It's official... digital is crap...

Byker28i said:
6 tables worth at Format 15 just in one location, St Walburg's church

Whilst the Spectrum section of the Sunday times is interesting at times, it's still limited, selective, and the sunday times has a distribution of around 1 million? How many flick through or not even bother with the articles in the magazine? Format had over 100,000 visitors, all with a specific interest to look at the exhibitions.
That's where the photobooks really have an impact
Click to expand...

You can go have loads of books on show, but but all that means is there are loads of books being made. Unless they get bought their impact is pretty much zero no matter how many people look at them at a festival.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the average print run for a photobook is 2000 or less. Which is pathetic given that the potential marketplace is global.
 
Pookeyhead said:
LOL... WOW!..... Wikipedia!! Ok.. I've just read it. I feel dirty for reading a Wiki article, but in the interest of fairness, I read it. I didn't see anything in there except facts about the camera. I was hoping it would educate me on why it had changed the face of photo-journalism as we know it, but I'll be damned if I can find it in there. It says photo journalist adopted it and used it widely. But they always have. They adopted and used the D4 widely too, but I didn't see any real change in the images they produce with them - and I can;t see any real change in Don McCullins when he started using one either. It's just a camera: A box to hold the film flat with a shutter in it. It had no features that would help make photography better.. in fact, it had no features. It has a shutter speed control. It had DOF preview, which I can only assume is useful as a chocolate teapot on a battlefield. Likewise with mirror lock up.

You ascribe too much importance to the camera. Has it ever occurred to you that Don McCullins work was so good because of Don McCullin? That he could have done what he did with any other 35mm camera of it's era? (Please don't trot out the "it stopped a bullet thing).


If you think that's what the latest drive to self-publishing is, then I'm sorry, you are confused, yes.


LOL. Clearly you weren't at Paris Photo then.... or Arles, or Photo Shanghai, or Format, or any of the other major events worldwide that get bigger and bigger each year. Yeah.... OK. I'll switch to Flickr... it's "sphere of influence" is so much more noticeable. :)
Click to expand...

:)
 
I listened to a band at a festival once but I refuse to be influenced by them as I didn't buy their CD!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Not in amateur circles, no, but quite frankly, no one cares what amateurs and consumers do except other amateurs. There's already a healthy rebuttal of digital imagery in the contemporary and creative scenes for example. It will never be mainstream again, no, of course not, but if you think analogue is going anywhere soon, think again. There's only so much manipulation of reality people can stand. As the ability to manipulate imagery gets ever easier and easier, eventually, even the most "like" hungry amateur must start to feel the lack of challenge implicit in such a development. You can only feel good about something if you actually had to put some effort in, and as more and more peopel are evidently being able to at least turn out reasonable photography by the countless millions of examples daily, the tipping point to where people start saying "What's the ****ing point?" can't be far away.
Click to expand...

You seem to care a lot about what amateurs do.
 
Byker28i said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/10774134/The-photobook-today.html
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/jun/04/self-publish-photographers-photobooks
http://time.com/3611036/photographers-become-publishers/
https://www.lensculture.com/articles/lensculture-editors-2014-photobooks-of-the-year

All articles about self publishing photobooks. Would those photographers have been noticed without?
Click to expand...

Probably not, which is why they need to go down the route of vanity publishing. Being published traditionally is someone saying they'll take the risk because they think you are commercially viable. For every success in vanity publishing there must be hundreds or thousands of failures.
 
Byker28i said:
So I think you did, unless you meant something different?
Click to expand...
Probably saying 'bought' was the wrong way to put it. I meant more looked at and considered in depth. Which looking at a book in a show wouldn't give me the time to do. I'd have thought that if you looked at a book and it impressed you enough to make an impact you might want to own it. So maybe I did mean bought.

There's not much point in printing a book unless people do buy it though, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise it is vanity publishing. I say that having self-published a book (not a photobook) in order to say something and make a profit - which it did.:)

Anyway I'm only a simple soul and I know when I'm out of my depth. So I'll leave the intelligentsia to it. :(
 
OK, but the main point being that art and even photobooks do influence others, sometimes indirectly. In the case of fashion tribes, it influenced an advertising company to create the guiness advert which then influenced many more.

Adverts are an interesting case, with ideas from art constantly being recycled. I'm sure the M&S add with lots women of women in different windows is influenced by an art piece. Cant remember what.

