Why do people show their photographs to other people?

[copake_ham]

Simple as that.


Well, I'm not young but also not stale in my photography.

Nor I.

I recently started working with MF while still enjoying 35mm.

Now having a house in Tucson, as well as NY, I just shot a half dozen rolls (both formats) at the Rodeo. Also took a couple of hikes in the National Park doing landscapes with angry skies like an Ansel Adams-wannabe!

The week before we were at a ski jump contest in northwestern CT and I burned a few rolls there!

Never went to a ski jump before.

Who's stale?

 

[snegron]

Art is supposedly a means of expression, not showing your work to other people is like talking to yourself.

I am content to listen to what I have to say.

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

Although it isn't always possible, I'm a firm believer in the Master-Journeyman-Apprentice process. I think that's better if at all possible for someone at a stage where they can either be nurtured or destroyed depending on their persnality 'armor'.

I'd been taking serious photographs for close to 3 decades when I started posting on these forums, on one forum(not this one) I posted but never uploaded any work, and to my great surprise, one guy refers to me as a 'wannabee', in one discussion on this same forum, the moderator ends his disagreement with me suggesting I wasn't 'a real photographer'. Time went on, finally this one individual asks me in a post if I could upload an image' ........'any image that I was pround of..........and I'm sure others would be interested too'.

I refered him/her to the Cooke Optics website where I had an image being used by the Cooke folks as an example along w/shots by others to represent the Cooke PS945 Portrait lens,...........they shut up.........but it pissed me off that I got 'called out'.......to back up an opinion, and that because I hadn't uploaded many photos to that point, there was a suggestion that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Having said that, I do think it's constructive to upload examples of how to do something, that's worth more to me than, 'you didn't do this,......you didn't do that'..............you can tell somebody what they didn't do, but I suggest that you NEED to SHOW how to do it right/better/how you do it.

But when you do jump in, as I told one young man who I was helping for awhile, you're not going to be judged on your best shot, you'll be judged for your worst shot,.................you've got to try to make your BEST shot, the WORST shot you ever take. And of course it doesn't always work out that way, but after a while you should have an 'internal editor', which can look at your work independant of your wants/aspirations/dreams as to how good your work is, judging w/absolute harshness. Do it to YOUR OWN WORK, before somebody else does it for you.

I've had plenty of arguments w/myself about shots, I grow when my 'internal editor' tells me, put it in a drawer/throw it in the trash, even though I really wanted/was dying for the shot to work. If you can be honest about yourself, you should share your work, I've gotten inspiration from the work of people who have a high degree of skill, I've gotten inpiration from folks who're farther down the learning curve.

If you're a little nervous about showing work, show it to someone whose opinion you value, face to face, and they'll give you a better 'hand' than doing in public/over the net,............if you do it that way, better be prepared for anything. BUT on the other hand, jumping in there, staking your claim, comparing your work to others, ..........RISK TAKING, falling flat on your but, and getting up again, CAN TOUGHEN YOU UP, to try things.

 

[copake_ham]

There seems to be a presumption here that those who do not share their photos are unwilling (or unable) to accept criticism.

But did it ever occur to some of those in this "camp" that there are those of us who just aren't interested in what others have to say?

Most people, placed in the role of "critic" feel duty-bound to be "even-handed" at best and balance positive with negative comments. Then you get the poseurs who have to awe others with their presumed greater insight and belittle the subject in order to stroke their own egos (kind of like reading the NY Times Sunday Book Review section where authors critique other authors and mainly beat their own breasts and never discuss the damn book being reviewed!).

I always ready to learn. And I do post the occassional photog in the Gallery here and read whatever comments are made. But, quite frankly, I can be my own severest critic. And if I need a "jury" I can turn to the likes of Besson, Adams, Weston, Capra etc. for "expert opinions".

 

[PatTrent]

Interesting discussion.

I used to show my photos because I was taking them for others and they insisted on seeing/receiving them. OK, that was reasonable.

