Wednesday is Ask an Art Buyer day. Send your questions to heather@heathermorton.ca with the subject line Ask an Art Buyer. I’ll answer as many as I can every Wednesday.
Timothy Archibald writes:
I’m a photographer whose current personal project is emotionally dark and also involves nudity and children, things that often tend to scare clients away. Should my reps and my website exhibit this work, along with my commercial work, as a way to show the range of the artist, or should this work be hidden from the commercial marketplace and be kept in the realm of fine art?
Here are a couple of Timothy’s shots of his son:
I think showing personal work is very important. The old adage I was raised on went like this: Show what you want to shoot, not what you can shoot.
Having said that I think one of the main motivators behind this blog is, and will continue to be until I throw this laptop against the wall in a fit of exhaustion, my quest to answer the question- is this adage actually true? I do believe that the best possible reaction you want to provoke in an Art Director, a reaction that will go the furthest to secure you a long and fruitful relationship with him/her, is: Wow, that shooter has such great ideas, I wish I had Art Directed those ideas, I just want to hang out with that person because they are so cool.
I think this is as good a measure as any to judge a possible personal project and it’s place in your book.
Now the work that Timothy is describing typically provokes a very specific reaction in the viewer. By way of contrast, when I look at Adam Rankin’s baseball player work, I find it very evocative but in a much more obscure way. Without knowing it consciously, I assume that the ideas it stirs in me are distinct from the ideas it stirs in other people. Photos about sex and kids and drugs and nudity; any of the Taboos are evocative but in a heavily proscribed manner. This imagery is powerful but loaded. It may sound simple but the photographer must ask him or herself, do I want to provoke this type of association and reaction in my potential client. So, again, this speaks to the need to know your audience- Vice magazine may love it, Martha Stewart, not so much. But the corollary is also true. I like Adam’s work because it’s evocations are challenging and particular rather than universal.
Before I bumped into Timothy in the blogosphere, I was familiar with his series Sex Machines. So, we can presume that he knows from controversy and indeed, in an interview with JM Colberg, he explains the immense adverse reaction those shots provoked when sent as promos to ad/ed clients. Naomi Harris has a similar experience.
Naomi is Canadian but has been in New York for many years. I especially like a series she did several years ago in her grandmother’s retirement community in Florida. Like Lauren Greenfield (mentioned yesterday) Naomi is amazing at getting access and then capturing the reality of very specific populations. So amazing in fact that Naomi invested a lot of time documenting America’s swinger community. Taschen is publishing a book of this series this summer. Here’s one of the shots, this one is less racey then most in the series:
But, Naomi has had a hell of a time figuring out how to handle this series. Recently she sites the work as the reason she lost two jobs, one with a Canadian magazine, and one with Nike. In both cases, someone high up at each organization saw the swinger work on her website and apparently thought it too racy and pulled the plug. So, she’s pulled the swinger series from her site. Work that she thought should communicate her ability to get deep into messy subjects has instead stigmatized her. In her case, a division between this personal or fine art work and her more conservative commercial work would have likely helped her career.
But Naomi isn’t photographing her kids as per Timothy’s question. In yesterday’s post I mentioned Tierney Gearon who does shoot her kids in ways that have garnered both criticism and acclaim. Her big breakthrough came when the Saatchi Gallery picked her up for a show in 2001 which, when it opened, attracted some concern over several taboo photographs.Her work shows her own children, sometimes undressed, sometimes urinating… In a recent documentary about her, The Mother Project, we see her working on a new series about her mother, who suffers from some sort of schizophrenia. Again, Tierney struggles with accusations of exploitation. But this does not dissuade her from her task. Her obsession is so complete as to drive her to suggest her mother as a model for a fashion spread she’s been commissioned to do. Her mother refuses and then in the next cut relents to the job. As she shoots her mother, they giggle and the uncomfortable Art Director fidgets, likely surprised that this shoot is happening at all.
In both Tierney and Timothy’s case, I think there is something voyeuristic about the work without a doubt. We are seeing very private moments laid bare. I see an obsession here and maybe more so in Timothy’s case a reluctant and volatile partnership between him and his son. I really like the work but, frankly, it won’t be a direct aid to get him work in all but the most specific circumstances. But, indirectly, it could be very helpful. As I think I’ve made clear, I like looking at personal projects and I’m sure most Art Buyers and Art Directors feel the same way. The bottom line is that we like to pretend that we are hiring artists and not just “creative suppliers”.
