The Emergence of the Narcissistic, Egomaniac Photographers

[winger]

As a mom who's been using a camera since she was about 5, I'm putting in a vote here to stop blaming "MWACs". I see it coming from males on photo.net and elsewhere at least as often and I doubt that moms have cornered the market on underpricing themselves or over-rating their abilities.
As for why some of us put a photo of ourselves as our avatar and a link to our website in our signature line, I'm with those who said we want to share them with other photographers. I have no illusions that anyone except another APUGer is likely to ever look at my website, but there's always the chance of someone passing it along to a friend (I've sent links to others before). My images also give them a reference point of what I tend to shoot. And having a photo of me as my avatar shows someone who they're "talking" to on the web (and it's an example of a good friend's photography and a rare occasion I got talked into modeling).

 

[zsas]

Bethe - I too have had enough of folk on the net vilifying the fabled 'soccer mom who thinks she's a professional cus she's got a $800 Nikon/Canon with that kit zoom'. I know many soccer moms and none of them think they are pros or could photgraph a wedding. It's just convent for photo folks online to rant about all the blogs and flickr streams that some women (many times who've kids) share with their friends/fam. More power to them, least they are 1) photographing 2) helping preserve memories 3) sharing 4) creating happiness in this world

Good grief, I too have had enough of this garbage of these soccer moms who've supposedly stollen the whole market of photography.

Let me make a historical contextual point, back in the 40's, 50's, etc - who was the one that Kodak marketed to so much? Yep, that's right women, "The Kodak girl" anyone remember. Yep these were folks who took family photos and put them in books to memorialize family/friend fun times....

Today, little has changed, except the books are now online for all to see and some to rant about....

 

[marenmcgowan]

There have always been egomaniacs in the photo industry...
There have always been amateurs undercutting the pros...
Social media can be tools to promote your business, or all consuming...
I have been known to rant sometimes, but in the end I realize that it is unproductive.

 

[Roger Cole]

Oddly enough I had a female friend who is a stay at home mom (but not soccer) and pretty decent digital photographer shoot my wedding. No way was I paying the usual pro rates. Not saying y'all aren't worth it, I'm saying it wasn't worth it to US. She normally hates weddings and won't do them much less solicit them (she does have some lighting equipment and does a bit of paid portraiture, and pretty decently) but did ours as a favor. We're actually quite happy with the results.

Even an average pro would have probably added at least 50% to the total cost of the wedding. I think expensive weddings are a very silly extravegence. YMMV on that of course. We all have our ideas what is worth paying for and what isn't. Heck, I thought the wedding we had was a bit over the top but my bride thought it was modest and simple, though just what she wanted. Different cultural backgrounds there. In any event we compromised - we did it her way.

 

[kintatsu]

As a mom who's been using a camera since she was about 5, I'm putting in a vote here to stop blaming "MWACs". I see it coming from males on photo.net and elsewhere at least as often and I doubt that moms have cornered the market on underpricing themselves or over-rating their abilities...

I agree 100% about the gender of those doing such. I was probably wrong to use the term MWAC. Of the 80ish such folks around our region, 70ish are female, so the term stuck. It's not meant to be misogynistic. And it's true, the best ones are women, as well.

As for several others who are upset about the MWAC/Soccer Mom "bashing," the simple fact is these folks don't seem to be hurting the studios. I'm not blaming them for ruining anyone's business. We have a few studios here, and they do great work and are not complaining about the competition. Folks know who to go to for good photos and who to avoid.

As I said, I'm not a pro. My photos are not the best around. I did point out that we show our work, especially where like minded folks gather, to get feedback and to grow in our photography.

 

[batwister]

Speaking of women and narcissists (that is what we're talking about?) - http://www.beyondwords.co.uk/p/1569/vivian-maier-self-portraits

60 self portraits of Vivian Meh!

 

[cowanw]

Speaking of women and narcissists (that is what we're talking about?) - http://www.beyondwords.co.uk/p/1569/vivian-maier-self-portraits

60 self portraits of Vivian Meh!

50 years photographing.
100,000 negatives.
most Never printed.
1.2 self portraits a year.
Not really a poster girl for narcissism.

 

[zsas]

^Yeah I sure hope Bat was kidding....

Maier is the ultimate outsider artist...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

50 years photographing.
100,000 negatives.
most Never printed.
1.2 self portraits a year.
Not really a poster girl for narcissism.

Careful now... Looking at the data a little bit deeper, thinking carefully, and then drawing well-reasoned conclusions about what you see is not an approach that will be tolerated kindly around these parts.



Ken

 

[John Earley]

I have never noticed this phenomenon. Perhaps I should pay more attention.

I noticed it. Then I looked away.

 

[batwister]

50 years photographing.
100,000 negatives.
most Never printed.
1.2 self portraits a year.
Not really a poster girl for narcissism.

1.2 a year if you're only counting pictures currently published - I'm sure she took more, but maths isn't the point.

