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

routlaw

Member
A good read, and excellent advice. Lays waste the notion of gear whoring IMHO.

There is a tactile sensation one gets from looking at ink on paper that the electronic image (ie, iPad or equivalent) will never supplant. That the panel of industry experts still prefer ink on paper or some other form of "printed" portfolio should come as no surprise.

Thanks for the link.
 

routlaw

Member
Until the next generation replaces them...
Perhaps, but for all we know this panel of editors and art directors were "20 Somethings" already. Taking the conversation a bit further does this mean art galleries will die on the vine too supplanted by electronic imagery and not just photographic art galleries either.

I just spent a week NM and Sante Fe area in particular, and not only was film based non digital inkjet prints flourishing in the art market one could almost sense a snobbishness surrounding analog output. (i.e. digital not spoken here) Not once did we see any electronic imagery displayed, rather it was all art in the round and tangible, be it photographs, paintings, sculpture, pottery or handmade books.

Regardless, the notion of displaying electronic vs tangible portfolios has my curiosity up. Intuitively my suspicions are tangible will win hands down.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I doubt a serious art buyer is in their 20s is at a portfolio review. Like most professions, it takes time to climb the ladder.

Well, there are always going to be places like Santa Fe, but it is hardly the center of the world, even the art world. All the nostalgia toward the printed book did not stop that industry from imploding. The new generation does everything on a screen. Wishing something else will not stop the change.

This has nothing to do whether art galleries survive or not, they will. Just like film has. But to think the taste of todays portfolio reviewers are set in stone would be a serious mis-judgement. This has nothing to do with what is "better" or whether things will disappear, this is about how the world is moving.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
This is not very surprising. A high quality print on high quality paper always looks better than a presentation on any computer monitor I've seen. Then there's size. Large mostly looks better than small and the A3 sized iPad is still a few (hundred) weeks into the future.

I'm surprised that the gear question was even mentioned. I've never been asked what kind of gear was used when selling a print. For a person wanting to hang a photo on the wall, it's as relevant as the colour of my underwear.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I find red underwear improves my photography. But maybe that is more than you want to know...
 

robertwright

New member
there's no ladder to climb. Art buyer is entry level now.

I doubt a serious art buyer is in their 20s is at a portfolio review. Like most professions, it takes time to climb the ladder.

Well, there are always going to be places like Santa Fe, but it is hardly the center of the world, even the art world. All the nostalgia toward the printed book did not stop that industry from imploding. The new generation does everything on a screen. Wishing something else will not stop the change.

This has nothing to do whether art galleries survive or not, they will. Just like film has. But to think the taste of todays portfolio reviewers are set in stone would be a serious mis-judgement. This has nothing to do with what is "better" or whether things will disappear, this is about how the world is moving.
 

robertwright

New member
The industry both editorial and advertising is getting younger and younger. Only the photographers get older:(

Most of the editors I meet in NYC now are younger than I am (47) and most are women, so part of it is that they age out with a birth and some come back but many others don't. The experience level is less certainly and they are expected to do more and have less staff and resources to do it. No one has jobs now that last more than a few years, its hard to spin a career on the buying/editing side and the turnover is high. But these were the people that he was meeting, the people that make the decisions about whom to hire.

The senior-ist people now are my age or slightly younger. Most everyone older has moved on. Yes the very top people who are really managers now are 50+, but those people are at the VP level or if they are not there then they have moved on.

If you are unemployed after 50 it is curtains I'm afraid....
 

Tim

Active member
I think the difference between a print and iPad is one is viewed with transmissive light the other with reflective light. The transmissive version taints the product if the end user is buying a print to hang on the wall.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Most of the editors I meet in NYC now are younger than I am (47) and most are women,...
Sorry, the editors and curators and gallery owners I have ever met in the States or in Japan have not been in their 20s or are they entry-level employees. No offense (I am older than you), but being younger than you does not equate that they are somehow unskilled or unimportant. That is the thing about aging, the space behind you get populated by younger folks. Eventually, you will spend more time at funerals than weddings--unless you are a wedding photographer.