So, in a roundabout answer to this question- show personal work but don’t offend people with it. Be very aware of what any personal images on your site say about you and try to anticipate how that will be received. If it’s controversial, probably a separate website is warranted with a link that clearly distinguishes it as something distinct- something you are not showing as evidence of your talent as a commercial photographer but rather as another side of your craft.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Whether we like it or not, it’s an increasingly P.C. world out there. No company wants to be associated with “scandal”, whatever that means. Even if it’s not a scandal. My opinion: decide first whether you’re a fine art person or a commercial person, and edit your site accordingly. If commercial, unless you’re T.Richardson, then I’d keep it toward the safe side. That is, if you’re in this to get hired, rather than to simply hoard your trust fund and “make a statement”.
I know that commercial photographers do personal work, but again, first and foremost, you’re a commercial photographer if you’ve chosen that route. Edit for the PC crowd. You mix nudity and children, if if it’s your own children, and people go insane. Ask Jock Sturges. Ask Sally Mann. And they’re fine artists! Imagine if they were commercial, trying to work with ad agencies!
Umm, if you’re going to separate the websites between what the commercial world sees and what the art world sees, I wouldn’t put a link between them. In fact if your personal work is going to cost you a job, and that’s important to you, why put the personal work up at all?
In other words, if it’s a question of do I or don’t I than don’t. It’s not that important to you. If you absolutely must show it, you will need to accept the consequences, and with taboo work there will be consequences. You will lose jobs and be prosecuted if your personal work is deemed too close to the current taboos.
In my lifetime I’ve seen repressed memories and satanic child care centres used to destroy lives. Now I see the internet painted as the new center of evil and my advice would be to look very carefully at what you put out there.
Self censorship is indeed what I’m talking about, and it is certainly a bitter thing but in my 50 years on the planet I’ve only experienced about 5 of them where it was not a wise thing if you wanted to get that job and avoid official notice.
Wow – Thomas Broening isn’t allowed to take a conference call at the park, Tim is not allowed to show any personal work that is “challenging” in any way (and good work, like Tim’s which I love, is almost always challenging, inasmuch as it makes you look and makes you think).
This is something I know nothing about, but are there some control issues going on. How about political activities – how would Nike or Coke feel about a photographer who expressed misgivings about the Beijing Olympics, just to grab something vaguely topical out of my hat? Would the photographer lose the job? And by the tone of the post and comments, I’m guessing they would. So should the photographer keep quiet because of that? And if they do, what value does that give them as a person, or as a photographer even? What exactly do you sell when you do a job? Surely your soul’s not included in the deal.
I guess it depends on the usage fee Colin.
Look, you guys can take a conference call at the park if you want. You can show a bunch of controversial work on your site if you want. But if the client (either agency or, the typically more conservative end client) thinks any of that is unprofessional, then you go off the table. It is extremely competetive out there so you may not want to risk offense of any kind. Having said that, we do want to be challenged and excited by your vision too- its impossible to say definitively what will get good attention and what will get bad attention- depends on the audience.
All flippancy aside, your question about control is another issue and an interesting one- let’s do a bit of research and explore it at a later date. If anyone has some concrete examples of Colin’s concern, send them over.
@ Colin:
You must not live in the commercial/ad agency world.
1. Yes, while the job is going on, or while your book is being considered, you do sell your soul.
2. You are in the commerce world, not the fine art world, or the personal expression world.
3. I do not want to know the personal life of my housecleaner, or my roofer, or the guy who makes my espresso. I just want the job done, and without scandal or weirdness. He’s free to personally express himself after his shift is done, but my espresso needs to be right.
4. Life is not fair. Yes, corporate America might protest something, (as long as it serves their shareholders and their bottom line). But they want their Vendors to be straight up, and without scandal, and they want their projects completed without hassle or weirdness. The only possible exception is the fashion world, but in the end , they will tolerate scandal as long as they get press from it, and therefore, that enhances their bottom line, (ie, Terry Richardson. Richardson’s “scandals” are used by vodka companies or clothing companies for profit).
