Getting bored of photography

kf095 wrote in post #18230693
In my famous photographers biography often here is one or more persons involved. Not photographer, but person with power, money and connections.
In art you must have connections, if not and you are still really good at it, once you are gone, you might become famous.
It is even more profitable for those who controls art industry. Hey, look at this, then he was alive nobody was giving crap, but now we are declaring it as $$$, sorry, art.

Hahahahah..yes, you have to be discovered....being propelled by some mysterious force and somehow....you won the lottery literally speaking. Being an artist is not a PROFESSION.... Is not by choice either.

See artistic forms as a manifestation of some world historical spirit. It is through your art, they become a reality, big or small.

chauncey wrote in post #18230852
Define the indescribable, yeah right. To me it means this...two images (one created from incense smoke and one from water droplets in front of my monitor.

IMAGE LINK: http://s329.photobucke​t.com …-with-HDR-2-copy.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s329.photobucke​t.com …lets-part-deux-1.jpg.html

Ok then see the work of Jerry Uelsmann and John Paul Caponigro for inspiration..

Pippan wrote in post #18230392
Yes, amazing to think a simple lament about lost mojo could have sparked such a debate. It's been a very interesting debate though.

Thanks for the overly generous remarks in your previous post regarding my diatribes, never mind actually taking time to plow through any of them. Actually, one reason why I posted those blogs is due to my excessive debating on this site a few years back…a very circuitous task generating considerable redundancy. Now, I pretty much try to state my piece and move on lest I get sucked into the polemical vortex (of which I’m very susceptible by nature).

Besides, I can generally rely on airfrogusmc to make my case but with more tenacious perseverance.

This also somewhat ties in with this thread’s shifting topics, because this was actually pretty much the norm before POTN’s major overhaul (2011?), which shed its Canon focus and introduced a highly more compartmentalized structure that better separated the cats from the dogs.

It was not uncommon for someone to post an innocent photo of a bunny rabbit only to have the discussion acrimoniously turn to arguing if raw was the Second Coming and JPEG the antichrist…OK, that never happened, but radical digression was an expected consequence of mere participation.

I somewhat miss those more passionately contentious days, although moderators are understandably free to disagree.

sjones wrote in post #18230915
Thanks for the overly generous remarks in your previous post regarding my diatribes, never mind actually taking time to plow through any of them. Actually, one reason why I posted those blogs is due to my excessive debating on this site a few years back…a very circuitous task generating considerable redundancy. Now, I pretty much try to state my piece and move on lest I get sucked into the polemical vortex (of which I’m very susceptible by nature).

Besides, I can generally rely on airfrogusmc to make my case but with more tenacious perseverance.

This also somewhat ties in with this thread’s shifting topics, because this was actually pretty much the norm before POTN’s major overhaul (2011?), which shed its Canon focus and introduced a highly more compartmentalized structure that better separated the cats from the dogs.

It was not uncommon for someone to post an innocent photo of a bunny rabbit only to have the discussion acrimoniously turn to arguing if raw was the Second Coming and JPEG the antichrist…OK, that never happened, but radical digression was an expected consequence of mere participation.

I somewhat miss those more passionately contentious days, although moderators are understandably free to disagree.

Ha Ha. Tenacity is sometimes a curse to. I sometimes need to let go a lot early than I do especially when things get extremely redundant.

For those that haven't clicked on his(jones) site do so. He is absolutely doing some of the strongest, most interesting and thought provoking work period and his words are right on the money.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18229635
They are creating a painting which may or may not be art.

But anything, anything at all, that is created by a human with aesthetics in mind, is art.

Something need not be "great", or even decent or "not horrible" to be art. It simply has to be something that a human created, with aesthetics as some part of their consideration when it was created.

The term, "art", in and of itself, does not connote any kind of compelling quality or depth or worthwhileness. These are things that some people add onto the term "art", as if something has to in some way be worthwhile in order to be art......which is not the case.

If someone picks up a pencil and doodles a line on a scrap of paper, and they make the line curve a certain way because they thought a little bit of a curve would be nicer looking than a straight line, then they just created art. When I paint my walls, and choose one color over another because I think it will look nice, then I create art when I paint the wall. When someone takes a brush thru their hair because they like the way it looks when brushed more than the way it looks unbrushed, then they just "did art". Most people create art all day long . . . . . every hour, every day, most people in the world are creating art. We, as humans, simply cannot help it.

The only qualification that determines whether something is art, or not art, is, "was it created (or done) with aesthetics in mind?" .Were aesthetics any part of the considerations when the thing was being done?". .Art is an integral part of life for almost every Homo sapien on the planet. We cannot escape art - we are compelled to "do art" constantly, and art is employed in many of the things we do on a continual, everyday basis.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18230957
But anything, anything at all, that is created by a human with aesthetics in mind, is art.

Something need not be "great", or even decent or "not horrible" to be art. It simply has to be something that a human created, with aesthetics as some part of their consideration when it was created.

The term, "art", in and of itself, does not connote any kind of compelling quality or depth or worthwhileness. These are things that some people add onto the term "art", as if something has to in some way be worthwhile in order to be art......which is not the case.

If someone picks up a pencil and doodles a line on a scrap of paper, and they make the line curve a certain way because they thought a little bit of a curve would be nicer looking than a straight line, then they just created art. When I paint my walls, and choose one color over another because I think it will look nice, then I create art when I paint the wall. When someone takes a brush thru their hair because they like the way it looks when brushed more than the way it looks unbrushed, then they just "did art". Most people create art all day long . . . . . every hour, every day, most people in the world are creating art. We, as humans, simply cannot help it.

