I've been trying to figure out just how you "break in" to the business on a national level nowadays. From what I can see, being a good photographer has little to do with making it to that level (more like a co-requisite). Instead, it looks like you either have to already be famous for some other reason (like the model- or actor-turned photographers) - or you have to have a gimmick. Then, hopefully you'll be "discovered" by someone famous and with enough connections to get you going.

An example of the latter is Natacha Merritt (www.digitalgirly.com and www.digital-diaries.com). She is the new, young photographer who's nude, digital pictures of herself and her lovers were discovered on the internet by fetish photographer Eric Kroll. He then introduced her to Taschen, who produced her book "Digital Diaries" - and now she's the hottest thing around, including with gallery exhibits.

I've got some more examples I'll post when I can, but this goes back to something I've talked about before on the Philosophy of Photography forum: In the past, if you were at the top of your field, you might become a celebrity. Today, to get to the top of your field, you have to be a celebrity first. Now how do I get that first 15 minutes of fame?

-- John Kantor (jkantor@Mindspring.com), May 24, 2000

Answers

Deer rifle + water tower + yellow school bus full of screaming kids = ...., well, that's one way to get famous.

I feel your pain brother! I've been trying to open some doors in L.A. recently, and ones skill level/talent is basically irrelevant compared to whom you know. Period, end of subject. I'm now starting to accept the fact that it will be a long and tedious road of endless promo cards and unanswered calls. The thing that really sucks is when a choice assignment goes to some dweeb [who is sleeping with the right person, or whatever] and they tube it. There is some justice in that, but it eats me knowing that I could have done 10x better.

Oh well

Quick, pass me that box of 180 grain hollow points for the ot-six!

-- Robert Anderson (rapfoto@uswest.net), May 24, 2000.

John, I see this somewhat differently. In fact, it seems like you are bitching instead of doing something.

Celebrity does sell, it has for years. But beyond that, we have to ask, "How difficult is it to create some great photographs?" The answer is that it is not all that hard and one of the ways to get somewhere is to build a body of work around a specific subject (and usually a specific style) that speaks to a certain audience about a certain topic. This is what Merritt has done. (Also, Merritt's work falls right into the center of what Taschen publishes.)

Success at the monograph end (which seems to be what you are speaking about here) works if you either create a meaningless coffee table book (see any book with the word "color" in the title) or a strong thematic body of work. This isn't new - it's been true for years. Weston was probably the last photographer who could get away with shooting almost anything, and at that time, it was a lot more difficult to produce a great photograph.

So I would say that instead of about worrying about how to become a celebrity, focus on building some very strong themed work. Show it everywhere and aggressively pursue top names with it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 25, 2000.

If 20-something Ms. Merritt had been a 40-something Mr. Merritt, she would have been just another second-rate unknown pseudo-artistic exhibitionist pornographer. However, since she's young and fairly attractive, she has all the necessary attributes to be a celebrity rather than a sleaze.

My point is that that is the norm today. Your work - no matter how good or carefully directed - is secondary. It helps a lot if the work is controversial or outrageous. It helps more if you are. But to make it to the pinnacle (rather than just be labeled as a clown), you really need a patron (as Eric Kroll is to Merritt, as Warhol was to Lachappelle, etc.) - someone who has the contacts to get you into the right circles - whatever their reasons for doing so. (In more traditional times and venues, it's the art critic who wields that power.)

So, Robert, please forward a list of the people I'll need to sleep with so I can get started!

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 25, 2000.

a fantastic argument against the rat-race.... how much time do you spend getting cards printed, schmoozing, kissing ass, finding the right person to sleep with, going to openings, dressing for openings, writing and updating and sending resume's? how much time is spent getting your 15 minutes? wouldn't you rather be shooting?

just me, but I don't really believe in it all, and especially with many rolls to soup... how many photogs of merit did this ... actually persued it and how many found it got in the way and how many were flushed from the darkroom by a accidental 15 mins....

deary me, that girl is a honey... lousy photog but quite a looker, I'm sure that's all it is. I don't see her making many waves without that butt and face....

