confidence/arrogance

elven

I've been mulling over this one for a while but haven't really come up with a rounded sort of conclusion about it as such. What place does the ego have in photography?

(No, it isn't Friday, do not adjust your calendars.)

It seems in terms of the history of art that a lot of the 'greats' were not scared to be overly proud of themselves and proclaim how fabulous they were, and i wonder if they were recognised because they were great, or because they told everyone they were? Is it ok to be arrogant if you're really that good? How do you know when you're good enough to be confident about it? (I know, there's a thin line, but a distinction all the same, between arrogance and confidence...)

I think it's important to be confident if you're, say, a wedding photographer, because you have to put it across that you're in control and you're going to give them the results that they want, so that they are relaxed and happy around you - a nervous photographer will make for nervous subjects. But when you've done the job and you're just discussing it with fellow photographers though, is there any need for self promotion? How do you feel about pimping yourself, or when others do it? Is it an Irish/British personality trait to feel awkward about selling yourself? Does it get on your nerves when other people have an "I'm fantastic!" attitude when maybe sometimes they could do with being told where they are actually going wrong? Does thinking you're fantastic stop you from learning and improving? Does anyone ever pick up on an unspoken response from someone else that makes them think they might be getting beyond themselves a bit?

I think there's more to be said but i've probably spewed out enough questions for now. Any thoughts?

af_thefragile

I think as you mentioned its important if you're like a wedding photographer or a news/journalist photographer as you do need to sell yourself to make your living and confidence is quite important in selling yourself. You need to make them believe you're the better photographer over the others lined up and they should buy your photos rather than the other photographers.

Apart from that maybe you could just let the pictures do the talking?!

xshayx

But you can be very confident and still be a **** photographer!

I hear what you're saying tho, I know a number of people who think they are great at their art/trade and to me they arent even average (but in someone elses eyes they may very well be great).... but if they are happy then what harm is it if the over sell themselves, as af_t said, let the pictures (or whatever) do the talking!

Covey

elven wrote: »

How do you know when you're good enough to be confident about it? (I know, there's a thin line, but a distinction all the same, between arrogance and confidence...)

When you know you're crap and making loads of money

Seriously, some of what passes for photographic art is horrendous stuff. I reckon someone's ego and self promotion is at least as important as artistic content.

elven

Unfortunately with that adage of 'let the pictures do the talking' quite often the general public don't actually know any better and will happily pay money for complete mince. Buyer beware i suppose you could say.

But what about in a non commercial environment? How do you feel about your photography geek friends telling you how fantasmic they are?

Dragan

Everyone should be confident in what they do, if they are not, then why are they doing it?

For me, I am confident that i have a bit of a flare for photography, i am confident that i am putting the work in to get better and better, i am confident in my resources and the people i have available to teach me.

I hope this carries over into a career, where i will once again be confident that i can produce results that surpass the expectations of the people who will hopefully end up employing me. This confidence will be based on the fact that i HAVE made a career and that people ARE willing to pay me and will simply be used to fuel the work, produce better results and ensure better final images.

I am a firm believer in confidence. I have held jobs throughout the years where confidence quite literally kept me alive at times.

Arrogance is a different thing. I am not a real fan of it, as i believe it over steps the lines of believing in yourself. Maybe it is also because , in my life, I have noticed that confidence tends to be backed up, while public arrogance tends to be built on very shaky ground.

For me, arrogance is a private thing. If I do something very well, if i produce a great photo, or a great painting, drawing, piece of music, piece of Digital Art or whatever it may be....I will allow myself a moment of arrogance as my reward. During this moment i will allow myself to believe that someday i will be in a position to get paid to replicate what it is that i see and think in my head, to show my view of the world to people and then i will turn it off and get back to the hard graft of turning that dream into a reality.

Inner confidence is everything. Outer arrogance is just another hurdle to be overcome on the way to personal greatness.

But, thats just me.

Edit : With regard to the point you made about thinking you are fantastic limiting yourself....once again to me it all depends. If you genuinely believe that you can produce fantastic results, and you put in the work to get them and you genuinely leave a little bit of yoursel fin your work.....then this is a good thing.

If you think all your results are fantastic just because you did them? That is a whole other story.

4sb

A small facet of confidence - I would like to be confident to make mistakes and to try see new things.

Covey

Well said Dragan (Sorry I'm all fingers at the moment )

Allowing yourself a moment of arrogance as your reward for producing something good, is probably well deserved self satisfaction. Not sure arrogance can exist without an audience.

However your premise, seems to be based on "people who will hopefully end up employing me", which is fine.

Having to survive as an independent artist though is a different kettle of fish and I'm slowly coming to the view that, if thats your chosen path, a large degree of ego and self promotion (whether justified or not) ,is not just neccessary, but in a lot of cases the main element for success.

