• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Expression of the mind or the servicing of a commercial sector with purchasing power

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Two addiional points should be noted on this subject.

First, "well-composed" is a judgement largely left to the VIEWER, not the maker/taker. In this regard the general public's standards of "good photography" lie along a pretty thin plane. ..

Second, who's your intended audience? ...

Once again, Ken, the well composed judgement "largely left to the viewer" brings to mind an obvious question. To what extent, then, do any famous well accepted photographers bypass their own sense of satisfying excellence-based personal values, thought, esthetics and evoked experience and merely "craft art" for the appetite of the museums, collectors and public?

Van-Gogh_Starry Sky.jpg


Van Gogh: Starry Sky

Populist Comentary here, Wiki, here

I would think that Van Gogh, as a painter and more mentally isolated, catered to his own values and standards. However, for most of photography, work seems to be directed towards a class of esthetics that our culture appreciates. But what is really going on?

d5138202l_Shell.jpg


EDWARD WESTON (1886-1958): Two Shells, 1927

Gelatin silver print, printed later by Cole Weston
signed by Cole Weston in pencil, credit stamp on reverse of mount
9¼ x 7¼in. (23.5 x 18.5cm.)

Price Realized (Set Currency) £2,750 ($4,219) Price includes buyer's premium
Estimate £3,000 - £4,000 ($4,533 - $6,044)
Christies Sale Information: Sale 5435 Photographs 26 November 2008 London, South Kensington


I'd venture to say that Edward Weston was such a unique, self-drivenphotographer, personally obsessed and devoted to one motif. Laboring to his own feelings of perfection as Van Gogh did with his brush strokes.

Ken, you have a broader sense of the background and attitudes of collectors and museums, those who support the success of a photographer at the rarified highest levels. "Expression of the mind or the servicing of a commercial sector with purchasing power?", that's the question I wonder about. How often do the gallery-collected photographers really depend on just their own sense of satisfying inner compulsion as Van Gogh and Weston did with their art?

Asher
 
Last edited:

Mark Hampton

New member
Asher,

one was a visionary and the other had no vision that story is told by the images side by side - which is a beautiful juxtaposition.

Galleries only tell what sells not what is good or even worth looking at. The market is stupid - in all its forms.

just my thoughts !

cheers
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Ken, you have a broader sense of the background and attitudes of collectors and museums, those who support the success of a photographer at the rarified highest levels. "Expression of the mind or the servicing of a commercial sector with purchasing power?", that's the question I wonder about. How often do the gallery-collected photographers really depend on just their own sense of satisfying inner compulsion as Van Gogh and Weston did with their art?

Asher

Asher,
I'll be glad to take a swing at this subject, but it's far afield from the subject of this thread ("composition").

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Asher: You've posed your question in a rather obtuse and convoluted manner, so I'll simply restate what I believe it to be: Do art photographers photograph what they believe will sell rather than what they believe?

I'm certainly in no position to make broad claims so I'll just say yes, I am sure that some do. That's a safe answer.

But the question suggests a gross oversimplification of the art market, as well as mistaken roles of various players. Major museums, for example, are not in the business of art speculation. Theirs is an educational and documentary mission. Their general collection strategies are to identify areas in which they want to specialize adn gradually build their collections toward those goals. While they do purchase some works in the open market the majority of collection pieces are most often donated by benefactors.

Galleries do not "collect". They are dealers and representative agents. Yes, they do buy pieces in the market but their goal is to sell them at a profit. Most "new" work at major galleris is consigned. Collectors are the mainstay of revenue for galleries, with some other revenues coming from collateral l activities such as licensing.

Youngsters with shiny new MFAs may try to produce what they believe collectors and galleries will like. But it's generally futile as a long-term creative strategy. Those willing to invest in new artists generally look for a conceptual lineage or arc. Posers become as obvious as a kid peeing in a "Wee-Wee See"-treated pool.