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 25, 2000.

I'm afraid I have to laugh a little at your expense, JK. It is rather funny - here you are, this aspiring fashion photographer saying always "someday I'll shoot fashion..." and here this 21 year old gains some fame, who knows, maybe some money too (people always assume that $$$ comes with publishing a book...seeing as I have known an artist or two who has had a book published, well, I have a different perspective..) anyway, this woman gains some fame and fortune, and you, a fashion photographer wannabe, think she's superficial, that it's only her 15 minutes...

Pardon me, but isn't fashion photography, by definition, superficial? I mean, it is %100 about "look" about "buzz" about "sensation" about -- in a word -- "fashion."

Hell, I'd do it with Natasha and let her photograph me in the act ... I may have my standards, but then I also have my apetites. I don't think it's great photoghraphy, I don't think its art -- but I admire her panache anyway. Even though as far as her "art" goes, Nan Goldin did it first and better, I'd rather look at her pictures than Geddes or wegman or Maisel anyday if only to admire her "talents."

-- that lousy rat bastard alan dale (adale66@excite.com), May 25, 2000.

...when I said "if only to admire her "talents..."" I meant Natascha, but I expect you knew that

-- rat bastard (adale66@excite.com), May 25, 2000.

is that what you call that? panache? we folk in the stix call it something else...and that's apple-ass not a satchel-ass... yes rat bastard I'm with you as always, I'll take a bite...

I don't get your comparison to Goldin however... Nan can compose but I don't particularly care for her work either... I've only seen 'Ballads' and some of her more notable singles published in the occasional mag....

Jeff, was it you that was commenting on that sexy ex-bassist for HOLE now bassist for Smashing Pumpkins/photog... you know that hot redhead who likes to take nudey bathtub self ports... I love these liberated girls... I really do! I don't care if it's unoriginal tripe they make... I get to drool over the magnificence of their femme forms... does that make me a perv? I sure hope so!

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 25, 2000.

Goldin due to subject matter and due to the idea of photographs as a diarry of sexual identity and all that stuff in her (natascha's) artist statement sounded like it was lifted from Goldin's notebooks.

There are no new ideas under the sun - I just don't see the sense in running down someone else for having the cojones to do something I haven't done -- not that you guys want to see pictures of my ugly butt, I am sure.

"Panache" is the appropriately-artschool-I-wanna-be-folksy-but-not- offend term.

-- adale (adale66@excite.com), May 25, 2000.

Actually, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that Ms. Merritt's experience is now the norm for someone who wants a name. (And she does have some talent. Some of her pictures show a great eye for composition.) She has her chance; now it's up to her to do something with it. But what about the rest of us?

Unfortunately, it appears that hard work and perseverence (alone) add up to a great portfolio - but not much else. I don't want to be a "photographer with a day job" (or worse - "that guy at work who takes pictures"). And though I'd prefer it to my current job, I don't want to end up as just another commercial hack doing weddings and senior portraits on the side just to keep my head above water while showing everybody the increasingly moth-eaten portfolio containing my "real work."

We live in an age of celebrity, and we have to orchestrate our career launches accordingly. Anyone have Howard Stern's number?

(And, Alan, I like the fleeting, ephemeral nature of fashion photography. If you do your job well, success is measured by the number of seconds someone takes to admire your work before turning the page - never to return. If you do it extremely well, your image transcends itself, becoming in effect, iconography - perhaps having a lasting impact, but leaving you, the creator, far behind in the viewer's consciousness. But then again, photography itself has always been the ultimate act of self-effacement. Perhaps, Natacha Merritt's great contribution to this art is herself - as creator, subject, object, celebrity - and, perhaps one day, icon.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 25, 2000.