If anyone wants an example of what I'm on about, just visit Here for a look.

If there's something I've missed please let me know.

elven

digitally re-mastered image Anecdote of a Tree

hahahahahaha!

I'm going to go and take a bunch of digitally remastered image anecdotes of things this weekend, folks

Anouilh

wrote:

Is it an Irish/British personality trait to feel awkward about selling yourself?

You have offered so many personality traits in one post that it is difficult to work oneself out into the light.

"La frime" is not something I think much about, but when I do something well I take it for granted. Selling what you do well is a very different matter.

I really like the character played by Max von Sydow in "Hannah and her Sisters" who would not sell his painting to an unworthy client.

"Arrogance", as a Spanish woman once told me "is a protection against stupid people".


Also, English diffidence is very different from Irish understatment, I think. Thank you for helping me to think, and that on a Tuesday.

Covey

elven wrote: »

hahahahahaha!

I'm going to go and take a bunch of digitally remastered image anecdotes of things this weekend, folks

It was not the worst image by a long stretch. Impressive place though!

It was like visiiting (physically) the HSE Website. Visual gobbeldygook.

Covey

Anouilh wrote: »

"Arrogance", as a Spanish woman once told me "is a protection against stupid people".

Now THAT is the definition of arrogance.

Dragan

Covey wrote: »

Well said Dragan (Sorry I'm all fingers at the moment )

Allowing yourself a moment of arrogance as your reward for producing something good, is probably well deserved self satisfaction. Not sure arrogance can exist without an audience.

However your premise, seems to be based on "people who will hopefully end up employing me", which is fine.

Having to survive as an independent artist though is a different kettle of fish and I'm slowly coming to the view that, if thats your chosen path, a large degree of ego and self promotion (whether justified or not) ,is not just neccessary, but in a lot of cases the main element for success.

If anyone wants an example of what I'm on about, just visit Here for a look.

If there's something I've missed please let me know.

The only lesson i can take from that Covey, is that i need to hope to hell if i ever become arrogant then it will be justified.:)

I don't know, i guess in a way it's all just part of a bigger picture for me...hopefully my success will lie in my ability to do many things, and not just one, and to bring them all together in a manner which interests and provokes people.

I guess the irony is, the above could be viewed as arrogance or confidence, depending on how you break it down?

The reality is more the deluded fantasies of fool i think!

Covey

Dragan, I think your attitude is spot on and not at all arrogant. I wouldn't class myself as arrogant either, but then again I'm not in any way successful.

I fear thats maybe the price of success in such a market, thats all ??

I'm often seen as arrogant, though I don't mean to give that persona.

Its just the way I communicate. I would give people the benefit of the doubt and I would make allowance for talent. I've been lucky to work with some people who were top of their game (not photography btw) but who were very, very arrogrant. However, having worked with them I can see a bit they get like this.

On the other hand, I have met people who are very arrogant and talentless. These people do annoy me!

Personally, I try to reduce the perception of arrogance that I give out. I know how it feels to be the 'stupidest' person in the room, and its a not a feeling I like. That is why I don't like imparting that feeling to others.

sheesh

elven wrote: »

It seems in terms of the history of art that a lot of the 'greats' were not scared to be overly proud of themselves and proclaim how fabulous they were, and i wonder if they were recognised because they were great, or because they told everyone they were? Is it ok to be arrogant if you're really that good? How do you know when you're good enough to be confident about it? (I know, there's a thin line, but a distinction all the same, between arrogance and confidence...)

There is confidence and their is showmanship/bluster. Which can be seen as confidence by people that do not know the person concerned. If you are dealing in an area that is competitive where natural talent and very little else is respected a bit of arrogance and a conviction that you are the best might be the edge that leads you becoming acknowledged as the best in the field.

elven wrote: »

I think it's important to be confident if you're, say, a wedding photographer, because you have to put it across that you're in control and you're going to give them the results that they want, so that they are relaxed and happy around you

When dealing with clients confidence to face a bridezilla is a requirement of the job. An Appearance of confidence in your abilities leads to less questions by a nervous client.

Dragan wrote: »

Everyone should be confident in what they do, if they are not, then why are they doing it?

For me, I am confident that i have a bit of a flare for photography, i am confident that i am putting the work in to get better and better, i am confident in my resources and the people i have available to teach me.

Some people are just not ordinarily confident. You might do something for the simple pleasure you get in doing it and just to hell what other people think.

I know with myself Photography is something I do for myself and nobody else and I mostly have no interest in what people think.

kjt

Good question Julie.
I feel you shouldn't be doing something unless you're fairly confident about it. Of course in photography you don't need to be confident in any way, unless you expect to make a bit of money or are promoting yourself. If your just starting off, it's all fine and dandy not being sure about yourself; assurance will come in time with hard work.

