Ming's got another think piece up, which is so utterly wrong headed as to inspire to me rebut it.
He starts off by talking about "total impact" which is, essentially, how much of your work is "consumed" by others, although he doesn't quite realize that's what he's saying. And then, incredibly, he measures the degree to which someone is a "creator" by this metric, essentially, how much of your work is consumed by others. While that's certainly measuring something, it's not measuring anything about creativity or any of the other things we associate with the word "creator."
By this measure, the Ford Motor Company is a mighty photographer, and Sally Mann is a nobody. Johannes Vermeer, having only 34 paintings only one of which anyone recognizes, is a nobody, while Ming Thein with his millions of shitty pictures and 100s of thousands of sock puppets is a mighty creator.
Ming's "total impact" is about marketing, not about creativity. It's not about being a creator at all, although occasionally the two exist in the same person. Often not, being really creative takes up a lot of time, and so does marketing. To really excel at both is extremely hard.
He implies broadly that a true creator generates far more work, in some sense, than he consumes. The "creator" is defined by consuming less and creating more, which is utterly wrong-headed. Creatives consume far more than the average consumer. Writers generally read voraciously. Photographers collect monographs, and actually look at them regularly.
Creatives consume, as a general rule, far more in absolute quantity, and in much greater depth. It is, arguably, their job.
Ming is not describing creators, he's describing himself: an arrogant little snot who doesn't bother to look at anything, read anything, think about anything, because he's got all the answers.
This post is incredibly vituperative and over-the-top. I no longer think that your blog is worth reading.
ReplyDeleteThat is up to you. Best wishes.
DeleteI have two words for Ming- Harper Lee.
ReplyDeleteThat is the exactly perfect example. She was a classic pure 'consumer' for virtually her entire life, and yet was best of them all as a creator.
DeleteMy father felt she was the greatest American novelist, and I am not inclined to argue the point.
Your father is/was insightful.
DeleteAnother example is J.D. Salinger.
Perhaps Ming believes that his verbose and overly complex, if somewhat eminently refutable writings qualify him as a creative?
Where do I subscribe? I read that (thought)piece this morning and tossed up a bit of my almost digested blueberry waffle in my mouth. Amazingly myopic.
ReplyDeleteAgreed Kirk.
DeleteMy breakfast was likewise being consumed when I read it. Managed to save the food though :-)
Spot on. I do wonder about his pretensions to being a "working pro" as well. He come across more as an enthusiast who get some paid work. A little DD on his famed "watch photography" (which he is soooo over, as he's done everything in that sphere) shows evidence of maybe two paid jobs, plus a lot of hobby photography of watches stocked in his local jeweller.
ReplyDeletei kinda like this post. despite of it being kickstarted by ming tien. But one thing is sure he helps u create ;)
ReplyDeleteYes, yes he does. This is dialectic, in broad strokes. By stating things, from time to time, with which I disagree, various influential sources force me to think about *why* I disagree, to reason it out and -- sometimes -- to report it here.
DeleteI don't agree with Ming on this one (or quite a few others) but I like that he posts his opinions. He seems to have an extremely technical and ordered view of the world and is trying to make that work for him, even though the aim of photography is (often) an emotional response. Some of his more interesting articles were a while back when he was questioning - and obviously pondering - the comments that suggested his photos were lacking in emotion or warmth.
ReplyDelete