The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

a Good read from Kirk Tuck

Mike M

New member
That's interesting because it's a question of medium specificity. Digital and film technology both have unique properties that can sometimes be combined together in complimentary ways. There might be some uses for transparency film in the digital era that wouldn't be good for print film and vice versa.

For example, transparency film was designed to be viewed as a projection or backlit and that could make computer monitors/screens a perfect match for displaying scans made from slides. Also, digital technology is moving towards projection/3D which is also home territory for transparencies.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks for posting this ... although I'm surprised that anyone even mildly involved with "photography in the service of commerce" would be surprised by any of it.

Here is a perspective from someone who actually has bought multi-millions of dollars worth of "photography and cinematography in the service of commerce", and still buys a fair amount of visual services ... from the time as a Junior Art director, to Executive Art Director, to Group Creative Director, to an almighty Executive Creative Director in control of $350,000,000. annual billings encompassing global, national and regional advertising for top global and national brands from luxury cars, to food and drink, to clothes, to financial, to retail, to Forbes 100 corporate

To start with, "Art Buyers" is a pretty wide category, and what that means can vary greatly depending on who they are buying for. The "top buyers" mentioned in the article are not defined very well, so it is hard to discuss. What categories did they represent? Advertising, Fashion, Food, Architectural, Magazine, Retail, or what? Were they Executive Art Directors, Art Directors, agency Art Buyers, Production Managers, internet agency Buyers, collateral agency Buyers, magazine Art Directors, magazine Buyers, or what? The process of selection, level of status/age, and level of power is very different for each of these and has changed as communication technology has changed.

Face-to-face Portfolio reviews, or "speculative" shipped bags, are pretty elite activities these days, at least in the USA. This article seems to cover the face-to-face aspect where the buyers are speculatively looking for fresh approaches, and the seller is looking for constructive critique and/or a foot in the door ... a process where a photographer trots their bag around town, or pre-arranges a delivery for review. However, that doesn't always mean the so called "Art Buyer" does the actual buying. In many cases they are just the gate keeper for those who do make the choices. They simply make the "real" buyer aware of a fresh photographic choice based on various categories of imagery their communication company, or companies they represent, may be involved in.

In this economy the real world buying process for most commercial photography is more immediate need driven ... not speculative and longer term. The big campaign thrusts may be effected by Art Buyer influences, but most day-to-day is now oriented ... involving initial internet category searches, flipping through tear sheets an AD may have set aside, networking with others like the buyer, etc. etc. ... then contacting select photographers for their "books" often to present to a client during a presentation ... and often customized to the client category or selected to help clarify a communication idea.

The notion that all this is in the service of "amusement or propaganda" may be partially true, but is a tad cynical and misses the primary purpose of any visual medium in the service of commerce ... to communicate visually. There is a whole other discipline involved in what makes an effective visual communication ranging from Brand stewardship, to how cluttered any given category may be thus requiring startling new visual approaches, and so on. It just isn't that simple, and I found that a number of otherwise talented photographers just didn't get this, where others did get it yet were still highly creative in expressing a fresh approach for any given brand or brand personality ... a brand stance that a company may have spent years and millions of dollars building. Not understanding this collaborative process is what can lead to frustration on the part of some professional photographers ... and that emotional aspect can become palatable during the process of a shoot ... been there, done that, won't do it again ... life is too short, and there are plenty of photographers that do get it.

BTW, craft is NOT the driver ... craft is a given, the professional price of entry. Craft has changed with technology as the communication vehicles changed, and in many cases multiplex applications dictate functional approaches. However, the underlying communication decision process has never changed ... it is about ideas and their expression. I "got" this early in my career, and it made it easy to not only survive enormous changes in the communications field, it helped me thrive amongst what appeared to be chaos.

In short, those photographers that can study a category, understand it, and express a fresh perspective is what buyers are looking for.


I have helped some professional photographers get over this hump, and also found some stubbornly, even arrogantly immune to informed suggestions. I have often thought to teach how this all works since it can be a long road of hard knocks and frustration if you do not get it.