I really don't have time for people who are arrogant in any way. IMO there just isn't a time or place for it. What can come of being arrogant? People might thing bigger and better things of you? Maybe, but I would look at it that people would think your a pompous ásshat.

In saying that "arrogant" can be viewed and defined in many different lights. Personally I always think somebody is stuck up their own áss when referred to as 'arrogant', whereas another person might think their just pimping themselves a little.

Arrogant: feeling or showing self-importance and contempt or disregard for others - Link

Covey wrote: »

Having to survive as an independent artist though is a different kettle of fish and I'm slowly coming to the view that, if that's your chosen path, a large degree of ego and self promotion (whether justified or not), is not just necessary, but in a lot of cases the main element for success.

I think there is a fine line between selling yourself and being arrogant. Of course if your out there trying to scrape a few cent together you have to:

• know what your doing
• be able to do it well
• sell yourself/convince people and
• have happy customers at the end of the day

.

Tommie I'm not sure if you were saying you have to be arrogant to get anywhere as a self-starter or just you have to push yourself a little. I think it was the latter though..

Dragan wrote: »

Everyone should be confident in what they do, if they are not, then why are they doing it?

I couldn't agree with you more!


In brief if you want to go anywhere (with photography, another service or sell your product etc) you have be very confident in yourself and your work without going as far as being arrogant. It might just be my interpretation of certain words like 'ego' and 'arrogant' but I always associate them with people who think their gods gift and are always looking down on others. It is something I would never like to be called and even more so something I hope never to portray.

Hugh_C

elven wrote: »

It seems in terms of the history of art that a lot of the 'greats' were not scared to be overly proud of themselves and proclaim how fabulous they were, and i wonder if they were recognised because they were great, or because they told everyone they were? Is it ok to be arrogant if you're really that good?

Any thoughts?

I think you're referring to a time when photography was different though, they were a rare breed and therefore arrogance could expand to fill the void of ego-space, as it were. But what we're living through is something different, we're living through the democratisation of the art through access to cheap technology. Anyone can call themselves a photographer. Even me. And my ego.



I think it all depends what your photographing, if it's plants or landscapes for instance, you don't really have to get in anyone's face, it's an essentially internal pursuit and therefore maybe more of an id thing. If it's portraits you're doing, it requires interaction and engagement with the subject and naturally ego is involved.

Not that I understand any of it, but this is from wiki:

According to this model, the uncoordinated instinctual trends are the "id"; the organized realistic part of the psyche is the "ego," and the critical and moralizing function the "super-ego." [1]

Maybe those arrogant photographers out there have a deficient super-ego.

Does anyone ever pick up on an unspoken response from someone else that makes them think they might be getting beyond themselves a bit?

yup

Borderfox

I think confidence/ego whatever you want to call it is justified if the results match the same level, no point talking a good fight and coming out black and blue. I am confident in my abilites to get the job done with a creative flair and I know that I deliver. My results match this so there is no conflict. I have met some people who's business sense far exceed's there photographic ability and they get ahead on that alone. Sometimes with these photographers its a case of the Emperor's new clothes and the people want to believe.

ThOnda

I have thought that arrogance is disrespect to the opinion of other people. And photography as a creative art is based on personal opinions evoked by the picture.
Therefore if I am not willing to listen (but not blindly follow) opinions of other people, I will get trapped in my own cliché and my work will loose it's creativity.
Or something like that.
On the other hand, self respect, confidence and ego are important to go forward in what you do and not to stop the pursuit if your ideas.

elven

Hugh_C wrote: »

we're living through the democratisation of the art through access to cheap technology. Anyone can call themselves a photographer.

That's for sure. Mind you, I read about how there was such a furore when 35mm film came into mass availability because it did the democratisation thing too, possibly to a lesser extent than digital. That's where the whole '4x5 or it didn't happen' snobbery came in and we're dealing with ripples of that to this day - snobbery is something born of this idea where people use stuff like that to make themselves feel superior. Then you have the 'Fine Art' label, psh, don't get me started. Is that to let the plebs know that it's not just ordinary art, cos they wouldn't be able to tell the difference? People slapping that label (looks around for websites of boardsies listed as fine art ) on their stuff seem to put across an air of arrogance to me, like you're not able to make your own mind up just how fine it is, you have to be told by someone who knows better...

Um, I'm sure i had a point there before that dissolved into a rant :rolleyes:

I think it all depends what your photographing, if it's plants or landscapes for instance, you don't really have to get in anyone's face, it's an essentially internal pursuit and therefore maybe more of an id thing. If it's portraits you're doing, it requires interaction and engagement with the subject and naturally ego is involved.

