Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Pete Ferling on December 07, 2008, 11:42:24 pm
-
Very informative article Alain. Your article covers a very important fact of life, really. Just like your students knew how to entertain you as the 'audience' for the grade. I have seen your examples time and time again in the professional advertising and studio departments. The smarter directors and artists knew to conform to their audience, their bosses and marketing reps whom they serve, than to argue or force their opinions because they knew more about art, (which is often true). In the last three years I've seen two directors and three designers let go because they 'didn't fit in.' Funny, they were hired for their expertise, and fired for pushing it. They failed to identify their audience.
That's why I do my landscape and fine art photography for myself as a outlet, and conform to my 'clients' (the marketing managers and designers) whom I shoot for at my day job. I do realize that should I decide to pursue or make a living with my hobby, I may have to switch roles and shoot for audience.
-
Just wanted to say thanks for the article, Alain. I've forwarded the link to a number of photographer/ artist/ writer friends...
Mike.
-
I noticed something worth mentioning: there are many quotes throughout the article, and every one of them is attributed properly to its author... except the first one. The first one is right under the headline, and is then followed by A. Briot photograph and his name, thus creating a wrong impression, that it is a subtitle of his article, and therefore his. It is, however, an Ansel Adams' quote. I am sure it was not intentional, just an omission, but for the sake of those not familiar with Adams, it should be corrected.
-
Hello.
I mean no offence to anyone but I don't get it!
I managed a good third of it but seriously, and I am not saying this because I have some axe to grind, I have no knowledge of Alan Broit, but that has to be the worst piece of writing I have ever read! It is not concise, articulate or well constructed, the rambling repetitiveness is thoroughly off putting, to the point that I find it unreadable. I find it very difficult to believe this article has come from the pen of a man who taught English!
There may well be a point to the article but it is so hidden that I gave up.
Sorry!
-
Hello.
I mean no offence to anyone but I don't get it!
I managed a good third of it but seriously, and I am not saying this because I have some axe to grind, I have no knowledge of Alan Broit, but that has to be the worst piece of writing I have ever read! It is not concise, articulate or well constructed, the rambling repetitiveness is thoroughly off putting, to the point that I find it unreadable. I find it very difficult to believe this article has come from the pen of a man who taught English!
There may well be a point to the article but it is so hidden that I gave up.
Sorry!
.
Ok,
So if you don't like it, why you spend your time to read it?.
I don't get it, it's free, in you are bitching and complaining .
Move on, take a walk, when you come back maybe you will say thank you, if not. Keep moving
BlasR
-
.
Ok,
So if you don't like it, why you spend your time to read it?.
I don't get it, it's free, in you are bitching and complaining .
Move on, take a walk, when you come back maybe you will say thank you, if not. Keep moving
BlasR
A rather typical response for this forum unfortunately, if you don't bow and scrape then you get slammed. Given just how much diversity is inherent to the art of photography there is little if any present or tolerated on internet photographic forums. It is not the first time by a long stretch that I have heard complaints that Alain's essays here are over long and rambling, the denial of the right to criticism is pathetic at best, I doubt it would be his own position, however your right to an opinion is no less valid than that of the person who you replied to and I would keep that in mind. You cannot represent a superior position when you decend far further than the dissenting opinion to voice your objection to it.
-
... So if you don't like it, why you spend your time to read it?...
Hmm... perhaps because one needs to spend at least some time reading in order to determine whether one likes something or not?
-
.
Ok,
So if you don't like it, why you spend your time to read it?.
I don't get it, it's free, in you are bitching and complaining .
Move on, take a walk, when you come back maybe you will say thank you, if not. Keep moving
BlasR
Why put the guy down for his opinion/honesty?
-
Hello.
I mean no offence to anyone but I don't get it!
I managed a good third of it but seriously, and I am not saying this because I have some axe to grind, I have no knowledge of Alan Broit, but that has to be the worst piece of writing I have ever read! It is not concise, articulate or well constructed, the rambling repetitiveness is thoroughly off putting, to the point that I find it unreadable. I find it very difficult to believe this article has come from the pen of a man who taught English!
There may well be a point to the article but it is so hidden that I gave up.
