Fame Puzzle
One thing that’s had me puzzled for a while: if you ask an average person (who’s not a photo enthusiast) to name three photographers - odds are that the best they’ll do is come up with Ansel Adams. On the other hand, ask just about anyone to name three painters - and they won’t have an problem. Anyone who’s ever taken a fine art course could probably name 10 painters. The most famous would be Pablo Picasso.
Well, you could say that painters have been around much longer. But I don’t think that’s it. Photography wasn’t considered an art in the beginning - and although it’s accepted as an art form in the creative world - it’s practitioners are still a mysterious group.
My first thought was that it was because pretty much anyone can “take a picture.” Today, more than ever. So the average person who sees something fabulous says, “well, that guy is a pro. He’s got better equipment than me. And he gets to travel to exotic places that I never see. But if I were there, and if I had that equipment - I could’ve taken that shot.”
Painting - on the other hand - that requires talent. You could give me the same paints and brushes that Picasso uses and I could never turn out a masterpiece the way he does. Photographers — they’re just artists that can’t paint.
I think that’s a common enough view.
But I was thinking about other art forms and realized that it isn’t only photographers who are mostly unknown. Could this average person name three ballet dancers? (I can only name one). Could they name three symphony conductors. Three classical musicians? So these are all skilled art forms that not everyone could do - even with the best equipment in the world.
And then it hit me - photography is not a popular art form.
How can it be that there is so little interest in photographers when the population is deluged by photographic images?
The only contemporary photographers that are even remotely known, say Annie Leibovitz are like a comet’s tail. They are known because of the stars they photograph.
The other path to photographic fame is controversy (Robert Mapplethorpe). This is the clearest path. You’ll need to concentrate on human reproduction, religion, bodily functions and possibly politics. You just need to combine any two of the above. What happens then is that you jump to the top of the artworld list; followed up by interviews that make their way into the mass media; and voila - at least for a while you become known as the photographer that shocked the world. I’m not sure if this is strictly an American technique - or whether it will work in other cultures as well.
So the irony to the puzzle - is that there is simply so much photography out there - that only someone with an interest in the art - usually someone that is attempting it themselves in a serious way - get exposed (no pun intended) to the photographers rather than just their images.
It won’t be enough in the future (or even now) to take that one amazing picture that everyone in the world sees. The image will live on - the name of the person who pressed the shutter will continue to be obscure.
It’s a little bit like the screenwriter in the movie business. A lot of people still believe that the actors are making up the words as they go along (okay, sometimes they are). The directors achieve some fame; but it’s the star of the picture that is at the top of the fame table.
And if everyone could press a button (this may happen) and create a painting based on their dreams or thoughts - then painters will drop on the fame list as well because we’ll be deluged with paintings of the kids, pets, and vacations.
My advice, as far as fame is concerned, is to start when you’re very young - and make your way into a kid’s show. You’ll be directed by your parents on how to proceed from there.
« Bulldogs
Comments
Comment from Lester
Time: May 4, 2008, 8:01 pm
The solution is fairly simple. Photography needs a TV show comparable to American Idol or Dancing With the Stars. It might be called “Shoot to Kill” or “Framed”. It would have an all-star panel of celebrated and very sadistic professional photographers who would insult would-be artists and reduce them to tears in front of millions of people. The winner would get a billion dollars and a guaranteed photo shoot with Amy Winehouse or Queen Elizabeth. This would lift photography into the realm of high-brow art where it belongs.
Comment from Christoph Hammann
Time: May 4, 2008, 10:16 pm
Well, right from the start photography was invented and used as a tool, Daguerre wanted something with which to produce his dioramas faster (didn’t work for that), his followers used his process and those developing (ha!) after that to build a market for portraits. So, convenience and speed were photography’s forte since 1839. That doesn’t make for an occupation admired for it’s difficulty and craft.
Then later, photography was even more commoditized with dry plates, Kodak’s “You press the button, we do the rest”, digital photography and cellphone cameras.