BTW, presenting van Gogh's work in this context if goofy. He was nuts. Even he couldn't control what he painted. But his brother was a hell of a persuasive art dealer in a time when standards of "right" and "wrong" were both very narrow but also just beginning to burst out of traditional boundaries. Even so, Vincent's work didn't earn much in his day.
 

Andy brown

Well-known member
Posers become as obvious as a kid peeing in a "Wee-Wee See"-treated pool.

Really Ken?

That's not my perception of the art world at all, or the artistic photographic world either.
In my experience the high end of the art world is equally populated by people with prodigious talent and those with prodigious egos whose front (pretense) is enough to carry the bluff.

And then of course we're back to that fine line which attempts to quantify art.
 
I always had this feeling about artists that openly mock the art business creating pieces of obvious non-sense for the sake of destroying the "system" as well as improving their income (I don't know why Damien Hurst comes to my mind?) with this cynical approach. I may be wrong, I have no proof...:)
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
....While they do purchase some works in the open market the majority of collection pieces are most often donated by benefactors.

Might I add that an alarming number of famous art and museum pieces are stolen or looted ones. Of course donated by benefactors, as a display of their ( the benefactors' ) generosity.
 
I always had this feeling about artists that openly mock the art business creating pieces of obvious non-sense for the sake of destroying the "system" as well as improving their income (I don't know why Damien Hurst comes to my mind?) with this cynical approach. I may be wrong, I have no proof...:)

Hi Sandrine,

I (also) have a bit of a cynical view on the "Art" market.

I don't know if these links work outside the Netherlands, but I can recommend viewing:
Who Gets to Call it Art?
And the especially sobering documentary:
The great Art Bubble.

In particular, the second documentary offers enough "proof", you are not wrong!

Cheers,
Bart
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Really Ken?

That's not my perception of the art world at all, or the artistic photographic world either.
In my experience the high end of the art world is equally populated by people with prodigious talent and those with prodigious egos whose front (pretense) is enough to carry the bluff.

And then of course we're back to that fine line which attempts to quantify art.

Andy,

With respect, that's more a statement reflecting your own tastes and a bit of resentment rather than a thesis. Just how far do you think any artist would get if s/he didn't have an armor-plated ego? The process of rising to prominence is, in fact, heavily dependent on such a character trait.

Look, I've zero interest in carrying on this discussion of the art world here. It's a futile effort that can lead no place. My remarks are limited to the PHOTOGRAPHY segment of the art world, although they can also apply to other segments.

Fahim, yes, there are works in the broader art world that have dicey provenances. (Increasingly, that's also beginning to show up in photography, too.) That's actually a fascinating topic but it's way outside of this discussion.

Let me clarify my use of "poser" by citing an example. Joel Sternfeld began working as a "fine art photographer" back in the 1970's. Unlike most of his class peers, but similarly to Stephen Shore, he was using large-format color film to make observations and statements concerning the human environment and condition. He would have remained just another largely unnoticed art camera schmuck if not for the interest of a single collector who took note of his work and became a consistent buyer. This collector would have ultimately dropped Sternfeld like a bad habit if Sternfeld had not continued to produce work consistent with his original strengths and vision. This attracted the attention of other collectors, of better representation, etc. Today Joel's work is comfortably in the circle of firmly established photographic art and is found in many museums and notable private collections. But none of this would have happened if he didn't genuinely have a noteworthy eye or the stamina to press forward.

Pretenders --"posers"-- fall away from such a marathon fairly quickly. They may produce some interesting and even collectible work for a while. But suddenly they're gone and have not really produced a notable body of life work. Nor have they made much, if any, impact.

Arguing, or even discussing, the art photo world on an Internet photo chat site is like entering the Amazon rain forest with a can of Raid. These days, every third guy with a camera thinks he deserves a show at MoMA, while usually snarling at anything he can't immediately grasp. Yes, it is a world featuring plenty of inconsistencies and absurdities. Lots of noise and pretentious self-promotion producing occasionally unjustifiable attention. But the gist of my message is this: the rivers of time wash away most of the detritus and tend to carve patterns, like the Grand Canyon. The collective taste and scrutiny of the various tributaries of the "art world" do tend to polish gems.

