Month: September 2008

I love it when there is a clear intersection of thought and design. This book has it for sure. If this is what the French are putting out, then vive la France! 🙂

A break from the heavy stuff…today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

When creative people start calling for another creative person to self-censor, I have to wonder what the hell is going on in the community, and possibly society at large. I have read posts about how disrespectful Ms. Greenberg was in her images of McCain (the ones she made for herself, that is), but there shouldn’t be any question of whether or not she showed McCain respect. It’s art damn it! The “questionable” images were manifestations of her art. 

Now, you can like her art, the resulting images I mean, or not, but whether or not they are respectful is entirely irrelevant. Respect is not factor in making art or in the end-results. The art itself is often (maybe always) offensive to some people (as is the process, at times).

It is the nature of art to challenge us. It always has been. This isn’t a recent phenomenon–the great masters of the past often challenged the very people who were paying them and certainly they offended so-called “good society.” Artists often lived and functioned on the fringes of society and were repeatedly shunned for their lifestyles and their art. 

But the recent attitudes by other artists–photographers in this case–towards the artist and the process of making the art is very disturbing, in my book. 

Here is what I believe:

1) There is NO such thing as a distinction between Artist and Commercial Artist and no one should “have to choose” as some have called for. Every artist is a commercial artist and every commercial artist who is any good at all is an artist. You should be seeking to create your individual art, as much as you can, within the boundaries of the contracts you agree to with clients. And, when working with a client, you should be pushing those boundaries, even if only within yourself. 

2) In the past, “commercial artist” in the realm of photography was essentially code for “great technician, but not very creative.” Today, there is no place for the technician without the artistry. ANYONE can made a good image today, because technology has lowered the barrier of entry to the field. It’s easy to pick up a camera and make something that is technically proficient. If you are not bringing something more to the table, you will not be in business for very much longer. So, today especially, the imaginary line between commercial artist and artist is gone. 

3) We as a community of artists owe it to each other to defend creative freedom. You can absolutely hate the stuff Greenberg has made, but you MUST defend her right to make it. You can even not like how she made it, but still you must defend her right to have made it, even as she did. Censorship from outside of the community is bad enough, from within it is terrifying…and terribly sad.

We have a fundamental constitutional right to creative freedom, but we will keep that right ONLY if we defend it, even when it makes our skin crawl to do so. Just like freedom of speech and other freedoms which are arguably quite threatened these days.

If we continue down the path we seem to be starting down, censoring and calling for the virtual shunning of one of us, then in the not to distant future, what kind of art will we be allowed to create? Thomas Kincaide-ish stuff? Beige art to match the beige houses and beige personalities of the creatively challenged masses? Safe art like happy smiling babies and puppies and rainbows over golden fields with a photoshopped flag in the sky?

I shudder to think, but I believe that future is not that far away if creatives themselves attack each other as they have been.

I had someone post a comment recently mentioning what I represent to the industry. What do I represent? Seriously…what?

Not a damn thing, that’s what. I am not a journalist, so I owe no objectivity, though I try to be objective when that is what is “best” to do. I’m not elected by any of you nor are (almost) any of you paying me (there are a VERY few who have made donations to this blog–over the months less than $250 total has been offered), so there is no fiduciary responsibility.

I don’t represent anyone but me.

No, all I try to do with this blog and in all my writing, etc., is to offer up my perspective and sometimes I try to goose you all into thinking differently than you might originally. And I try to give you all the best business-related advice I can. My expertise is in marketing for photographers and that is mostly what I try to share. 

But sometimes I get asked my opinion and then I sometimes share my thoughts. 

In the Greenberg post and comments, I never applauded her for her actions, yet people have made it sound like I am her staunch supporter. Read what I have written again–I have said that I don’t think what she did was wrong. That doesn’t mean I think it was a good thing to have done. You can not do wrong without doing right. 

I have said that I thought she has handled it poorly after the fact. Some of what she has been quoted as saying is stuff that I wouldn’t have said in her place–no question. But I can see the parallels in her actions and comments with other artists of the past. I can put on my “what if” hat and think about how hard it is to get national press–good or bad–for your art and I can muse about why it’s okay for some artists (mostly male, you’ll note) to get away with much more objectionable behavior in the name of art, but Ms. G. is getting her ass handed to her.

As I go through law school, I am learning to look at all the possible sides of arguments. I think that is a very good (though often annoying and difficult) thing to try to do. 

So, for the record, I don’t represent any of you and I don’t claim to. If you disagree with me on my opinions, that is just fine.

Just be respectful and understanding.

By now probably all of you have heard about Ms. Greenberg’s alternative images of John McCain. I don’t want to start a big fight here but people are asking my opinion, so I’ll give it.

I think that, especially at the level of media savvy that should be expected of McCain’s handlers, Ms. Greenberg is entirely clean in this.

First, editorial rates are so lousy that if a photographer does NOT make her own image to get something more out of any project, that is just bad business.

