Yes, I agree that it is rather pitiful. A whole combo of "market forces" (for lack of a better term) seem to be responsible for this phenom, but like it or not, there it is.
Interesting that you separate photog into 2 tribes; unfortunately I think I may be in the latter camp of those whose work may be so "inaccessible, unattractive, or self-absorbed" (your words) that I make very few sales. But that's OK because I am true to my vision, and am lucky enough to be able to afford the equipment and the time to do what I love.
My pet theory is not that folks have sold out......the personal parable I operate by is quite different and one I would prefer not to elaborate on in this forum. I think we each believe our own truths (or, rather, "belief system/s").....and I think that each reviewer has his/her own favorite subjects or styles or whatever, and some are more open than others to looking at work outside those paradigms.
Your Mapplethorpe example is prescient (or whatever the temporal opposite would be). Last year I read the excellent biography of Mapplethorpe by Patricia Morrisroe, and in his early days he would hang around Max's Kansas City w/Patty Smith, outrageously dressed and nursing a shared Coke all evening since that's all they could afford. He just kept going and going there for a verrrry long time until he was finally noticed by someone famous.....what a way to shoehorn your way into another stratum! And his early work was actually distasteful to some, but it was DIFFERENT for its time, assemblage constructions w/feathers, beads, etc., framed and matted using outrageously decorated matboards.
But this culture vulture disgresses once again. I think these types of discussions can be useful if they help you to clarify something about your place in the scheme (I am referring here to the "collective you", not only you, Shannon).
Otherwise, it's like dancing about architecture......which can be beautiful all by itself, I guess! ;=}
Adrienne *************************************** on the web at: http://www.picturexhibit.com Saatchi Gallery: http://tinyurl.com/hw6r3 Art DC: http://tinyurl.com/vtjqf ***************************************
From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Fotofest meeting place Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:30:28 -0500 Thanks for your thoughts. This seems rather pitiful: that photographers are so desperate for =20 opportunity that they will pay such large fees to be told by reviewers =20= that their work is too "sentimental" or some such. In thinking about this a minute ago, I realized that the people I know =20= in Houston who are actually selling their work and publishing books =20don't seem to be on the list of local reviewers, at least for 2006. It =20=seems that there are (roughly) two tribes of fine art photographers: =20= those who make work that people actually like to buy and own =20 (conceivably possibly including flowers, landscapes, and nudes!); and =20= those who think that if you make stuff that people actually like, you =20= must have sold out somehow, and that it's a mark of sophistication to =20= make work that is inaccessible to most people and sometimes just plain =20= unattractive, or so self-absorbed that nobody could be really =20 interested in it except the artist herself. I may be exaggerating a =20 little, and it's possible I need to refine this idea some more, but I =20= think there's some truth to this. There are a few reviewers who seem open to looking at anything. I =20 think that's the right approach. Sure, there are cheesy nudes and =20 flowers, etc, but to reject a body of work because of its subject =20 matter seems close-minded to me. (Except maybe in the case of child =20 pornography or something.) Some nudes of women that I have seen make =20 the woman's body look like a commodity; others show women's bodies as =20= beautiful and sacred, in all their individuality. That's just an =20 example. The same is true for flowers: I don't understand this flower =20= hatred among the reviewers. Mapplethorpe did flowers, wonderfully. =20 Maybe all along that's what he wanted to do, but he felt he had to do =20= the S/M body of work before he could be taken seriously enough to be =20 allowed to do flowers! I can just imagine Mapplethorpe at FotoFest 2008, peddling his flower =20= pictures around, and having a hard time getting anybody to look at =20 them. Or poor Edward Weston, trying to get somebody to look at nudes =20=and landscapes. "We don't like nudes and landscapes here, Mr. Weston. =20=They're silly and dated. We're tired of them. Other people have =20 already done that, better than you ever will. Why don't you try =20 something more...conceptual?" --shannon
_________________________________________________________________PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