That's really all I can say on this subject.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
One of the challenges of discussing this topic is keeping one's personal opinion out of the equation, as much as possible, and focusing on facts. Another challenge is not digressing into topics that are outside of the discussion (such as "fakes in the art world"). Ken does as good of a job as can possibly be done in this regard. I second everything he says.

The interesting thing is that success in the art world is largely a matter of marketing, regardless of exactly what part of the art world you want to succeed in. What is foreign to most is the exact type of marketing required to succeed in the various art domains and how this marketing is implemented. "Artistic moves" are often nothing more than one aspect of this marketing. This is in part why the "commando" approach of young artists who want to take the artworld by storn usually fails. Their in your face, rudimental marketing does not fool gallery owners and art collectors in any way. In fact, both galleries and art collectors use this "rambo" marketing approach to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's a dead giveaway in their eyes and they expect the artist to give up when their initial efforts are not met with success. One has to be a little more sophisticated than that to move forward, and as Ken says, one has to be able to take rejection wth an armored self !
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Those willing to invest in new artists generally look for a conceptual lineage or arc

Ken,

Thanks for this clarity. Offering basic explanations of the players is a good foundation for our discussion.

Starting with the buyers, the collectors primarily; "Those willing to invest in new artists generally look for a conceptual lineage or arc". Yes, that seems true. it could be perturbed by idiosyncratic buying behavior, but it sounds reasonable and a good basis for investment.

Pretenders --"posers"-- fall away from such a marathon fairly quickly. They may produce some interesting and even collectible work for a while. But suddenly they're gone and have not really produced a notable body of life work. Nor have they made much, if any, impact.

It's tragic that really talented folk fall by the wayside, but they do for all sorts of reasons. "Posers" or "Pretenders" are harsh words to cover a mixed motley of "shooting stars". But whatever they are called, their light doesn't last.

Arguing, or even discussing, the art photo world on an Internet photo chat site is like entering the Amazon rain forest with a can of Raid.

Great metaphor but cruel as hell and so funny!

Lots of noise and pretentious self-promotion producing occasionally unjustifiable attention........

The collective taste and scrutiny of the various tributaries of the "art world" do tend to polish gems.

I hope it's so. There must be a massive array of fine photographic work that doesn't make it, not because each photographer lacks that creative edge and long term style and arc of accomplishment; (your "conceptual lineage or arc"), but rather lacked sustenance, stamina, bravado, savvy or good fortune.

Putting aside those streams of "MFS holders", looking in the gallery windows for what to make, there still begs the question. I'd like to learn more on the motivation and behavior of those photographers who's work is collected.

To what extent are they whores to the market or simply mocking it?

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Putting aside those streams of "MFS holders", looking in the gallery windows for what to make, put aside, there still begs the question. I'd like to learn more on the motivation and behavior of those photographers who's work is collected.

To what extent are they whores top the market or simply mocking it?

Asher

Well I guess we're right back to where we started, eh? What answer would satisfy your barbed inquiry?

I wonder how many radiologists do it for the cash or for the true love of medical science technology? To what extent are they whores to their lifestyles?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
"I wonder how many radiologists do it for the cash or for the true love of medical science technology? To what extent are they whores to their lifestyles?"

Excellent point. People often blame artists for "selling out" but rarely ask if they sold out themselves. Selling out occurs in professions other than art. The pot may be calling the kettle black more often than we think.
 
Can't you be a wealthy radiologist, and also care for your patient? Am I such an idealist that it can be done? What's wrong with marketing -even in arts - as long as you're making something that is fair to your beliefs; If you can't, take a moniker :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well I guess we're right back to where we started, eh? What answer would satisfy your barbed inquiry?

I wonder how many radiologists do it for the cash or for the true love of medical science technology? To what extent are they whores to their lifestyles?