Second, she made image(s) that were absolutely acceptable by the client. Remember, McCain was NOT her client in any way.

Third, if someone agrees to be interviewed and the interviewer asks a bunch of good questions and then asks, at the end, a couple that are embarrassing or uncomfortable, by agreeing to the interview, that is the risk you take. Agreeing to be photographed for a news magazine is analogous. You are getting publicity and you don’t get to control it. You take your chances.

Again, Ms. Greenberg more than fulfilled her obligations to her client. I don’t have a problem with her making her own art on the side. 

As for how she has handled the press herself, I really don’t think that matters too much. She will be, at most, a blip in this election.

However, I do want to make one comment about how the community is reacting. On the PDNPulse blog, the comments by those who think that what she has done was less than professional have been far too often ugly and hateful. There was even at least one that made an anti-semitic slur. This is heartbreaking. She is one of us and if we attack our own…well…it is just sad.

Disagree with what she has done if you choose to, but do so with the respect one of your colleagues deserves.

—

Update

How she handled it after the fact is not what I am commenting on. She could have handed the press afterwards better, no question, but the act itself, I don’t think it’s half as bad as some think.

Every so often I hear some photographer complain about how an Art Buyer got a project shot for half what s/he estimated it at. The usual comment is something like “that AB is anti-photographer” and there is lots of spite and malice in the tone.

Thing is, if a buyer gets a project shot, at the quality level they need, at half the price, that is not the fault of the buyer–it’s the fault of the photographer(s). 

There is often a lot of hypocrisy in these complaining photographers. At the same time as they complain about the ABs going with the lower price, they are telling their colleagues how they can get a website for less here or, worse in my book, getting scans or retouching done off-shore for next to nothing. 

Why is it okay for you to save money and not the advertising agencies (via the buyers)? Any business needs to try and save money where they can. In an agency, it is the buyer’s job to get the right creative work at the best price s/he can. So why do we get so angry at them when they do their job? If the half-price photographer didn’t offer at such a low pricepoint, the buyer wouldn’t be forcing the more costly photographers to lower their prices–they are simply buying the less costly equivalent. 

Now, the really interesting thing about this situation is that there must be equivalent product and services for this situation even to present itself. That is, there must be multiple photographers of equal “vision” for a given project for the buyer to be able to choose a cheaper alternative (usually). So, if you differentiate, if you make unique images, then buyers who want to work with you won’t be able to find cheaper alternatives. A unique vision, by definition, precludes competition.

So, rather than get pissed the next time you lose a project to a cheaper alternative, take a good long look at what you are bringing to the table. Are you offering your best work? A unique vision? Or do you know, in your heart, that there are a bunch of other photographers who could do it just as good as you could?

Finally, keep this in mind when you get frustrated with an Art Buyer–they want more than anything to get the best photographers they can and, much more often than not, they are in there fighting for you. Sometimes the budget is written in stone and they know that they are going to have to compromise the quality of the work to hit a certain budget. But they hate that. Often, they will push back in their agencies to try and find some place where they can sneak more money into the photo budget. But they are not miracle workers and they do not have the power to dictate “we will use this photographer, no matter the cost.” They are your allies and if you can keep that in mind, you may be able to find ways to work together that will work for both of you.

At the very least, it will help you avoid being frustrated when they go with someone cheap.

I love it when people comment on my posts. I encourage it and even approve posts which are absolutely contrary to what I think. However, I won’t approve posts that fit into three categories:

1) They are essentially ads for whomever/whatever and have no substance or benefit to the readers;

2) They are not informative and contributory to the discussion/issue at hand–in other words, a comment that has no meat but has tons of venom won’t get posted. Here’s a hint: if you want to call me names, do it on your own blog. 

3) Posts that malign anyone (me or, more importantly, a third party) and that are anonymous. If you are going to say that someone lowballs or isn’t a friend to photographers, you had better have the proverbial balls to put your name behind it or it’s not going to get approved.

That last one happened today and it pisses me off (you can tell, I bet). Anyone can say “Bob sucks” or whatever when anonymous–that’s easy and it’s sneaky-mean. I’m not going to spread rumors and innuendo, which is all comments like that would be without some real person to attribute the claim to. 

So, please do comment, just be aware of the “rules.”

 

Sorry for the Friday rant.

Consider the APA competition… they’ve got some fabulous judges.

Heather Morton is back from her hiatus. If you don’t have her blog bookmarked, think about adding it. She offers up a lot of good info.

Speaking of good info, Nick Onken has a post on the importance of branding that I very much like. It says a lot of what I (and others!) have been saying for some time, but maybe it’ll be easier to take when it comes from one of your fellow photographers. Pay special attention to point #2.

And today Rob at APE has a post about fair use and blogs. I added a comment about maintaining metadata, but besides that, I think it is a non-threatening piece that, if it gets out to the right people, could help bloggers understand what’s up better. Of course, many of them will still claim commentary/criticism fair use…

 

I’m off to Contracts class… 🙂

AltPick Awards.