Now I take pictures only for myself, and they are rarely seen by others, and usually not unless someone sees them in my home. I have found that the pictures I really, really like get an unenthusiatic response from friends and family, and the pictures they really, really like are my own least favorites--the ones I later wonder why I bothered taking/printing them. This doesn't bother me. I know the difference between "personal work" (but it's really play these days, not work) and "work for hire" or "work done as a favor."

It's the same way with many other artistic/creative things I do. It's a personal expression for me and not dependent on the reaction from others. If I like it, that's what matters. If I share it with someone it's usually to make a point about something or perhaps because it's a gift to them (but then in the latter case, it was created with their own taste in mind, which is not necessarily my own).

 

[catem]

There seems to be a presumption here that those who do not share their photos are unwilling (or unable) to accept criticism.

But did it ever occur to some of those in this "camp" that there are those of us who just aren't interested in what others have to say?

It's a pity if this discussion divides into 'camps'. I don't see it like that. (Why does this happen SO OFTEN on APUG ).

People have different reasons for taking photographs, and different needs, all of which are valid. And I'd say again, for me 'showing' is not the same - or need not be the same - as 'accepting criticism' at all. Neither does it have to be 'getting a pat on the back' (though CAN include both those, at different times).

It's interesting to discuss our various reasons/ rationales for doing things - you have to talk about your own approach to make any sense or have any discussion at all, and that needn't imply a sense of superiority. As I say, different motives and needs for different people.

As for forums, the feedback (or 'communication') is different from face to face, but can be valuable in a different kind of way - for me as long as I know quite specifically my reasons for posting the image. I also have posted pics here just because this is a photography forum and I think it's quite nice for people to have some idea of the kind of work I do, if they're interested, however small and selective - just by way of introduction. I stress, that's something I'VE chosen to do, and I wouldn't criticise others for not doing it. If you have a website (I've only just organised a temporary one) then that serves the same purpose.

 

[gr82bart]

It's interesting to note some thoughts here when someone does not show their work:

• It's cowardly
• It's selfish
• It's an incomplete process
• It can't be satisfying (coitus interruptus was the analogy LOL!)
• It's crazy - like talking to yourself
• How can one 'improve' their photography then?
• It misses the mark that photography is only about communication and/or expression
• It's a waste of time and effort then

Kinda all negative. Is there not anything positive in not showing one's work to others?

I wonder too, since the respondents are all Western born, raised, educated and influenced, if that is the prevailing attitude in Western society? That art MUST be shown, otherwise why do it? It's too bad we don't have more Eastern folks here. I'd like to hear what they have to say about all this. Would it be the same thoughts. Is then a universal 'truth' that not showing one's photographs is negative in general?

I remember a thread started by Les about why we photograph versus how we photograph. I am concluding that for most here, why one photographs is really, in the end, to show it to others and not really, truly for ourselves. It seems the answer to my question, "Why does one show their photographs?", is almost a justification or validation for the act of photographing itself. It's to prove something.

Am I getting warm? Maybe?

Regards, Art.

 

[Curt]

Photography is so satisfying that I display a few and if someone wants to make a comment or ask a question that's fine with me but like a well presented breakfast or dinner, I don't over explain or "push" what I have done. If someone asks about it I will answer questions about it. My photography is self expression of the world around me. I don't have agendas to push or commercial or political aspirations. I photograph because I enjoy the pure beauty of the black and white photograph. From an early age I have seen the graphic nature of things and sought to understand the workings of the mechanical and natural environment. I feel that the audience must not be crowded and each must come to terms with the world as they see it.

 

[arigram]

Is there not anything positive in not showing one's work to others?

Its simple: artwork is done to satisfy one's self not others. You create to feed your own soul, your own passion, your own desire, your own deamons. You do NOT have to share it with others for your creation to be alive, to be art, to be worthwhile, to be liberating, enjoyable, orgasmic, to be a development of one's soul. You create for YOURSELF.
Art is for the Artist.