Well, Ken, that does seem like a barbed question indeed. I'll address it honestly with no invective

Yes I'm a Radiation Oncologist and retired. Anyone who came into my clinic, irrespective of income, was treated with the single minded purpose, not of progressing medical science, but to cure. When that was not possible, to palliate, comfort and bring family together for a warm dignified passing.

But I don't understand why "Radiologist" is chosen. Let's open this up. To my mind, 90% of all physicians are reasonably trained and reasonably competent and all earn a living. Some 70% are always ethical, making decisions that they believe are in the patients best interests. Some few are simply charlatans.

So how does it breakdown for the photographers that are collected and / in the museums. Who are the photographers driven solely by their own creative needs and who mock us or cater to the market for it's own sake?

Asher
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Can't you be a wealthy radiologist, and also care for your patient? Am I such an idealist that it can be done? What's wrong with marketing -even in arts - as long as you're making something that is fair to your beliefs; If you can't, take a moniker :)

Exactly. That's what I think too.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Well, Ken, that does seem like a barbed question indeed. Yes I'm a Radiation Oncologist and retired. Anyone who came into my clinic, irrespective of income, was treated with the single minded purpose, not of progressing medical science, but to cure. When that was not possible, to palliate, comfort and bring family together for a warm dignified passing.

But I don't understand why "Radiologist" is chosen. To my mind, 90% of all physicians are reasonably trained and reasonably competent and all earn a living. Some 70% are always ethical, making decisions that they believe are in the patients best interests. Some few are simply charlatans.

So how does it breakdown for the photographers that are collected and / in the museums. Who are the photographers driven solely by their own creative needs and who mock us or cater to the market for it's own sake?

Asher

It's probably the same. A few artists are charlatans, most are ethical. Now they don't all make a good living! That'd be the main difference. But then art is a want, not a need which makes it harder to sell. Plus most artists are unfamiliar with marketing, and that makes it extremely challenging to sell anything!
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
The path to becoming an established and recognized medical specialist is lined with only cheering and encouragement.

The path to becoming an established and recognized artist of any kind is lined principally with heckling and discouragement.

Now what was your question again?

(Edited for previous typo!)
 
Last edited:

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
Forgive me for my naivety in coming late to the party. There seems to be some rancour here that I cannot understand the root off but let's leave that for the moment.

In the service sector, especially the luxury service sector, we have to appreciate that we are not needed. We are a luxury. As such we rely on people deciding to invest in something which their lives would probably be no different essentially without. I think the comparison between artists (whether traditional, photographic, musical, etc) and those who provide a service in an essential industry such as medicine would be flawed.

I cannot ignore the broken scafoid bone in my right wrist. To have it diagnosed properly I had to pay for a good orthapedist, the head of the unit. I paid because it had been wrongly diagnosed twice in the public sector so I turned to the private sector. I was referred for an operation. I cannot ignore the need for an operation otherwise my hand will eventually cease to work altogether and because I have reduced functionality and pain daily.

The service sector however is very different. I do not need art. I can live a fulfilling life without paying serious money for art. If I require the pleasure that artistic exposure gives me then I can buy a CD rather than paying to attend a concert for example. I can buy a lithograph rather than an original. If you the artist want to pursuade me to pay out money for something that is not a necessity for life then the onus is on the artist and not the purchaser.

I think that may well be why society in general will require an artist to have to prove themselves compared to other essential industries where the recognition of doing a job that needed doing, doing it well and in a pleasant manner, is more forthcoming.

Returning to the initial premise of the thread, why must one preclude the other? Alain creates his expression of the areas which he loves so well. His vision happens to be extremely popular among the tourists to that area. Does that mean that his stuff is all just postcard material, that he is photographing for his customers? I wouldn't like to suggest that to his face!