So we return full circle to the never ending discussion about art. It's around us all the time, or references to it are even if you don't realise it.
 
Ed Sutton said:
It seems to me that the photo world is becoming like the art world in that its occupants are increasingly making work to be looked at by its other occupants. A shame when photography is a medium ideal for broad dissemination. If photography wants to be widely appreciated and understood it ought to be democratising itself rather than becoming more introspective and elitist. Otherwise it'll disappear up it's own bum like contemporary art has done in the eyes of the greater public.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very interesting perspective. There seems to be such a void between what us "amateurs" (used in the Pookeyhead sense of the word) produce and most of what gets shown in galleries etc. It does seem as if the latter is produced purely to satisfy the requirements and prejudices of the arts elite. Sod the general public.
 
jerry12953 said:
That's actually a very interesting perspective. There seems to be such a void between what us "amateurs" (used in the Pookeyhead sense of the word) produce and most of what gets shown in galleries etc. It does seem as if the latter is produced purely to satisfy the requirements and prejudices of the arts elite. Sod the general public.
Click to expand...

And yet as proven those photobooks or Art influence others, which go onto influence the general public (as you call them) - Guiness as an example proven
 
Byker28i said:
OK, but the main point being that art and even photobooks do influence others, sometimes indirectly. In the case of fashion tribes, it influenced an advertising company to create the guiness advert which then influenced many more.

Adverts are an interesting case, with ideas from art constantly being recycled. I'm sure the M&S add with lots women of women in different windows is influenced by an art piece. Cant remember what.

So we return full circle to the never ending discussion about art. It's around us all the time, or references to it are even if you don't realise it.
Click to expand...


Did Fashion Tribes influence the ad or were the agency already aware of the Sapeurs in The Congo? I've never heard of the photobook but have seen the Sapeurs on a couple of travelogues on TV.
 
Ed Sutton said:
You can go have loads of books on show, but but all that means is there are loads of books being made. Unless they get bought their impact is pretty much zero no matter how many people look at them at a festival.
Click to expand...


I can't believe you just wrote that. :) You can't be influenced by the contents of a book unless you buy it? Well.. I guess that's public libraries out of the window then.. and reference libraries... and university libraries... oh, and good old borrowing them off your mates. :)


Ed Sutton said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that the average print run for a photobook is 2000 or less. Which is pathetic given that the potential marketplace is global.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure Soth's Niagra was a wee bit more than that, or Donovan Wylie's Maze, or a massive list of other photo books I can think of :) "I'm sure I read somewhere..." is not exactly a compelling argument :) I'm sure publishers like Steidl would argue with you quite vociferously regarding the market for photo books.

Ed Sutton said:
Did I say that? Maybe I did. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Indeed you did :)

jerry12953 said:
Maybe.
Click to expand...


No maybe about it. The ad industry are just cultural vultures mainly. Either they'll get creatives to pitch ideas directly, or they'll just appropriate something they've seen, and usually the "new" ideas you see on TV or in mainstream print are usually influenced by something more "esoteric" that mainstream audiences haven't yet seen.


jerry12953 said:
That's actually a very interesting perspective. There seems to be such a void between what us "amateurs" (used in the Pookeyhead sense of the word)
Click to expand...

I only use that term because I can't think of any other.



jerry12953 said:
produce and most of what gets shown in galleries etc. It does seem as if the latter is produced purely to satisfy the requirements and prejudices of the arts elite. Sod the general public.
Click to expand...

I don't know where that idea comes from. I think most of the general public exclude themselves. Most don't want to know. THEY have assumed it's all elitist crap, and therefore don't, or won't go. You just have to look in here on most days to see this in action. Can you explain how work more appropriate for a gallery is designed to be elitist? Exactly how is it elitist? By that, I mean how is it intentionally so? It's just images on a wall. Most are free entry... where is this barrier you seem to think exists unless it's actually in the prejudices and opinions of those who dismiss it without even trying to engage with it? I tire of this attitude that you need to somehow "fit" to go to these things... that there's some kind of secret hand shake, or maybe a dress code... that you need a fashionable beard, glasses and skinny jeans and arrive on a single speed bike in order to get it.

It baffles me.