5. Again, the only topic on the table here is “getting the job”. So I agree with Heather — if getting the job is the all-important, then remove any and everything from your book or site that compromises or poisons the message of your images. That AB or AD values their job, and the last thing they want to deal with is getting some letter or email from some customer or client, (who also CC’s their boss), and who complains about some suspected child/morality issues, (whether it’s warranted or not). They simply don’t want the hassle and black cloud. Pure and simple. When you’re a commercial photographer, you’re simply a cog in the machine, and the quicker that you think of yourself merely as a “vendor” the better off you’ll be. Even T Richardson, on some level, is a vendor.
Hi Heather. The control question is interesting and I think you’ve started the research already with your examples.
Absolutely, Heather Fan, but the ability to take a conference call does not affect one’s ability to do a job. It may mark someone in your mind as incompetent or eccentric or odd. In my mind, it marks someone as human, responsible and caring and so better suited to do the job. You know you’re dealing with a human in other words. Humans are good at communicating. Suits aren’t. Nor are cogs. And commercial work is all about communication. Is it?
Taking the espresso simile a bit further, it seems you want the espresso to be right, and you want the espresso maker to conform to your ideal of what an espresso-maker is, even when they are not making espressos for you or anyone else. Even when they are off work. Now why on earth should you expect anyone to do that?
I’m not in the commercial world (obviously! Duh!) , but I have always loved this quote from Paul Arden who died this week (and was in the commercial/ad agency world).
“I used to commission a lot of photography.
Consequently people were keen to show me their work.
99% of the portfolios I saw were of a very high standard.
98% of these cases contained pictures I had seen before.
Obviously not the same subject or composition, but I had a general feeling that I was not seeing anything new.
I was bored, they didn’t have a point of view. If they did, it was that the viewer of the pictures (me) should like their work.
Very occasionally, I saw the work of someone who did have a point of view, whose work was like no one else’s. These were often difficult people, almost unemployable because you couldn’t tell them what to do.
Sometimes it went wrong.
Sometimes it didn’t.
When it didn’t go wrong, it more than made up for the times it did.”
Paul Arden: 1940 – 2008
If I ever need another reason not to shoot “commercial” stuff (I have plenty already) I’ll make sure to come back to this post and especially to Heather Fan’s comments. I know, Heather, that you’re just the messenger, but it’s not a pretty message.
IMHO – the difference is between gaining attention and closing the deal. Art wants to be emotionally gripping & provocative for the viewer but not necessarily shocking. Shock is fleeting and something we might instinctively avoid. I believe photographers tend to enjoy the attention shock brings because it’s a sure hit; walk that provocation line and you may not grip some viewers emotionally. Disappointment sets in.
Mapplethorpe was shocking at times but his mastery of art brought it to a supreme level of provocation; the works turned over rocks we didn’t even know were there. As great as I believe his work is – I’m a huge fan – it would have failed to make a positive impression in the boardroom during a Nike pitch.
I made the mistake early in my career of showing work to which clients could not relate. The real trick is to find the golden balance that both provokes an emotional response AND causes clients, art directors, creative directors and account directors to say: “that is exactly the look and feel we want for our new campaign”.
BTW – for those who hate commercial work, remember you said that if American Express calls excited about your last promotion.
Unfortunately as other people have commented this is a PC world.. however most art buyers find personal work more exciting than commissioned work. The personal work gives us a view to your talent when you’re on your own and not collaborating with creatives.
I say if you feel it is controversial, scale it back some when presenting work to a client. If it’s on your site as personal work – leave it for the viewers to form their own idea. Most clients are, as Heather states, conservative, so when presenting a portfolio for the project present the pieces you feel strongly about and that could possibly win the project for you but take out images that clients won’t be able to relate to.
Art buyers, photo editors, and creatives know photographers are always shooting and will always have personal projects going on so don’t be afraid to showcase some of that work.
In the US especially, there are other legal issues that get into the mix. For example, I knew of an AB who worked in a cubicle environment who went to a photographer’s website and there were nudes on it. They are “tasteful” nudes, certainly not porn, but the woman who sat behind her was an evangelical Christian who brought the AB up on charges with her boss because she, the other woman, happened to see the nudes on the AB’s screen. Hostile workplace, she claimed. Ugh.
There are crazy folks all over (and no, I’m not picking on the Christians–that is just this one case).
Another thing is that when I have done surveys, ABs often say that they don’t generally like promos with nudes or “overly sexy” women on them.
So, I would say that taboos can be more problematic than they are worth. On the other hand, there can be some amazing and beautiful work that challenges all sorts of boundaries. I suggest just doing your homework and sharing the more challenging stuff only to those who you are pretty sure would appreciate it.