Fine Art photography is a very small niche pursuit.
Comment from laughingbuddha
Time: May 5, 2008, 2:16 am
Making art is something that one does because one has no choice. You have to make something that represents how you fell, see the world - you just have to do it. The commerce of art while necessary in the current environment is actually anti expression because by it’s very nature it excludes and passes judgment on everything in order to set value. Making money in any art form is actually a side effect of doing the work which can either be severe (you make a lot of money) or mild (you make very little).
The idea that artists make money or become very famous within their life times is a very new idea. Getting the work done is what is important and if you happen to have severe side effects from that hopefully it won’t effect the quality of your process and your work.
I have decided that if I receive enough to continue working then I am a success, end of story.
Comment from dave
Time: May 5, 2008, 7:05 am
Didn’t mean to suggest that fame was the reason to make art. Simply curious about why photographers as compared to some other artists - aren’t widely known.
Comment from laughingbuddha
Time: May 5, 2008, 7:59 am
Didn’t mean to imply that fame was a reason to make art or the reason why you spend so much time and energy gathering images and making them available to people. Like most people who are obsessed with making art I figure you can’t help yourself.
PS I loved the Camera Addict piece. I share your passion.
Comment from Buffal Wedding Photographer Rich Mattingly
Time: May 5, 2008, 10:25 am
Dave,
I recently came across your blog and I really, really like the time you take to analyze the “state of photography.” Calling Leibovitz a “comet’s tail” is just good writing, something that isn’t all that common on most blogs - please keep it up and thanks for sharing!
My personal thoughts reflect your own. I think the nature of the tools we use to capture images attract artists who don’t really want to be known, per se. The best work usually comes from the folks who are more interested in their vision and disconnecting through the medium. I learned how to “shoot” (no pun, please) in the Marines and I certainly used my camera to distance myself from the things that were going on around me overseas. Personally, I’m very comfortable not having my name attached to my images.
Comment from dave
Time: May 5, 2008, 12:15 pm
Rich - you put your finger on another aspect of the photographer which is that they often (myself included for sure) don’t want to be known. I know that in my own life, early on, the camera was a good way of hiding a very shy personality. In fact - even when I began to seriously study photography (about two decades ago) - I didn’t show my work to anyone. If the prints worked for me, that was about it. I never wanted to be “known,” or the center of attention.
I was eventually forced by a good friend to show my work at a small arts / crafts show, and the pleasure that I saw on people’s faces helped me realize that these images were worth more (though not in money) than the high-paid computer programming I was doing at the time.
P.S. Did you ever try to photograph another photographer? They (myself included) are the worst subjects in the world.
Comment from Mike Mundy
Time: May 5, 2008, 12:38 pm
My favorite controversial photographer is Sherrie Levine. From the New York Times:
As she does in her work, Ms. Levine most often answered questions not directly but by analogy and reference to writers and artists other than herself.
When asked, for instance, how one of her signature works, a photograph of a photograph of a Dust Bowl Depression family by Walker Evans, was any more original than a writer who sits down and copies ”Moby-Dick” line for line, she quickly brightened and referred to a story by Jorge Luis Borges in which a writer named Pierre Menard rewrites ”Don Quixote” line for line.
Comment from Dennis Ward
Time: May 6, 2008, 9:31 am
Dave,
I think you came close to answering your own question.
In my opinion, photographers don’t get the same recognition as other artists because the photographic process seems simpler than say painting or writing music. Your average person would probably have enough trouble working out how to mix paints on a palette let alone grasp the many different ways of wielding the brush and building up an image on canvas. The process would seem too difficult for a lot of people. Most people I talk to think that photography simply involves pointing the camera and pressing a button. Concepts like composition, framing and exposure aren’t considered when they take a picture and consequently they aren’t really aware of what makes a good photograph “work”. The same people would be in awe of an artist like Picasso or Monet at work because they don’t understand the technique behind painting.