The only prejudices are the ones you bring with you. I had this discussion with Peter Kennard the other week at the Great Northern Festival. What he does is just so simple, so aligned with public opinion, yet the public at large regard it as art, therefore would never go to one of his shows. They'll nick his stuff and turn it into memes for the internet because they get it, understand it, and agree with it.... but the only people at his shows are the usual suspects.

I think the "Amateur" (please feel free to suggest an alternative work) actually fears art. It's the only thing that makes any real sense. THEY perceive it as something elitist because they themselves have this idea that what happens in such places is people standing around discussing Derrida or Foucault. There's always some t**t in skinny jeans with a pulled pork sandwich doing that, sure... but I think you'll find most are just looking at the art work having a chat, or just enjoying themselves... just like any other social situation.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
"I'm sure I read somewhere..." is not exactly a compelling argument :) I'm sure publishers like Steidl would argue with you quite vociferously regarding the market for photo books.
Click to expand...

Firstly I said 'average', secondly I exaggerated. What I had read (having now managed to find it) was "the typical press run for photo books these days is more like 1,500 copies, with many runs being closer to 1,000 copies than 2,000 copies." I cannot confirm the accuracy of the source, but it's in the first featured comment here > http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/vile-rumors.html

Even if you take Mike Johnston's figure of 3,000 to 5,000 copies sold for a book by a 'name photographer', it's pretty niche if that is wordlwide sales. Big name photographers like those you mention are always going to make a larger print run viable, but self-published books won't manage to reach those levels - either through the cost of producing them or from demand.

Even smaller publishers like Gost do similarly short runs. e.g. Chateau Despair - 500 copies and still available three years on.

Sure the blockbusters will sell thousands but the majority won't. You'll get some that pop up like Afronauts that go to a second edition, but there'll be others which sink without trace and even get remaindered. The majority of photobooks are very niche. A bit like poetry.
 
Last edited:
Good experienced replies, I'll give my inexperienced one :)

At my early stage, I can already appreciate Dons sentiment in that digital images can be pushed too far, cartoon'ish in fact (the contrivance of images was one my first post when I joined the forum). When it comes to PP, I'm very reticent as I'm a bit of a luddite; though have used LR for shadows & highlights only as know nothing else...happy with that TBH.

I'm still learning the rudimentary stuff of photography and loving it. Not approaching with a 'I can fix it later' attitude.

Having said this, technology is there so we shouldn't ignore it, or be in fear of labelled a faux-shooter or philisitne - All in moderation!!

I'm now off to reduce some highlights haha

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Firstly I said 'average', secondly I exaggerated. What I had read (having now managed to find it) was "the typical press run for photo books these days is more like 1,500 copies, with many runs being closer to 1,000 copies than 2,000 copies." I cannot confirm the accuracy of the source, but it's in the first featured comment here > http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/vile-rumors.html

Even if you take Mike Johnston's figure of 3,000 to 5,000 copies sold for a book by a 'name photographer', it's pretty niche if that is wordlwide sales. Big name photographers like those you mention are always going to make a larger print run viable, but self-published books won't manage to reach those levels - either through the cost of producing them or from demand.

Even smaller publishers like Gost do similarly short runs. e.g. Chateau Despair - 500 copies and still available three years on.

Sure the blockbusters will sell thousands but the majority won't. You'll get some that pop up like Afronauts that go to a second edition, but there'll be others which sink without trace and even get remaindered. The majority of photobooks are very niche. A bit like poetry.
Click to expand...


You could say the same for any endeavour. Still, 2000 copies of a book you self published could mean anything up to £10k in your bank account. Not to be sneezed at.
 
Most of the time, it's probably more like those of us who self publish our own music CDs. After a couple of years we are down to the last 1,879 copies stored in the loft.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I don't know where that idea comes from. I think most of the general public exclude themselves. Most don't want to know. THEY have assumed it's all elitist crap, and therefore don't, or won't go. You just have to look in here on most days to see this in action. Can you explain how work more appropriate for a gallery is designed to be elitist? Exactly how is it elitist? By that, I mean how is it intentionally so? It's just images on a wall. Most are free entry... where is this barrier you seem to think exists unless it's actually in the prejudices and opinions of those who dismiss it without even trying to engage with it? I tire of this attitude that you need to somehow "fit" to go to these things... that there's some kind of secret hand shake, or maybe a dress code... that you need a fashionable beard, glasses and skinny jeans and arrive on a single speed bike in order to get it.