I work a lot with college students. That generation is not really in tune with the printed image. They don't share or communicate in a physical world. Ignoring them and their view of the world will not stop a change that is already happening. Imagine communicating remotely from your home with folks all around the world and instantly sharing art work--that is happening.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I think the difference between a print and iPad is one is viewed with transmissive light the other with reflective light. The transmissive version taints the product if the end user is buying a print to hang on the wall.
Tim, ever view a transparency on a light table? Way better than a print. There was a 24" tablet shown at a tech show this year. The technology is not frozen in time. It is a brave new world.
 

Mike M

New member
there's no ladder to climb. Art buyer is entry level now.
+1

This isn't directed at Robert in particular, but just a general response. Advertising has always been a frustrating business for artists because of the connection between craft and amusement/propaganda. All art requires some kind of craft which is basically a means to an end. Craftsman know what they want to make ahead of time and then use their craft to create it. But art proper can never be a craft because then it becomes a formula. So while all art requires some kind of craft, it can never rely on it or else it becomes repetitive.

The way artists tend to fight formulas is to work on projects that they don't exactly know how are going to be finished. For example, many painters will start a picture and then re-paint the same picture several times over during the course of several years until it's completed. Unfortunately, advertising photography has no such luxury. The client always comes with some kind of idea, even if it's just something as simple as selling a certain product or service. No matter how much freedom is given to the photographer, the final product is still a matter of a means to an end. Craft always dominates.

While art is not dominated by craft, amusement and propaganda most definitely are. Advertising has always rewarded amusement over art because of the relationship to craft. Amusement is always a means to an end which is an emotional and social experience. The people that are best at producing it for a mass audience are those share the same emotional responses to stimulus as the mass audience. Teenagers and young people (especially under 30) are always the best at having a feel for what a mass audience will probably respond to. On the contrary, as people age they tend to have more control over their emotions and also more specific interests which means they can't usually relate as well to a mass audience.

Basically, the point I'm getting at is that advertising and it's connection to craft and amusement was inevitably going to be dominated by the under 30s. The industry has slowly been getting "dumbed down" for decades. Now, it may finally be at a point of no return. Also, I think that the abundance of portfolio review events open to amateurs is a further indication that the industry is really in it's final death throes. Whenever a business idea becomes mainstream and easily available to the man-on-the-street, then that means it's no longer relevant. In my opinion, the very fact that so many amateurs are now being sold on avenues to get into an industry is evidence that the advertising photography industry itself is almost finished.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
??? There was never anything as a commissioned artist? The churches just hired artists and let them do as they please? "Commercial" art has been around for centuries. And whether you like it or not, there is a wealth of talent crafts people working in commercial art. And you are confusing a target audience of 20 somethings with the people who control the advertising world.
 

Mike M

New member
??? There was never anything as a commissioned artist? The churches just hired artists and let them do as they please? "Commercial" art has been around for centuries. And whether you like it or not, there is a wealth of talent crafts people working in commercial art. And you are confusing a target audience of 20 somethings with the people who control the advertising world.
Renaissance artists considered their work to be craft. So did the Greeks. Today, we consider them artists because their work has been separated from it's original mystical and religious purposes. But they considered themselves to be craftsmen.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Renaissance artists considered their work to be craft. So did the Greeks. Today, we consider them artists because their work has been separated from it's original mystical and religious purposes. But they considered themselves to be craftsmen.
Your point being? You still have a group of individuals using talent in the service of something other than themselves. The more things change...
 

Mike M

New member
Your point being? You still have a group of individuals using talent in the service of something other than themselves. The more things change...
"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.
 

Tim

Active member
Tim, ever view a transparency on a light table? Way better than a print. There was a 24" tablet shown at a tech show this year. The technology is not frozen in time. It is a brave new world.
I'm old enough to have done this with my collection of slides. I think its still is a variance on the finished product of a print.
 
Top