I suppose mostly i'd be taking the commercial side out of things because it's fairly well seen that the people with the best business heads, and not the best artistic talent who make money/find success in this game.

I just wondered why i cringe at the prospect of showing someone my stuff and declaring "i'm good, me", and yet hundreds of other amateurs seem happy to shout it from the rooftops. I wondered if it was a personality thing, and going down that line of id and ego that's probably what it's all about. Sometimes it is frustrating when your instinct and social conditioning are at odds though - you'll be sitting there looking at, say, the results of a competition you lost and internally screaming "but mine was better!!!!" but you know it would come across as ridiculously self absorbed to say it out loud to anyone else. Sometimes it makes me question our objectivity when it comes to our own stuff. I think my original question was possibly whether there is a stigma attached to being confident, in this sort of environment, when it comes to someone else's behaviour?

Thinking more about:

Everyone should be confident in what they do, if they are not, then why are they doing it?

I'm not so sure about that one. if you're not naturally confident about anything, does that mean you shouldn't do anything? the word confident implies to me a self assuredness that you can come up with quality. I'm not sure that's a prerequisite for enjoying anything, never mind doing it at all. Am i misunderstanding your point here maybe Dragan?

I suppose we are all being egotistical to a certain degree by posting our stuff online - it's very much a 'look what i did' thing. But that's going to branch of into the whole 'what do you care about what others think of your stuff' thing which is for another thread, another week... :P

kjt

elven wrote: »

Sometimes it makes me question our objectivity when it comes to our own stuff. I think my original question was possibly whether there is a stigma attached to being confident, in this sort of environment, when it comes to someone else's behaviour?

I know where your coming from. I've been taking photos a few years now and I still feel a little unsure whether I should give c&c to people when they post up asking for it.

When I first started out I would take the usual shots, streets, flowers, long shutter shots with big blurry buses [WOW!]. At the time I thought I was amazing, I was so confident in what I was doing. After a little while more, I started to compare my work to others online and boy did I get a slap across the face. My stuff was crap. Ever since then (two'ish years back I think) I've been very reserved on what I think about my photos. I like them, as I know what I was going for, but I don't expect others to like them. If they do, they do and if not, that's fine.

After the last peoples photography my confidence got quite a boost as I actually saw real people(not those interweb folk) stopping to look at the odd photo of mine, I was chuffed. Along with that it's nice to get a 'thanks' on these boards. The last few shots I've posted up, I have been completely overwhelmed at how many people thanked me (thank you!). I was very happy with how my shots came out but I was under the impression they wouldn't click with most peoples tastes.

I think the 'thanks' option is a great little tool, especially in the photography sections of boards.

superflyninja

kjt wrote: »

I know where your coming from. I've been taking photos a few years now and I still feel a little unsure whether I should give c&c to people when they post up asking for it.

When I first started out I would take the usual shots, streets, flowers, long shutter shots with big blurry buses [WOW!]. At the time I thought I was amazing, I was so confident in what I was doing. After a little while more, I started to compare my work to others online and boy did I get a slap across the face. My stuff was crap. Ever since then (two'ish years back I think) I've been very reserved on what I think about my photos.

So true.....
As for arrogance nothing i hate more than these "artists" that photograph a white wall and bleat on about its significance.... *points the finger at the RTE arts show the View ;p )

Fajitas!

elven wrote: »

It seems in terms of the history of art that a lot of the 'greats' were not scared to be overly proud of themselves and proclaim how fabulous they were, and i wonder if they were recognised because they were great, or because they told everyone they were? Is it ok to be arrogant if you're really that good? How do you know when you're good enough to be confident about it? (I know, there's a thin line, but a distinction all the same, between arrogance and confidence...)

Well, some people are just rude (not arrogant), and I think it's important to make that distinction before going any further. Arrogance without success/money is pretty much just rudeness. However, if someone has built themselves up over a lifetime, so on and so on, I think arrogance has it's place - I mean, I've often heard of people giving out about how arrogant Helmut Newton could be. He's a fantastic photographer, probably my all time favorite, and yes, he could be incredibly arrogant, with just cause though. And I highly doubt he would have gone as far as he did, in the industry he did, at the time he did it, if it weren't for his arrogance.

I think it's important to be confident if you're, say, a wedding photographer, because you have to put it across that you're in control and you're going to give them the results that they want, so that they are relaxed and happy around you - a nervous photographer will make for nervous subjects. But when you've done the job and you're just discussing it with fellow photographers though, is there any need for self promotion? How do you feel about pimping yourself, or when others do it? Is it an Irish/British personality trait to feel awkward about selling yourself? Does it get on your nerves when other people have an "I'm fantastic!" attitude when maybe sometimes they could do with being told where they are actually going wrong? Does thinking you're fantastic stop you from learning and improving? Does anyone ever pick up on an unspoken response from someone else that makes them think they might be getting beyond themselves a bit?