It baffles me.

The only prejudices are the ones you bring with you. I had this discussion with Peter Kennard the other week at the Great Northern Festival. What he does is just so simple, so aligned with public opinion, yet the public at large regard it as art, therefore would never go to one of his shows. They'll nick his stuff and turn it into memes for the internet because they get it, understand it, and agree with it.... but the only people at his shows are the usual suspects.

I think the "Amateur" (please feel free to suggest an alternative work) actually fears art. It's the only thing that makes any real sense. THEY perceive it as something elitist because they themselves have this idea that what happens in such places is people standing around discussing Derrida or Foucault. There's always some t**t in skinny jeans with a pulled pork sandwich doing that, sure... but I think you'll find most are just looking at the art work having a chat, or just enjoying themselves... just like any other social situation.
Click to expand...

Because if it doesn't satisfy the prejudices of the arts elite, it will never get shown. It's that simple.

And if you come back with "because it's crap" as you recently did on another thread, you demonstrate exactly what I am talking abou.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Because if it doesn't satisfy the prejudices of the arts elite, it will never get shown. It's that simple.

And if you come back with "because it's crap" as you recently did on another thread, you demonstrate exactly what I am talking abou.
Click to expand...

IMO it depends if the gallery is in the "must be worthy and like really saying something.. arty b*****ks generator at the ready" category , or if they just want to sell some prints. Even I have had pictures displayed in (small local) gallery that fits the latter category , and i'm definitely not saying anything profound that would be of interest to a the latte rati
 
jerry12953 said:
Because if it doesn't satisfy the prejudices of the arts elite, it will never get shown. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

That's utter nonsense. I challenge you to substantiate that.

jerry12953 said:
And if you come back with "because it's crap" as you recently did on another thread, you demonstrate exactly what I am talking abou.
Click to expand...

That's a great get out clause you got there :) If the art world don't show it they're elitist, and if anyone suggests it's just not good enough, then then again it's proof elitism. At no point does anyone consider that it's just not making the grade... no... couldn't possibly be that :)

If you like the sort of stuff that's 10 a penny on here, then it will never get shown in venues like that, simply because whether I think it;s crap or you don't is irrelevant.. it will not get shown because it's just unremarkable. Why show it in a gallery when the internet is awash with it already?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
That's utter nonsense. I challenge you to substantiate that.


That's a great get out clause you got there :) If the art work don't show it they're elitist, and if anyone suggests it's just not good enough, then then again it's proof elitism. At no point does anyone consider that it's just not making the grade... no... couldn't possibly be that :)
Click to expand...
Pookeyhead said:
That's utter nonsense. I challenge you to substantiate that.



That's a great get out clause you got there :) If the art work don't show it they're elitist, and if anyone suggests it's just not good enough, then then again it's proof elitism. At no point does anyone consider that it's just not making the grade... no... couldn't possibly be that :)
Click to expand...

I have plenty of experience myself, and there's all the experience of all the landscape (and wildlife) photographers whose work is never shown. The thing is, and I don't think you get this, the people who make the decisions on what gets shown and what doesn't - they ARE the Arts elite. They ARE the tastemakers.

I've probably had more luck than most in getting my work shown. it's certainly not cutting edge but its usually pretty popular. Maybe I've tried harder. But there's better work out there that never gets shown. Maybe its all the stuff on Flickr that you seem to hate so much?

I didn't say the last bit. It looks like you did.......
 
jerry12953 said:
I have plenty of experience myself, and there's all the experience of all the landscape (and wildlife) photographers whose work is never shown. The thing is, and I don't think you get this, the people who make the decisions on what gets shown and what doesn't - they ARE the Arts elite. They ARE the tastemakers.
Click to expand...

All of them? Even the small galleries, and art colectives spattered around the country? They're ALL the art elite? I think you're either paranoid, or have some kind of inferiority complex :)

jerry12953 said:
I've probably had more luck than most in getting my work shown. it's certainly not cutting edge but its usually pretty popular. Maybe I've tried harder. But there's better work out there that never gets shown. Maybe its all the stuff on Flickr that you seem to hate so much?
Click to expand...

It's because Flickr is awash with it that it never gets shown. It's just not original or inventive in any way, so why should they show it?

jerry12953 said:
I didn't say the last bit. It looks like you did.......
Click to expand...