Ms. Merritt's experience is now the norm for someone who wants a name.

But why do we assume that? I hear you saying all these high falutin' things about fashion, about photography, about communication, about establishing a photographic legacy...meanwhile you still have the dayjob and you go online to dream about being a "photographer"(whatever that means). "Time to either shit or get off the pot" as they say in Southern Missouri.

Today, to get to the top of your field, you have to be a celebrity first.

I would argue that for every flash-in-the-pan success story there are propbably 100 work-a-day photographers who have built careers for themselves by hard work, long hours, professionalism. Where does Merritt go from here? Unless she can come up with another good hook, her career is downhill with every year that she ages --- psuedo intellectual porn is probably a limited market. And I'm not convinced that a few exhibits and a Taschen book make a photographer "successful" --- notorious, maybe - but if you measure success in dollars, being a photographer publishing a book ain't shit compared to being a photographer who can count on regular income to provide photographs for publications or catalogs. Sure, this might open doors for Merritt - but which doors and where do they lead? And do you want to go through those doors?

Your problem is you want to go from amateur to Avedon --- "Today, to get to the top of your field, you have to be a celebrity first." What about all the people who are out there working, building on their own success?

Seriously, you don't need a gimmick --- you need a good portfolio --- you need to be working in your field (fashion photo) and you need to be doing it NOW. In your place, I would get a portfolio together, knock on doors until I got assisting jobs with fashion photographers, do that, continue to work on the portfolio, meet the clients, do the self promotion and then maybe it would be possible that I would realize some success in fashion photo.

-- a dale (adale66@excite.com), May 26, 2000.

We're talking about different things here: showbusiness versus career day. I'd much rather have a career in photography than my current day job - but I don't plan on shooting to be just a "work-a-day photographer." If I were 20 years younger, I probably would start by assisting. But, as you know, the point of assisting isn't so much to learn, but to make contacts. (And how many assistants make it to stardom anyway?) To reiterate, Natacha has been given her "break" - and it's now up to her to do something with it. I'm trying to figure out how to make my break happen.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 26, 2000.

I have found mental illness to be an effective bridge between states of actual and percieved grandeur.

Seriously, I think that chasing fame or living for the next 15 minutes, in the photography world can be a pretty destructive pastime. If you cater to or chase the tastes of the black turtlenecks and berets, you may make yourself into the kind of hack or one trick pony that you don't want to be.

I think that Sebastiao Selgado started out as an economist before he went to lots of uncomfortable looking places to photograph the dignity in laborer's eyes. I don't think it was anything but a lot of hard work on his part.

Take Care,

Andy

-- Andy McLeod (andrewmcleod@usa.net), June 15, 2000.

Few of us have to travel very far to find misery. Ironic, isn't it - that recording that misery is a path to fame - if probably not fortune.

Along those lines, I've made a number of posts to the Philosophy of Photography forum about politicizing our work. My point is the same here. If you want your message to be heard - you have to be heard, and you have to use whatever means necessary to capture people's attention. Of course, that's pure gimmickry (whether it's dogs wearing hats or starving third-world children). It's what you do after you have their attention that counts. (The corollary being that nothing you do before you have their attention counts - no matter how noble.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 16, 2000.

gimmick

Well let's see now. Are you sure your stuff is good? Really good? Or "as good as" say Joe Sleep Around? I believe you get noticed if your stuff is good. Eventually that is> As photographers, we are up against thopusands upon thousands of wanabes. There was a complaint voiced long ago by photographers in New Mexico about all the wannabes coming out to Santa Fe and undercutting each other to the point that there was no work even for the established artists. It has always been that way and always will. Take Ray McSaveny for instance. Phenominal photographer and printer. I've seen much of his work and I can say he is truly a very talented man. But no one is kicking down his door to produce his work. John Sexton works extremely hard producing the work he does and very hard at getting it marketed. You have to be discovered to get noticed. James Fee. I think his stuff stinks. Some like it. I don't. He may be a very nice guy but I don't think his stuff works at all. But someone discovered him and he is on the way up now. All you can do is perserver. Keep sending out your cards and calling people. If you are really good, in someones opinion, you will get there. You may have to die first though. James

-- lumberjack (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 26, 2000.

