tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post2020311906859264523..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: Anti-Commodityamolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-84834567123531730292016-06-09T12:14:07.149-07:002016-06-09T12:14:07.149-07:00Thanks, Sander, for stepping in in favour of Micha...Thanks, Sander, for stepping in in favour of Michael Kenna! I considered doing so myself, but didn't find the time yet. He has a very distinctive visual language which is often copied. But if one pays close attention, one finds that there is so much more in his work, which sets it apart from his plagiators.<br /><br />Best, ThomasThomas Rinkhttp://www.picturesfromthezone.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-63104197793374337962016-06-09T03:51:09.376-07:002016-06-09T03:51:09.376-07:00Oh come on you guys..dissing Micheal Kenna (and I ...Oh come on you guys..dissing Micheal Kenna (and I think you may in fact mean Michael Levin as he's the IKEA guy), calling him a 'decor' photographer whose work is devoid of substance. Is that just because you can't stand those guys with D810 and a 14-24 + Big Stoppers who copy Michael Levin ? Michael Kenna was doing up to hours long exposures in the friggin seventies, on film, no filters needed as they were done in the dark of night. Take a look at some of his industrial work and compare to those Moss Landing thingies, which were excellent by the way !, you came up with and then tell me again that he's a 'decor' photographer.<br /><br />Excellent post by the way, it's just in the comments that it went wrong in my opinion.<br /><br />cheers, Sander <br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-68295721557708428012016-06-08T15:31:50.040-07:002016-06-08T15:31:50.040-07:00Hi Andrew,
Fully agree with the post.
A few year...Hi Andrew,<br />Fully agree with the post. <br /><br />A few years ago I had a discussion with a friend who was a wedding photographer - hmmm, now there's commodity (for most).<br /><br />HE produced technically perfect, visually pleasing images which were almost precisely the same as the technically perfect, visually pleasing images produced by eleventeen billion other photographers.<br />He stated in the conversation that he would photograph anything the client wanted and would do so in any style or manner required by said client (just like elevteen billion others).<br /><br />So I put this scenario to him:<br />Happy couple goes to photographer 1, loves the ability and asks if he/she can maybe shoot some images like this or like that.<br />Photographer says 'absolutely I can'<br />Couple goes to photographer 2, 3, and 4 who all have excellent ability, manner, professionalism and willingness to same as photographer 1.<br /><br />Who does the happy couple choose? After all, they are all talented, all personable, all willing to do whatever the couple want. Who do they choose?<br /><br />My friend said "the easiest to do business with?<br /><br />I said 'listen closely, they are all the same to deal with, all able to shoot perfectly, all willing to accommodate requests. Who does she (because it's usually the bride who chooses) choose?<br /><br />He said "I don't know"<br /><br />I told him "the cheapest"<br /><br />I told him to shoot what he wants, produce work that he wants to do and only sell to those who want his stuff. After all, I said, 'you don't go to a shop which only sells pepsi, if you want to drink coke' <br /><br />He said it can't be done. Bollocks says I.<br /><br />A later couple of years he chucked a tantrum on social media decrying being undercut by 'new shooters' (forgetting his early work did just that).<br /><br />He failed to make himself different, desirable, or someone who stayed true as an individual.<br /><br />It is the same in any segment of this marvellous thing we call photography.<br /><br />Do it for yourself. Make your own vision/ideas/ concept etc.<br /><br />There are billions of people on this planet (seven, not eleventeen hahaha).<br />Even if a very small percentage like you - that's cool, isn't it?<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />Williehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340234422334227647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-44032177565973329282016-06-08T09:23:26.781-07:002016-06-08T09:23:26.781-07:00You are absolutely correct! Kenna and Moore (I sup...You are absolutely correct! Kenna and Moore (I suppose, I don't know) are making pretty decent money selling what I am describing as commodity pictures.<br /><br />Perhaps they're trading on their names? "These are not commodity pictures at all! They are artisanal shade-grown pictures!" or something?<br /><br />Anyways, they're in a risky business, if I understand your remarks properly. Since they are making, basically, a commodity, the price can at any point drop to $0 + cost of printing. If they're holding the price up substantially above that for now, good on 'em.