As photographers, how are we really supposed to impress ourselves on people when all we are doing is “just” pressing a shutter button. I suppose it doesn’t help that most of us have given up all those extra actions like loading and winding film, focussing and tweaking shutter and aperture dials!
Still, while most people couldn’t name many photographers they would probably have a list of iconic photographs that they do remember.
Cheers!
Comment from JAC
Time: May 6, 2008, 12:45 pm
Ovation TV had its Photography Week awhile back, and one of the commentators in a documentary on the history of photography observed that it is the art form in which it is the most difficult to distinguish your work from that of other artists. I think that is a contributing factor to some extent, and the proliferation of camera phones is making the whole world rather over-photographed. And photography appreciation is not promoted much at any educational level. If you have an interest in photography, independent study seems to be necessary, especially to get the history and learn about great photographers.
Comment from dave
Time: May 6, 2008, 1:32 pm
And just for a touch of irony - they used one of my photographs on Ovation in the opening program of the series. It’s replayed pretty often.
Comment from laughingbuddha
Time: May 7, 2008, 7:46 am
I think that a clue to this question about fame and photography can be found in the some of the ideas put forth by Marshall Mcluhan. As a technological event photography democratized image making or better yet specified image selection. It gave a person without the special talents of hand to eye coordination required for drawing and painting realistically, the ability to single out things in the environment and put a frame around them thereby drawing special attention to specific objects and moments. It more and more gives the average citizen the ability to say ” look what I see”. Of course some are better than other at making their point with images but now more people are at least somewhat confident that they will be understood. So the whole process becomes shared in a way that painting and drawing could not be.
It is the technology of photography itself that continues to make it’s resulting output commonplace, except of course when that special moment is captured that supersedes all the others and unites all of it’s viewers in a common vision and understanding. This is what we all believe to be great photography.
The challenge now confronting photographic artist is to take the process further. It is much like the challenge that confronted painters before and on the way to the explosion of abstract impressionism. I actually believe that is was photography (along with many other forces of course) that forced painting to take many of the leaps that it has taken since the turn of the century.
Comment from dave
Time: May 7, 2008, 8:36 am
“I actually believe that is was photography (along with many other forces of course) that forced painting to take many of the leaps that it has taken since the turn of the century.” - L.B.
True.
I think the future of “fine art” photography is a mixture of photography & painting through Photoshop. This puts the skill that the “average person” doesn’t have back into the equation and gives you a hybrid form - photo-painting. The “capture” becomes more or less a blueprint for what is disdained by many - post-processing. It is already “the way” in commercial photography. And in fine art photography photo-painting will eventually be recognized as a new art form. Maybe it is already.
Comment from prophotolife
Time: May 7, 2008, 2:48 pm
There seemed to be more widely celebrated photographers 20-30 years ago: Leibovitz, Avedon, Scavullo, Mapplethorpe. As you accurately pointed out they were largely photographers of celebrities. It seems the age of the celebrated singular photographer has passed (David LaChapelle does get a lot of attention). Where are the superstars?
It’s all about crowd sourcing now. Andy Warhol might have overestimated the whole “fifteen minutes of fame” thing, it might eventually be reduced to seconds.
Comment from Steve Rosenbach
Time: May 9, 2008, 11:20 pm
I agree with Rich Mattingly - your characterization of Leibovitz as a “comet’s tail” is wonderfully descriptive, and accurate in my view.
Wow, I never heard of Sherrie Levine before - I had to look her up, and found this gem on the Wikipedia article about her photographs of other peoples’ photos:
“By appropriating these images, Levine can be said to be raising questions about class, identity, the political uses of imagery, the nature of creativity, and the ways in which context affects the viewing of photographs…”
Now if that isn’t the biggest pile of horsesh*t! Must be written by someone who got his/her degree in Postmoder Deconconstructionist Cultural Studies.
Comment from Markus Hartel
Time: May 4, 2008, 6:54 pm
interesting point of view with some truth… I just came across this article: the flickr aesthetic curious how some people gain popularity