| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2010 10:35:42 PM · #1 |
So, I was having a discussion with the director of the Fine Arts Photography department at my university today, and I soon entered a debate with him about the place of art within commercial photography. He felt that the very essence of capitalism being a part of the process inherently has an effect (no matter how small) on the work that is being created, and will ultimately begin to govern what sort of work the photographer starts to gravitate towards. He said that he wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no creativity in commercial photography, but that it is exceedingly difficult for someone to become so successful that their commercial work is one with their own, personal creative visions. He also mentioned how he does not like it when people like wedding photographers claim that their work is art that they make money off of, and that their work usually just exists to please the client and eventually make money from.
That being said, what place, if any, do you feel that art has in commercial photography? Is it seeping its way into the commercial world or is the "artsy" commercial photography just part of the constantly socially changing preference of the masses? Do you consider yourself an artist or are you a photographer, or are you both? And if you are both, which one, if any, takes priority over the other in your life and/or in your occupation? |
|
|
|
01/14/2010 11:19:52 PM · #2 |
This guy comes pretty close. My brother was his best friend before he (my brother) died. Check the awards list.
Clyde Butcher/ Wiki link
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 09:03:48 AM · #3 |
Wow there are so many fine lines in those arguments and I do agree things are deeply confused these days more so than ever.
I think things like reality TV, the 24 hour news cycle, shorter attention spans...American Idol have severely chipped away at things with substance. But to say things like commercial or wedding photography are void of creativity and some artistic value isn't accurate either. You could point him to  grigrigirl and bowl over his argument in a minute BUT as wedding photography goes there are very, very few like her. Same goes for commercial photography. There are plenty of peeps out there that think they are artistic geniuses but are merely rehashing the same formula stuff. There ARE a few Avendons floating around, as well.
I will say that there's a ton of folks that do utilitarian work and apply the "rule of thirds"... play around a little with the sliders in Photoshop and call themselves Artists which is a bit of a fraud. Just my opinion of course but I'll also say it's really, really hard to draw lines and to defend that statement. I mean, there's art out there that requires a lot of energy, thought, talent and difficult skills to produce and there's art that requires NONE of those values yet still qualifies as art.
Basically, much of it is craft in the commercial world where the photographer has to make some artistic choices but it can cross the line and become art. It does happen.
eta: I would send him this link and bet the opening images in the slide show might quiet him down a bit.
Message edited by author 2010-01-15 09:39:02. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 09:32:06 AM · #4 |
| I can understand the view as in some ways the act of creating in order to sell is the antithesis of what art is, or should be. Saying that though, without paying commissions we'd have no Rembrandt, Gainsborough, Raphael or the Sistine Chapel so it's kind of a fuzzy area i feel. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 09:38:54 AM · #5 |
| I think to be a great wedding photographer you have to have a eye for the artistic. The problems with drawing lines in the sand is after the next wave wipes it out, it̢۪s hard to draw in the same place. I̢۪m surprised your professor doesn̢۪t know that. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 12:29:19 PM · #6 |
While interesting to discuss from a philosophical standpoint, the notion that earning money from a photograph automatically diminishes its artistic merit I think is untrue, but beyond that, unrealistic.
Artistic license grows and wanes across the continuum of photographs... on one end you have something like a passport photograph, on the other end, you have the freelance artist who creates whatever he/she feels. I think creativity exists throughout, just to greater or lesser extents - and the degree of 'art-ness' should be judged in context.
I like the example of photojournalism, where you are given a restrictive task - get a photograph that accurately depicts event X - and it is up to the photographer to bring back a photograph that is at once illustrative, informational, genuine, and creative. He has a job dictated by somebody, but there is room for him to make it 'art'.
But even the director of Fine Arts at a university needs to make a living... so has every artist in history... capitalism affects us all (in however small a way). Otherwise, only true 'hobbyists' who do not depend on their photography for income, would be the sole, unadulterated art creators. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 12:50:57 PM · #7 |
Sometimes an artist's mind is so scattered and random, it is only through the restraints of an assigned yet flexible "project" that the artist can truly create something meaningful. Regardless of whether there is money involved.
DPChallenge is a great example of a place where some people are successful being creative where otherwise they might just be watching TV and leaving those brain cells dormant.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 12:55:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by AP:
... Otherwise, only true 'hobbyists' who do not depend on their photography for income, would be the sole, unadulterated art creators. |
I think the term "amateurs" would be a better term, for both its root and niche-sense: "lovers" and "dabblers". |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 01:00:07 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
...There ARE a few Avendons floating around, as well... |
Avedon, Richard? |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 01:07:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I can understand the view as in some ways the act of creating in order to sell is the antithesis of what art is, or should be. Saying that though, without paying commissions we'd have no Rembrandt, Gainsborough, Raphael or the Sistine Chapel so it's kind of a fuzzy area i feel. |
This is my thought exactly. Much of what you see in museums is "commercial work" for that time period. Why are things different today? I don't think they are. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 02:48:13 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
...There ARE a few Avendons floating around, as well... |
Avedon, Richard? |
Or Richard Avedon...if you prefer that spelling? |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 03:10:34 PM · #12 |
| Irving Penn is dead now but still living proof that it can be done. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 04:02:13 PM · #13 |
The professor said that there are maybe only 6 or so photographers out there who have reached such a level of art and commercialism in their work. You have listed some of them. While the context and goals of the photographer are a large factor in this (are they out to make money or out to take photos), I think the main argument is that contemporary fine arts photography says something. Concepts and ideas, not simply pretty pictures. Whereas commercial photography takes away from this. I'm sure he agrees that commercial photography requires a great amount of skill (he himself has worked for several firms and studios doing commercial work in the past).
So then do you believe that commercialism and art are inherently separate or inherently mixed? Do you think that his idea of commercial photography is simply outdated? Or does art and commercial photography have some complex, convoluted relationship that we are doomed to debate for many years to come? |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 04:21:11 PM · #14 |
Answer: D - Both A and C
Inherently mixed and will be debated for years.
Not to sidetrack things but this is relative and probably more pertinent to what most of us are really up against.
Message edited by author 2010-01-15 16:45:07. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 12:12:58 PM · #15 |
C A U T I O N !
The above link has a virus - don't open unless you're antivirus software is current. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 12:23:13 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
C A U T I O N !
The above link has a virus - don't open unless you're antivirus software is current. |
Huh? It's a link to a NY Times article. The link takes you here "//www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.html?ref=arts" and I can't see it being harmful unless you're making a joke? |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 01:47:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
C A U T I O N !
The above link has a virus - don't open unless you're antivirus software is current. |
Huh? It's a link to a NY Times article. The link takes you here "//www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.html?ref=arts" and I can't see it being harmful unless you're making a joke? |
No, I'm NOT kidding. It may have been an ad or something on their server, but I certainly know that a Trojan kicked in when the URL above loaded. I'll check the name of the virus here in a bit. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 02:05:49 PM · #18 |
Update. Seems to be a busy item. Something to do with Google? I'm just getting to read a few articles on it now, but there seems to be alot of activity today on this topic: Trojan.JS.Redirector.ar
One link here with info. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 11:46:52 PM EDT.
