My initial response to the lecture is set out in a previous blog - An Audience with Anna Fox 7th May 2014 (posted 8th May 2014).
In her talk Anna Fox mentioned the importance of networking, something she considered to be of vital importance in having a successful career in Photography. Whilst of secondary importance to me, as I have no intention of following a career in Photography (I am happily retired), the idea did raise important questions in my mind not least of which was the thought why is it necessary at all. I should make clear that I think that networking is of fundamental importance in any career particularly in the Arts where so much seems to depend upon the work being seen in the right place and by the right people at the right time.. There is no point in displaying your work unless it attracts the attention of the opinion formers within the field that you work.
However it does raise the very important question as whether there is any 'gold standard' in Art generally and in photography in particular. Stories abound of impoverished artists whose work was sold very cheaply during their lifetime. One such artist was Monet who often visited London to paint the River Thames. His work was considered unfashionable. His works could be purchased for a very modest price and the landed gentry of the time bought a number. Now they are worth millions and even allowing for inflation the prices have rocketed. The only thing that changed between times was the desire of deep-pocketed collectors to own one of his masterpieces. The actual painting had not changed at all apart from the possible patina of age.
It is probably naive to suggest that a painting (or in our case a photograph) is outstanding from the moment it is finished and therefore should be desirable/accepted purely on its intrinsic quality from the very beginning. Naive because this is not how the world works. I would argue that not even the most expert of critics or collectors can regularly spot the next big thing - acceptance can only be created. There is a good case to argue that the quickest way to become an accepted photographer is to get someone to buy one of your images for a large sum of money and then publicise the fact. The 'followers' (as opposed to the opinion formers) will have an unquenchable desire to hang one of your photographs on their walls no matter how good or poor the actual work is. Your career is made - well at least until the next bright star appears in the firmament.
There is something sad and, for someone pursuing a career in photography, frightening that there is no agreed criteria that will settle a discussion about the quality of a photograph. In many ways this is the delight of all the creative arts and it is that which maintains the grip on those who pursue a career or a demanding hobby in the creative arts but at the same time leads one to the conclusion that so much is chance. Of all the many students studying photography in England and Wales (I was told that there are close to 100,000) it is impossible for anyone to predict which ones will be successful (what is meant by 'successful' is another matter). A student may gain first-class honours but that is no guarantee that she will have a successful career in her chosen field. Indeed there is every reason to believe that the one thing an academic honour in photography cannot produce from the years of study is a photographer. Anna Fox made this very point in her talk and I have heard similar comments from other academics in the field. (Personally this was a bit of a blow although I had come to the same conclusion earlier in my career as a student with the OCA. I can say with certainty that my photography has markedly improved over the years of the Course but this is down to the thousands of photographs I have taken in the past few years and the comments and criticisms from my tutors on the work that I have produced).
It is perhaps to state the obvious but there is no such thing as a photograph that will be universally acclaimed. It is equally obvious that the one thing that (almost) guarantees success is to become famous. It seems that once you are acknowledged as one of the 'greats' your future and indeed your past is secure. It is as though you cannot produce a bad photograph or have ever done so. Yet this seems to fly in the face of reality. It is not possible for every photograph taken is a success - that is why the wastepaper basket is full of discarded images or, in modern terms, the 'trash' on a computer of a photographer is full. Nor is the fact that a photograph appears in an exhibition by a particular photographer all of the same high quality. I recently visited the Martin Parr exhibition held at the National Media Museum in Bradford and it was obvious that some of the phtographs were there more because of Parr's fame (I am a great admirer of his work) than because of their intrinsic quality.
As in most walks of life it is not what you know but who you know that increses the chances of success.
No comments:
Post a Comment