Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: landscapephoto on February 05, 2016, 07:27:16 am
-
There was an interesting discussion started over in the MF section, but it probably is more appropriate here. This is the post that started it:
I had lunch today with my ex-boss, an editor-in-chief who employed me as a journo for 4 years back before I went back to school to do my PhD, and before the web starved print media. He is a respected media consultant now. Sometimes he explains some arty stuff to me, sometimes I tell him about how geeks see a piece of tech. So I showed him some fiction I wrote last week, noted that as far as I could see these 500 word short shorts were worth about $20 on the open market, asked him -he paid me well for years as a tech writer- whether I had any chance of selling this new half-good stuff I'm playing with.
And he came back with the strangest fastest reply: "WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY FOR CONTENT IF IT IS NOT BY SOMEONE FAMOUS" ? Now, this guy, I respect him for his phenomenal intuition, and he wasn't making fun of me, he had just realized how much the world of written content has changed ...
Edmund
Some examples where given, most notably:
-Richard Prince, who turned Instagram pictures into $100000 prints (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram-artist-richard-prince-selfies), just because of his name
-Brooklyn Beckham (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/brooklyn-beckham), who got to shot Burberry’s last campaign and gave them access to the 5.9 millions followers of his instagram account (https://www.instagram.com/brooklynbeckham/).
In short: celebrity sells and for a lot of money.
-
landscapephoto,
Why would anyone pay for content if it is not by someone famous?
Simply because they like it, want it, and can afford it.
-
It does suggest that there is no longer just the opposition between new and old money, but new and old fame. Just the opposite of Warhol's prediction..
Piketty's work on capital concentration gives a good analysis of the dominance of dynastic fortunes in a non-expanding economy, but it's interesting to think how that might work for fame. It used to be that one became famous for doing stuff, but in a world where competence has little weight in the value of the final product, it might be a better strategy to invest in someone who is already famous... and if fame is inherited, that can apply also in the youth market.
The fascinating question is whether fame passes to the third generation: Posh and Becks had talent, we'll have to wait another 30 years to see how much capital there is in being the offspring of someone famous only for being the child of celebrities.
But hey, maybe he'll turn out to be a good photographer?
-
Simply because they like it, want it, and can afford it.
OK. Obviously, there are still some people buying prints from not insanely famous photographers or hiring photographers to shoot special occasions, catalogues, etc... I am not disputing that.
But there are less and less of them and more and more content to be had for free. Plenty of it is very good. And it is not only photography, music sees the same evolution. So, enormous amount of content is to be had for free and I think that is what the citation refers to.
On the opposite spectrum, you have large amounts of public being prepared to pay, as long as a celebrity is involved. Probably, they are not really paying for the "content", but rather for the privilege of being a fan of the celebrity (think about brands "endorsed" by a celebrity", for example in clothing).
I have a feeling that all this is indeed a worrying trend.
-
Is there a question or a point in this thread? Other than "duh!" (i.e., stating the obvious)?
-
It's a re-run of the "photography has become technically trivial" discussion, really...
-
Is there a question or a point in this thread? Other than "duh!" (i.e., stating the obvious)?
You don't have to participate. Personally, I found the remark about new and old fame interesting. Also: I had not realised that Instagram had evolved to a massive propaganda machine. I was still under the idea that it was an application to beautify the images from one's smartphone and share them between a small collection of friends.
-
"How social media is transforming the fashion industry"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35483480 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35483480)
"In some cases, not just the models but the entire backstage team - including the make-up artists, stylists and producers - are selected according to their influence on social media.
"We won't do a photoshoot that goes on a billboard somewhere unless everyone involved has some sort of [social media] following and some sort of leverage," says Mr Venneri."
"Behind-the-scenes pictures and videos shared on its Instagram and Snapchat feeds of the Brooklyn shoot had some 15 million impressions in the eight hours the shoot was live.
The fashion retailer has nearly 40 million followers across 20 different social media platforms and openly admits that it has become as much a media content producer as a design company."
-
Also: I had not realised that Instagram had evolved to a massive propaganda machine.
I have some would-be artist friends who take follower-numbers on instagram very seriously, although Beckham Jr's 6 million follows makes their efforts look rather ridiculous. I have heard a 2nd hand story (literally the friend of a friend) who managed to launch a career as a food photographer through social media: while working as a casual waiter in various posh restaurants around Europe, he was snapping the food and posting the images on instagram... built up a following, got offered paid work, grabbed the opportunity two-handed and is now able to buy his meals :)
-
There are many photographers who use Instagram as a promotion channel. An example is mustafaseven (https://www.instagram.com/mustafaseven/) with 1.5 million followers. With this amount of followers, marketers will be interested in your Instagram stream. Celebrities streams will still be more valuable, though.