As a professional photographer, you *have* to be confident in your abilities, if you can't be confident enough to promise the wares, you won't get the work. I don't sing my praises when I'm meeting new clients, I show them previous work, along the same vein as they want. It usually says enough. I must admit, I do suffer from the 'Irish/British personality trait to feel awkward about selling yourself' - Which is a long shot from a lot of our stateside counterparts, but then again, our consumers are used to this too.... It tends to work itself out.

xshayx wrote: »

But you can be very confident and still be a **** photographer!

Absolutely - Anyone can set up a studio or practice, and fools and their money are easily parted... The amount of shoddy photographers out there is unreal - And I'm going to be arrogant here - I'll happily LOL at their work. If they're going to put it out for display, I've every right to have my own thoughts of it. It often makes me more confident with my own work (Well, if they're charging that for THAT, I'm more than happy to charge this for that )

Covey wrote: »

When you know you're crap and making loads of money

Seriously, some of what passes for photographic art is horrendous stuff. I reckon someone's ego and self promotion is at least as important as artistic content.

But surely the horrendous side of it is incredibly subjective - There's a difference between the professional photographic industry and the world of fine art - And I don't agree with it nessicarily, but a lot of contemporary artists (Of all mediums, not just photography) root their pieces deep into the conceptual side, rather than just plain aesthetics - And not everyone has an understanding of the conceptual, or the time to work it out. Myself, I think art is for everyone, but I can assure you, that's not a common thought.

Hugh_C wrote: »

I think you're referring to a time when photography was different though, they were a rare breed and therefore arrogance could expand to fill the void of ego-space, as it were. But what we're living through is something different, we're living through the democratisation of the art through access to cheap technology. Anyone can call themselves a photographer. Even me. And my ego.



I think it all depends what your photographing, if it's plants or landscapes for instance, you don't really have to get in anyone's face, it's an essentially internal pursuit and therefore maybe more of an id thing. If it's portraits you're doing, it requires interaction and engagement with the subject and naturally ego is involved.

Not that I understand any of it, but this is from wiki:



Maybe those arrogant photographers out there have a deficient super-ego.





yup

Ugh, that reminds me of my sociology classes... :pac:

superflyninja wrote: »

So true.....
As for arrogance nothing i hate more than these "artists" that photograph a white wall and bleat on about its significance.... *points the finger at the RTE arts show the View ;p )

But is that just a comment having seen an image, without actually looking to understand it? I mean, I've linked many a Jeff Wall and Stephen Shore photograph here, and usually get returned by 'meh' or 'wtf' comments... Fair enough, it's not your thing, but there's an audience out there for it.


So... did I come across arrogant enough?

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, some people are just rude (not arrogant), and I think it's important to make that distinction before going any further. Arrogance without success/money is pretty much just rudeness. However, if someone has built themselves up over a lifetime, so on and so on, I think arrogance has it's place - I mean, I've often heard of people giving out about how arrogant Helmut Newton could be. He's a fantastic photographer, probably my all time favorite, and yes, he could be incredibly arrogant, with just cause though. And I highly doubt he would have gone as far as he did, in the industry he did, at the time he did it, if it weren't for his arrogance.


As a professional photographer, you *have* to be confident in your abilities, if you can't be confident enough to promise the wares, you won't get the work. I don't sing my praises when I'm meeting new clients, I show them previous work, along the same vein as they want. It usually says enough. I must admit, I do suffer from the 'Irish/British personality trait to feel awkward about selling yourself' - Which is a long shot from a lot of our stateside counterparts, but then again, our consumers are used to this too.... It tends to work itself out.



Absolutely - Anyone can set up a studio or practice, and fools and their money are easily parted... The amount of shoddy photographers out there is unreal - And I'm going to be arrogant here - I'll happily LOL at their work. If they're going to put it out for display, I've every right to have my own thoughts of it. It often makes me more confident with my own work (Well, if they're charging that for THAT, I'm more than happy to charge this for that )




But surely the horrendous side of it is incredibly subjective - There's a difference between the professional photographic industry and the world of fine art - And I don't agree with it nessicarily, but a lot of contemporary artists (Of all mediums, not just photography) root their pieces deep into the conceptual side, rather than just plain aesthetics - And not everyone has an understanding of the conceptual, or the time to work it out. Myself, I think art is for everyone, but I can assure you, that's not a common thought.