- Marc

Oh, and three cheers for those incredibly talent photographers that aided me in my career :thumbs: ... not only did we collaboratively aid in the success of the companies we made communications for, we shared many prestigious awards for originality and creativity from our peers and colleagues along the way.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
"Talent in the service of something other than themselves"....that's a craft.

When craft dominates then art is replaced by amusement/propaganda, This is the fate of every "style" that emerged in the past. In the beginning, there is no style and just a handful of artists expressing themselves as individuals. Their work might have propaganda or amusement value, but it is not dominated by it. Then, the artists are copied until the formulas become styles. Once a style emerges, then it devolves into a pure craft devoid of individual expression and dominated by amusement/propaganda. The art of the period degenerates until it becomes irrelevant and replaced by something else.

That is exactly the cycle that is happening today in modern advertising. The "old" guys in the early days of the industry (like Man Ray, Steichen, Penn etc) were individual artists breaking new ground. Slowly, over time, they were copied until their their techniques became established styles. Then, the individual art became replaced by pure craft until everything devolved into amusement. When amusement reigns, then the young people, ignorant people, and other degenerates take charge and it's the last dying stage of the process.
Nice hypothesis, just a pity it is not true.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Mike, then lets look at your hypothesis. First, advertising was around for longer than Man Ray, Steichen, and Penn. Second, show in the context of the industry that these individuals were significant and shapers of that industry. At best, there are outliers.

When craft dominates then art is replaced by amusement/propaganda...
Proof? Nice sentiment, but not very meaningful. You art/craft bias is also problematic as it really just semantics.

In the beginning, there is no style and just a handful of artists expressing themselves as individuals.
What beginning? Advertising? Expression without style would be difficult. How do you know there were a handful in advertising?

When amusement reigns, then the young people, ignorant people, and other degenerates take charge and it's the last dying stage of the process.
Proof?
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Sorry Mike, but any of these looming "the Death of" pronouncements are rubbish.

Advertising/Promotion/PR runs in cycles just like most anything else involving creativity. Highly innovative and influential one minute, stagnate and uninspired the next. It is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry that is fueled by brilliant ideas, and inspired minds, while hampered by fear and cowardice of little minds.

As David Ogilvy once quipped: "Businessmen suffer from the tyranny of reason." A notion brought home to me when presenting a $200,000,000 ad campaign to the Chairman of Young & Rubicam that had gone through 11 levels of client approvals 10 of which could say no, but not yes. His reply was simple and direct: "Marc, you would not hire any of these clients as a junior Art Director, find a way to do better work than this" (which we did by getting the original ideas re-presented to a much smaller client group that could say yes).

We can tag the word Art onto anything, but it is an exercise in futility. Advertising has exploited Art as a means to an end, and will do so endlessly in one way or another. As ad great George Lois once wrote ... "Art was my in to Advertising" ... clearly, he didn't confuse the two.

Advertising creativity is as much a product of deductive reasoning as it is pure "something from nothing" creativity we associate with "Art". Facts are provided and sorted, then the creative "leap" happens when the facts combine to form a new idea that expresses the message in a new way. If there is any ART in Advertising, it is the ART of persuasion.

This can happen verbally, or visually, and most often both (thanks to ad great Bill Bernbach). If this were not true, then businessmen would not need ad agencies, and ad agencies would not need Art Directors and Writers.

Art is like life ... it'll find a way. Art will always influence advertising, and Art Directors will always take the "Art" part of their title seriously ... some much more than others, but that's true in any from of creativity ... there are levels, bottom to top.

-Marc
 

Mike M

New member
Mike, then lets look at your hypothesis. First, advertising was around for longer than Man Ray, Steichen, and Penn. Second, show in the context of the industry that these individuals were significant and shapers of that industry. At best, there are outliers.
Yes, advertising existed before those photographers. Don't believe that by stating the obvious you are somehow stating something profound. In the context of the industry, there were no major advertising photographers before the generation mentioned. Prior to them, most imagery in advertising was done by illustrators. Photographers like Steichen etc were the ones that literally shaped and created the modern advertising photography industry by proving that photography could replace illustration.

Sorry Shashin, I can't make my posts fool-proof and anybody that can only succeeds at having fools for an audience.
 