If you share it with others, well, you can call what comes as "bonuses".

But, unless you destroy it, somebody will eventully find it. And might rock their world. Like Van Gogh's paintings and Anna Frank's diary.
What I said is true: better share it while you are capable of so you can enjoy and benefit from the sharing, but you don't have to.

To create because you feel the need to is all it matters.

 

[jstraw]

Who said it was cowardly or selfish?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Art,

Historically, art and religion seem to have been closely entwined for the first few thousand years, so art had a totemic, magical or religious significance. This may be related to what might be called 'personal significance' (not showing the images) today.

The distinction between applied art (decoration, scene painting, icons, portraiture) and fine art seems barely to have existed until the Romantic Movement in the 18th century: it was just that some artists were more competent than others. The concept of the Tortured Artist Exploring His Soul seems to have been launched in a big way by Goethe with the Sorrows of Young Werther (1774) and to have been popular ever since.

Of course, we don't know about the Great Artists who have never displayed their work, which leads me to wonder about the ultimate value of the question. Either you do want to display, or you don't. I'm not putting you down on this; I'm genuinely wondering why you asked, which must surely be related to why I'm attempting an answer, which I'm not sure about either except that I've just finished four magazine columns and am taking some time off.

Mortensen likens the artist to the child that runs to its mother saying "Look what I've done" and this seems to me to be the fundamental starting point. After that, there are all kinds of others: desire for fame and fortune (or maybe just an income) must also play a part. Then there are specific local or personal reasons: Frances and I have an exhibition coming up in the local café-bar, largely to help them get publicity in the local newspapers. We don't expect to sell anything but the owners, the mayor and others in the village will be pleased, and it's grist to the mill for the column and website (www.rogerandfrances.com) and part of the CV.

What I'm saying, therefore, is that the reasons for exhibiting and not exhibiting are likely to be extremely personal and specific, and maybe it's just best to take the pics and worry about what to do with them afterwards. If you don't feel like taking pics if you don't show them to people (which is somewhat my position) then it's a self-answering question.

Please don't take this as flip or dismissive -- it's as much an exploration of my motives as your original question is of your motives.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The distinction between applied art (decoration, scene painting, icons, portraiture) and fine art seems barely to have existed until the Romantic Movement in the 18th century: it was just that some artists were more competent than others. The concept of the Tortured Artist Exploring His Soul seems to have been launched in a big way by Goethe with the Sorrows of Young Werther (1774) and to have been popular ever since.

Good point, and I would add that everywhere most art was USED, not EXHIBITED for a long time, and a large part of art was in fact what we could call "commercial art" because it was commanded. Before the museums, artworks were in someone's kitchen, or hung in their living room, and they served many functions like decoration, political or religious purposes, illustration (portraits, pastoral scenes), etc.

So when we talk about showing our work we should perhaps question what sorts of consumption we have in mind. Gallery/exhibit is one type, and the one that economic and social circumstances encourages and values the most.

As for the Eastern/Western debate, many myths have been propagated on the back of that divide, so I'm wary of arguments using it.

 

[Wayne]

It's interesting to note some thoughts here when someone does not show their work:

• It's cowardly
• It's selfish
• It's an incomplete process
• It can't be satisfying (coitus interruptus was the analogy LOL!)
• It's crazy - like talking to yourself
• How can one 'improve' their photography then?
• It misses the mark that photography is only about communication and/or expression
• It's a waste of time and effort then

.

Its all typical extrovert drivel. Be like me, otherwise you're a misguided moron.


Wayne

 

[copake_ham]

While I don't widely display my photos - I don't necessarily hide them either.

So a while back I entered the Monthly Shooting Assignment (MSA) here for the Jan/Feb "month". Yep, posted my pic to the MSA Gallery.

Unfortunately, I "won" this with the dubious honor of now being the "judge" for the March/April MSA.

So, I'd like to invite all the "extrovert" posters here who consider sharing their pics an essential part of the photographic experience to submit an entry. Here's the link:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

What about it all you "exhibitionist" folks? How about a submission?

