The Emergence of the Narcissistic, Egomaniac Photographers

[batwister]

Maybe it's these new electronic wonder digital cameras that do everything for people except put the print on the wall? I mean, every soccer mom w/ a DSLR and a big lens is a pro wedding photographer now, right?

This is where you lost me. But the short answer to the OP, which I'm sure everyone would agree on is - celebrity culture. So about the time pop art, and in turn, modern art photography really took off. The 70s.

Photography has always been inextricably linked to fashion, modelling and as a result, consumerism and our obsession with appearances - which really started stifling popular culture, again, in the 70s and 80s. On the flip side, photography in its nature is and always has been the best tool for questioning our perception of reality. If you spend some time looking at (what I can only call 'real') work made in the last 10 years, you'll see some of the most probing, challenging and inspiring social documentary work the medium has ever produced.

Here's the root of the problem here as I see it. People who work within the 'nu-classical' traditional black and white photography movement have a hard time digesting modern critical work, so only ever see the populist rubbish (ala Flickr), get swamped by it, develop opinions about modern photography based on it, and as a result retreat further back into to the classical photography ideologies of years gone by. I think this is where the viewpoint of this thread comes from. Interesting that some people here look at a lot of great early work by accomplished photographers, but only seem to look at bad modern work by amateurs...

'Amateur' photographers (by that I don't mean non-professional, but naive) have always tended to attribute creativity with navel gazing. Everyone does it when they start out with artistic intentions, in any medium. There's that line in Lost In Translation when she says something about taking "stupid photographs of my feet". The solution here might be to stop looking at photography made by teenagers!

Agree with the posts about self-promotion as a necessity today, but the ostentatious teething stages of this will eventually wane.

 

[cliveh]

But have you noticed how a photographer's ego has no relation to their talent?

 

[removed account4]

OP

i think it is the human condition to want others to see what one has done.
not sure it is narcissism ..

seeing someone's photography, seeing a link to their website
or blog or whatever makes it easier to understand where they are
coming from.

its easier to understand stuff when you see stuff .
and it is easier to believe stuff that people say when
you see stuff they do ...

if i am a narcissistic egomaniac photographer for posting my work to the
apug gallery, or having a website, or a place selling my work ...
having links in my signature, trying to scrape a living by through making photographs

i am sure there are worse things to be.

 

[MatthewDunn]

Not to start a trend of naming names, but who exactly are we talking about? Can someone give me an example (really not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but not quite sure I understand what we are talking about when we are discussing exercise of ego)?

 

[batwister]

But have you noticed how a photographer's ego has no relation to their talent?

Very true.

 

[MattKing]

There is more photography happening now then there used to be, but there has been a lot of photography happening for quite a long time.

The difference is that it is far easier to share one's photography with many other people. And narcissistic, egotistical people insist on sharing.

In olden times, in order to share your work you either needed work which was of a calibre that would impress people who had control over the means of distribution (book publishers, magazine publishers, newspaper publishers, gallery owners) or you needed to have enough money to buy that sort of distribution.

Nowadays, access to the internet gives you the ability to distribute - you just need to make sure you get noticed.

And narcissistic, egotistical people are great at getting noticed.

 

[eddie]

But have you noticed how a photographer's ego has no relation to their talent?

Have you noticed that those most critical of other photographers, images, and techniques, are the least likely to share their work? I find this phenomenon far more disturbing than an artist having an ego, and taking pride in their work.
(Not directed at you, Clive. You share, and I'm a fan... )

 

[eddie]

I can't speak to "everywhere", but I've seen it at gallery openings, other websites, and APUG.

 

[eddie]

Michael- It's not just slamming the work which bothers me. It's those that present themselves as "experts", yet are unwilling to display their "expertise". If someone wants me to accept their competence, show me. Without visual proof, they come across as academics, rather than image makers. Just a pet peeve of mine...

I don't get the OP's point either. Is anyone surprised creatives have egos? They always have, and always will.

