Great thought. The corollary, Vincent van Gogh was an artistic success.
I too went to a photographic seminar over 20 years ago where a sentiment was uttered that I have seen many times. It goes something like this... "It is very difficult to make a career in photography." Though the discouraging thought stuck in my craw, I have the tape and it proves the rest of the lecture is really quite inspirational - the speaker got past the introductory downer and got into practical strategies for making a successful photographic career.
Cliveh, Do you recall from the lecture you attended, was the speaker totally discouraging? Or did he/she go on to light a spark. Your work delivers value in excess of what I've paid for it, and value in excess of what I could afford to pay for it too!
Originally Posted by cliveh
Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, any thoughts?
Did she expound on her answer at all? Be interesting to know.
One also has to wonder if ANY person creating "art" ever thinks of themselves as successful.
Because the better you get at your craft, the more you realize that you really aren't all that good, unless you're a narcissist and read your own press.
The really really great ones usually have some sort of mental issues that make them a one trick pony and don't function well in any other facet of life. They probably don't consider themselves successful either.
It's the proceeds from the "f-ing price tag" that supports life and the arts community. It's naive to think otherwise.
Just that it's supremely self-indulgent and narcissistic to think this way. It's a conceit.
What makes an artist successful? Doing good or doing well?
Actually, in my case my day job supports my artistic endeavors.
This is by choice, I could spend 60 hours a week marketing and selling and putting my capital at risk and running a business and get maybe 10 creative hours in versus working 40-50 hours a week without any business risk and having 20-30 hours to think and act creatively.
Would you apply that same logic other forms of expression? Say free speach? Politics?
Also, so what if it is? Something morally wrong with that?
A question I get to answer for myself, for my life, for my family?
Reminds me of the old joke. "What do you call a drummer without a working girl friend? Homeless."
Friends who regularly sell work across various media manage to live off it. They're good at it and are recognized for it but often log 60-80 hr weeks. It's not a hobby.
The quote I responded to above that you deleted was:
Art is art in and of itself and doesn't require anyone else's approval or endorsement whether that's given with a cheque book or the nod of a head.
Yup, still regard that view as self-indulgent and narcissistic. Nothing dysfunctional or anti-social about it but it's relativistic and meaningless. What's the connection to free speech/politics? Nothing in the Constitution about guarantees for self-importance.
making art is a self indulgent activity.
it is self expression... thas nothing to do with selling things.
What do you call art with commerce? Manufactuing.
What successful business people are good at are things like self promotion, business, and manufacturing. Whether the product is a toothbrush or a photo, is irrelavant.
Most commercially successful photographers that I know have developed repeatable processes to create their work. They did some trail and error or research and found a look the market would buy, built a marketing system, and created assembly lines to do it over and over and over again.
Once the cookie cutter is made and the "machine" starts cranking out the product it becomes tough for me to call the product art anymore.
I looked at buying a studio once and hired a business consultant affiliated with Professional Photographers of America. One bit of advice he gave me that really struck me was this. "If you buy this business you can't change the products or the pricing or style for two years without risking failure. After that it needs to be incremental. The client's of that business have to trust you first. If you want a studio with your own vision it's better to start from scratch."
Since getting that advice I've watched various new owners of established businesses make that exact mistake, always seems to end in tears.
Had I pressed ahead I could have been commercially successful but I would not have really been making art, simply would have had a job at a picture factory.
The connection to speach is that I view true art as the original expression of an idea, not the product of a system.
Art and science are what happens the first time something is done, engineering is what's happening the second time, craft is what is happening the third time.
Just so much wrong here.
The enviable crew I know who do well in a range of commercial photography is anything but "cookie cutter." They deliver consistently what their clients want, not a canned product. That it's just "manufacturing" is an implausible truism. The people you're describing appear a bit light on creativity.
Maybe commercial photography and sausage-making are similar in your world but not in mine.
So are you saying cooking isn't/can't be artistic? That high end chefs can't be creatives/artisans/craftspersons like photographers are? That their kitchens are just little factory's turning out the nightly special?
Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, any thoughts?
Hint: think you missed the point re: sausage-making=the epitome of a uniform product, like this *^)
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/09/great-olan-mills-photos.html
I sincerely hope that the lecturer was wrong, or I have wasted more than fifty years of my life.Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, any thoughts?
Art without commerce is a hobby.
Hint: The the design team at Ferrari is no better/nor worse than the design team at IKEA or Apple or Mutual of Omaha. The difference is not their skill or dedication or artistic vision or scientific prowess. The difference is the market and price point they design for.
There is only one reason to be in business; to make a profit. It is a selfish, self-indulgent, and narcissistic pursuit especially in the art industry where one builds a cult of personality around "the artist" as a marketing tool.
I'd hazard a guess that if the "enviable crew" you speak of above are truly successful commercially; that they chase their market hard and are good at it, that they are good at sales, that they found or built reliable factory like back end processes to support their highly customized product. They may be masters of their craft, photography, too but that doesn't necessarily make what they do "art" or make their business successful.
Being good at commerce in your market is what makes any business sucessful, the specific product is irrelevant.
Success in a craft, or art, or science, or life, doesn't have to be measured in money. You are free to use that criteria if you please, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to jump on that treadmill.
Whatever soothing fictions work for you.
The thought that it's not "art" unless it's commercially viable is easily killed just by making an analogy to music.
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?