Sorry!
I followed Alain's point precisely. He has certainly made a living from it, and so I have a vested interesting in reading what he has to say. He made statements and then gave clear examples as to why.
You should clear your head, find some quiet time and re-read it.
-
Hmm... perhaps because one needs to spend at least some time reading in order to determine whether one likes something or not?
Good, but if you don't pay for it, don't complain about
BlasR
-
Why put the guy down for his opinion/honesty?
... You should clear your head, find some quiet time and re-read it.
So, in conclusion:
"Move on, take a walk, clear your head, when you come back find some quiet time and re-read it, maybe you will say thank you, if not. Keep moving"
-
Good, but if you don't pay for it, don't complain about.
Now, that is an interesting concept. I think that rule should be posted prominently on this board. So that we all know that only laudatory comments, applause and kisses are allowed. It also makes sense to post an addendum to the above rule for those who show a blatant disregard for it: "... Move on, take a walk, when you come back maybe you will say thank you, if not. Keep moving." Or to put it more eloquently: "Seriously, do you have a brain cell in your tiny head? ... Doode, you need to get a life. Maybe watch daytime soap operas or donate your time to a charity. Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums.".
-
Hello.
I mean no offence to anyone but I don't get it!
I managed a good third of it but seriously, and I am not saying this because I have some axe to grind, I have no knowledge of Alan Broit, but that has to be the worst piece of writing I have ever read! It is not concise, articulate or well constructed, the rambling repetitiveness is thoroughly off putting, to the point that I find it unreadable. I find it very difficult to believe this article has come from the pen of a man who taught English!
There may well be a point to the article but it is so hidden that I gave up.
You are not alone in your assessment of M. Briot's writing style. I have learned to read the first few paragraphs, then go into skimming mode, because there are valuable insights within.
-
I think life is beautiful.
Ops, I need to run, my wife is after me.
BlasR
-
Hmm. . . I find Alain's writing style so easy to read and follow. I also find it engaging and enjoyable. I have read his book cover to cover and am genuinely surprised by these comments.
Oh well, chacun à son goût.
-
Good morning.
I'd like to thank everyone for their responses to my post, whether in agreement or against, anything that raises a discussion is good in my book!
As I made clear, my intention was not to attack Alan Broit or his photography, I know nothing about him. I think my frustrations are centred on his lack of ability to articulate his point. I love to learn from people, I absorb a lot of information and influence from everyone and everything around me, as I presume we all do but I don't see the point of lip service. I think it's one thing to respect someone as a photographer and a businessman, an entirely different thing to overlook obvious shortcomings in the article and praise him based on that respect. Of course we all have different views, that's what makes life interesting, one man's abysmal writing is another mans inspiration, both views are equally worthy. I doubt very much that Mr Broit is arrogant enough to think that his work is beyond criticism or comment, or that everyone reading it would appreciate it. As an exercise in understanding your audience I would suggest that it was less than successful, unless of course he did a lot of research and made a conscious decision to appeal only to people with the will power to stick with the rambling and repetitive nature, in which case he did a marvellous job!
Of course these are only my views, you may agree, you may not, that's life! It would be a very boring place if we were only allowed to have positive views on everything.
Have a nice day!
-
Interesting read. I too find it a tad hard to follow some of his points, but I can get there in the end.
Different markets have different demands. If you do stock photography, clearly you are shooting "for the market". Scenic work, IMO is the vision of the photographer, and that is all that counts, your own taste. Some will like it, some will not. The moment you wander from that, to crowd pleasing only, is the time to hang up the camera and retire.
We all have a different way of seeing a shot, and that is part of the fun of photography. It does not always work, but that is life.
I certainly know of a few folks, who are not really what I would consider good landscape photographers, but who have the "neck" and "push" to throw their work out there, this goes for other areas of photography too, even general. Exposure is the key factor, it seems to count for more than talent. But fine art is a different field in itself.
Slightly OT, but I have a question for Alain is he is about. I very much enjoy looking at your photos, ..just a note here, or rather a question. I have always felt shadows can be a vital part of a photo, yet I would describe some of your shots as rather "high key". Wondering if this is just shooting to your own tastes, or a specific goal here?
