The Emergence of the Narcissistic, Egomaniac Photographers

[removed account4]

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.

a roommate of mine from college
worked as an assistant for one of the largest names in photography
in the 1990s .. extremely well known. and i am sure you and others
here on this forum &c know exactly who i am talking about without me saying her name.
she had no idea how to use her camera/s. it is extremely arrogant to suggest that just because
someone doesn't know their equipment they are unprofessional. i also know many many many professionals
who not so different from the person i was at first describing, do what they do, and do it well, and they don't know more
than "what they do" ...

i am sure you and a large portion of the people who have logged into this website since 2002 who claim to be "professionals"
or "nationally and internationally collected artists" don't know more than well a small sliver of what photography is, or even what
your camera/s or processes you use are capable of.

personally, i have been experimenting with photography for more than 40 years. i have used film
and papers and chemistry and ... to extremes most people wouldn't bother to use them,
so i can learn ... i have been a professional for nearly 30 years
charging people for what i make for them, whether it hangs on their wall, goes in their bookshelf
or is published, and i am not so arrogant enough to say that i have even scratched the surface of what photography is.
from what i see, photography, making photographs, using a camera, chemistry and light to make
images .. is a deep hole ...a sink hole or a black hole that can go on forever and anyone who even suggests they are a master of it is a fool.

 

[DREW WILEY]

People tend to subconsciously edit out the parts of photographer's lives which aren't glamorous or stereotypical of their reputation. For example, they forget that Edward Weston spent a lot of his time sitting around bored in a portrait studio waiting for some annoying rich lady to come in and get a half-hearted portrait taken. I've known a fair number of contemporary "art" photographers of high repute, and not one of them makes his living primarily doing "art". There's always something else - teaching, consultation, commercial photog, grunt work. Some of them paid their dues living the starving artist lifestyle for a long time before anything worked out. Not for me. I know of a couple more who hit the big time doing photography, but it was actually due
to marrying someone rich who could support their conspicuous camera habit. Yeah, there are a couple of con men types who have made a lot of money
catering glitzy big prints to unsophisticated tourists, but one could probably do that selling black velvet Elvis rugs to drunken tourists in Vegas too.
I pity anyone who views the end goal of photography as fame or fortune.

 

[BrianShaw]

Bread-and-butter work in most professions isn't the glamorous work.

 

[BrianShaw]

... nor the work that brings fame and fortune!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I did know one highly visible "egomaniacal" photojournalist for whom that unsavory description was merely an artificial marketing persona. Despite his numerous other talents, he was a pretty poor photographer who otherwise got lucky. But if you got to know him a bit, he likewise thought he had, at best, pretty modest visual skills. The big ego and fame was all made up and just a surface veneer, just for the sake of sales
and travel grants.

 

[pentaxuser]

The field of photography has never lacked for big egos... ever. I'm not at all convinced this is a new phenomena.

Typical of the female sex. We are trying to start a rant here and all you can do is utter two sentences on the topic that are completely grounded in common sense and forces us to think rationally and take a longer, cooler view of things.

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

You mistakenly attribute too much to gender differences, but in this case Suzanne is correct as you state.

 

[blansky]

he was a pretty poor photographer who otherwise got lucky. .....

I the last few years I have bandied about in my head the concept that anyone who ever became successful actually "got lucky".

Skill and hard work rarely enters into it.

Merely pre-destined or just right place, right time and the planets aligned for them.

Of course then naturally they regard their success as hard work and talent, just like it says on their press clippings.

 

[BrianShaw]

That is certainly one way of looking at it, and there is enough evidence to support it. Others seem to become successful through devious manipulation. That in itself is a skill that requires hard work. :confused:

 

[Vaughn]

I the last few years I have bandied about in my head the concept that anyone who ever became successful actually "got lucky".

Skill and hard work rarely enters into it.

Merely pre-destined or just right place, right time and the planets aligned for them.

Of course then naturally they regard their success as hard work and talent, just like it says on their press clippings.

Have you read Outliers yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

Basically supports your premise of 'luck'. Except I (and the book) would say that luck sometimes rewards someone's competence and hard work, and sometimes it does not. Hard work and competence is still needed -- it enters into it strongly, it is just in some circumstances competence and hard work will not get someone as far as one with equal talents/hard work and luck.

"Luck" being when and where you were born, how you were raised, etc.

 

[batwister]

I the last few years I have bandied about in my head the concept that anyone who ever became successful actually "got lucky".

Skill and hard work rarely enters into it.

Merely pre-destined or just right place, right time and the planets aligned for them.

Of course then naturally they regard their success as hard work and talent, just like it says on their press clippings.

That's a little bitter? I think it's the people who consistently produce middle brow work and then find themselves in the right place at the right time, who find success and the most vocal opponents. People are definitely more offended by semi-competent wedding photographers than the laughably bad ones for example.

