Website Bio - first or third person

[RobertP]

Sparky don't feel alone. I've had a website for over a year and have not published it as yet. I struggle with the dreaded artist statement everytime I'm asked for one for a show.

 

[Sparky]

Robert - it may be that the quote thing could work. I'm sure it's a thorn in the side for many. The ones I've seen - even by 'well-known' photogs that are written in the third person generally just scream 'desperate' and 'trying too hard' - the sites are clearly set up and/or commissioned and run by the same person... if the photog is deceased or it's a third party site - well - that's something different.

 

[catem]

I don't understand how it can be considered a personal one on one document. Once published it becomes public domain which is naturally viewed by the masses.

True, but power of the work aside (which of course is not really an aside) in my view the most engaging and memorable websites are often those that manage to create an illusion of intimacy. Which on one level is not an illusion - you normally look at a website on your own, in your own private space. It has to work on that level - perhaps even more than the sense than carrying the sense that it is aimed at the masses, and you are just one of many, including possible journalists or critics who may just happen along and are more important than you....(and the observer may be one of them, but if it works on an individual level it works for the journalists and critics too).

 

[Ian Grant]

Another advantage of writing in the third person is you can include third party quotes about your images, from reviews, magazine articles etc. You can't do that without looking a total idiot if you write in the 1st person.

Intro to website, 1st person, artist statement 1st person, Bio 3rd person seems the best combination.

Ian

 

[MikeSeb]

Mike looks over the forum responses on this subject. He considers carefully; after all, his own site's bio is written in the "unspeakably vulgar" first-person. Mike is concerned; he has never thought of himself as unspeakably vulgar, but neither does he want to be thought "pretentious."

Now Mike has something else to worry about....

Mike

 

[Dave Miller]

Mike looks over the forum responses on this subject. He considers carefully; after all, his own site's bio is written in the "unspeakably vulgar" first-person. Mike is concerned; he has never thought of himself as unspeakably vulgar, but neither does he want to be thought "pretentious."

Now Mike has something else to worry about....

Mike

So stop worrying, and go make some pictures. I think it possible to be pretentiously vulgar,and still worth knowing.

 

[Bob F.]

For me, it depends (as usual). Either way can be written pretentiously but I do think that my main objection is that it distances me from the artist unless it is clearly written by a third party.

Of course, as well as being a standard professional practice, writing in the third-person is probably as often employed by some amateurs desperately trying to establish professional credentials, so it cuts both ways really in that respect.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[tim rudman]

It would be a terrible dull world if everyone agreed with me Tim, however I was asked, and I answered, and see no reason yet to change my mind. I said I felt it pretentious because it attemps to give the impression that the subject is important enough to be worth writing about. Rarely is that the case, certainly not in the examples that you quote.

I didn't mean to take issue with you Dave, only to present both sides as at that point (when I started typing at least) only one view was being expressed.
I didn't give my opinion but I felt it would be useful to Mike to see some examples of the other viewpoint, by a number of regarded photographers.

I'm sure it can work perfectly well both ways and I rather expected that someone would immediately list websites showing the opposite approach.
I think it is an established practice for established practitioners to write in the 3rd person, for some of the resons already given.
However, if the person concerned is not so much 'unknown' but is, say, 'known' by his/her peersto be an amateur of limited experience, then writing in the 3rd person may give the impression that he/she is projecting themselves to be something they are not - but only to those in the know of course, for the internet is a big place. Ultimately, it will be the work that does the talking.
Tim
Tim

 

[davetravis]

Response to OP

I've lived this.
My first two years on the web were first person.
I just wanted folks to know how I thought about my work.
But in the art show business, and selling on the web, it worked out that most folks, customers, want to believe they are buying someone collectible and important.
To talk about one's self appeared to come across as self-grandisement, even if it were true.
I switched to third person because I ended up feeling egotistical about describing my accomplishments, yet had no one to do it for me.
DT

 

[smieglitz]

- not all artists are articulate...

What do you mean by that?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I must revise my advice - never mind the third person, plead the Fifth Amendment!

Just to make it clear - the remark about being "unspeakably vulgar" to indulge in self-publicity and write in the first person was meant to be ironically humorous. As a freelance creative rather than a professor with full tenure, I'm as guilty of this type of behavior as anyone - I'm aware that some people (not involved in the business) think it's crass and vulgar, that's just tough!