Mike M

New member
We can tag the word Art onto anything, but it is an exercise in futility.
There's no need to refute anything else that you posted because this part is precisely where you and I disagree. We most certainly cannot "tag the word 'art' on to anything." Any attempt to do so is not an exercise in futility, but an exercise in degeneracy.

I don't have any problem at all with photography as a craft, or advertising as a business etc. What I have a problem with are people that mix up craft with art, or advertising with art, because they devalue the meaning of art. Those kinds of people are either ignorant or degenerate. Which one are you?
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Yes, advertising existed before those photographers. Don't believe that by stating the obvious you are somehow stating something profound. In the context of the industry, there were no major advertising photographers before the generation mentioned. Prior to them, most imagery in advertising was done by illustrators. Photographers like Steichen etc were the ones that literally shaped and created the modern advertising photography industry by proving that photography could replace illustration.
Rubbish. Photography would have been used without your personalities. And in fact was.

Sorry Shashin, I can't make my posts fool-proof and anybody that can only succeeds at having fools for an audience.
Mike, you have proved once again how this type of "philosophy" is so bankrupt. So, you can form a sentence, but if has nothing to do with how the world actually works, what is the point? Naturally, I think you also agree which is why all you have left is to attack the messenger.

You want to come here and be condescending towards others and other professions, that is fine. But be armed with some facts.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
There's no need to refute anything else that you posted because this part is precisely where you and I disagree. We most certainly cannot "tag the word 'art' on to anything." Any attempt to do so is not an exercise in futility, but an exercise in degeneracy.

I don't have any problem at all with photography as a craft, or advertising as a business etc. What I have a problem with are people that mix up craft with art, or advertising with art, because they devalue the meaning of art. Those kinds of people are either ignorant or degenerate. Which one are you?
Neither.

BTW, your trollish anti-social personally trait simply weakens your discussion points, some of which are not without merit. This subject is not as simplistic as you would like it reduced to. It is as complex as changes in societal behavior and beliefs made it.

"Art in the service of Commerce" is nothing new, as the sometimes called "father" of it all, Toulouse-Lautrec, demonstrates.

To grasp how those we consider Artists came to make contributions to the Art of Persuasion, one needs to understand the co-development of advertising and commerce itself.

RE: Photography: It is pretty much accepted that it all began with the first great publicity photographers like Kollar and Sougez, and/or more straightforward product presentations by now unknown photographers . When commerce reached a point that products could be mass produced, and mass print mediums arose, it all eventually lead to Brand Advertising. After WW-I, persuasion took on more of an influential patina as opposed to just informing, especially for more prestigious products. Artists of all sorts were engaged for some of the more sophisticated brands ... including some photographers we deem Art Photographers today. These Artists were chosen because their vision and visualizations matched the Brand's underlying phycological appeal to a very specific audience ... all made possible because of the ability to segment the audience via targeted publications, or other specific media.

So, photography rose with the rise of the modernists sensibility both in product design and Art, from Steichen's elegant lighters or modernists patterned notions of Moholy-Nagy etc. of the 1920s - 30s ... to later work by Stern, Wolf, and Penn who made such powerful visual statements that the photo itself was the whole message (with a logo or tag line) ... onward to Bourdin, Jean-Loup Sieff and Jean-Paul Goude (whom I collaborated with earlier in my career) ... to provocative works by Jean-Marie Vives and Dmitri Daniloff, amongst others.

Many of these pivotal works in the service of commerce are now lost because they were not deemed ART, and therefore not preserved or curated.

If the art of commercial still photography as wained in influence today, it is because the very mediums they fed are waining. This erosion started when motion became so powerful and ubiquitous a force in society, and influential cinematographers began to hold sway.

Is it ART? Who cares about semantics and endless debates?

IMO, ART has always influenced visual thinking of all types whether directly on occasion, or indirectly like Cubism did to so many other visual disciplines. Art is visual philosophy, all the other stuff that comes after is the practical application of that philosophy, call it what you may ... those who use it couldn't care less ... so protests and laminations are screaming into the howling winds of change.

-Marc
 
Top