Quote fixed.. thanks for pointing it out.
 
Pookeyhead said:
All of them? Even the small galleries, and art colectives spattered around the country? They're ALL the art elite? I think you're either paranoid, or have some kind of inferiority complex :)

It's because Flickr is awash with it that it never gets shown. It's just not original or inventive in any way, so why should they show it?

Quote fixed.. thanks for pointing it out.
Click to expand...

You asked for evidence. I gave it to you. What more do you need? Sure the average landscape (or wildlife) photographer can get their work shown in a restaurant or a framing shop or a private gallery if they're willing to pay the rental. But I'm sure you'll agree that those are not the venues that matter.

I don't know about Flickr myself but are you sure that's not a generalisation?

EDIT: It was the case long before Flickr was even invented, anyway.

Anyway, none of this is remotely to do with digital photography. Or are you now going to tell me that it is?
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
You asked for evidence. I gave it to you. What more do you need?
Click to expand...


What evidence? All you responded with was "I have plenty of experience myself".... such as? Besides, I didn't ask for evidence per se, I asked if you could substantiate it, as in a debate like this, "proof" would be hard to find unless it's you're own personal expereince - but you've still not done it though. What experience? What galleries or publishers have turned you down, and what work was turned down?


jerry12953 said:
and there's all the experience of all the landscape (and wildlife) photographers whose work is never shown.
Click to expand...

Such as? Who? What work? Of course there are landscape and wildlife photographers who's work has never been shown... as there are documentary, or fine art photographers. Basically... there are more photographers who's work is not shown, than there is shown. Your point is what exactly? Are you saying that there being more crap photographers than good is somehow a surprise? Are you saying that because of this the "art" world are elitist, just because they want to show the best work, and not whatever is offered to them?


jerry12953 said:
Sure the average landscape (or wildlife) photographer can get their work shown in a restaurant or a framing shop or a private gallery if they're willing to pay the rental. But I'm sure you'll agree that those are not the venues that matter.
Click to expand...

No, they're not, but I ask again.... who is it you feel is not being represented? Do you have any examples of this horde of great photographers that the art work is ignoring through elitism? Or are you just talking about yourself? You said earlier...

and there's all the experience of all the landscape (and wildlife) photographers whose work is never shown
Click to expand...

... Who? What work? What experience? You're suggesting the art work is elitist because you somehow know of all the work that is rejected by it. Can you give me one example of someone's great work being rejected for no reason other than elitism? Or do you mean that you never see wildlife in galleries? Well.. most is not art, so why would it be in an art gallery? I'm sure there are publications more suited to it where it IS published though. I know Andy Rouse's work is often exhibited though. Have you considered that's because his wildlife work is different from the usual BIF and bird of twigs shots? There's story there, and a real point to what he exhibited.

You don't often see landscape? Yes you do... just not pretty pictures that say nothing. I remember being incredibly impressed by Edward Burtinsky's work at the Photographer's gallery not that long ago. What's that if not landscape? It is pictures of the land is it not? I've seen Ingrid Pollard's work in galleries, and I've seen Fay Godwin's work in galleries. All landscape.



jerry12953 said:
I don't know about Flickr myself but are you sure that's not a generalisation?
Click to expand...

Nope. Just type "landscape" into Flickr's search field, sit back and enjoy the show.



jerry12953 said:
Anyway, none of this is remotely to do with digital photography. Or are you now going to tell me that it is?
Click to expand...

Yes I am, and already have if you read the thread properly. Because image manipulation is so prevalent and easy now, everything is starting to look the same. Everything is being self-replicated, taught, shared, YouTubed, and has become the norm, that original work in the amateur arena is actually becoming a rare thing. It has also forgotten that images should be about something in this headlong rush to chase the aesthetic. This is a product of the digital photography era, where ease of access, and ease of operation means absolutely everyone can produce images with that "wow" factor everyone is so enamoured of. The net result is everyone ends up shooting what is easiest to impress most people with: Eye candy,

Why would a gallery be that interested in something that has utterly flooded the market to the point it has, and furthermore, why does that make them elitist?

I've asked you these questions three times now, and you've not answered.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel obliged to answer your questions!

