent doing the books, the banking, the bills, and getting in a bit of shooting and printing.

So for a guy that goes out for a weekend and spends say 16 hours traipsing around shooting landscapes then spends another 16 hours the next weekend making some really nice prints it is not unreasonable to think or expect that is should take another 128 hours of work (the next 8 weekends at 16 hours per weekend) marketing to actually get those prints sold.

 

[blansky]

Yes, yes, yes. And IMO that confusion exists in the photographic industry on an epic scale.

They say hindsight is 20/20. The biggest mistake I made when I got into the photo/studio business was spending way to much time and effort on being good at "the craft". What I learned the hard way is that that is what hobbyists do. It is also why IMO many hobbyists do technically better photography that many pros.

What pros who are serious about making a living the business of photography do (actually what people in any business that requires active sales does) is spend most of their time and effort schmoozing/doing marketing/finding new work. They are almost always in marketing and sales mode.

By most here I mean somewhere close to 80%, number comes from business coaches not me. When I applied this rule I was successful, when I didn't I wasn't.

Successful photographers/sales people will spend 7-8 hours a day talking with clients, calling galleries, going to openings, wedding shows, asking for referrals, following up leads, blah, blah, blah. The other 2-3 hours a day would be spent doing the books, the banking, the bills, and getting in a bit of shooting and printing.

So for a guy that goes out for a weekend and spends say 16 hours traipsing around shooting landscapes then spends another 16 hours the next weekend making some really nice prints it is not unreasonable to think or expect that is should take another 128 hours of work (the next 8 weekends at 16 hours per weekend) marketing to actually get those prints sold.

Quite true but the craft is supposed to be learned first.

As for the landscape thing. Lots of people shoot landscapes and some absolutely incredible ones. But are there really many people sitting there with their checkbooks out, dying to buy them. To be successful you also have to know/understand that what you create, needs to have a market.

That's the number one lesson to be learned in photography. Does this incredible street shot, landscape, slice of life picture, have a market. And does this incredibly cute picture I took of kid, can I duplicate that every other day with hundreds of other kids.

And if the answer is yes, can I market it and make real money off it.

 

[markbarendt]

Don't disagree at all Blansky

 

[Jim Noel]

My answer to the stupid statement is always,"Prove It!"

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

That's the number one lesson to be learned in photography. Does this incredible street shot, landscape, slice of life picture, have a market.

Assuming you give a rat's ass about selling your work that is. Some don't.