What do I mean about some artists being inarticulate? Simply that some people are happier making artwork than writing and thus present themselves poorly in words. To avoid this, and consequently underselling themselves, when preparing a website or other publicity material, people who do not like writing might well consider getting someone else to do it for them - I feel it's better for artists to write their own text if possible, but for some people this is like dentistry without anesthetic!

Regards,

David

 

[Matt5791]

Ok - thanks for all the discussion everyone.

In essence I am hesitant to write about myself in the 3rd person for the reasons stated by Dave - I've some websites like this and they come across just wrong, however some of the websites listed by Tim are clearly justified, in my opinion (eg John Sexton - I woudl be expecting to find it written in 3rd person)

However, I think that this is an interesting point:

I've lived this.
My first two years on the web were first person.
I just wanted folks to know how I thought about my work.
But in the art show business, and selling on the web, it worked out that most folks, customers, want to believe they are buying someone collectible and important.
To talk about one's self appeared to come across as self-grandisement, even if it were true.
I switched to third person because I ended up feeling egotistical about describing my accomplishments, yet had no one to do it for me.
DT

and get to the issue as to what is trying to be achieved - ie. my own website is designed to sell my wedding services, and on this basis it needs to market me - to this end the 3rd person may well be more appropiate.

Jury's is still out though......

 

[sun of sand]

third person just sounds fake to me when I read it
I always find it just a bit harder to believe anything said and I usually chuckle a little

writing it yourself that way is bad -my opinion
using what has been previously published
that's a bit better

Asking someone to write something for you has to be the worst


ANywhooo
I like bios that talk about the artists life in general
It's strange to me to read a bio and never hear much about the person but hear all about their accomplishments or why their work is so great and where it's being collected

So
I obviously like first person
Who else knows you better than you?

Don't worry about not sounding "articulate" enough
I'm not reading your bio to estimate your IQ or to see whether I could make money off you by getting you to write novels/columns/pamphlets/brochures/blogs for me
I'll be reading it to understand you better -get to know you the person better -possibly your work better
The work itself should speak of its quality

But
If you have no clue or don't care to talk about yourself
skip it

 

[tim rudman]

Ok - thanks for all the discussion everyone.

snip... I've some websites like this and they come across just wrong, however some of the websites listed by Tim are clearly justified, in my opinion (eg John Sexton - I woudl be expecting to find it written in 3rd person)
....

This is an interesting observation - and quite fundamental to the issue. Why do you think you would expect this one to be in the 3rd person, but not others?

Tim

 

[tim rudman]

I like bios that talk about the artists life in general
It's strange to me to read a bio and never hear much about the person but hear all about their accomplishments or why their work is so great and where it's being collected

Perhaps people choose to keep their private life out of the public domain, and why not? If the site is about a persons work then that is what peole interested in the work need to know about. The choice whether or not to share other personal life details has to be a personal decision, but why should it be strange?
Tim

 

[Ian Grant]

Having met Matt (the OP) a few times and knowing the market he's aiming at his Bio is probably best kept fairly impersonal, potential customers won't be interested in his personal life. If he's going to get customers from the middle to high end of the market he needs to come across as professional and business like.

His website is a sales/advertising tool and he will still need to sell himself/services and he can be more personal on other pages on the website, particularly describing his own artistic approach and perhaps why customers should choose him rather than a competitor.

The bottom line is only the owner of a website can decide how they want to be seen by others on the internet, and ultimately that depends on the purpose of the website.

Ian

 

[catem]

I have to say I think too much is being made of this.

So only those who are "really established" are qualified to use the third person? (This is beginning to sound like some sort of 'class' or hierarchical system that only the British know how to describe!)

Not so. Neither is it a question of that or 'sharing your personal life' by using the first person. It's simply a question of style and personal choice.

By the way, by 'web bio' I am meaning any sort of intro about you and your work that is written in paragraph form. A simple chronology can, of course, be written with no 'person' at all.

Here are two examples of established photographers who choose use the first person. I'm sure there are many more but I don't have time at the moment to come up with a big list. One is a personal friend of mine the other will need no introduction.

www.simon-larbalestier.co.uk

www.lesmcleanphotography.com

 

[sun of sand]

That's cool, Ian
But since I don't know Matt the thread was to be taken generally
A statement like yours probably would have been very helpful in the original post
Could have saved me some time


If he is going after something totally different than I assumed
Is a BIO really needed at all? Is someone to choose him over a competitor because of a bio? I mean, he's a photographer, right? The photography is what sells him. Should sell him, anyways

That type of bio sounds more like a resume than a bio
I would have to see this site/bio, I guess.