And guess what the best part is, I'm the judge!

 

[Flotsam]

To Me, Photography is about communication, not masturbation.

 

[copake_ham]

To Me, Photography is about communication, not masturbation.

Ouch!

Well, why mince words when stating a position, right?

So then can I expect that you'll be submitting an entry to the MSA in order to communicate?

 

[Flotsam]

So then can I expect that you'll be submitting an entry to the MSA in order to communicate?

That would seem to be an easier assignment to complete in Tucson than a few dozen miles South of Copake. There are a couple of Stables around here but it doesn't appear that the Horses do very much besides prancing around underneath young Girls. I guess that they must occasionally have to do a little studding but I'm not sure that qualifies as actual work and anyway, I'd prefer not to get near enough to that action to capture it on film.
I'll watch for future MSA's though.

 

[MattKing]

I've looked through this thread, but don't think I've seen my answer:

Because it is fun, and because I enjoy the interaction with others, and because it increases the chance that others will show me their photographs.

But most importantly, because it is fun.

Matt

 

[Roger Hicks]

There are a couple of Stables around here but it doesn't appear that the Horses do very much besides prancing around underneath young Girls.

Don't knock having young girls on top of you. Used to be one of my favourite activities before I got married -- even better than holding photographic exhibitions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[John Bartley]

I enjoy photography because I like the process. I didn't know "how to" make a photograph when I started several years ago and now I do know the basics.

Just as I have no desire to be an expert or to delve too deeply into the mysteries of the "how and why" of photography, I have no desire to show off my photos. They are mostly for me and I am content with where I am.

Sometimes I will take a photo of a place or person(s) where the subject of the photo may interest someone else. In those cases I will show the photo, but the showing is documentary not artistic.

While I enjoy looking at others photographic work, I will not critique another persons work other than to express my thoughts positively when I see one that I like. Just because I don't like what I see doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with what I see. I may not have the correct perspective.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... A subject that I have thought about, extensively.

In no particular order/ rank:

1. Because I am an exhibitionist.

2. It is part of a search for "kindred souls."

3. Because I want to share what I see.


Each of the above concise statements could easily be the subject of an intense, involved, discussion. As an example: "Exhibitionist" ... a parallel question: Why do we (at times) wear neckties ... or earrings?

- I am in time trouble at the moment. I'll write more later

 

[catem]

So, I'd like to invite all the "extrovert" posters here who consider sharing their pics an essential part of the photographic experience to submit an entry. Here's the link:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

What about it all you "exhibitionist" folks? How about a submission?

Funnily enough, I don't think I'm either extrovert or an exhibitionist. You may not believe it, but I'm way more of an introvert. The easiest comfort zone for me could possibly be never to share anything, certainly outside my immediate circle...If this was a crowded room or a pub rather than a forum you wouldn't see me for dust....

Because it is fun, and because I enjoy the interaction with others, and because it increases the chance that others will show me their photographs.

Totally agree.

So do the above statements mutually exclude each other?

Funnily enough, I don't think so. To push yourself can be 'fun', to explore limits and boundaries, and to ask questions of yourself, as well as of others....

...yes, interacting with others is fun, social, and life-affirming!!! If you can do it constructively whilst discussing photography, either yours or someone else's, even better. Egotistical? More than likely. But so is speeding down the motorway at over 100 mph

 

[Ed Sukach]

My experience of people who bore their audience with overly copious quantities of images is, they don't really have an interest in their method of photographing to any depth. That is they show the images in order to present a record of themselves in the situation. I think that is fine if that is your objective (and you don't mind seeing your friends irregularly).

Thought provoking.

I've been there, done that (though not for a great deal of time, now) and have the scars. However - the INTENT of "showing the slides of the vacation" is rarely a "show of photography"; rather it is a "show of place" ... that's where we were!!

