Split Boulder Near Lake Ediza, The Minarets, Ansel Adams Wilderness, Sierra Nevada, California, 1950 by Philip Hyde. First exhibited in the original "Perceptions" exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art in 1954 with the work of the members of Group f.64, Minor White, his students and a few other Bay Area photographers. This exhibition many consider one of the foundations that defined what became known as the West Coast tradition.
(To see the photograph full screen Click Here.)
In reading the letters between Paul Strand and Ansel Adams from the Center for Creative Photography’s publication, The Archive, it quickly becomes apparent that the times then were quite different. The first exchange of letters between the two photographers in 1933 occurred during the Great Depression, when photography was almost unheard of and even other forms of art were comparatively scarce in relation to the volumes produced today.
To compete and be heard in the market today, a photographer must not only make good photographs, but also promote tastefully. Writing well online also helps to develop a following. One of today’s photographers succeeding in all three is Guy Tal. I have mentioned him before on this blog and I mention him again, because what he writes often relates to what I am learning about the history of photography and because he recommended my blog to his readers. I like Guy Tal’s blog, not because I always agree with him, but because he has a knack for stirring up ideas, thoughts and opinions and getting people to participate. Recently he wrote a blog post called, “Small Confession,” in which he acknowledges the necessity of self-promotion but confesses that he respects photographers who do it reluctantly more than those who revel in it.
Shortly after reading this post, I started reading the letters between Paul Strand and Ansel Adams. These two pioneers, despite what it appears to us now, were also reluctant self-promoters. However, they lived in a time when people were looking for something new artistically and there wasn’t all that much being created of note. Along came people like Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O’Keeffe, Pablo Picasso, Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and others. These people offered something that had never been seen before.
Straight photography was not a stuffy, constraining, self-contradicting notion as it is seen by some today. It was a huge Wow, and also freeing and energizing to the medium. Also, these artists did not have to promote themselves as loudly to be heard, because there was much less noise then and fewer voices vying for the public’s attention. People mobbed most of the events of the straight photographers. Perhaps those who look at straight photography as out-dated and old-fashioned, will have justification for that opinion when their events are packed because they have invented something striking and new enough to draw hoards of people.
The first time Ansel Adams wrote to Paul Strand, he reminded him of their meeting and mentioned meeting with Alfred Stieglitz in New York City. Then Ansel Adams told Paul Strand that he had opened a small gallery…
My place is most decidedly not an imitation of Stieglitz’; I wrote him at great length and outlined my plans—I told him I was going to alternate my exhibits between photography and painting or graphic arts, that I was not a missionary or a promoter, and that I did not care if I made anything out of the gallery or not—I only hoped it would pay its own rent. I am trying to bring things to San Francisco that should have come many years ago.
Ansel Adams went on to ask Paul Strand if he would be interested in exhibiting his photographs at Ansel Adams’ gallery. Paul Strand wrote back…
Actually I have little interest in exhibitions—because at the basis they seem to be un-American—just a mean and meaningless affair; mean in that they exploit the artist to entertain the public free of charge—meaningless in that they seldom establish any standards.
I turned down three museums last year in just the above terms—Their impudence and complete ignorance of what they are doing is just disgusting—They think that flattery is a substitute—but they can all go to hell as far as I am concerned—for I refuse to be part of that racket—that is my general feeling about exhibitions—I can never get used to the idea that pictures are free entertainment in the U.S., elsewhere too, that the people who claim to enjoy a thing never support the individual who makes what gives them pleasure.
Paul Strand went on to explain that it was difficult to send his prints out of Mexico, where he was living at the time, for fear they might be damaged, and that he might entertain the idea if he could ever make it to San Francisco in person. Paul Strand told Ansel Adams of a show he had in Mexico under extenuating circumstances, that over 3,000 people came to see in 10 days. Not bad for someone who despised the whole idea.
Three thousand people in ten days…amazing!
David, you wrote -
“To compete and be heard in the market today, a photographer must not only make good photographs, but also write well to develop a following.”
I wonder about this. Are the followings that are developed made up of people who buy/collect photography or people who take workshops, buy books about photography, etc? It does seem like this is only one part of the photography market.
Sharon
Hi Sharon, thank you for raising an interesting question about the followings on photoblogs. In my observation, there are a good number of followers of many blogs, maybe even the majority of followers on some, that are the workshop and DVD buyers learning photography, and more power to both the learners and teachers. However, I have noticed that on some landscape photography blogs that offer high quality nature photographs and intelligent writing about art, the followers are also other full-time professionals. As you know, the interconnection between blogs is a defining characteristic of blogging. In that respect, I notice that many of the blogs are each other’s followers because they have developed a relationship, which is part of the strength of the blogosphere. We inspire one another and partially depend on each other for our existence. People who buy and collect photography come in all shapes and sizes but are less apt to be regular readers of photoblogs. I decided at the outset that if I were to solely write for collectors, I would be waiting a long time for readers and particularly for comments. However, now that the blog is in place and certain material is here, I am able to refer collectors to various posts that pertain to their individual interests. I of course am building content with this and many other concerns in mind, sometimes even spontaneously with nothing at all in mind. The mind, after all, is overrated. I did edit that sentence to now read: “To compete and be heard in the market today, a photographer must not only make good photographs, but also promote tastefully. Writing well online also helps to develop a following.”
I would put your blog in a different category all together, David, and I enjoy it very much. You have so much to offer to anyone interested in landscape photography. I comment here because you have engaged me in the subjects that I comment on.
Sharon
Thank you Sharon for such a strong commendation. Having you comment is the ultimate compliment because of the quality of your ideas and photography.