-
It is not concise, articulate or well constructed, the rambling repetitiveness is thoroughly off putting, to the point that I find it unreadable.
English is not my primary language so maybe that is why I couldn't find the next chapter very concise or well constructed. Among other things Alain's name is misspelled several times:
[!--quoteo(post=242925:date=Dec 9 2008, 08:09 AM:name=)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE ( @ Dec 9 2008, 08:09 AM) [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=242925\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]As I made clear, my intention was not to attack Alan Broit or his photography, I know nothing about him. I think my frustrations are centred on his lack of ability to articulate his point. I love to learn from people, I absorb a lot of information and influence from everyone and everything around me, as I presume we all do but I don't see the point of lip service. I think it's one thing to respect someone as a photographer and a businessman, an entirely different thing to overlook obvious shortcomings in the article and praise him based on that respect. Of course we all have different views, that's what makes life interesting, one man's abysmal writing is another mans inspiration, both views are equally worthy. I doubt very much that Mr Broit is arrogant enough to think that his work is beyond criticism or comment, or that everyone reading it would appreciate it. As an exercise in understanding your audience I would suggest that it was less than successful, unless of course he did a lot of research and made a conscious decision to appeal only to people with the will power to stick with the rambling and repetitive nature, in which case he did a marvellous job![/quote]
..but I liked Alain's article in question and I posted link to another photography forum in my country.
-
...as it is in your post, as well. His name is Alain... not Alan.
-
Anyone who writes anything, at any length, requires one of two options: an editor; the chance to wait a week and then re-read what has been written, at which point repetition leaps off the page and can easily be edited out.
Bear in mind that Alain is French; his English, for a non-native speaker, is excellent and actually better than that of many natives it has been my lot to encounter. I don´t think it is language that is in dispute.
Rob C
-
...as it is in your post, as well. His name is Alain... not Alan.
Sorry (also for Alain) I was too busy to copy paste it from mjrichardson's post
-
I like Alain essays not because his viewpoints or opinions, but because he makes me think and develop my own viewpoint and opinions. In that sense I like his essays.
Regarding the audiences essay, I have to say that I do not make my living from photography, but from my experience in other fields I agree with the opinion that it is necessary to take into account to whom you deliver your service in order to be successful. But also your audience (your potential or actual customers) needs to perceive that you are different (and better) that the rest in order to buy from you, and this is not, perhaps, sufficiently stressed in the essay.
By the other hand, my evolution in photography has moved this way: the more developed and more confident I was in my personal style, the less I did care about the opinion of my audience (although, of course, I like very much being praised by the viewers of my photographs). But if I would live from photography, for sure I’ll try to know and to please as much as possible my potential customers.
Manuel
-
Slightly OT, but I have a question for Alain is he is about. I very much enjoy looking at your photos, ..just a note here, or rather a question. I have always felt shadows can be a vital part of a photo, yet I would describe some of your shots as rather "high key". Wondering if this is just shooting to your own tastes, or a specific goal here?
Just my own taste. I like open shadows. I had too many blocked out black empty detail-less shadows in film days. I don't like empty shadows for most of my work. There are exceptions, such as with silhouettes, but most of the time I am not very fond of detail-less shadows. Still I wouldn't qualify my work as High Key. A high key image is one without any blacks. If you study my images, you will see that they do have a true black point, something that a high key image doesn't have.
Alain
-
... His name is Alain... not Alan.
Correct, thank you for pointing it out. Also, my last name is spelled Briot, not Broit.
-
I thought the essay was quite clear, and not particularly repetitive.
There are two different ways of acquiring an audience, however. The first is to do some form of market research, however rudimentary or sophisticated it might be, and then to produce some kind of product that conforms to the best sales expectations. If you travel around the country, you see a lot of this: Manhattan from the air at night, Half-Dome, a clearing winter storm in the Rockies, sundown at Jackson Hole, etc. I wouldn't consider this art, really -- I'd consider it a craft. You can find *extremely* able craftsmen who do this work. But it's work that doesn't really lead to anything new, or develop new perceptions of old scenes: there is no new or developing idea behind it. Ansel Adams was an artist; the next guy who produces a great shot of Half Dome is walking on the trail of Ansel Adam's ideas, and is not really showing us anything new.