Just to give credence to the OP's point for a sec - make no mistake, this book could only have been published now. It's not happened, as far as I'm aware, with other photographers (like Maier) whose output doesn't have a basis in self-portraiture? Not that I'd want to see it, but there isn't a Harry Callahan self-portraiture monograph for example - another semi-enigma of her era (who also has self-portraits in his published oeuvre). People are more interested in her - as has been rightly said many times on this forum, but also, there's a massive audience for self-portraiture now which has only appeared in the last few years. The book then has a cynical selling point as far as I see it - one that seems borne out of our obsession with the lives of troubled celebrities via Twitter selfies.

 

[batwister]

I want to add that whatever my opinion of Maier might be, I don't think she was a narcissist, which is why the book is all the more uncomfortable. It's selling based on a presumption of her motivations and an intrusion of her character, rather than her ability as an artist. Also, the fact that she's a woman helps.

 

[ME Super]

I agree 100% about the gender of those doing such. I was probably wrong to use the term MWAC.

<Si Robertson voice>Hey! Sometimes I'm a DWAC (Dad With A Camera), Jack!</Si Robertson voice>

Seriously, nothing wrong with getting pictures of your kids, so long as your not an a** while doing it.

For those not in the know, Si Robertson (Uncle Si) is one of the stars of A&E's "Duck Dynasty." According to him, purnurple [sic] is a color.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I want to add that whatever my opinion of Maier might be, I don't think she was a narcissist, which is why the book is all the more uncomfortable. It's selling based on a presumption of her motivations and an intrusion of her character, rather than her ability as an artist. Also, the fact that she's a woman helps.

I don't think her gender or any other marketing ploy would succeed at selling her work to the extent that it has sold if she didn't have talent. And I really don't see how her gender plays into it either- her anatomical configuration has nothing to do with her photographic ability, which was obviously extraordinary.

 

[batwister]

I don't think her gender or any other marketing ploy would succeed at selling her work to the extent that it has sold if she didn't have talent. And I really don't see how her gender plays into it either- her anatomical configuration has nothing to do with her photographic ability, which was obviously extraordinary.

That's an interesting point, moving away from the Maier thing, in relation to Cindy Sherman, whose work plays on classic female stereotypes - often narcissistic stereotypes. The success of her work does actually depend on her gender and our ideas about narcissism. I think narcissism can very often be a means to communicate in photography, without the work actually being narcissistic. But that's conceptual photography for you!

 

[kintatsu]

<Si Robertson voice>Hey! Sometimes I'm a DWAC (Dad With A Camera), Jack!</Si Robertson voice>

Seriously, nothing wrong with getting pictures of your kids, so long as your not an a** while doing it.

For those not in the know, Si Robertson (Uncle Si) is one of the stars of A&E's "Duck Dynasty." According to him, purnurple [sic] is a color.

OK, DWAC, MWAC, SWAC, or PWAC.

The point isn't that it's parents taking photos of their own children. We all do that.

The point isn't that the self-proclaimed professional photographer is hurting anyone's business. Real pros are faring quite well around here. People know who provides quality, and who doesn't.

The point was that people have more access than ever to technology, and are rushing to say they're professional. You wouldn't call yourself a professional electrician because you have some wire and tape, would you? I've noticed that the majority of these folks are trying to supplement their income and fill their time with something. They often seem proud to say, "I'm a professional photographer."

I've had these WACs say that to me, then ask me why I don't use digital. When I tell them I have a digital camera, they ask which one. When I say the Canon 7D, they seem perplexed that I'm not using it to be a pro. They suggest just that. They say things like "Maybe you can be a pro like me." I usually just say I make my photos because I love doing it. Then they ask if my camera will shoot in color or only black and white. That last one I was asked over 50 times this summer.

The whole MWAC, DWAC, whatever WAC thing refers to this type of mentality and is not meant to bash anyone. The democratizing of technology leads to this attitude. It was going on in the early 20th century, too, and will continue to. Bill Gates is vilified by Apple and UNIX/LINUX users for creating a system where everyone can use a computer with little to no training. The UNIX/LINUX guys were like the old sage ones, without their knowledge nothing could be done. Now it can and they didn’t like it. As things settled down the disdain for Windows remained, but life went on. That will happen with the whole WAC thing.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've had these WACs say that to me, then ask me why I don't use digital. When I tell them I have a digital camera, they ask which one. When I say the Canon 7D, they seem perplexed that I'm not using it to be a pro. They suggest just that. They say things like "Maybe you can be a pro like me." I usually just say I make my photos because I love doing it. Then they ask if my camera will shoot in color or only black and white. That last one I was asked over 50 times this summer.

That just screams ignorance - doesn't matter if you are shooting film or digital, not knowing enough about the tools available IS unprofessional, even if you aren't using them (aka thinking film cameras come in one of two flavors b/w or color). The "maybe you can be a pro like me" is unbridled arrogance, and one of the few statements from another photographer that would tempt me to respond with snarkiness - "I couldn't possibly be a pro like you - that would require me to descend to mediocrity" comes to mind. But usually I just grunt non-committally and turn my back instead.