I've already said that I agree with you to a large extent over the dangers of digital manipulation (see posts 42, 43 and 177). Personally I distinguish between what is acceptable and what isn't but everyone will draw the line somewhere slightly different. The prejudice of the arts elite against landscape/wildlife photography has been in place since long before digital was invented. I've shown my work many times in galleries since 1987, but never, not once, in a photography gallery. it isn't through want of trying. You might say that that is because it's crap but that is a value judgement. As are "good", "bad", "the best", "art", and other such words that you liberally throw around.

You may not believe me but these feelings are shared by most of the big names in the landscape/wildlife photography world, most of whom you will never have heard of! I don't have the evidence at hand but I can assure you its true. It would be a very interesting thesis or dissertation but as I'm not a student I don't have time to go into it. When Andy Rouse gets shown in the Photographers Gallery then I will believe that things have changed.

I do agree with you about Fay Godwin and Edward Burtinsky. Great photographers both. Possibly exceptions to the rule?
 
jerry12953 said:
I don't feel obliged to answer your questions!
Click to expand...

You're not obliged to, no, but you're saying they're prejudiced in some way, but won't respond to my explanation as to why they're not. Kind of suggests that your argument is based on nothing but your personal feelings and experiences, so therefore is not particularly objective. Plus... not really a great way to make any headway in a debate by simply saying that you don't want to answer my questions.


jerry12953 said:
The prejudice of the arts elite against landscape/wildlife photography has been in place since long before digital was invented. I've shown my work many times in galleries since 1987, but never, not once, in a photography gallery. it isn't through want of trying.
Click to expand...

And so we're back to what I was suggesting: It's just part of a genre that's over saturated with similar stuff, so has no saleable value to the general public, and no interest to the gallery goers. If it's good, you need to be selling the work to those that publish it, as that's a more suitable means of disseminating it.

jerry12953 said:
You might say that that is because it's crap but that is a value judgement.
Click to expand...

That's probably not the reason at all. It's probably what I have already suggested: That no one would go to a gallery to see the kind of stuff that's 10 a penny on Flickr or 500px. There are literally hundreds of millions of quality wildlife images of the type you see in here and on Flickr, so unless the wildlife work is interesting for another reason, or is highlighting something important, it probably won't get a great deal of gallery interest, no. That's not elitism, that's just a decision based on what gallery goers want to see in galleries. What they want to see is interesting and thought provoking work, as most people who go to art galleries want to see exactly that.

There is however.. still the possibility that your work was not good enough, isn't there? Are you saying you're so absolutely certain that your work is so good, the only reason you can't get it into a gallery is because they're elitist? Isn't that a bit like saying because a woman won't go on a date with you, it surely must be proof she's a lesbian? All this BTW, is bearing in mind no ones seen this work you're referring to, so can't make any judgements whatsoever.



jerry12953 said:
You may not believe me but these feelings are shared by most of the big names in the landscape/wildlife photography world, most of whom you will never have heard of!
Click to expand...

How would you know? Why not name them any way, so I can at least take a look at what kind of work we're talking about here. You just keep saying things like "most of the big names" and "all the experience of all the landscape (and wildlife) photographers whose work is never shown" but never give any names for anyone to take a look at the work you are referring to. Why is that? Names please, then we can be OBJECTIVE about this, as we will have the work to look at. Starting with yours maybe?

jerry12953 said:
all the experience of all the landscape (and wildlife) photographers whose work is never shownI don't have the evidence at hand but I can assure you its true.
Click to expand...

LOL... Oh.. OK then... if you say so.. without anything to substantiate it :)


jerry12953 said:
It would be a very interesting thesis or dissertation but as I'm not a student I don't have time to go into it. When Andy Rouse gets shown in the Photographers Gallery then I will believe that things have changed.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be at all, as it's been done to death by undergraduates, who, like you, consistently fail to provide any objective reasoning as to why galleries don't show some stuff. Invariably, it is just a rant, followed by examples of wildlife images to show how great it really is. No one;s saying it's not great work though, we're saying, like landscape, the genre is over-saturated with stuff that all looks the same. Unless it has a purpose, or a point beyond looking great, or has some other significance, it's just not likely to get gallery representation unless it's different from all the other stuff that is saturating the internet.