I understand your point that "it is a record of themselve in that situation" when taken in the context of a "show of place" (emphasis on "place").
But... the same "record of themselves in that situation" is true of the most noble of goals - when the emphasis is on "themselves" - the "Self". It is a record of the emotional involvement of the photographer, his/her reactions, and the "zeitgeist" of that moment.

However, I guess there is an assumption behind this particular discussion that the purpose is for something more than just record shots.
If you are a person who naturally likes to improve your abilities, particularly in areas that you are passionately interested in then why would you not take every avenue available to do so with your photography?

Let me count the ways... Because some are NOT ethical; because some can cause irreparable grief to someone else; because some are simply counterproductive, and not worth the time, money, or effort.

But even if you are happy with where you are at and you only do it for fun and a sense of satisfaction through self expression; photography is a method of visual communication and it takes at least two to party (as already mentioned so well).

I will agree, to a point. I don't think it is EXCLUSIVELY - ONLY - a means of communication: there is a great deal more. Try an expression of thanks (similar to a prayer of thanksgiving) for the beauty in this world, among others.

I do believe it is important to be honest with yourself about the level at which you are at, and find an audience appropriately. The audience could be friends or a club, or it could be a successful advertising agency who will have expectations to be met or savy art buyer who will have expectations to be moved. Whatever sails your boat.

The audience that has most difficulty being objective about your photography is yourself.

Well ... if "honesty" requires "objectivity", and I think it must, it will not be easy... however ...
Given this more thought, I do NOT want my work to be "objective" -- I want it to display a great deal of my "self" ... and that is the very definition of SUBJECTIVE.

What "level" am I at (with apologies for the syntax)? I don't know. How many "levels" are there, and how does one (or anyone else) determine where they "belong"?
To tell the truth, I don't know ... nor do I see any advantage in knowing. I'll simply continue on.

That way, I can reach for the stars.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Funnily enough, I don't think I'm either extrovert or an exhibitionist. You may not believe it, but I'm way more of an introvert. The easiest comfort zone for me could possibly be never to share anything, certainly outside my immediate circle...If this was a crowded room or a pub rather than a forum you wouldn't see me for dust....

A comment - n.b., NOT a "disagreement""

I, too, am an Introvert ... according to the tests, a "severe" introvert. That is, in no way, a "bad" thing; essentially it means that I would rather "do it myself", rather than have others do it for me... and that applies to most of the areas of my life. Introversion is the one shared characteristic of innovators, those who think for themselves, artists, photographers ....

Introversion is nothing like an opposite of "exhibitionist". I may choose to wear a tie; one thing is for sure - the selection of that tie will be *MY* choice - not someone else's. Look at Introversion as the opposite of the "Lemming Syndrome" - and the curse of Madison Ave. type ad people.

 

[John McCallum]

Thought provoking.

I've been there, done that (though not for a great deal of time, now) and have the scars. However - the INTENT of "showing the slides of the vacation" is rarely a "show of photography"; rather it is a "show of place" ... that's where we were!!

I understand your point that "it is a record of themselve in that situation" when taken in the context of a "show of place" (emphasis on "place").
But... the same "record of themselves in that situation" is true of the most noble of goals - when the emphasis is on "themselves" - the "Self". It is a record of the emotional involvement of the photographer, his/her reactions, and the "zeitgeist" of that moment.

I think photography has a peculiar raison d'etre because of the association with conveying reality. The experience occurs, taking the photos proves the story later. Showing the photos to others completes the circle.

But this purpose changes significantly when a person goes through the realisation that photography can reveal a variety of realities within control of the camera operator and they then start down the road of photographing for the sake of photographing. That is; with the intent of being 'personally expressive'.

I will agree, to a point. I don't think it is EXCLUSIVELY - ONLY - a means of communication: there is a great deal more. Try an expression of thanks (similar to a prayer of thanksgiving) for the beauty in this world, among others.

I meant photography in and of its own medium, communicates visually. It only works if someone looks at the photo, and imho works better if that someone is not the photographer. my 2c.