I do not see Alain or another good example, Clyde Butcher, as working for their buying public. Rather I see individuals who express their love for their subject in a way which reacts strongly with a similar, though albeit fleeting love expressed by those whose souls resonate with their vision. Let us not be too proud, we are all humans whose brain patterns work in very similar ways for the most part. As such, if you have a way of expressing yourself there will be a market of people to whom that way of thinking with click, all you need to do is find that market and you don't have to shoot for them, you shoot for yourself knowing that they will make the same connection you have made in your expression of that scene, the connection between the mind and the soul.

Does the use of the golden rule necessitate the assumption that the artist is using a 'trick' to bend the mind of the viewer or can we be less nasty and just say that the same way the golden rule works on us, it worked on the artist as the way which they saw the most asthetic route to actualising their vision - for the artist themself? Are they not also allowed to be as human as us and respond to their own art as we did?

Asher, you initially mentioned Westons work as perhaps being made to appeal to western culture. Do we forget that Weston was part of western culture himself and that is no doubt how he saw, for himself? Would it not be more honest to assume that his vision is a product of his culture rather than saying that is was constructed to appeal to said culture?

Or am I just naive?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I cannot ignore the broken scafoid bone in my right wrist.
Ben,

You are a stoic and this is the very first time you have mentioned in public what you have been through. We all wish you a full recovery!

The service sector however is very different. I do not need art. I can live a fulfilling life without paying serious money for art.

I think that may well be why society in general will require an artist to have to prove themselves compared to other essential industries..

IOW, it better be far better and more unique than most of us can do fiddling on our own!


Asher, you initially mentioned Westons work as perhaps being made to appeal to western culture. Do we forget that Weston was part of western culture himself and that is no doubt how he saw, for himself? Would it not be more honest to assume that his vision is a product of his culture rather than saying that is was constructed to appeal to said culture?

Or am I just naive?

You may have assumed this idea that "Westons work as perhaps being made to appeal to western culture." But that's not Edward Weston, as I described but rather a misreading of my comments by a fusion of two separate but closely following ideas. First, that of a lot of photographers do cater to cultural norms/fashion and then the nature of Edward Weston's insular way of living and working, obsessed by his own hyper-focused creative ideas. He did not, I think, cater to society as much as perfect his own expressions and allow others to follow his path.

Asher
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
I've never studied art specifically so I cannot judge however I wonder how much all the talk of what an artist was trying to achieve, of their specific mindset and intention in the creation of their art - was at best, from the artists perspective, only subconscious and at worst pure made up gibberish..
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I've never studied art specifically so I cannot judge however I wonder how much all the talk of what an artist was trying to achieve, of their specific mindset and intention in the creation of their art - was at best, from the artists perspective, only subconscious and at worst pure made up gibberish..

Ben,

The artist's mindset might be inferred from his/her work, lifestyle, social status, politics and so forth and even interviews of course. You're right, this may not be the truth in every case. Sometimes the public may be played with and fooled or imagine intents that weren't there!

The other factors we may have a better idea of.

Just because an artist has not the faintest idea about what forces drive a work, they're still at play. Balance, tension, contrasts, form, gesture, patterns, ranking, movement are all elements art critics a trained to recognize and influences with previous works and styles when evident, can be explained.

What's important is that the artist is assembling all this with drive and imagination. The process may just seem spontaneous!!

Asher
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
I think though that it does have an impact when analyzing the honesty of intent of an artist to realise that often we can only infer what that intent was.
 

Mark Hampton

New member
I've never studied art specifically so I cannot judge however I wonder how much all the talk of what an artist was trying to achieve, of their specific mindset and intention in the creation of their art - was at best, from the artists perspective, only subconscious and at worst pure made up gibberish..

Ben,

i never was a bricklayer ...

however as i saunter past walls.... whistling to myself whilst inspecting the vertical alignment ... I often wonder .... when finding they are out of alignment......

was that feature meant... or was that explained to the owner as architecture after it was finished...

cheers
 

Alain Briot

pro member
I have a friend, also a photographer, whose business card used to say: "Photography and rock wall building". . . I think the idea was that while photography is a want, rock walls (might) be a need. In the long run neither worked for him unfortunately.
 
Top