There's also the argument that's been had on here a million times it seems... that wildlife photography is rarely, if ever, art. Galleries, inc. The Photographer's Gallery, are primarily art galleries. Rouse has had some extremely high profile exhibitions in venues that are perhaps far more suitable for the work, such as the Nat Geo stores on Singapore and London. I'm fairly certain he was a major exhibitor at The Eye Festival last year? I'm not into wildlife stuff, but even those two gigs have drawn my attention as they were pretty big gigs to get... yet somehow.. becaue they are ART galleries, they're upset? It's always the wildlife crowd who are the most vocal and anti-art in these threads, yet seemingly (and paradoxically) annoyed they can't get into art galleries... LOL. I'd ave thought you'd not want to get into these elitist galleries, surely.


jerry12953 said:
I do agree with you about Fay Godwin and Edward Burtinsky. Great photographers both. Possibly exceptions to the rule?
Click to expand...

You mean they're an exception because they're great? I agree with you, yes.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to The Eye at Aberystwyth? If so, you're partially correct. Andy Rouse appeared three years ago, and Charlie Waite (a well-known landscape photographer) one year ago. However, The Eye is largely dedicated to documentary photography and it seemed to me that a token wildlife photographer was brought in one year and a token landscaper another year. He could have chosen much more interesting people whose interests in wildlife and/or landscape verge on the documentary. Rouse, in particular, was a complete fish out of water in the company he had to keep.

So, other than saying that I'm going to admit defeat. You're right. As always.
 
jerry12953 said:
Are you referring to The Eye at Aberystwyth? If so, you're partially correct. Andy Rouse appeared three years ago,
Click to expand...

Wow.. time flies :( Christ.. at this rate, I'll be dead soon.

jerry12953 said:
and Charlie Waite (a well-known landscape photographer) one year ago.
Click to expand...

LOL.. I know who he is, yes :)

jerry12953 said:
However, The Eye is largely dedicated to documentary photography and it seemed to me that a token wildlife photographer was brought in one year and a token landscaper another year.
Click to expand...

I doubt they felt a need to include a "token" anyone. Rouse was there because he does incredibly good work, and does so with sensitivity, ethics and has a lot to say about his subjects. He's an interesting guy, who does interesting work.

jerry12953 said:
He could have chosen much more interesting people whose interests in wildlife and/or landscape verge on the documentary. Rouse, in particular, was a complete fish out of water in the company he had to keep.
Click to expand...

We've had him in to speak to our lot a few years ago. I wouldn't say he was unusual or out of his depth. Our students enjoyed his talk and liked his work. In fact, his work is often crossing over into documentary quite a lot. He's not your usual bird on twig type. He talks about the environments, and the problems it is placed under. There's real passion in what he does that extends FAR beyond photography, and that's what makes him interesting as a speaker, and what makes his work stand out from the usual stuff you see. He didn't stand there and try to bore people with his lens choices when he came to see us. In fact, he never once mentioned cameras or photography unless it was about how he got breaks, and how he made his career. Really nice chap.
 
Andy Rouse is a bit Marmite, I'd say.

But he was like a fish out of water at The Eye and he didn't like it one bit.

If you're keen on getting to know a bit more about landscape photography and photographers it might be worth having a look at OnLandscape online magazine, if you don't already. Its partly owned by Joe Cornish and features him quite often, but it has quite broad coverage of issues, photographers and gear. There's even been a couple of things by me in there!
 
jerry12953 said:
If you're keen on getting to know a bit more about landscape photography and photographers it might be worth having a look at OnLandscape online magazine, if you don't already. Its partly owned by Joe Cornish and features him quite often, but it has quite broad coverage of issues, photographers and gear. There's even been a couple of things by me in there!
Click to expand...

I found the Jem Southam talk from their seminar thing very interesting. Well worth the couple of quid or whatever it cost me to watch on-line. :)
 
jerry12953 said:
Andy Rouse is a bit Marmite, I'd say.

But he was like a fish out of water at The Eye and he didn't like it one bit.

If you're keen on getting to know a bit more about landscape photography and photographers it might be worth having a look at OnLandscape online magazine, if you don't already. Its partly owned by Joe Cornish and features him quite often, but it has quite broad coverage of issues, photographers and gear. There's even been a couple of things by me in there!
Click to expand...

I know landscape well... just tired of the usual stuff seen these days. I don't read OnLandscape though. Although I mainly shoot documentary, I'm pretty well versed in pretty much everything.. I kind of have to be if you think about it. I will admit to not knowing much about wildlife though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top