Ugh, that reminds me of my sociology classes... :pac:



But is that just a comment having seen an image, without actually looking to understand it? I mean, I've linked many a Jeff Wall and Stephen Shore photograph here, and usually get returned by 'meh' or 'wtf' comments... Fair enough, it's not your thing, but there's an audience out there for it.


So... did I come across arrogant enough?

no its where the image is just not worth the pretentious twaddle from certain people that accompanies it....umm i think i posted this in the wrong thread lol.......it was just a pet peeve i was dying ot get out. ignore and continue please good sirs

Hugh_C

kjt wrote: »

I think the 'thanks' option is a great little tool, especially in the photography sections of boards.

Should there be a 'no thanks/not my cup o' tea' option too as a corollary? Or am I just being arrogant?

Fajitas! wrote:

Myself, I think art is for everyone, but I can assure you, that's not a common thought.

The Spanish have a great attitude to art, it's inclusive rather than exclusive. I think for a long time here, art was associated with being West Brit or posh or wealthy/elitist in some way and for that reason you wouldn't saunter down Sherriff St toting your easel, smock & palette. But I suppose things are changing albeit slowly, the democratisation of all art. Not that it necessarily means new art is good ...

?
H

Fajitas!

Hugh_C wrote: »

for that reason you wouldn't saunter down Sherriff St toting your easel, smock & palette. But I suppose things are changing albeit slowly...

Ha... aye, one openly totes their easel, smock and palette all over Thomas St. :pac:

Anouilh

"Arrogance" is, in general usage, associated with negative value. Replacing it with "chutzpah" might clear the air and stop us getting bogged down in linguistic niceties?

Fajitas!

No, I think there's something pleasingly arrogant about being able to call myself arrogant :pac:

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

So... did I come across arrogant enough?

Nope , if you want to succeed you must try harder Al!

Hugh_C wrote: »

But I suppose things are changing albeit slowly, the democratisation of all art. Not that it necessarily means new art is good ...

?
H

Ah yes, but the joy of it is that new art is possible!

elven

Arrogance is arrogance, and it's mostly a negative trait. Changing the word doesn't do anything. That's kind of the point of the whole thread...

Covey

Fajitas! wrote: »

But surely the horrendous side of it is incredibly subjective - There's a difference between the professional photographic industry and the world of fine art - And I don't agree with it nessicarily, but a lot of contemporary artists (Of all mediums, not just photography) root their pieces deep into the conceptual side, rather than just plain aesthetics - And not everyone has an understanding of the conceptual, or the time to work it out. Myself, I think art is for everyone, but I can assure you, that's not a common thought.

Thats more or less what I was trying to say and Arrogance may well be the wrong term. I'm all for conceptual stuff, thats where I'm working to myself at the moment. But, most of the exhibitions I've been at over the last while have been prententious garbage. I have pretty broad tastes, that don't show in my own photography as quite frankly I don't have the skills, but some of the stuff is so dreadful and pretentious that I just wonder is this arrogance on the artists part.

I suppose the question I'm putting, does the art have to be "Arrogant" for success, not neccessarily the person.

kjt

Hugh_C wrote: »

Should there be a 'no thanks/not my cup o' tea' option too as a corollary? Or am I just being arrogant?

There is one already, purely thank the person, remove it and then post up saying that. Haha just messing, maybe there could be a "no-thanks/not my cuppa chá" button and each person could turn it on in their control panel if they wanted. Personally I wouldn't like to use such a service and put somebodys work down. I would only give my personal opinion on a photo when specifically asked for it, like in C&C etc

Anouilh

I thought the original question was about the place of the "ego" in art and photography. A resilient ego is necessary for survival, not just for taking a camera out into a public space and offering one's photos for public scrutiny.

I have never had much problem with arrogance. It is often said to hide a fragile mind.

Fajitas!

Covey wrote: »

I suppose the question I'm putting, does the art have to be "Arrogant" for success, not neccessarily the person.

Well, the art has to have the ability to stand up for itself in a room full of critical people and still stand proud, so yes, art has to have an aura of arrogance, considering it's placement.

Covey

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, the art has to have the ability to stand up for itself in a room full of critical people and still stand proud, so yes, art has to have an aura of arrogance, considering it's placement.

Or maybe just the artist has to have the ability to convince the room full of people (Critical ?? ) rather than the art itself

Dragan

Covey wrote: »

Or maybe just the artist has to have the ability to convince the room full of people (Critical ?? ) rather than the art itself

It's really just a matter of personal taste i guess? I mean, someone could place an item on a pedestal in a big empty room, give their reasons and 1000 people will get it and a 1000 people won't.

Then you have the group who SAY they get it because the other 1000 did and they want to appear in the know.

It's too hard to figure out WHY people do certain things in art....it could be for the art, it could be for the fame or the money. The piece itself may be too simply while the explanation is convoluted or vice versa.