The other half of my point was that, today, you also need gimmickry to stay on top. Annie Liebovitz provides a couple of good examples of that last year (not the least of which was the entire book "Women"). She had a number of her photos chosen as year's best (in some compilation whose name I can't recall right now).

In it, she has a terrific picture of a champion bicycle racer (I think the American Tour de France champion), nude. However, in the text that accompanies the picture he points out that when he arrived, she wanted him originally to do a simple pose with his hair wet and without his shirt. When he mentioned that he had just come from another shoot where the photographer had done exactly that pose, Annie said, "Well, we've got to do something completely different. Take off all your clothes." And the rest, as they say, was history.

In the same compilation her picture of the cast of the show Goodfellas arrayed as participants of the Last Supper was also selected. It cost over $60,000 to shoot. Not only did it look pretty cheesy, but I'm not even religious and I found it both corny and insulting (though I think it could have been handled in a creative and interesting manner).

Other examples that comes to mind are the photographer who does the "Big Head" series and the one who does the books of nudes of average people (LA Nudes, I think is one). But for sheer gimmickry (and media manipulation), I think the following story about Robert Rauschenberg's new work illustrates that best: http://www.foxnews.com/etcetera/art/062800_rauschenberg.sml?refer=isyn d

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), June 29, 2000.

Sorry - wrote that a bit too fast. It was Lance Armstrong, I believe, and, of course, the cast of "The Sopranos."

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 01, 2000.

JK - I can't take this any more. I have been following this post and to be blunt you are completely off base in your understanding of what it " takes " to "make " it in fashion or any other field of photography. You have been offered some very solid advise here but continue to only slam others who have worked long and hard at accomplishing their work. I happen to work on and off with a few of the people you use as examples in your tirates and it seems clear that at least one of the reasons you are not where you think you deserve to be is your lack of appreciation of what it takes to produce such work. Most of the people you dismiss made a decission a long time ago that this would be their life and nothing was going to keep them from getting to where they wanted to be. Not some "other "job or where or how they might have to live. ( Read as "you have to be where the work is" ) The best advise you have been given is to get off your butt. I might add to also give up your day job and move to where the work is. Sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but it is the reality of the field you seem to desire to persue.

-- jim megargee (jmegargee@nyc.rr.com), July 03, 2000.

It's the reality in any field at which you want to be successful. But what about the people (some who probably post to this forum) who have talent and training, who work hard, who devote their lives to their work, and who never "make it" - or end up in some backwater, just barely getting by? As far as I know, that's the vast majority (in all artistic fields, not just photography). Is the proof supposed to be in the result? - i.e., they didn't make it, therefore they weren't good enough, or didn't work hard enough? That's the fundamental lie of capitalism. While it's true that _anyone_ can make it to the top, not _everyone_ can, and it's often through no fault of their own. Lots of people are good and work hard, but lots of people don't make it to the top (or even to a self-sustaining livelihood in this field).

I think it's ironic that people who devote their lives to mastering one of the most powerful mediums don't understand the importance of the media in creating their success. Annie Liebovitz often does brilliant work (the fact that it has been uneven of late is another issue). But she obviously knows that the way to stay on top is to do things that get her noticed - by more than other photographers. I used the term "gimmickry" on purpose to distinguish it from that Protestant concept of "hard work," but it's really just good marketing in a media-dominated culture.

Natacha is a good example of someone who "hasn't paid her dues" (to use the vernacular), yet has an opportunity that most of those who work hard year after year will probably never get. Is it fair? That's irrelevent - it's how the world works today. In her case, she's lucky enough to have hit on the flip-side of the media's influence - that of the importance of celebrity above and beyond the importance of one's work. It's great if your images are marketable; it's even better if the image of you, yourself, is too.