There are a few consequences, though. First, Instagram is not really a user generated site any more. Under a few 100K followers, you are not significant and to get that amount of followers one has to approach the problem as a professional: the sheer number of pictures which must be posted regularly and the time taken to respond to post and promote the stream makes it an almost full time job. Second, it is a process that leaves little artistic freedom: because one needs to post a continuous stream of pictures and because the source of the pictures must be immediately recognised, successful instagrammers usually concentrate on a single subject and a few processing types, making running their stream a largely automated process.
-
On the same subject, a video by hacker artist Constant Dullaart, who tried to demonstrate the problems underlying social validation by actually creating an army of followers and see what would happen.
The conference was presented in the latest chaos computer club congress and can be seen or downloaded here: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7517-the_possibility_of_an_army
A fascinating show. The part about the army, facebook and instagram starts at 17:00.
-
When I interviewed Stephen Eastwood some years ago, who was moderately well known as a fashion/beauty photographer, he told me he had 3 people somewhere (India? ) just to scan through his email, as he got a lot of it and could not afford to lose potential work. A million followers, if you're a working stiff, will probably generate about 1K messages. Of course, if you are "famous" you don't care about these messages as you are above the fray, as a supernatural being.
Edmund
There are many photographers who use Instagram as a promotion channel. An example is mustafaseven (https://www.instagram.com/mustafaseven/) with 1.5 million followers. With this amount of followers, marketers will be interested in your Instagram stream. Celebrities streams will still be more valuable, though.
There are a few consequences, though. First, Instagram is not really a user generated site any more. Under a few 100K followers, you are not significant and to get that amount of followers one has to approach the problem as a professional: the sheer number of pictures which must be posted regularly and the time taken to respond to post and promote the stream makes it an almost full time job. Second, it is a process that leaves little artistic freedom: because one needs to post a continuous stream of pictures and because the source of the pictures must be immediately recognised, successful instagrammers usually concentrate on a single subject and a few processing types, making running their stream a largely automated process.
-
When I interviewed Stephen Eastwood some years ago, who was moderately well known as a fashion/beauty photographer, he told me he had 3 people somewhere (India? ) just to scan through his email, as he got a lot of it and could not afford to lose potential work. A million followers, if you're a working stiff, will probably generate about 1K messages. Of course, if you are "famous" you don't care about these messages as you are above the fray, as a supernatural being.
Well... I would bet good money that Brooklyn Beckham is not running the whole show alone, but for photographers like mustaphaseven, I am less sure.
Did you have a look at the video from Constant Dullaart? It is really good.
-
Well... I would bet good money that Brooklyn Beckham is not running the whole show alone, but for photographers like mustaphaseven, I am less sure.
Did you have a look at the video from Constant Dullaart? It is really good.
Here is the english-only link; I need somewhere to save it :)
http://mirror.netcologne.de/CCC/congress/2015/h264-hd-web/32c3-7517-en-the_possibility_of_an_army.mp4
SKIP TO MINUTE 17.
Edmund
-
That was quite enlightening, thanks :-)
-
That was quite enlightening, thanks :-)
Another by-product of retirement is that one no longer gives a fig about popularity and the effort to try and sell self; now that's truly liberating! I have never been in Effbook nor any of those traps; the closest I got was to find myself lightly enmeshed in Linkedin, where I get asked if I know neighbours... it's funny seeing their 'descriptions' yet knowing the realities!
;-)
Rob C
-
What I found particularly interesting was his account of the NYT reporter changing the story to fit her ideas. An epidemiologist friend had a similar experience several years ago, when several journalists simply hung up once it was clear she wasn't willing to tell them what fitted their ideas but wasn't supported by her research.
-
Is there a question or a point in this thread? Other than "duh!" (i.e., stating the obvious)?
"Duh" is right, Slobodan. The question isn't even stated correctly. Someone who buys something created by a famous "artist" such as Jackson Pollock isn't buying "content;" he's buying an object. That's especially clear in Pollock's case since the "content" is a collection of drips. The whole art auction scam is an illustration in spades of Barnum's maxim.
-
Yes and no. The absurdity of market pricing of art as scarce, tradeable objects is equally true of a van Gogh selling for $100 million, when i can have the same sensoreal pleasure from a good quality print. Imagine if literature worked the same way: no one would care much about reading, only about owning a first edition...
