Some see too much and need to go live in a cardboard box on the edge of town.....until they are called on in times of crisis, cause their the only ones who can make sense of it all.
Last edited:
Agreed, but so is everything about one's living. The issue is finding those who really see. Most of us just look.
Sometimes "your living" means to repress your personality. A commercial photographer may not always take the photo he or she really sees, but the one that will please the client.
Not having to have to deal with the photographer's end of the client/photographer relationship, I would not only expect the photographer to deliver what I was requesting, but to add to that. I hired the photographer because of his or her vision and talent and if the photographer didn't add to the results I would be severely disappointed. On the other hand, I would not expect a photographer I had hired to ignore my wishes completely. If there is a difference in vision or execution, I would want know about it ahead of time. Of course, if the person in question was a "name" photographer, that is generally why they would be hired and let them have free reign.I would suggest that in this case the commercial photographer is actually "seeing" more than one photo, and making choices that reflect the needs of the situation.
It takes real photographic talent - real artistry - to anticipate the needs of a client, and to translate that into a high quality result.
There are examples of photographers who can be successful in the two worlds - commercial and art - but there aren't many.
Not having to have to deal with the photographer's end of the client/photographer relationship, I would not only expect the photographer to deliver what I was requesting, but to add to that. I hired the photographer because of his or her vision and talent and if the photographer didn't add to the results I would be severely disappointed. On the other hand, I would not expect a photographer I had hired to ignore my wishes completely. If there is a difference in vision or execution, I would want know about it ahead of time. Of course, if the person in question was a "name" photographer, that is generally why they would be hired and let them have free reign.
I have rarely run into a photographer who has been truly successful at both art and commercial photography. It takes powerful compartmentalization.
I have rarely run into a photographer who has been truly successful at both art and commercial photography. It takes powerful compartmentalization.
Irving Penn comes to mind.
Irving Penn comes to mind.
Can you name a few "fine art photographers" who are even close to being skilled enough to be "successful commercial photographers" ?
Does "artistry" require outdated film?
Personality is sometimes more of the defining factor. Robert Frank worked in New York City as a fashion photographer for a while. Diane Arbus started out as a fashion photographer--teamed with her husband who took the actual photos--and later many of her proposed editorial assignments for magazines like Esquire ended up among her fine-art work. Many of today's fine art photographers (Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall and Joel Meyerowitz come to mind) certainly have the skills to work as successful commercial photographers, but that is not what they have chosen.Does it matter?
Different, even if over-lapping, skill sets.
I don't think we obsess about their suffering. Weston was never very successful until the end of his life, most of the time he lived hand-to-mouth.Also, why do we obsess on the suffering of "fine art photographers"? Same old "suffering artist" trope. Are they simultaneously failed novelists, motel rock bands, and perpetual motion machine inventors?
There's also a need for an affinity for self-promotion, marketing, etc., that many artistic types seem to lack. History seems to be full of talents which were unknown/undiscovered until long after their death, and perhaps that wouldn't be the case had those talents made focused efforts on marketing themselves during their lifetimes. And there's the rub for so many.The reason their are so many failed artists, writers, etc. is often because they really aren't that good to start with. The counterpart is most of the public doesn't spend money on art or literature, so even if one is a talented artist it is no guarantee of success. Luck and connections often play a disproportional part.
Irving Penn comes to mind.
For sure. In some cases that affinity seems at odds with the photographer and/or their work.There's also a need for an affinity for self-promotion, marketing, etc., that many artistic types seem to lack.
Personality is sometimes more of the defining factor. Robert Frank worked in New York City as a fashion photographer for a while. Diane Arbus started out as a fashion photographer--teamed with her husband who took the actual photos--and later many of her proposed editorial assignments for magazines like Esquire ended up among her fine-art work. Many of today's fine art photographers (Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall and Joel Meyerowitz come to mind) certainly have the skills to work as successful commercial photographers, but that is not what they have chosen.
The reason their are so many failed artists, writers, etc. is often because they really aren't that good to start with. The counterpart is most of the public doesn't spend money on art or literature, so even if one is a talented artist it is no guarantee of success. Luck and connections often play a disproportional part.
There's no important distinction between the two. And of course, Crewdson, Wall, Meyerowitz et al are actually highly commercial....they're seriously into peddling their names, just as Ansel Adams was. Ansel of course did a project for Kodak and a very long, highly advertised project for Polaroid...his Polaroids weren't wonderful but he did promote that company in his books...his books are the way many of his check-writing enthusiasts learned about him. Edward Weston became "hand to mouth" of course but he began first as a successful portrait photographer (like Imogene Cunningham) before he became poor. Nonetheless, it helped that Weston's collectors were the most wealthy people in California (and he made their portraits...see Daybook 2)...and it didn't hurt that some of his Mexico Daybook subjects were notrious/famous. And his son might not have gotten his perhaps-fame if his father wasn't so artistically successful.
The distinction between "art" photography and "commercial" photography is mostly that the artiste types anxiously sought and clung to employment at mediocre colleges whereas the best commercial types were selected by advertising agency art directors, who themselves were often artists....they knew what they wanted and knew how to get it.
Most photography students who attend Art Center School in Southern California (where Ansel Adams taught the Zone System) want to be successful commercial photographers. And most probably the vast majority of photography students in community college programs.who in their right mind wants to be a commercial photographer?
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?