'Hard work' isn't necessarily good work. Whether you're known for being bad, great or medicore, you still have to work hard for those labels!

 

[PKM-25]

That's a little bitter?

There is hardly a photo enthusiast site that does not take the tack that they never want to celebrate the fact that someone is truly more talented than them, more successful than them or more brilliant than them, every single site! Moreover, the stars in the photography world don't even post on sites like this for the most part...I know several of them, they are put off by the way amateur camera owners seem to always find fault or put down very successful pros, I am too.

But like it or not guys, there will always be the star in the photography world and it will be solely the product of volumes of raw talent coupled with boundless tenacity. I think it is hard for many on a site like this to think about because quite often on all photo sites, there is this BS notion that being a pro is not as fun as being an amateur. In the case of being the star, you could not be more wrong.

Every pursuit in which one can be celebrated for being exceptionally talented, there are egos....it is not humanly possible to engage in society at some level without one, it is a common outlier in our way of being.

But yeah....photo centric websites avoid giving a great photographer his or her due on a regular basis. For some odd reason, it seems much easier to say "Great Capture" to some uber boring picture and feel good about the small world people tend to want to live in.

I call that living a lie..

 

[Pioneer]

Fortune + Drive = A chance at success.

Fortune can get you noticed but without the drive it is highly unlikely you will truly be successful.

Drive without fortune usually just makes you tired and disappointed.

Skill is a nice positive but entirely incidental to success.

 

[pbromaghin]

Hmmm. The harder I work, the luckier I get.

 

[batwister]

Well, from the horses mouth:

The idea of making an ongoing creative life – whether as a writer, an artist, a filmmaker or a musician – is difficult unless one gets a foothold on the ladder, as I was lucky enough to do. I say "lucky" because I have no illusions that talent is enough; there are plenty of talented folks out there who never get the break they deserve.

From David Byrne article in today's Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/07/new-york-1percent-stifles-creative-talent

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I think the main problem is that photography as practiced by the younger generation is almost entirely autobiographical. They've been raised to think exclusively about themselves and their photographs reflect that. Look at the rise of the "selfie" if you need any evidence to this point.

The thing I love most about photography is that, while working, I'm thinking intensely about the subject. It's a meditation, not an introspection.

You ask young photographers "what this picture about?" and count how many times the answer starts with "I."

"I was feeling this...."

Barf.

 

[blansky]

That's a little bitter?

Actually not bitter or emotional at all. I've been really lucky all my life.

And not really about photography per se either.

Its just, after sixty years on the planet, I've come to some conclusions or thesis that its maybe all about luck/destiny/good fortune and very little about the self proclaimed "hard work".

Obviously you have to work at whatever you do, BUT some of this good fortune seems far too pre determined to me to be random.

And I'm not just talking about winning the ovarian lottery, and being born to wealth or even middle class, I'm more talking about the fact that some people just seem to get breaks and struck by the good kind of lightning while others toil in obscurity.

That's not saying that getting all the breaks makes you more happy than people who don't, it's just an observation from living a while and observing and questioning.

It sort of evolved with the political climate and the winners and losers, proclaimed in daily life. The 99 vs 1 percent. The self congratulatory position of people who "made it". The concepts of unfettered capitalism vs socialism. The happiness quotient of other countries who are socialistic being far above countries constantly trying to be rich and or famous.

As Warren Buffett states, that he is rich because he is extremely lucky. He was born with a head for numbers and nothing he did led to it. Just his talent and the drive he was born with, to manipulate them.

Not a political rant, just observations.

YMMV.

 

[removed account4]

snip snip snip snip snip

Obviously you have to work at whatever you do, BUT some of this good fortune seems far too pre determined to me to be random.

Not a political rant, just observations.

YMMV.

exactly,

that is where YMMV come into play ..

i think it's also called " $hit happens" ?

you can be the best of anything, and unless
"it' happens you'll just be what you are ...

nothing more, nothing less ..

as he said

YMMV

 

[ME Super]

Well, from the horses mouth:



From David Byrne article in today's Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/07/new-york-1percent-stifles-creative-talent

I know I've posted this exact quote on this very forum before, but it bears repeating. It's a Kurt Vonnegut quote: "Go into the arts. I'm not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."

In short, it doesn't matter if you're talented or not, or if you're a good salesman or not. Make photos because it's something you enjoy doing, even if nobody else likes your work. You've created something.

 

[Pioneer]

I know I've posted this exact quote on this very forum before, but it bears repeating. It's a Kurt Vonnegut quote: "Go into the arts. I'm not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."

In short, it doesn't matter if you're talented or not, or if you're a good salesman or not. Make photos because it's something you enjoy doing, even if nobody else likes your work. You've created something.

