Most fine art photographers would make lousy commercial photographers, because who in their right mind wants to be a commercial photographer?
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.
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.
What is this picture meant to say or illustrate?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Same with students who attended Brooks. Becoming a successful commercial photographer is the result of having the right temperment and gaining the specialized knowledge and working methods that best suits one's profession (and luck and all that stuff). If there is no desire to become a commercial photographer, then there may or may not be a need to learn all or part of that specialized skill set.
A fine art photographer having or not having that particular skill set is not the determining factor of how skilled the photographer is, nor of the strength of their art.
For example, in my case, large format camera use for the making of prints using19th Century process (w/ camera negatives) is quite a different skill set than required for (or gained from) most commercial work.
But I think most folks are over-thinking the quote. As someone mentioned early, to me it simply means that the photographer is in every image she or he makes...every one is a self-portrait. Their photographs are not necessarily (and not often) about themselves. It is more like their reflection was in a mirror they missed in the viewfinder when they made the photograph of a room.
What is this picture meant to say or illustrate?
Thanks
pentaxuser
No...I am one of those fine art photographers that developed their skillset as they developed their way of seeing and expressing it. I have no need to develop the skillset of the commercial photographer -- while at the same time realizing there is considerable overlap.
I have never been an art major. I earned a BS in Natural Resources Management. I worked for 12 years for the US Forest Service, building from scratch a skillset (some more poetic folks might say 'art') of mule packing and trail building. But I learned photography, practiced photography and worked/taught photography at a university for almost 40 years. Their program was based on photography as an art form. Minimal technical training in the classroom/studio. No classes speciallizing in just LF camera use, for example, nor for studio use. Students were introduced to all of that in their regular classes and had assignments dealing with all that. And I would volunteer to take students out into the redwoods with the 4x5s occasionally. But it was up to the students to take things further. As the darkroom tech, I was there to provide assistance to do so.
But we had up to 80 hours a week of open darkroom hours. I was only half-time, so I staffed the darkroom with student volunteer lab assistants I would train (twenty or more a quarter). In exchange, they got the keys to the darkroom. We were officialy open until mid-night every day...but there was a lot of printing thru the night! Grad schools loved our BA grads...they would end up running their darkrooms and had a head start teaching/helping other students in the darkroom, since I made helping other students the focus of the lab assistants (besides keeping the place clean and the chemicals fresh and mixed!)
I do not believe it is the job of universities to turn out completed products...and employers do not want that. Smart employers look for people who are well trained in the basics, know how to see and create solutions, and can produce. Unfortunately this is not always the result of a degree...sometimes it is the university's fault, sometimes it is the raw material, or sometimes a lack of melding of the two.
That is like saying, "I breathe so I exist." but a French man said it better, "I think therefore I am."
I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries.
A record of his living, of course.
I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries. People who barely make ends meet are usually people who are looking for food, not images.
āYour photography is a record of your living, for anyone who really sees.ā
~ Paul Strand
On Photography: Paul Strand, 1890-1976
āYour photography is a record of your living, for anyone who really sees.ā ā Paul Strand Paul Strand has been called the biggest, widest, most commanding talent in the history of American photography. He was born in the midst of one of the most exciting and innovative periods in the history of...photofocus.com
@awty, I think, is interested in art as a human pursuit. And there's more than one way to "barely make ends meet". (Those who are mired in social or political inequity, for instance.)
I'm wondering what you mean by "discoveries".
It is well known that for a long time Edward Weston could barely make ends meet.
I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries. People who barely make ends meet are usually people who are looking for food, not images.
Happily for us, EW was a successful portrait photographer before he moved to Monterey area and happily for him and for us he connected adequately with famous bohemians and patrons (see Daybook II). If he had wanted to I imagine he would have prospered with a studio in San Francisco.
If you read his day books he absolutely hated takingāand the obligatory retouchingāportraits. It was a great relief to him once there were enough shows and ocollectors for him to only do unretouched portraits. He enjoyed making portraits of friends and fellow artists, but the money he made from those was mainly by selling them to collectors. If I recall from the day books, he did not like big cities much, including San Francisco.
By "discoveries" I mean something like "yikes...have I really seen that? "
If you read his day books he absolutely hated takingāand the obligatory retouchingāportraits. It was a great relief to him once there were enough shows and ocollectors for him to only do unretouched portraits. He enjoyed making portraits of friends and fellow artists, but the money he made from those was mainly by selling them to collectors. If I recall from the day books, he did not like big cities much, including San Francisco.
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?