A deceptively simple question.

It seems that we haven't had a discussion on art theory for some time. I would like to suggest the following question:

"Why do you publish your pictures?"​

Note that this question departs from the more usual "Why do you take pictures. We all know why we take pictures: we simply like the hobby. But publishing pictures, showing them is a completely different matter. And I would like to point out that not all photographers publish pictures, even very good ones. For example, you may have heard about Vivian Maier who spent the major part of her life taking more than 100000 pictures, and did not even bother developing most of them (the rolls of film were found by pure chance after her death). Obviously, most photographers who do not publish stay unknown, which may in turn give us the illusion that all good photographers publish their pictures. We do not know how many unknown Vivian Maier there are.

Obviously, professional photographers have a simple answer: they publish to sell. But not everyone is a professional photographer (defined as someone who derives income from photography). So why do you publish if you are an amateur?

Some people will answer that they publish to get comments and criticism, so as to improve. While this is a good idea for a beginner, I would like to ask "and then?". If you publish to improve, at some point you will presumably improve, publish better pictures, improve again, etc... But where is the purpose of improving without end? Isn't it chasing an impossible goal? A vicious circle? A self-fulfilling prophecy? And above all: after you master the basics, isn't the consequence of trying to listen to the critics till the end of time that you will do someone's else pictures or pictures which simply seek to displease the smallest number of people? Is that a purpose?

So what is your answer to that simple question? Why do you publish your pictures?

Good question, Jerome, for which two answers apply to me. However, I confess to not being a prolific publisher of pictures.
About 10 years ago, I was invited to participate in an event called "Crapper Art", in which artists worked in a public setting for an hour or so, with the products then auctioned for charity. Not being a good artist in any traditional sense, I decided to learn Photoshop to prepare an "impossible" image of a scanned wooden monkey triggering a scanned black powder pistol to shoot a hole in a scanned soccer ball, along with some other details pertaining to soccer thuggery, which was a social issue at the time. The image sold for $100, much to my surprise, and I believe still adorns the buyer's crapper room. That experience sold me on Photoshop.
My motivation for the next few years was to develop Photoshop skills to an exhibition level of quality. This effort did result in a exhibition that also included a sculptor and a painter. Although those montages got lots of compliments and earned me a few dollars, the most important personal outcome was proving myself to myself in an artistic sense.
Then work demands put artistic inclinations on the back burner. Although getting a Nikon D3s a year ago resulted in a lot more picture taking, I only publish those that bring me joy in the hope that a few other people find them interesting. For now, taking pictures excites me more than publishing them. When time permits, I hope to develop my artistic skills to a new plateau and exhibit again.

I keep publishing pictures because it's a lottery ticket. Sooner or later someone is going to discover that I'm the next Cindy Serman and give me 3.9 million $$$$ for them.

Jerome,

We might need to reference all the reasons why one does photography and then connect these to the human capacity for and wish to socially communicate. In part, for us as a photographic community, it's about refining our ability to speak. Yes, and there's the lottery ticket too!

Asher

Jim Galli said:

I keep publishing pictures because it's a lottery ticket. Sooner or later someone is going to discover that I'm the next Cindy Serman and give me 3.9 million $$$$ for them.

Click to expand...

Only? Just 3.9 million?

Jerome Marot said:

Only? Just 3.9 million?

Click to expand...

Well, if I wanted more, someone would surely raise the issue that crappy male photographers get more for their art than crappy female photographers. So I can be satisfied with 3.9 mil.

Jerome Marot said:

Note that this question departs from the more usual "Why do you take pictures. We all know why we take pictures: we simply like the hobby.

Click to expand...

Jerome,

Thats an assumption that may be correct for yourself but may be wide of the mark for others.

Jerome Marot said:

So what is your answer to that simple question? Why do you publish your pictures?

Click to expand...

It depends what your practice is. I don't publish photographs online (although 2 have slipped out onto this site).. Just images and mostly sketches as I would call them. The final result is a print - of a photograph / painting.

So thats what i publish, as to why... to explore with people I respect ideas that I am interested in and they may find interesting.. to feel part of something... to give and also to receive information which informs or work...

You never come to the end of exploring light as it keeps on coming and changing. If photography has become like driving (intuitive)you need a faster car or more difficult roads or even learn how to fly.

And yes I like cindy sherman work, it kicks AA off the page as one is art the other is craft. and like anything else it has no intrinsic value.

cheers

Mark Hampton said:

Thats an assumption that may be correct for yourself but may be wide of the mark for others.

Click to expand...

What other reasons do you have in mind?

I think that there are many reasons for publishing:

The professional needs it to generate interest in his work, interest which should generate new business.


For those, who do not have to earn money with their photographic work, there are, from my point of view, these potential reasons:

For some (including myself) it is a way to communicate, to show what I see. Sometimes a visual experiment, sometimes there is a deeper message or just documentary pictures of things on the verge to disappear. Feedback is nice, though not vital.

The possibility to publish easily to a large public offers great opportunities for people, who need/want attention from other people. Andy Warhol is dead, but 15 minutes of fame are well alive. This is another reason for many people to publish. Feedback is vital here.

People are using their photos to transport messages, political messages or other messages which are important to them. In this case the photography is just a container for the message.


These are the reasons I see now. Maybe there are more...

Michael

Jerome Marot said:

What other reasons do you have in mind?

Click to expand...

Michael stated a couple.... As for me - photography is part of an ongoing artistic process - that has nothing to do with commerce or hobbies or the distinctions of amateur / professional.

Feedback is required until the work is done then its no longer my work its the viewers. what they think is irrelevant to me because Its their reading that completes the work (not for me but for them). For me the magic is in the making... all the mistakes and ideas the twists and jumps...

to put it simply I borrow others minds with my sketches to check if the experiment is working ... if you look at my work you become part of it... even if you don't comment.

So Mark, in effect, you are saying feedback is important even when there is no feedback?

I said from the onset that the question is deceptively simple.