The whole MWAC, DWAC, whatever WAC thing refers to this type of mentality and is not meant to bash anyone. The democratizing of technology leads to this attitude. It was going on in the early 20th century, too, and will continue to. Bill Gates is vilified by Apple and UNIX/LINUX users for creating a system where everyone can use a computer with little to no training. The UNIX/LINUX guys were like the old sage ones, without their knowledge nothing could be done. Now it can and they didn’t like it. As things settled down the disdain for Windows remained, but life went on. That will happen with the whole WAC thing.

Only from a UNIX user perspective can you say that Windows lets you use a computer without training. I develop software applications for a living using Microsoft products, and I STILL don't know enough about the intricacies of the way Windows does stuff.

 

[lxdude]

I develop software applications for a living using Microsoft products, and I STILL don't know enough about the intricacies of the way Windows does stuff.

I sometimes wonder if Microsoft does, either...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I sometimes wonder if Microsoft does, either...

According to developer friends of mine at Microsoft, they don't. It's so needlessly complex that no one does...

:eek:

Ken

 

[kintatsu]

That just screams ignorance - doesn't matter if you are shooting film or digital, not knowing enough about the tools available IS unprofessional, even if you aren't using them (aka thinking film cameras come in one of two flavors b/w or color). The "maybe you can be a pro like me" is unbridled arrogance, and one of the few statements from another photographer that would tempt me to respond with snarkiness - "I couldn't possibly be a pro like you - that would require me to descend to mediocrity" comes to mind. But usually I just grunt non-committally and turn my back instead.

I just leave them with the old "I do it for me" statement. It confuses them. On the one hand, I can't be good if I don't try to make money, but on the other, I must be good if I'm using a camera that won't do everything for me!

There have been a couple here who have seen my pics and suggested I sell them, but most suggest doing portraits like them. They say if my prices are good I can sell lots.

One lady in her late 50s-early 60s asked me if they still made only black and white cameras any more when I told I shoot black and white film. She wasn't a pro, just a curious onlooker and we had a nice conversation. I even showed her grandkids what the pic looks like on the glass.

Only from a UNIX user perspective can you say that Windows lets you use a computer without training. I develop software applications for a living using Microsoft products, and I STILL don't know enough about the intricacies of the way Windows does stuff.

For the average user, boot up with Windows, and everything is almost automatic. A click here or there for what you want to do, and boom you're there. I use Windows and Linux, both work for what I'm doing. I had to relearn it all with Windows 7. Nothing looks right, I want my XP/9x looking desktop, functionality, and feel! I can't develop applications and when I tried got too confused to go on!

 

[Roger Cole]

For the average user, boot up with Windows, and everything is almost automatic. A click here or there for what you want to do, and boom you're there. I use Windows and Linux, both work for what I'm doing. I had to relearn it all with Windows 7. Nothing looks right, I want my XP/9x looking desktop, functionality, and feel! I can't develop applications and when I tried got too confused to go on!

You can set Windows 7 to look almost exactly like XP. In fact I set it (and XP) to the "Classic" desktop which looks like Win2k. I use a program called Classic Shell to make the start menu look and work right too.

/OT

 

[kintatsu]

I'll have to check it out. I'm getting a little crazy when I have to use 7. It's like knowing your wallet's in your pocket, but thinking the pocket's on your desk!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

"The internet and the ability for anyone to call themselves anything and, with relative unfettered ease, establish themselves as such, has also played a big hand in the mess in which we are currently engulfed. Prior to such “democratic” publishing opportunities photographers had to have their work vetted by genuine editors and publishers. Yes, self-publishing has always existed but it seems to have existed with a healthy dose of self-criticism also, that is until the internet age."

Here: http://www.bloggernews.net/130743

 

[DREW WILEY]

I won't bother reading all these pages. But regarding the initial post, egomaniacal photographers have been with us all along, just like other
artist's who were full of themselves. All of which has nothing to do with the quality of work itself. There have been great artists who were humble; and of course, there seems to be jillions of obnoxious wannabees who are only marginally skilled. Likewise with self-promotion. I can
think of several very successful photographers in the financial and reputation sense, who are really about zero on the real talent scale. But
they're good salesmen. And contrary to the initial comment, Ansel Adams didn't make serious money on his "art" photography until late in life.
He was recognized, but was otherwise a solid commercial photographer, who also got lucky on Polaroid stock. Avedon was more the deliberate puppeteer of haute society support. But look into the life of Carleton Watkins - one of the most talented photographers in history,
with a giant ego, lots of backing, and alas, some very bad luck.

 

[Dinesh]

......... and of course, there seems to be jillions of obnoxious wannabees who are only marginally skilled. .

Timing is everything.