<br /><br />There ARE ways to sell a commodity product as a non-commodity, it's in the positioning and marketing. E.G. as alluded to above "shade-grown" or "free-range" or "natural" are great bits of marketing to shovel on to your perfecly ordinary coal/butter/ice cream/photography to make it not sell as a commodity. At least temporarily.<br />amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-42912200413985257582016-06-08T08:13:25.854-07:002016-06-08T08:13:25.854-07:00Don't take this as a criticism, I am just tryi...Don't take this as a criticism, I am just trying to understand the way "fine art" actually works.<br /><br />I'll take the example of the pier again. It seems that this particular style was first used by Michael Kenna, who still uses it very successfully. With a bit of search, you will find others. For example Darren Moore, who publishes generally similar images. Darren appears to also be successful and apparently has won numerous exhibition prizes for what appears to be plagiarism to my untrained eyes.<br /><br />Neither one appears, again to my untrained eyes, to fill their images with much substance. I think you gave the reason in one of your previous posts: this kind of photography is basically decor. It should not be filled with substance, that would clash with the furniture when you display the print up the mantle piece.<br /><br />So where does that lead us? It appears that a successful way of doing business there was simply to copy a visual style without much substance and sell that to the upscale version of Ikea, doesn't it? (Ikea sells frames with pictures in that style as well).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-10700637867488581712016-06-08T06:54:57.178-07:002016-06-08T06:54:57.178-07:00Some very interesting thoughts, here and in the ea...Some very interesting thoughts, here and in the earlier post. <br /><br />Over the past few years I have seen any number of bright, creative young photographer attempt to go pro -- and immediately become ordinary. A few of them survive, most of them sink within six months or a year.<br /><br />I have never been able to completely understand what drives it -- market forces, the photographer's perception of what is professional, or just the pressure to produce on demand. <br /><br />Having spent time in daily newspapers I know most people find it very difficult to be creative on demand. Having been a commercial photographer I also know that when a customer asks for "creative" they very often mean "something just like what this other guy is doing."<br /><br />And, as you point out, there is the pressure from the so-called "professional" community, and how that pressure affects the beginner's perception of what professional photography looks like.Gatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08534264019596898463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-33664379344399338712016-06-08T05:46:39.715-07:002016-06-08T05:46:39.715-07:00That's why it cannot be about a new visual sty...That's why it cannot be about a new visual style. The pier can be and is duplicated endlessly because, as a cliche, it has no substance. Perhaps the first one was filled with substance, or was part of a really powerful essay, or something. I don't know.<br /><br />The part of that, if there was anything more weighty, which has been sliced off and copied is weightless, trivial, a commodity.<br />amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-73957068133717315202016-06-08T05:32:37.968-07:002016-06-08T05:32:37.968-07:00Thanks - that made me smile. Thanks - that made me smile. Patrick Doddshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542212200114555054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-27026427610829980812016-06-08T05:29:05.721-07:002016-06-08T05:29:05.721-07:00But if one invents a new style, won't people c...But if one invents a new style, won't people copy him for cheaper? The long exposure B&W image of a pier at sea was first taken by somebody, who then ran a successful business selling this kind of pictures. Then, thousands people saw that at a business opportunity and started to copy it, other started workshops on long exposure photography, Chinese filter manufacturers started to mass produce the necessary ND filters, etc... Now everybody does it and it is cliché.<br /><br />But at first, it was actually a pretty cool idea.<br /><br />Interestingly, we have a few photographers claiming the original idea (each one having a prize in some exhibition to vouch for it) and still running a business selling these images. They can't produce any other style, their gallerist won't take anything different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com