The question of whether a Pollock or a potato or Duchamp's urinal or a bicycle wheel is art is a separate question, since there is no workable definition of art. Arguing about whether X is Y when you can't define Y is an inevitable waste of time. I have enjoyed looking at several Pollocks.
-
Facture?
Uniqueness and originality.
-
Yes and no. The absurdity of market pricing of art as scarce, tradeable objects is equally true of a van Gogh selling for $100 million, when i can have the same sensoreal pleasure from a good quality print. Imagine if literature worked the same way: no one would care much about reading, only about owning a first edition...
The question of whether a Pollock or a potato or Duchamp's urinal or a bicycle wheel is art is a separate question, since there is no workable definition of art. Arguing about whether X is Y when you can't define Y is an inevitable waste of time. I have enjoyed looking at several Pollocks.
Perhaps 'art' at the stratospheric level is solely about money; it's similar to owning a famous diamond which, now and again, comes up for auction and one pocket's the difference after the dealers have taken their slice. That's on a good day, when the net return is greater than the purchase cost you. I wonder how these things are valued from the tax point of view; whether one has to give an annual valuation for each masterpiece, whether it's a simple capital gains mechanism after a sale, or whether a more sophisticated form of calculation gets made that considers the item's fluctuating, if imaginary value each year of your ownership.
Not a probem I'm likely ever to face.
Rob C
-
In France, yes, you need to list your "patrimoine" if it is likely to pass a certain threshold (about 850k€), beyond which one has to pay a capital tax. However it's self assessed unless challenged, so art is a much better tool for hiding wealth than ie real-estate: Marine LePen (leader of the far-right Front National) is looking at being banned from political life for having under-stated the value of her houses by a factor of 3 or 4.
However there have been several notable cases of public figures, in particular Sarkozy's Minister of the Interior Claude Guéant, justifying remarkable leaps in their personal wealth by surprising sales of old paintings they found behind the wardrobe. In Guéant's case, he was found to have his hand in the till, surprise surprise.
-
In France, yes, you need to list your "patrimoine" if it is likely to pass a certain threshold (about 850k€), beyond which one has to pay a capital tax. However it's self assessed unless challenged, so art is a much better tool for hiding wealth than ie real-estate: Marine LePen (leader of the far-right Front National) is looking at being banned from political life for having under-stated the value of her houses by a factor of 3 or 4.
However there have been several notable cases of public figures, in particular Sarkozy's Minister of the Interior Claude Guéant, justifying remarkable leaps in their personal wealth by surprising sales of old paintings they found behind the wardrobe. In Guéant's case, he was found to have his hand in the till, surprise surprise.
Some tills are reminiscent of the gentle lips of crocodiles.
Having said which, it's alarming what is happening to the Swiss banking system. US-driven pressures should have been resisted at all costs. Let America solve its own problems at home without ruining foreigners.
You neeed only think of the vast sums of money being spent buying politicians and voters in the current madness sweeping the American state (as well as, surprisingly, filling our European screens with mindless, juvenile crap day after pounding day). Strikes me that if it's legitimate to buy political power at every level of the game, then what others outside the States do falls into insignificance, quite apart from being their business and not that of America. Time should be spent cleaning up the domestic act and throwing the peddlers out of the temple. If 'comfortable' US citizens see the failures within their domestic system and seek finacial refuge and safety externally, surely the message must be that it's the domestic condition that's the mess that needs tidying up?
Rob C
-
It was still ironic that one of the first people caught under the new Swiss regime was Holland's Finance Minister, who was found to have hidden a few million in a Swiss account... and had recently brought in legislation increasing surveillance of foreign bank accounts...
-
"Duh" is right, Slobodan. The question isn't even stated correctly. Someone who buys something created by a famous "artist" such as Jackson Pollock isn't buying "content;" he's buying an object. That's especially clear in Pollock's case since the "content" is a collection of drips. The whole art auction scam is an illustration in spades of Barnum's maxim.
If you go back to the first post, you will notice that it is not a question, but a citation from another thread. The idea was to discuss present economics of marketing. And, contrary to what you say, some people do buy "content" even when not attached to a tangible object. The whole streaming business model is based on the idea.
As to who buys "content", it seems you are only considering end users. But if you read the first post, the citation is from a media consultant. Not only these people buy content, they are probably the largest buyers around. For photography, since this is the subject of this forum, they would buy usage rights. And, according to the text, they don't pay for the usage rights unless one is famous. I think we could easily find countless examples easily: when one's dashboard camera or cell phone records a one of a kind event, the images are in the news but the original photographer gets nothing. But when one wants to photograph an event by someone's famous, a concert for example, "content" suddenly has a very real price.
