Okay, folks, I started this little thread in the hope of some good, deep insight into creative thinking, how one person sees it in the example of a famous reputation and how another thinks something totally else.
In the end, this proved a somewhat naïve proposition on my part and perhaps at my age I should have known better. Nevertheless, some clear conclusions can be drwn, and from my perspective, here they are.
1. It is difficult to distinguish between celebrity and talent, the former making the latter seem a given, rightly or wrongly.
2. The concept of photographer as unique, singular talented worker/artist no longer has validity, at least in the commercial sector, which is where the subject of the thread resides.
3. The concept of photographer as part of a successful group effort is considered enough to make such a photographer´s name, the rest of the troupe not really needing any credit whilst the photographer may take all the glory unto himself.
4. There is a school of thought that believes that success comes from knowing the right people, going to the right parties, being a social animal; in effect, that social grace and/or networking comes before photographic excellence. This might not be a new phenomenon.
5. There is an element of hero worship at play, strong enough to blind the worshipper´s eye to anything less than equal reverence for the hero. Indeed, Nikon v. Canon might be thought a similar case, with the humanity removed from the equation, but the aggression still there.
The purpose of the thread has, as far as the originator is concerned, run its course.
Rob C
