Late Chrysanthemum
Yesterday there was this article on the front page of the online NY Times about how professional photographers have been required to make fundamental changes due to the influence of the digital world, the internet….and the sheer numbers of photographs being made and marketed by amateurs and parttimers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30photogs.html?src=me&ref=general
The article reflects almost exactly what I have been recognizing in the marketplace for my own professional work in the past few years. I used to secondarily sell my fine art imagery via a stock photo agency; and a check occasionally helped tremendously to allow me to keep making fine art work. Then, that stock agency was bought out by Getty, who was not interested in fine art work, and then the microstock and royalty free business plan came about……and, well, you know the rest. The stock industry then became more of an amateur’s market. I moved on, and gave stock little more thought. That part of the marketplace had turned away from the path I wished to follow. What distinguishes a professional from an amateur, is that the professional is in it for the long haul, attempting to create credibility, a reliable reputation. A style, a niche. One who can be contacted by another professional needing that quality. It can only happen over time, and time culls out the amateur.
An amateur just doesn’t have the available time, as does a professional who is in it 24/7. The amateur has a job to go to each day. Maybe the royalty free or microstock agency can work with the parttimer, but serious professionals want to work with other professionals who are just as serious, and who have something to lose, besides grocery money. I think it is necessary to have to risk something, to sacrifice something, in the quest of a career. I cannot quantify it, but it seems in the spirit and nature of commitment to the work.
So it makes sense that my stock royalties are gone. It causes me to focus more directly on my fine art work. The real reasons I got into my work are there more pronounced than ever. More significant work is wishing to be made. New materials worked with, profound feelings to express. And the marketplace and money aside, I thrust myself more eagerly into the work as though it is more important than it has ever been.
What concerns me the most about the jillions of images being made, is that the reputation of the ‘image’ may become diluted. If photography is seemed too easy, so nonchalant, will it become the equivalent of ‘small talk’? Has it already lost its presence? Are we so flooded by images made, shared, given away free to the marketplace…that they are no longer trusted as symbols of contemplation or accurate expression, of anything?
It can make the work of the fine art photographer even more challenging. The work must be so filled with significance, so well crafted, that it can alone in the strength of its visual presence, convince the viewer that this work rises above the millions of images, is meaningful beyond what he/she experiences every day. This image, is imbued with a heart, and the viewer is reminded of something she already has known deeply, and feels an innate belonging to what the image shows. Maybe it is the same primal task as it has always has been, but as the Times article implies, it may be more tough for the serious photographer – and the viewer – as we go forward.
excellent photo. thanks for your article.
Shutterstock
14 May 10 at 5:46 am
shutter,
thanks for reading the blog!
Ken Smith
14 May 10 at 7:23 am