-
What I found particularly interesting was his account of the NYT reporter changing the story to fit her ideas.
Indeed. This has also been my personal (limited) experience with the press.
-
Indeed. This has also been my personal (limited) experience with the press.
My younger granddaughter, as a schoolgirl, won a small photographic contest. A Glasgow evening paper, perhaps with nothing better, local, upon which to pontificate, contacted the parents who, in turn, and to extend the photographic link in the story, supplied some snaps of grandpa in his studio, along with some of Brigitte Bardot. The copy was amazing: it covered an entire page and was all about me with hardly a mention of my poor granddaughter. According to the newspaper, I was Scotland's top celebrity photographer, and the studio shot was of myself directing Bardot for a Vogue shoot.
Okay, I did shoot Bardot and I did shoot for Vogue, but never the two in combination and I was certainly never a celebrity photographer: I was a fashion and calendar photographer. I was already living in Spain at the time, and I blushed reading the thing, wondering what a lying asshole my remaining Glaswegian peers must have thought me.
Yep, newspapers...
-
I think we could easily find countless examples easily: when one's dashboard camera or cell phone records a one of a kind event, the images are in the news but the original photographer gets nothing.
Why?
Why give it for free? Is beating their competitors to a one of a kind scoop worth nothing? Then one of their competitors may be willing to pay for it in some form or another.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why give it for free? Is beating their competitors to a one of a kind scoop worth nothing?
I don't really know. Seems that in most cases witnesses of a one time event simply post their findings on facebook or youtube and the media simply help themselves.
-
I don't really know. Seems that in most cases witnesses of a one time event simply post their findings on facebook or youtube and the media simply help themselves.
That "helping themselves" proved $1.2 million costly for them in at least one case:
AFP and Getty Images found liable for willful copyright infringement, Haitian photojournalist Daniel Morel wins maximum damages. (http://www.epuk.org/news/follow-the-daniel-morel-vs-afp-and-getty-images-trial-with-epuks-daily-reports)
Gasps were heard in the courtroom as the trial of Daniel Morel vs. Agence France Presse (AFP) and Getty Images ended at the Thurgood Marshall US Court House in Manhattan with Morel being awarded $1.2m in damages, the maximum possible. Jury members said they were “outraged” by the behavior of both agencies.
-
That "helping themselves" proved $1.2 million costly for them in at least one case:
AFP and Getty Images found liable for willful copyright infringement, Haitian photojournalist Daniel Morel wins maximum damages. (http://www.epuk.org/news/follow-the-daniel-morel-vs-afp-and-getty-images-trial-with-epuks-daily-reports)
Yes, I have read about that case. It is actually the only time it proved costly. The fact that Daniel Morel was a professional photographer was also important for the decision, it is not said whether an amateur would have had any success.
-
... whether an amateur would have had any success.
They would, the law is the law. It is a different question whether amateurs would have enough motivation to engage in a lengthy and expensive legal process. If anything, amateurs are inclined to go in the opposite direction: being excited and "honored" to be published for their 15 minutes of fame, so they are volunteering to give it away.
-
... You neeed only think of the vast sums of money being spent buying politicians and voters in the current madness sweeping the American state ... Strikes me that if it's legitimate to buy political power ...
About that pesky myth how money "buys" elections:
-
They would, the law is the law.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Morel was awarded damages. Amateurs would have a much more difficult job to argue damages than a professional and certainly not to the same amount. On the other hand, celebrities are much more likely to successfully argue damages, which is probably a possible answer to the question in the title.
-
... Amateurs would have a much more difficult job to argue damages than a professional and certainly not to the same amount...
The question you asked was "any success," so the amount is irrelevant in answering it. Besides, it is not the status of the photographer that determines damages or the punitive part of the judgment, but the the status of the photograph, i.e., is the photograph registered with the copyright office or not (in the States, at least).
-
A visual commentary:
-
The question you asked was "any success," so the amount is irrelevant in answering it. Besides, it is not the status of the photographer that determines damages or the punitive part of the judgment, but the the status of the photograph, i.e., is the photograph registered with the copyright office or not (in the States, at least).
I am not a specialist on the question of intellectual property laws, so I will leave the discussion at that.
-
The question you asked was "any success," so the amount is irrelevant in answering it. Besides, it is not the status of the photographer that determines damages or the punitive part of the judgment, but the the status of the photograph, i.e., is the photograph registered with the copyright office or not (in the States, at least).
Of course, "famous" photographer probably have team members who file every image with the copyright office ...