 

[MattKing]

Michael- It's not just slamming the work which bothers me. It's those that present themselves as "experts", yet are unwilling to display their "expertise". If someone wants me to accept their competence, show me. Without visual proof, they come across as academics, rather than image makers. Just a pet peeve of mine...

I don't get the OP's point either. Is anyone surprised creatives have egos? They always have, and always will.

Eddie: I don't think there is anything wrong with being an academic.

And I think that are many people who are remarkably knowledgeable about photography, without being particularly remarkable photographers themselves.

I would suggest that some of them have a lot to contribute to others - both here on APUG, and elsewhere.

I do agree though that some people do seem to come across as "I can do better than you" without ever showing what they actually can do.

 

[ic-racer]

Just exactly when did photography go from attracting people that were interested in the craft of photography, pro and serious amateur alike, to a large group of narcissistic egomaniacs that are interested in advertising themselves?

These are film photographers?

 

[jovo]

I so often see comments on posted photographs that include the phrase, "thanks for sharing". Since when does sharing an image one is happy to have made and is proud of qualify as narcissistic? As any photograph posted on this site is open to critique whether appropriate or not given the forum, the posting photographer is vulnerable to highly negative assessments as well as high praise or, maybe worse, being totally ignored.

I think any self respecting narcissist* will utterly avoid apug in favor of a site on which their work is not vulnerable to any critique at all.

*no doubt a redundant descriptor. lol!

 

[zsas]

I'm a programmer so I'm gonna answer this like its an algorithm, here goes:

to_love=sharing
sharing=happiness

when the human_being runs the above algorithm in his/her life it looks like this:

If the above algorithm is not run it looks like:
get_off_my_lawn

Basically OP you are seeing increased access to a sharing medium and calling it narcissism (a disease mind you), when in actuality it was no more what Gutenberg helped instantiate

Guess I should delete my shares in the Gallery, would hate to be considered narcissistic....

 

[jovo]

@zsas...YES, i agree !!!

 

[kintatsu]

I understand the OP's question. It makes sense, the internet and short attention spans of our modern life have created this situation. We always want it newer and "nower."

Every mom with a camera, AKA MWAC, calls themselves a pro without even learning. They sell "portraits" that all look like everyone else's, they're all auto everythinged, and photoshopped using the filters other MWACs tell them, and they give 100 digital shots for $69 and all copyrights, too.

As for the rest, we use photography to express ourselves and our vision. Without others seeing it, are we just expressing to ourselves? Like talking to hear our own voice?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As for the rest, we use photography to express ourselves and our vision. Without others seeing it, are we just expressing to ourselves? Like talking to hear our own voice?

I rather enjoy talking to myself as I hate arguments.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

It's not that it's new or even increased. Just that you have access to it 24/7 world wide. Turn off the computer and go shoot some film.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I rather enjoy talking to myself as I hate arguments.

Ha!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I rather enjoy talking to myself as I hate arguments.

So how do you make decisions if you never argue with yourself?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

So how do you make decisions if you never argue with yourself?

I just put things up for a vote.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just exactly when did photography go from attracting people that were interested in the craft of photography, pro and serious amateur alike, to a large group of narcissistic egomaniacs that are interested in advertising themselves? Was it the advent of the internet, and all those smiling faces peering from within the avatars (holding an ungodly expensive Leica usually)? The rise of social networks, and I wonder how social they really are, where everyone wants to be "liked", whatever that is? I look at some photo type websites, and nearly every posting has a string of links leading to the "photographer's" own work/website. Hey, it's just a thread on an online forum, not your personal advertisement. And why does your avatar show YOU and not your work? It reminds me of when I went out many years ago w/ my painting mentor to buy my first easel (tripod to us folks). He cautioned me not to eat the soft, chewy looking eraser I'd just paid a king's ransom for at some snobby art store, and he laughingly said that I could go get a beret and cigarette holder now, and grow a mustache.