Ms. Liebovitz is facing this situation from the other side. She is already a celebrity and has to do things that will keep her name out there. And she is used by people who are more interested in capitalizing on her celebrity status than on the quality of her work. Is she so much better - or more unique - a photographer than anyone else out there? Of course not. But how many issues of Vanity Fair will they sell if they merely use good - but unknown - photographers in every issue? Vanity Fair uses her so they can say "this layout was shot by Annie Liebovitz." It is a symbiotic relationship.

In short, I agree with everything you say. I recognize that I don't yet have the technical skills to do the quality of work that is (usually) necessary, and I'm doing my best, given my current financial obligations, to do the other things that you suggest - but it's naive to think that that alone is enough.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000.

as a young photographer, the myth that there is a need to make it can be very damaging. i am half way through photo school (the idea of which turns my stomach sometimes-- but you need to make connections one way or another right?) and finding that i am less and less concerned about making it. i want to be at the top of my art, at the top of what i can do photographically to communicate my ideas. being a celebrity is not what i need or want.

i think there is a lot of crossover in this post between the myth of the photographer and the reality of the photographer. using the young vixen who's been spoken of throughtout the post, i think she hit the myth on the head. she was discovered, she made a book, she is a celebrity. now she is going to hit the reality. can she keep doing this? can she support herself? can she do another project/book/ series that is relevant and interesting? can she build upon her success?

john, you need to stop whining about the unfairness of the photo world, look long and hard at the realities of what you want, and then either take the plunge and get off your sluggish buttocks, or sit down and stop whining.

in two years anyone who is still posting to this forum can slap me upside the head if i start to whine the same way.

mnm

ps. the vixen's "eye for composition" is present in about 10% of her work, i think she's just getting lucky now and again.

-- michael meyer (mnm207@is9.nyu.edu), July 05, 2000.

I'd rather hear from you after 20 years of being "true to your art" - as most young idealists would say. Personally, I think I have a lot better chance of communicating my ideas if lots of people know who I am and seek out my work (albeit probably for the wrong reasons at first). Plus, one of the biggest motivations to be successful is an acute longing for a 401k that's out of triple digits.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 05, 2000.

John, there are prople out there that you have never and will never hear of of see any of their work that I consider to be very succesful photographers. The reason is that after 20 or 30 years of Doing it they are still doin g it reguardless if their work is appearing in Vanity Fair , Time , or any other publication. If you are motivation is looking for $ success with your work its little wonder you find yourself in the situation you are in. And if this were truly the case you would have taken the steps necessary long ago to accomplish this rather shallow intent.

-- jim megargee (jmegargee@nyc.rr.com), July 08, 2000.

I did start this thread by talking about breaking in at a "national level" - by which I meant nationally known (and outside of a small circle of, say, national clients). Pretty much by definition, someone whose work I haven't seen and probably never will doesn't fit into that category. I wouldn't mind having a steady career in photography either, but I'm asking how people make it beyond that level.

All I've really been talking about is good marketing, which seems to be the big difference between fame and fortune and merely a career. Let me ask you (any of you) this: do you consider Annie Liebovitz to be a better photographer than you? or just better known?

And as for that fame and fortune? In any endeavor they may not bring happiness, but they do bring opportunity. Let me know when you can choose when to work, who to work for, and what to shoot - without having a backup job at Home Depot.

(By the way, I'd love to hear more about "the situation" I'm in and the steps I could follow to get out of it.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 08, 2000.

(Not to mention how I could get off my "sluggish buttocks.")

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 08, 2000.

John, you seem to feel that people are using you as a punching bag - and you are probably right...but were all in the cheap advice business here on LUSENET so I guess you'll have to live with it.