Either way, personally, i will either like a piece or I won't, the same as the piture...but i will normally do my best not to devalue it for those who DO see something in it.

With regard to the being able to convince a room full of people....as far as i am concerned...that is an art form all of it's own.:)

elven

I do think there's also an element where the artist isn't actually the one doing all the pretentious rambling - that's come from the players in the art market who are in it to make money - they pick up on someone they see as marketable, they do their pretentious waffle thing, push the work and the artist into the limelight, and the artist themselves or their stuff may not have been at all inherently arrogant, but the final result we see is that exhibition that makes it look so.

I'm not saying that's always the case - more that it's possibly so in some cases.

I think it might be necessary to go beyond what everyone else judges as good/interesting sometimes to go on to something new and maybe better, and this would be considered arrogant. Imagine, everyone is taking pictures that look as close to reality as possible, with infinite depth of field and sharpness from front to back, no distortion of angles, that sort of thing. Someone comes along with a pinhole camera and produces soft, blurry, distorted pictures and all the people who were going for the realism say 'but that's no good!' and say this person is arrogant to think they can go changing the standards of quality. Further down the line, soft and distorted gets regarded as quality. Would that have happened if someone hadn't been a bit arrogant to be able to disregard everyone else's concept of 'good'?

Covey

Dragan wrote: »

With regard to the being able to convince a room full of people....as far as i am concerned...that is an art form all of it's own.:)

I may be an old cynic, but I'm slowly coming around to the polar opposite view, unfortunately.

kjt

elven wrote: »

I think it might be necessary to go beyond what everyone else judges as good/interesting sometimes to go on to something new and maybe better, and this would be considered arrogant. Imagine, everyone is taking pictures that look as close to reality as possible, with infinite depth of field and sharpness from front to back, no distortion of angles, that sort of thing. Someone comes along with a pinhole camera and produces soft, blurry, distorted pictures and all the people who were going for the realism say 'but that's no good!' and say this person is arrogant to think they can go changing the standards of quality. Further down the line, soft and distorted gets regarded as quality. Would that have happened if someone hadn't been a bit arrogant to be able to disregard everyone else's concept of 'good'?

I wouldn't class that as being arrogant, it's purely that persons view and it catches on. On the same idea, I notice this in some of the C&C's that have gone up here. Somebody pops up a few photos and some of the well established people here say 'good', 'nice images' etc and then some of the newer people seem to just follow suit. I'd much prefer if people always give their honest opinions but I can see how people can be easily swayed. When I'm looking through a C&C/Random thread I always try not to look at who originally posted the image/s, peoples comments, and also the amount of thanks an image has recieved. As this does influence peoples opinions a wee bit.

Anouilh

It is important not to confuse "value" with "fashion". I had the misfortune to study literature at a time where it was becoming un-PC to refer to a canon of value in relation to aesthetics. Sociology and psychoanalysis took over and every childish daub was greeted with respect. A documentary on Louise Bourgeois on TV last year had that peculiar tendency built in and it was, at times, very strange.

The inherent value of any work lies in how it weathers the test of time, perhaps? Bach and Schuber were considered very dull and old fashioned for a time until their work was re-appraised by Mendelssohn and musicians within his group.


I've always been a bit worried by artists, notably the young playwrights of the 19th century, who after a first night fiasco go home to blow their brains out.

Perhaps arrogance in this case would be a very helpful attribute?

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, the art has to have the ability to stand up for itself in a room full of critical people and still stand proud...

In a sudden giddy moment I have a vision of Rodin's Balzac, one of the most misunderstood pieces ever made, making a long and rambling speech.

smelltheglove

The way I see it, you can not make your mark on the industry if you are not confident. I am confident that people like my work enough to choose my to work for them, and it ups the ego when they come back for more! However over confidence is not a good trait and arrogance is a very negative one. I think someone who is arrogant about their work will find it hard enough to get some work. I came across an arrogant photographer once who took a shot of my niece, his attitude caused me to walk away without the picture!

If you are not confident in your work though nobody else will be. If you are arrogant you will not find work.

The art side of photography is just not my cup of tea to be honest, ok its nice to look at, but I have kids, I dont have time for that stuff, hats off to those who do have time and can make money out of it.

Covey

elven wrote: »

I do think there's also an element where the artist isn't actually the one doing all the pretentious rambling - that's come from the players in the art market who are in it to make money - they pick up on someone they see as marketable, they do their pretentious waffle thing, push the work and the artist into the limelight, and the artist themselves or their stuff may not have been at all inherently arrogant, but the final result we see is that exhibition that makes it look so.

I'm not saying that's always the case - more that it's possibly so in some cases.

Thats an excellent point. All the curators are of course running business's and it's in their interest to promote in such a fashion.