The only qualification that determines whether something is art, or not art, is, "was it created (or done) with aesthetics in mind?" "Were aesthetics any part of the considerations when the thing was being done?".

.

I don't think it is helpful to say that everything is art just because we don't know what art is or should be. Photojournalism, especially in war zones, is powerful and with great meanings and reflecting the historical period of our time. Yet, it may not have the aesthetically pleasing quality. An aesthetically pleasing art form may look pretty. Yet, it lacks meaning and substance or not powerful enough.

chauncey wrote in post #18230589
It might be of interest, for those contemplating a career in professional photography...
what might be your average income as a professional photographer during last five years?

I can really only speak to the commercial/advertising end of things and obviously this is about as broad a generalization as there is, but, in the right market I'd expect a studio's gross annual billings to be in the mid to high 6 figures and with a little bit of luck can/should spike to 7 figures on occasion.

.

TooManyShots wrote in post #18230968
I don't think it is helpful to say that everything is art just because we don't know what art is or should be.

I agree. But please realize that I did not say that everything is art. The only things that are art are those things which were done with aesthetics in mind. I do not struggle with knowing what art is - I have a quite firm grasp of the literal definition, and I never clutter up this definition with anything subjective.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18230980
...I do not struggle with knowing what art is - I have a quite firm grasp of the literal definition, and I never clutter up this definition with anything subjective.

But art, as a form of expression (or communication), is subjective by nature. Without an explicit account of the creator's intention, each of us views a piece of art with our own set of biases. These biases are defined by our personal and social experiences and influences. Look at the recent experiments in which a photo of a person was given to several photo retouchers from different parts of the world (sorry, I don't have a link to share but it's easy to find). Each of those retouchers modified the original based on social and personal ideals of what beauty was to them. The results couldn't have been more far apart from each other than one could imagine.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18230980
.

I agree. But please realize that I did not say that everything is art. The only things that are art are those things which were done with aesthetics in mind. I do not struggle with knowing what art is - I have a quite firm grasp of the literal definition, and I never clutter up this definition with anything subjective.

.

Even subjectivity has its own existential quality. It has its own discrimination and duality aspects. Even something that has no form, it has form as well...no form is form. Form is no form. Oops.....getting too Zen here....

Foodguy wrote in post #18230979
I can really only speak to the commercial/advertising end of things and obviously this is about as broad a generalization as there is, but, in the right market I'd expect a studio's gross annual billings to be in the mid to high 6 figures and with a little bit of luck can/should spike to 7 figures on occasion.

In the end how much take home, 100k, 200k, 500k, $1million? The few folks (make it 1) that I know who do well on photography shoot high end weddings, I mean really high end. The way things going I can't expect folks getting into photography business to make a nice money going forward. There will always be corner cases, I am talking in general.

bobbyz wrote in post #18231014
In the end how much take home, 100k, 200k, 500k, $1million? The few folks (make it 1) that I know who do well on photography shoot high end weddings, I mean really high end. The way things going I can't expect folks getting into photography business to make a nice money going forward. There will always be corner cases, I am talking in general.

In general all you have to do is look at all the old established photographers that have shut down and are doing something else. That tells a lot.

Most of the really successful photographers I know are in the commercial side of things. Once established I think it is a lot more stable and you work with other visual professionals that get it and understand what it costs. I have a very good friend that is probably going to be retiring in a few years that shoots high end wedding (12K starting price) and has been in that high end market for a few decades and he complains to me about the changes and he is glad to be retiring in the next few years.

I make good living. I posted that here.
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18230619

Most of the ones that i know that have failed have been wedding/ family portrait photographers.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18231061
Most of the ones that i know that have failed have been wedding/ family portrait photographers.

Yeah, I think it'd be horrible to do that. Then, you are shooting someone else's pictures. By that I mean that you are taking photos that someone else wants you to take. If I did that, I would have grown bored with photography long ago.......in fact, if I did that I never would have liked photography in the first place!

I prefer to take pictures for me - only shooting the stuff that I like to shoot, the way I like to shoot it. Then, after the shooting is over, I try to sell the images. This isn't even shooting "on spec", because "on spec" means that you are shooting in the hopes that someone will want/need the resultant photos enough to buy them. When I am shooting, I am doing it for myself and myself alone. Then afterwards, if anyone happens to want to license the images I took, great!

Admittedly, this modus operandi isn't a very lucrative form of photography.......but somehow I manage to sell enough to pay the bills and keep the household going, which is all that matters to me. I have no need to be upper class or middle class; I only need to pay the bills that accrue, and they don't amount to very much because I live frugally. I will tell you one thing - doing it this way, I am not in the least bit bored with photography. In fact, photographing wildlife and nature is the one thing in all of life that enthralls me like nothing else!

.

Hogloff wrote in post #18231050
In general all you have to do is look at all the old established photographers that have shut down and are doing something else. That tells a lot.

Same in my area. A friend of mine who is in the headshot/wedding/portr​ait business has just decided to shut down full time and got a "regular" job in order to get the perks of benefits. He is going to part time photography just to keep himself in the business, but admits that the current state of the business is what forced the downsizing.

This is scary for me as I am trying to get away from my regular day job and more into photography with the hopes of turning it into a full time gig. But then, I'm looking more on the commercial end, not the retail end of photography. Coming from a graphic design background I have no qualms shooting to spec or collaborating with AD's or even the clients themselves. It's how I've done business my whole life. Pretty much all my artwork has be done on commission.