For a clue as to how and where things went wrong, look at phrases like this one from your initial question:"In the past, if you were at the top of your field, you might become a celebrity. Today, to get to the top of your field, you have to be a celebrity first. Now how do I get that first 15 minutes of fame?" If that phrase didn't make you sound astoundingly self agrandizing, shallow, bitter and cynical then I would be wondering why people were picking on you.< p> I haven't been doing this for a terribly long time, but long enough to call myself "photographer" with confidence.

Enough of my chest thumping. If you really want to do it, you will. I don't consider myself a "people and fashion" photographer but in your place, with the interests you have expressed I would start with wedding photography and assignments for publications in your local area (like city entertainment magazines). I've been a second shooter on 2 weddings and hated it -- would never go back because I can do other assignments that suit me better -- but if one is good one can make a lot of money doing that --- I know people who do. Every city and town has a monthly or quarterly city magazine with features about the arts, entertainment, restaurants, etc. One of my early assignments, 3-4 years ago, was taking interiors of restaurants for restaurant reviews. The money wasn't much but with each passing assignment I could drop another line on my client list. I would shoot extra film and some of thiose are still in my interiors portfolio. That's how you get big magazine assignments -- start with little magazine assignments, always deliver on time, always deliver more than you were asked to, always make your client look good.

I probably shouldn't say this, but I suspect that I will never be called a genius or innovator. I'm probably average smart, average talent, etc., but I work very hard. Maybe there is some secret, some way of getting the whole world to pay attention to you and beat a path to your door --- personally I doubt it and suspect that if it were that easy a lot more people would have done it by now.

My suspicion of Natascha Merritt's biggest secret? A MONTHLY CHECK FROM DADDY!

-- alan dale (adale66@excite.com), July 09, 2000.

At the risk of sounding like some New Age guru, there are two things that stop people from achieving "success" (which I'll define as more success than the level at which they have currently plateaued): 1) Fear - not of failure, but of the added responsibility of continuing to perform at a higher level than they currently do, and, more subtly, 2) Lack of Self-Worth - the belief that they don't deserve to be more successful than they currently are.

Capitalism feeds off of these insecurities, which, in conjuction with our Protestant work ethic, provide the perfect, submissive workforce. In almost a mirror image to the medieval peasant who believed that his God-given place in the universe couldn't be changed, the capitalist worker believes implicitly that his current lot in life is that which he truly deserves. Of course, that doesn't rule out advancement - but he has to believe he actually deserves it, through, of course, the very institutions that make him a more desirable (and complacent) worker: more schooling (indoctrination), more experience (acceptance), more seniority (passivity) - even through more samples for his portfolio.

I think it's ironic that photographers, more independent and self- actualized than the average worker to start with, fail to realize that in the media-dominated world that they help to make possible, the ones who "make it" (to the pinnacles of fame and fortune) are the ones who market themselves (or are marketed) best. (The con man knows this implicitly: for him it's all marketing; there's no need to fear failure - since he never intends to carry through with anything - only being caught.)

Look around. We still live in a class-dominated society. If you were lucky enough (had the money) to go to a top school, you start at the top. If you have money, you start at the top. If you are famous in one field (or just famous period), you can start at the top in another. It's not education that has leveled the playing field (that's just a way of keeping the workers in their place), it's the media. The ones who make it from the bottom don't necessarily work harder than everyone else, but they do out-market them. If you can learn to use the media (rather than be enslaved by/to it) then you can be one of the few who actually has some control over their destiny.

In short, be a little more con man and a little less worker bee.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 09, 2000.

Scheme away, then...don't talk about it, scheme. If you are so convinced of the importantance of creating the almighty "buzz" then get to it.