But the thread isn't about this. The question was, is there any sense in trying to sell content TO MASS MEDIA if you're not famous, or do you have to give it away in the hope that one day you will become famous? I remind you that the guy who made the original remark was until very recently a major content buyer -editor in chief of a magazine- and himself a painter by training with paintings exhibited in museums. So one cannot accuse him of disrespecting authors.
Edmund
-
... The question was, is there any sense in trying to sell content TO MASS MEDIA if you're not famous, or do you have to give it away...
Sorry to point out the obvious, but it depends on the content (if you are not famous). I have a friend, an amateur, who was shooting Chicago Air & Water Show from the top of the skyscraper he lives in. He caught the precise moment of an incident, where two planes briefly touched each other's wings, with debris still in the air. He called Chicago Tribune and they paid for it.
-
Sorry to point out the obvious, but it depends on the content (if you are not famous). I have a friend, an amateur, who was shooting Chicago Air & Water Show from the top of the skyscraper he lives in. He caught the precise moment of an incident, where two planes briefly touched each other's wings, with debris still in the air. He called Chicago Tribune and they paid for it.
Slobodan,
I'm happy your friend can find a plane accident to lense every day.
Edmund
-
What that has to do with anything, Edmund?
As I said, he is an amateur, he does not need to find a new content (accident) every day. You asked if those who are not famous have to give it away, and I provided an example where they don't. He asked, they paid. It is possible that they would pay him even if he didn't ask. I got recently a request to use one of my images they found on Flickr as a double-page spread in a magazine, and they told me in advance, without me asking, how much they pay for it.
So, what exactly we are talking about here? That magazines and publishers are hard to convince to publish something "half-good" (your words) from an unknown (to a broader public) author? Well, duh!!! How's that anything new? It's been like that for centuries. Ask any well-know author how many times publishers rejected them before they were well-known. How many paintings did Van Gough sell in his life (hint: zero or one, depending on source)? Ask anyone who tried to sell something how many times they were rejected. Average success rate for unsolicited offers is a whopping 1-2% (and that if you are really lucky).
So, once again, what exactly are we talking about here?
-
Slobodan,
I kowtow to your deep wisdom and lucid presentation.
Edmund
What that has to do with anything, Edmund?
As I said, he is an amateur, he does not need to find a new content (accident) every day. You asked if those who are not famous have to give it away, and I provided an example where they don't. He asked, they paid. It is possible that they would pay him even if he didn't ask. I got recently a request to use one of my images they found on Flickr as a double-page spread in a magazine, and they told me in advance, without me asking, how much they pay for it.
So, what exactly we are talking about here? That magazines and publishers are hard to convince to publish something "half-good" (your words) from an unknown (to a broader public) author? Well, duh!!! How's that anything new? It's been like that for centuries. Ask any well-know author how many times publishers rejected them before they were well-known. How many paintings did Van Gough sell in his life (hint: zero or one, depending on source)? Ask anyone who tried to sell something how many times they were rejected. Average success rate for unsolicited offers is a whopping 1-2% (and that if you are really lucky).
So, once again, what exactly are we talking about here?
-
... In short: celebrity sells and for a lot of money.
Andy agrees with you:
-
Slobodan,
I kowtow to your deep wisdom and lucid presentation.
Edmund
The shortest put downs are are always the most elegant!
-
The shortest put downs are are always the most elegant!
"...the internet has become a place where personal invective is substituted for resoned argument."
-
My younger granddaughter, as a schoolgirl, won a small photographic contest. A Glasgow evening paper, perhaps with nothing better, local, upon which to pontificate, contacted the parents who, in turn, and to extend the photographic link in the story, supplied some snaps of grandpa in his studio, along with some of Brigitte Bardot. The copy was amazing: it covered an entire page and was all about me with hardly a mention of my poor granddaughter. According to the newspaper, I was Scotland's top celebrity photographer, and the studio shot was of myself directing Bardot for a Vogue shoot.
Okay, I did shoot Bardot and I did shoot for Vogue, but never the two in combination and I was certainly never a celebrity photographer: I was a fashion and calendar photographer. I was already living in Spain at the time, and I blushed reading the thing, wondering what a lying asshole my remaining Glaswegian peers must have thought me.
Yep, newspapers...
Gosh Mr C.. what outrageous conduct from a newspaper! Thank you so much for telling us in such detail about that awful, reprehensible and grossly unfair article in which you were accused of being a celebrity photographer. Thanks also and also for making it so relevant to the thread. Don't worry I'm sure nobody thinks your an asshole! I, for one, felt I gained a huge insight into the person you are just from reading your account if it all.
-
@Mr C. I forgot to say .... I bet you got your revenge on the paper by suing them for using your photograph of B BARDOT without your permission.