"The bottom line is only the owner of a website can decide how they want to be seen by others on the internet.."
Very true. Why the post then?

I feel suckered into this thread lol

Why not have the bio a truer biography and have the "professional sell myself" part called something different?

Having met Matt (the OP) a few times and knowing the market he's aiming at his Bio is probably best kept fairly impersonal, potential customers won't be interested in his personal life. If he's going to get customers from the middle to high end of the market he needs to come across as professional and business like.

His website is a sales/advertising tool and he will still need to sell himself/services and he can be more personal on other pages on the website, particularly describing his own artistic approach and perhaps why customers should choose him rather than a competitor.

The bottom line is only the owner of a website can decide how they want to be seen by others on the internet, and ultimately that depends on the purpose of the website.

Ian

 

[sun of sand]

Too many replies to peoples opinions if you ask me


I'm saying that having someone write something about you so that you won't have to sound pretentious by doing it yourself in the third person is lame

Using someones work that is already out there in the public I think gives much more credibility

A publisher getting someone to write about the person is next best, I THINK

I see no distinction between web bio and nonweb bio
Intro to work I think is different than a bio

I have to say I think too much is being made of this.

So only those who are "really established" are qualified to use the third person? (This is beginning to sound like some sort of 'class' or hierarchical system that only the British know how to describe!)

Not so. Neither is it a question of that or 'sharing your personal life' by using the first person. It's simply a question of style and personal choice.

By the way, by 'web bio' I am meaning any sort of intro about you and your work that is written in paragraph form. A simple chronology can, of course, be written with no 'person' at all.

Here are two examples of established photographers who choose use the first person. I'm sure there are many more but I don't have time at the moment to come up with a big list. One is a personal friend of mine the other will need no introduction.

www.simon-larbalestier.co.uk

www.lesmcleanphotography.com

 

[RobertP]

And Bio is different than Artist Statement. I think some are getting the two confused. If you write the bio in the first person then it would be an autobio. No?

 

[Ian Grant]

So only those who are "really established" are qualified to use the third person? (This is beginning to sound like some sort of 'class' or hierarchical system that only the British know how to describe!)

Not sure where you got that idea from.

By the way, by 'web bio' I am meaning any sort of intro about you and your work that is written in paragraph form. A simple chronology can, of course, be written with no 'person' at all.

There's a huge difference between selling yourself and your personality, as in your example of Les McLean, and selling a service as a wedding photographer so different approaches are required.

In the other link you posted your friend has not written a Bio at all, he written more of an artists statement.

Photographers (in fact all artists) looking for good exhibitions, publication etc and even commercial work would normally have an artists statement about how they approach their work, a portfolio and a biography - short and concise which give information about where they come from, relevant education/jobs held, their past history as an artist etc.

In the UK AN Publications produce excellent material for artist with specialist publications for photographers.

Ian

 

[catem]

Yes, Bio and Artist Statement are not the same, but very often on websites people combine the two, in an "about the photographer" type of page. It's probably the emphasis someone wants to give that should determine the 'person' they write in.
Which I think I said (and others have said) several posts back, so I think I'll stop on this one now

 

[Ian Grant]

And Bio is different than Artist Statement. I think some are getting the two confused. If you write the bio in the first person then it would be an autobio. No?

Yes in a way, a Bio is a statement of fact rather than opinions.

Ian

 

[RobertP]

If its written in the first person it makes it autobiographical which is more along the lines of an artist statement. This is why when referring to bio it would actually be more acceptable in the third person. At least that is what my college writing professors tried to pound into me.

 

[sun of sand]

Perhaps people choose to keep their private life out of the public domain, and why not? If the site is about a persons work then that is what peole interested in the work need to know about. The choice whether or not to share other personal life details has to be a personal decision, but why should it be strange?
Tim

I included that option, Tim

I think it's strange to call something a bio whether auto or not and yet include nothing personal except for jobs/accomplishments
"If the site is about a persons work then that is what peole interested in the work need to know about."
True
Why have a bio section then? Call it something else -is my opinion.
Often a person will like to know about the artist when buying from them
It doesn't add to the art really
but it's interesting ..any account of a life is interesting therefore a person should be able to include theirs whenever they feel so inclined
IF the work is all that matters why are people so hung up on what equipment people choose to shoot with? Or how they envisioned a scene to be printed? or...
It's just insight into what drives them
that can shed light on works yet to be produced -if you ask me

a person is not what title they hold