Am I suffering from old dufferism? I have double checked that, and it's not just me. A few other people I talked to wondered about this too? Anyone have any ideas why, and when, this happened? Maybe it's these new electronic wonder digital cameras that do everything for people except put the print on the wall? I mean, every soccer mom w/ a DSLR and a big lens is a pro wedding photographer now, right? Not having to focus, figure out exposure, film type, etc may have attracted a lot of people that might otherwise have just been snapshot shooters w/ no pretension of being the next Richard Avadon/Ansel Adams, w/ their self published photo books showing their oh so serious self portrait on the cover, on the back, and inside the book a few times just for grins? I'm clutching at straws here.

1839 - 40.

 

[Black Dog]

Just the two of us

:confused:

I just put things up for a vote.

As Billy connolly said, 'I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I':w00t::confused:

 

[MattKrull]

I rather enjoy talking to myself as I hate arguments.

Man, I need your in-head-voices. I can't go 30 minutes without an argument breaking out. On the plus side, I never get out-smarted (so long as I keep my arguments inside my head, if I talk aloud my cubicle-neighbors get in on it, and they are fast & vicious buggers).

As for the OP, yea, I thought photography was always filled with big personalities. I don't think the current narcissism is photo-centric. Just look at all the pointless facebook/twitter/whatever posts. I remember reading a good article on the idea of the celebrity culture - with personal broadcasting at everyone's fingertips, everyone is now a celebrity in their own life. Narcissism and selfies are just extensions of that.

As for the MWACs, that's the price we pay for the democratization of technology. Personally, I don't really mind it. It made finding a wedding photographer much harder (so much crap to sift through). It has definitely changed the marketplace (how many professional photographers now make a large portion of their living by teaching and leading guided photo walks or vacations instead of stock photography), but change is not inherently bad or good, it just is. Some people will do better in the new environment, some people will do worse.

 

[kintatsu]

As for the democratizing of technology, the process is hurtling along far more rapidly than the original processes. As little as 50 years ago, the advance of technology went from the more advanced, knowledgeale, and well to do consumers. This allowed refinements to be researched and trickled out through the market. In between about 1954 and the early 70's, the majority of average Americans did not have color TV. As the tehcnology was proofed, rolled out, and manufacturing became less expensive, the amount of color began to rise.

Today, the life cycle from initial introduction, to newer technologies can be measured in months! The is partly due to planned perceptional obselence, and partly to our need to keep up. The sad thing is that this doesn't just apply to technology, it's applicable to everything, even our socialization. Today, we stay home and socialize over the 'net and never meet each other. Letter writing is a lost art, as is decent communication. I see the younger folks today even talking in text!

It can be a great thing for the consumer who is at the average income, or slightly below. It even allows the rich man to try it out without spending $7000 for gear he may never use, although funding is withheld and research redirected due to lower income generation. The problem comes in when he tries to move into the professional realm before he's ready. That applies to anything, not just photography. I do think, though, that being given honest and respectable feedback allows us all to improve. I wouldn't be here if that wasn't true, and I'm sure most of us feel the same.

I suggest to those who are the MWAC crowd, learn your gear and the basics. Then learn to see, instead of copy. You will set yourself apart and be someone who can hold your own against others who haven't given any thought to their work.

And so you know, I'm no pro. I just want to make my photos sing! As for the voices in our heads, mine says "Don't worry about it!" The other one says "Double check, just in case!"

 

[Roger Cole]

Posting a link to your images in your signature and a photo of yourself as your avatar make one narcissistic and an egomaniac?? Guess I am then.

We post here because we're into photography. It makes sense to me to share links to our photos so we can see what each other does. The avatar photos are way too small to share any meaningful photography and putting our photo there gives the reader a bit of a visual of who he is interacting with, that's all. Of course little icons relevant to our interests or sense of humor or whatever are common too, anything that makes a bit of a visual personal impression.

Seems pretty normal to me.