Then there's the second group, the people who see an important subject, or believe they see an important new way of self-expression, and so they do it, without much regard for whether an audience exists. Diane Arbus was one of those people, as was Robert Frank. Sure, they'd like an audience, but they weren't going to shoot Half Dome to get it. Very often, people in this group never do win an audience, and often, they are seen to fail as artists, because their vision really wasn't anything new or different, or their ideas were trivial. (When Photoshop first came out, you saw people being hailed as revolutionary for applying a series of Photoshop techniques to an otherwise boring photo. Those people are still around, but they're not in the museums. Know why? Because Photoshopping a picture for unusual effects is an essentially trivial activity.) In any case, some of this latter group of people, in working out their ideas, do begin to accumulate an audience as people recognize the worth of the ideas being expressed. This is really a radically different concept than the "market research" approach.
It is, by the way,possible to do both. Avedon, for example, was a great commercial fashion photographer, and I think some of his book work qualifies as genuine art. He was pitching to an audience (art directors) in the first instance, and letting the audience (museum curators and collectors) come to him in the second.
JC
-
Perhaps we should get away from such discussions as to Alain's English style of expression. He is after all French. so we should not be too harsh and should concentrate on his message rather than his English expression.
As I understand it, his message is that everyone needs an audience, big or small. My audience is small, but I don't mind because I'm not trying to make a fortune out of photography. As a matter of fact, I think the whole world is a crock of crap. I could become a Buddhist monk in a flick. But that's perhaps beside the point.
If you want to get noticed and become famous, you can't simply lie back and rely upon the quality of your work. You have to engage in publicity and marketing. Think about your audience and modify your work to suit that audience. Some are very successful at that, and others like me, simply don't give a stuff.
For that reason, I'm probably a total failure. And I don't give a stuff about that either. Success has its penalties.
-
In connection with these ideas, there are a couple of parallels in the scientific world that come to mind. Most people associate the name Alexander Flemming with the discovery of penicillin. However, it was the work of the Australian, Howard Florey, that resulted in the development of the very effective antibiotic, penicillin. But the name, Flemming, is more widely known.
Fair enough, you might think. It was Flemming who first noticed that mould in a petrie dish prevented the growth of bacteria. His initial observation was the important event.
However, when we come to the discovery of DNA by Watson & Crick, the work that provided the basis for their discovery, that is, the application of X-ray analysis to the structure of protein molecules, was pioneered by the Australian, Lawrence Bragg, who is actually the youngest ever Nobel laureate, an absolutely brilliant scientist who was, unfortunately, not particularly favoured by the establishment.
Who's ever heard of Lawrence Bragg? Hands up!
-
Who's ever heard of Lawrence Bragg? Hands up!
[/quote]
Yeah - he has effects and formula in crystallography named after him. I didn't do physics to a high level, and I certainly came across him. I thought he'd got credit in his area; fair enough, I wasn't aware of the Watson/Crick connection.
There's a lot of that in science, I thought it was an occupational hazard. So for myself, I would hesitate to call it a useful model for development of art in photography. But it's certainly an interesting contrast to make.
Y
-
In connection with these ideas, there are a couple of parallels in the scientific world that come to mind. Most people associate the name Alexander Flemming with the discovery of penicillin. However, it was the work of the Australian, Howard Florey, that resulted in the development of the very effective antibiotic, penicillin. But the name, Flemming, is more widely known.
Fair enough, you might think. It was Flemming who first noticed that mould in a petrie dish prevented the growth of bacteria. His initial observation was the important event.
However, when we come to the discovery of DNA by Watson & Crick, the work that provided the basis for their discovery, that is, the application of X-ray analysis to the structure of protein molecules, was pioneered by the Australian, Lawrence Bragg, who is actually the youngest ever Nobel laureate, an absolutely brilliant scientist who was, unfortunately, not particularly favoured by the establishment.
Who's ever heard of Lawrence Bragg? Hands up!
************
The person who got really screwed in the "Double Helix" story was Rosalind Franklin..who did the X-ray crystallography on DNA in the early '50's.
Steve