[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to John Kantor | Help ]

Response to You've got to have a gimmick!

from John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com)
Whether or not something is easy or difficult is different from whether it has value. What Blaine did wasn't "easy" per se, but it was far from as difficult or dangerous as they made it out either. (A little basic physics would tell you that.) The question is, did it provide any value? (I'll leave that one for people to answer individually.)

As for the others? What Merritt does is easy too. She simply photographs her trysts (and at arm's length too). Some of her shots are quite good. Some aren't. I don't know whether the good ones are by design or just accidents that a good editor has seized upon.

However, my main point is that she hasn't been around long enough or done enough for us to even make those kinds of value judgements about her and her work. She skipped not only from unknown to celebrity, but from unproved to celebrity - both on the shock value of her work and with the help of some influential people promoting and backing her. Whether or not she retains her celebrity status (or earns it, which is another question entirely) is up to what she does from now on. The point is that right now she has more oportunities than anyone on this board does - so she certainly is doing something right (unless all you aspire to is being a dilletante).

As for Liebowitz, she is one of my favorite photographers. She got a big break when young, too, but then went on to earn her reputation. She has become a celebrity rather in spite of herself (though she has recently been doing projects that seem to be solely for the purpose of retaining that status). And, as I said in another thread, she has also, at times, traded on that status as justification for putting out second-rate work.

Underlying all this is the idea that we are fighting: the Puritan work ethic that says "work hard and you will be rewarded justly." That idea (that life is fundamentally "fair") is really ideology - ideology that works to ensure that the vast majority of people (in any field) truly believe that they deserve the station they have achieved in life, and so don't try to disturb the status quo. (It's the fundamental way a capitalist society depoliticizes economic classism.)

If you work hard at photography (or any endeavor) and choose your field of expertise intelligently, you will be able to make a living. If you work very hard, you will more than likely be more successful than someone who doesn't. But today, the pinnacle of any field is not its (relatively unknown) master craftsmen, but the celebrities - the ones who embody (literally) that field in the public's eyes.

Many would say, "well, I'd rather be a craftsmen, with pride in my work, than a celebrity always chasing fame." And that's a valid choice - if you make it with the understanding of both the responsibilities and perquisites of each. I don't want the fame that goes along with celebrity, but I do want the options that it provides - the options to define the public's perception of a field (in fact defining their wants) rather than being merely the craftsman who executes a project to the customer's specifications.

In short, I'd rather be the photographer who gets to do a multi-page layout in Vogue according to my wishes rather than the one who executes a full-page ad to an art director's comp. Only being a celebrity brings you that power. Only when your name is as important as the models and the products will that happen. (In effect when you've made yourself into a "brand.")

(posted 8519 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]