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

...The art side of photography is just not my cup of tea to be honest, ok its nice to look at, but I have kids, I dont have time for that stuff...

But is that not quite an arrogant way to look at art?

As in, art being something to do if you don't have more important things?

If I were you, I wouldn't let kids stand in your way to making art, in fact, one of my favorite photographers producing some fantastic art is a single mum in Utah with three kids!

elven

Anouilh wrote: »

The inherent value of any work lies in how it weathers the test of time, perhaps?

That's just a different kind of quality, not 'real value' vs merely 'in fashion'. That perspective on quality would leave out those truly amazing things that get lost in time not due to going out of fashion but for so many other reasons, lack of popularity may be one of them. One person could love something as a 20 year old and still love it as much on the day they die at 87, but everyone else has forgotten about it. Does that mean it isn't great? Careful not to mistake popularity for quality.

Dragan

One of the reasons why i love talking to photographers and meeting new ones is because of that little hidden idea of what photography is to us, as individuals. By and large we all have the same tools, froms our hands to our eyes to our cameras. From person to person, despite all the many differences, what we use are essentially different versions of the same equipment.

The place where we cannot, and should not, be too similar is the part of photography that you cannot show anyone and can never take a picture of. You can only discuss it and if you are lucky show examples from your own work and rarer still find examples of it other peoples.

I think this board is a great example of that, you have people who cover similar subjects but for different reasons and will produce dramatically different results.

I think, sometimes, a photographer is lucky enough to find something within themselves that is truly unique and this will bring them credit and acclaim. I think other times a photographer is willing enough to put in consistant work to master the various elements of photography and will be able to do, and do well, what it is that they want to do. I would consider both of these photographers to have "succeeded", or at least to have done so in line with my own goals....and really, that is all we can base things of?

I think the main key that i try to remember is that when someone tells me an image or a photo ( being into Digital Art and sometimes quite heavy photomanipulation in PS and LR i tend to use both terms ) is "great" or "fantastic" that this is THEIR opinion and they are one person. That i have reached them on some level, but only them.

I will feel happy about this until i go on line and check Flickr, or here, or just do random searches and see images that are far beyond what i feel i am capable of producing....at the moment. It will fuel the desire to learn and to get better.

It's important to hold the two in balance, to realise that my opinions are just mine and your opinions are just yours, find the balance in the self doubt and the self confidence that i feel are important blend of not only striving to improve yourself, but also having the courage to do so.

I think Photography is a brave thing to do, if only because i know what it means to me and other people in my life. If you are willing to get out there and take shots, through whatever means and for whatever reason, i think that you entitled to be self confident if only because it shows a willingness to learn, to improve and to do SOMETHING beyond watch soap on tv and work.

Anouilh

elven wrote: »

That's just a different kind of quality, not 'real value' vs merely 'in fashion'. That perspective on quality would leave out those truly amazing things that get lost in time not due to going out of fashion but for so many other reasons, lack of popularity may be one of them. One person could love something as a 20 year old and still love it as much on the day they die at 87, but everyone else has forgotten about it. Does that mean it isn't great? Careful not to mistake popularity for quality.

There is no conflict in our thought, I think.

Personal taste is one aspect of value; the ability to express, as objectively as possible, the quality of a work of art (in which I include photography) is not a democratic matter, I think.

Your example of one individual carrying the flame for a piece actually confirms my view that fashion, in the hands of the majority, while helping the market and sustaining artists financially, is not a true expression of value.

In fact, we are in total agreement, I find.

elven

You put across fashion and value as being mutually exclusive though. Fashion is something of a moot point in the regard of quality.

Covey

elven wrote: »

You put across fashion and value as being mutually exclusive though. Fashion is something of a moot point in the regard of quality.

True.

But if you're looking to be successful (financially as well) in Photography, maybe you need to keep an eye on both "markets".

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

But is that not quite an arrogant way to look at art?

As in, art being something to do if you don't have more important things?

If I were you, I wouldn't let kids stand in your way to making art, in fact, one of my favorite photographers producing some fantastic art is a single mum in Utah with three kids!

To be honest Fajitas I dont know where you are coming from. I dont have time to be doing that as I need to earn money to put food in my kids mouths and as I love being with them I would rather spend time with them than bring them around with me whilst I shoot, i.e. yesterday was swimming lesson day, today parent teacher meeting, dentist, evening appointment for this weekends wedding, the rest of the time is spent cleaning and spending the precious time I have with my children whilst they are still young.

To be honest I put more importance on my children than art hence not only is arty photography not my cup of tea, I dont have time to make it my cup of tea.

Can anyone else see arrogance in that? As it is more like what I call motherhood! I actually find that quite insulting.