Good points, David. I think there is a balance that people need to find between promoting and beating one’s chest. No one likes a bragger. Two people can have the same exact message but the one who seems a little too proud of their own accolades (telling people that you are good for example) will probably not be as well liked. I know I hate that sort of behavior personally.
Thank you, Richard for making that distinction. I think it is an important addition to the discussion to note that self-promotion is, or is not a turnoff, depending on how it is done.
I think there is a distinction also to be made from someone shouting “hey look at me” vs. someone openly sharing information/ideas/photography…
Thank you, Derrick. Definitely, I agree.
David,
This is a topic close to my heart, as I often find myself confronting the issue of ‘art vs market’ with my images. I started out in photography as a hobby strictly for myself and this is still, and hopefully will remain, the primary driver behind it. My wife suggested I show my work at one point about three years ago and everything changed. I sold about a third of my pieces in my first show (to my everlasting surprise!) and it has only grown since then. Even at the low key approach I use, some marketing seems necessary, but I keep it as minimal as possible, relying more on exposure from shows and word of mouth.
The real trick, as I’ve seen it, is how to respond to learning what images sell and which images don’t. There is no absolute trend by any means, but I’ve found many of the images I’ve made that I consider ‘art’ don’t sell well, and others that I didn’t think that much of sell like hotcakes. I’ve also been requested to shoot certain subjects and types of images that are more likely to sell. My response is to follow through on those requests, but bide my time until I am able to capture the image my way – that way the work is still mine. This balance seems to be working so far.
In the end, I continue to produce images that I am happy with and I think that is the most important factor for any artist to stay true to themselves, regardless of marketing needs and pressures. Of course, this is easier to do when your art isn’t your primary imcome source.
BTW – I learned of your blog via Guy Tal, whose blog I’ve followed for some time now. I recently started my own blog and I find the writing process is very helpful for sorting out my own thoughts on various topics. It is geared, at least in part, towards some friends who are trying to learn about the photographic process. I focus on the underlying ideas more than the technical aspects. I’m enjoying it quite a bit.
Hi Jim, Congratulations, glad to hear you are doing well. Landscape photographer Carr Clifton recently said to me that it is a good idea to mix into any show some images that are better artistically, even if they don’t sell as well. My dad used to do a lot of that. In fact the last 20 years of his career, he decided he was going to show what he wanted, because he could finally afford it. There are differences in audiences too, though. As you may have discovered, it is necessary to ask yourself, ‘What will sell where?’ and ‘to whom?’ Just as much as, ‘What will sell?’ I’m not going to mention any names, but in a certain state, there is a certain landscape photographer who dominates the state. When people think of that state and landscape photography, they think of this certain photographer. However, most of the ‘art’ photographers look down on this photographer’s work. As one recently said, “His images are like postcards.” He captures pretty mountain scenes, farms, anything colorful or scenically pleasing without much attention to form, texture, composition or other elements one learns in studying photography to any depth. In this particular state, he has a gigantic 5,000 plus square foot showroom for his prints and his work sells like crazy. However, if you look around in any of the major museums outside this particular state, they don’t have his work. The people in this particular state are not highly educated when it comes to taste in art. There is another photography gallery in the same city that carries all the work of the photography masters from Stieglitz to Strand to Adams, all the Westons, Elliott Erwitt, you name it. This fine art gallery can hardly sell a print since the downturn. I could make more money if I exhibited Philip Hyde in the same gallery with the former photographer, and have had many opportunities to exhibit Dad’s work in similar venues. However, I would rather make less money and keep Dad’s work exclusive and exhibited only in certain ways with certain other types of photographers. I would rather work at Home Depot myself, than sell out. This response is veering a little away from your comment, Jim, which is an intelligent delineation of your explorations. My statement here is merely a warning to anyone new in the field: Each decision is important and has an impact on your future career and stature. If you’re in it just for the money, why not just become a stock broker or anything more profitable and less artistic than landscape photography? As for your beautiful photography Jim, I have looked at your website and your blog. In my opinion any of your work will both sell and carry artistic merit, which is the balance any good artist is happy to find.
David,
Thank you for your very generous comments.
Another artist that I am a fan of, a musician, speaks to this subject at great length and has made a distinction which I find of value. To paraphrase:
Before you can become an artist, you must become a craftsman. The craftsman understands the tools of his chosen trade and can use them with a high level of skill with regular and predictable, repeatable results. The influence of chance is minimized. The artist builds on this solid foundation, but cannot succeed without it.
When I go out to take a photograph of a subject that someone else has suggested, I go out as a craftsman, but I try to come home with art. To me, this is the ideal balance, as you stated.
Hi Jim, thank you for that great quote and your comments that are pertinent to the discussion here. Please share, who is the musician you paraphrased? What you are getting into now, is part of the subject of a blog post coming up this week about new directions in digital photography that maintain the quality artistic aesthetics, while departing wildly in technique from the old Straight Photography.
David,
The artist in question is the guitarist Robert Fripp. My paraphrasing is a severely simplified paraphrasing of Mr. Fripps lengthy commentaries on the topic of creativity and its interaction with performance. Mr. Fripp and I have corresponded a bit over the years on the topic. Wikipedia provides a reasonably thorough yet succinct entry on Mr. Fripp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fripp
I could go on ad nauseum on on his music and his ideas. He is one of the most unique and creative musicians alive, with a personality to match, but I’ll let you off lightly with the wiki link! ; )
I’m looking forward to your next entry. Sounds very interesting.
Hi Jim, Thank you for the link. After reading the Wiki, I realize who he is. I listened a little on Amazon. The guitar work is fantastic and definitely pushes the boundaries at times. I am not so into the ambient or experimental stuff, but I like the melodic bluesy pieces. The singing is better in King Crimson. He is no doubt one of the greatest creative guitar players. I like what he said about “loosening up expectations” in the music industry.