The thing about it, John, is that I think you have given us lousy examples of success. People like Liebowitz have fame and fortune -- I'll grant you that, but unlike you I would NOT trade places with Liebowitz even if the opportunity came up (which it will not) simply because I have no interest in living her life -- I have no interest in being famous for photographing celebrities. If that makes HER happy, fine -- I have no argument with that, but to compare her life to mine is to compare apples to oranges. I WANT to work hard in my field and don't care if I never get the public accolades - I don't think product photographers get the recognition that celebrity portraitists get anyway -- and I see no shame in that.

I think it is seven years years ago that I had graduated from school, I had no prospects and no hopes of prospects, I had just recovered from a life threatening illness that had wiped out whatever money I had and was living in my parents house, dependent upon their generosity. Now I'm saving up for the down payment on my first house...pretty good for a guy who, seven years ago, couldn't get the jobs at camera shops and labs that he desperately applied for as a stopgap measure against bankruptcy. Score one for the workerbee.

My definition of success? Satisfaction in what I do, for starters. Getting the kind of the life that I want for myself --- having a good time, doing no harm to others and enjoying the world. I enjoy (in no particular order) art, good food, good beer, hiking and camping, challenging and interesting work, mental stimulation, travel, the company of a certain woman --- and I get regular doses of most of these. My definition of success? More of the same. I want the house only because the woman I love loves gardening, my apartment manager does not allow dogs and I want dogs, some more room for my art projects, more privacy, and a darkroom. My plan for the next 70+ years? More travel (I'd like to see Asia), more photography, my brother wants to teach me how to brew beer, my woman friend and I talk about children...life looks good. Do I want to worry about "how to get to the top in my field?" Hell no -- I've got MUCH more important things to do.

To bring this back to THIS Lusenet forum, I suspect that photography, in one form or another, will always be a part of my life but the form it has may change -- especially in terms of the work I do to earn a living. It already has -- I had very different ideas about job and career seven years ago - I learned, changed, adapted. If tommorow I decide that I want to do something else to earn my keep, I will change. In the past two years I have learned a great deal about digital imaging systems and suspect that will have something to do with the way in which I make my living over the next 40+ years.

Now - what was the question?

-- alan (adale66@excite.com), July 10, 2000.

I'm sure many of you saw David Blaine's block-of-ice stunt on tv this week. What better example of "gimmickry" could you ask for? Blain is, apparently, a pretty good magician - but he'd still be doing birthday parties and Bar Mitzvahs if it weren't for stunts like this one.

And the great thing about it is that it's pure gimmick: no magic, no action, no (real) difficulty (he's in a perfectly insulated airspace), and little danger (only from the ice collapsing as they extricated him. And so, the amazing thing is that he not only probably got paid a huge sum of money for this, but he gained incalculable amounts of publicity. I think I'll shut myself in my refrigerator for a week. Someone call the media!

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), November 30, 2000.

Just try standing in a 2 square foot area in your bedroom for one day, and then tell me it's easy. Forget that I've seen his hat stick to the ice when he bumped against it.

I think your imagination needs some pumping up, if you think what he's doing is easy, or what Leibowitz or this Natacha person are doing is easy.

Maybe you just need some more information before you make the assumption that it's all some kind of trick that anybody could do, if they'd just "get a break"... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 30, 2000.

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.")

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), November 30, 2000.

I've just read this entire thread.. and can't remember half of it!

However, I think a lot of people have missed John's initial point and just accused him of whinging etc, failing to add anything constructive... bit like a critique saying 'gee that's good/bad' but not offering an reason.

As for the girl mentioned, I guess time will tell, you may never hear about her again. How many one-hit wonder songs have been the 'next big thing'?

Now I'm going to look as the girly pictures in question to make up my own mind :) regarding that individual!

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), November 30, 2000.

Take Lee Miller - model before photographer, i.e celebrity before becoming known as a key figure in surrealism and 'inventing' solarisation. Who cares if someone has become famous for something people may see as tacky - let history judge.

well thats wot i fink anyhoo

-- liam (ourkid@angelfire.com), April 11, 2001.