Thanks ME Super. It pays to read that quote every now and then.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Two egomaniac/narcissistic things that get my goat: a) people whose signature includes a list of the equipment they own (this on another forum but no doubt I'll upset someone here!) and b) declarations/bragging of how much material or how many 'bricks' of film someone has in their freezer (so you've spent some money, so what?)

Steve
Dented Halina Paulette, Photax-Paragon 135mm lens, three outdated rolls of Boots Colourslide 2 in the freezer.

 

[Prest_400]

I think the main problem is that photography as practiced by the younger generation is almost entirely autobiographical. They've been raised to think exclusively about themselves and their photographs reflect that. Look at the rise of the "selfie" if you need any evidence to this point.

The thing I love most about photography is that, while working, I'm thinking intensely about the subject. It's a meditation, not an introspection.

You ask young photographers "what this picture about?" and count how many times the answer starts with "I."

"I was feeling this...."

Barf.

I am from that generation.

I know a couple of girls in person, who are more or less like this on flickr.
I would attribute it to the feedback effect you get. Put something, get lots of "nice" comments and "likes", "faves" et al. Photography becomes sort of "shooting for others". And the circle feeds itself, leading into more of this work and feeding the ego as well.

Agreed on the arts quote. It is becoming one of the insanity asylums I've got to rest my mind.

 

[MattKrull]

I think the main problem is that photography as practiced by the younger generation is almost entirely autobiographical. They've been raised to think exclusively about themselves and their photographs reflect that. Look at the rise of the "selfie" if you need any evidence to this point.

The thing I love most about photography is that, while working, I'm thinking intensely about the subject. It's a meditation, not an introspection.

Firstly, what's wrong with introspection? Meditation, in the buddhist tradition at least, is introspection.

I guess I'm showing my generation, or maybe just a misunderstanding of what you're implying, but: Photography is partially autobiographical. I can paint a place I've never been, I can sing a song about a life I've never lived, but to photograph a landscape, I have to go there. To take a portrait, I have to interact with the subject. From the focal length and it's effects on features, to the lighting, development choices, to whether the subject is at ease or tense, are all shaped (some more than others) by me. How do you seperate "personal style" from autobiographical influences?

You use Selfies, the most extreme of autobiographical photos, to illustrate your point. But the selfie isn't new, it's just a one person job now. Before digital cameras allowed us to throw away a half dozen photos getting it right, how many times did a stranger on vacation ask you to take their photo? It still happens to me regularly (but I live in a town frequented by tourists). What's the difference between a selfie and someone asking you to take their photo so they can remember their trip? Granted, 10 years ago, not many people asked me to take a picture of their meal (but I did have an old couple ask me to take their photo in a fancy italian restaurant recently, so that is kind of similar). Again, the zero-cost of taking photos means we (all ages) take pictures of things we wouldn't have considered worth it before.

I also think the use of selfies is a poor example because it doesn't fall under the categroy of 'art' to me, or any of my friends. It is a snapshot. A pictoral journal entry. No more fine-art than a written journal entry is a short story. When I look at the photographs taken and intended as 'art' by people my age, I see art. I see personal styles. I don't see direct autobiographical journal entries.

So my question to you is: When you look at the photos of the younger generation: are you looking at their art, or their journals?

 

[ntenny]

So my question to you is: When you look at the photos of the younger generation: are you looking at their art, or their journals?

I snipped most of this post, but as a generationally older fart (I'm 44) I think it was all spot on.

But it also seems like there's quite a bit of "bleed" between the art and journal worlds for many younger photographers. Partly this is because attractive young women get ludicrous amounts of positive(?) feedback for posting semi-artistic selfies[1], partly it's because young people's art seems invariably to be more self-involved than it will be later in life (and the internet reduces the barriers to seeing that; I bet there's a lot of self-indulgent work in the juvenilia of respected older photographers too).

And maybe part of it is a legitimate reaction against artistic boundaries, a kind of Duchamp-esque poke in the eye at the photographic establishment. Which is all to the good if you ask me (and why wouldn't you? ).

-NT


[1] I follow someone on Flickr who I think is a rather talented photographer with a good eye. She posts a really nice photo of an urban landscape or the light from her window or whatever, and the world goes "meh". She posts a mirror selfie in black and white with a bra strap showing, and the world falls all over itself to tell her how wonderful her art is. What do you suppose she's going to be led to concentrate on? I think that effect is rather tragic, but I suppose I'm not her and I'm not entitled to tell her what she wants to achieve with a camera, right? Sigh.

 

[removed account4]

there have been millions of "selfies" made since the dawn of time, i don't think that
has anything to do with narcissism or egomania. i think the "i know everything" attitude
that people may have, so they don't learn anything bout the history of the/their medium of choice
may be problematic though. he's got no future and no past ( as nina hagen would sing ) ...
and a selfie from some self absorbed navelgazer will always be just that, nothing more, nothing less ...