i suppose if you walk down the street and you see your name lit up on a theater marquee the experience could be a little "heady"….gene richards, left, and bill allard both wanted me to take this snapshot of them in front of the Paramount theater in charlottesville…i thought it was pretty cool myself….just fun….i did not have any desire at all to take a "good" picture….neither did they….only a snapshot was wanted…a bulletin board picture …just a memory….nothing artful…just "proof" that they had their little moment of "fame"…
but what do you think about photographers and "fame"?? both of these men have spent their lives photographing other people…these men belong on the "other side of the camera"….so, should photographers even enjoy at all a little recognition in the form of some kind of "stardom"??
all of us, quite naturally, want to be validated by our peers….but, should it ever go past immediate peer acceptance?? fame is just plain good business for actors, models, and politicians…but, should photographers ever stay in the "limelight" too long??
i have some clear thoughts on this….but, i want your opinions first…
should "fame" be a logical by-product of a lifetime of earned success in a tough-to-get-ahead business or would anonymity serve the artist better???
and, oh yes, i cannot resist asking you this question….which of these two men do you think enjoys being photographed and which one shies from the camera??
humm… eugene richards the shie one…? :)
I’ll answer the second question first. Richards is the shy one, by far.
On the question about fame. I think that being a “Famous” photographer is a double-edged sword. You can get the access and what not if you are of a certain level stardo, An example would be Annie Leibowitz. But if you are of that stature, than I feel like you would have to deal with a certain amount of hype that would follow you around. This could be a burden or not if you can live up to it.
On a personal note, these men absolutely deserve to bask in the limelight for awhile. Both are incredible photographers that have created amazing bodies of work. Allard made me want to become a photographer when I was 14 (Blues Highway). And Richards’s “Fat Baby” made me think about photography in a whole new way.
Where is Sally Mann in this snapshot?
Hi David;
I would say that Mr Richards would be the shy one! Regarding fame; i think it’s all relative. You can be famous in your own small pond, or conversely on a worldwide scale.
I think the most important thing is to be doing good work, if fame comes from it then fine.
I’m sure Mr Allard & Richards will continue to work their way no matter how famous they have become. Fame would not influence their work, wheras I think others who have become “celebrity darlings” may work to suit their audience. In other words not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them.
As an aside, how has fame affected you David? Is it easy to fall into the trap of appeasing others rather than yourself.
There is also the other side of the story that says “you can be the greatest artist the world has ever seen, but it’s not much good to you if you can’t feed your family”. Is that another trap for photographers? Again it’s the balance between commercial and personal work!
Cheers
Ross
everything happens in divine right order…
if fame fuels the photographer to do more meaningful and great work, then there’s your answer, he/she should relish.
by their nature, i think documentary photographers tend to not seek fame; but if one has a mind-blowing body of work, then fame could fall on his/her shoulders. certainly this world has its cast of ‘famous’ photographers… when we study the works of the greats, there can be a sense of awe that collectively translates into fame. i think a photographer should carefully relish in the appreciation… why not? but again, if i’m right about the nature of the photographer not to seek fame, then he ought not relish too long.. it could change the very being that created that great body of work in the first place.
i think its mr. richards …
well… about fame.. i think it can be a natural by product…as it is in the case of you..or allard or richards…i dont think fame can effect a photographer in a negetive way if that guy is not driven by or for that factor “fame”…
i dont think a photographer can become so famous that his or her subjects in the roads or in the warfields will recognize them…i am not sure but i think we are at least a couple of lightyears apart from that situation…
p.s. a irrelevant matter…in my country most of the people call a photographer,
a “cameraman”… our social system is yet to accept photography as a valid profession.
you can forget about the fame factor here.
atleadt for now…
hmm… difficult questions :-)
so many diffrent answers can be given…
I think it’s better when people are recognizing your pictures, not your face…
I guess.. when photographer with “famous face” go to shoot some even and there are more photographers, everybody pay attention on “famous face” and act “to nice”… also people who knows “famous face” and are part of story can be “to nice” and not “true…
but by other hand.. if photographer is good, he/she doesn’t care for such things, and can easily makes people feel comfortable with him :-) .. so it’s not the problem :-)
once, when my pictures was choosen as september’s “your shoot” by NG (i was very happy) my old (maybe not so small but still regional) newspaper wanted to write about me an article (that their photographer – me, had publication all over the world in NG)… i was happy they noticed it but i didn’t really like to have a picture of myself in newspaper… i preffer to show my pictures not my face :-)…
but in Poland, photographers are not treat good… people doesn’t respect that job.. they are many times surpriced that photographer doesn’t write articles.. they sometimes say “so, you ONLY shoot pictures” (and it sounds silly)…
they respect writers more than photographers… taking pictures in their opinion can do everybody…
so when somebody is famous photographer, they respect him/she more…
but is it really important? hmm… i think the best option is when photographer doesn’t care for fame even he is famous :-) in the matter of fact it doesn’t change anything too much :-)
Photographer never will be so famous as Paris Hilton ;-) … our environment is quite closed i think… off course i know your face, Alex Webb face… Steven Mc Curry, Nachtway’s ect.. but my friends who doesn’t shoot are not interested in that.. and don’t even know about you and other photographers above :-)
so no need to worry :-)
For many photographers fame is the purpose, for many dollar is important only.
But it should be like in every others domains of life, fame should be only tip after work.
Doesn’t matter that you are actress in Hollywood, singer or architect. Fame should be Cherry on top of ice-cream.
Well… we don’t live in that world.
But Aga have right. Nobody care about who photographer are. Only other photographers.
Especially in Poland. If you have a camera you are “paparazzi”.
“stupid paparazzi”
but you live in center of the photography world… Fame smells deferent… stronger…
Hmmm everybody adore you here, it is fame? How you feel with that?
It is perfidious question?
Martin
who is ashamed that he is only paparazzi.
David,
I think it’s hard to generalize on the subject of photographers’ fame. Photographers like Bill Allard, you or most everybody else here will probably never be famous outside our peer group. There seem to be at least two reasons for that: our kind of photography is not valued so highly outside of our group (at least not in the sense that it would be associated with a single photograher; what I mean is that people for instance think that NG contains great photography, but they don’t think about whether Jodi Cobb or Dave Harvey has made a specific picture). The other reason is simply that we don’t strive for ‘fame’ – at least I haven’t met anyone doing so.
In other fields of photography things are different. Fashion photographers like Mario Testino or Peter Lindbergh are famous – and it’s a necessity for them as they get hired and published based on the fact that many people know them.
Carsten (not famous and not trying to be)
Fame should be a by-product of hard work. This is a tough industry to make it in. Not only that but these two say something with their photography. Their “fame” is well deserved because you know them from their photos and not from their physical appearance. They have a valid reason to be “famous,” they earned it.
Also from careful study of your snapshot I would have to say that Richards looks the most awkward about the “fame.”
–Davis
I have looked at Burri’s works about Pablo Picasso. Only for essays like that I thinking about fame. I should make a photo Picasso or Nabokov. But they die many years ago. And Vonnegut…. Ech… everything is passing …
I would say Bill Allard is the more camer shy, his expression looks somewhat forced and Richards’ gesture appears to be encouraging him to accept the exposure. Regarding the issue of fame for photographers, I would agree with previous posts that, some notable exceptions apart, recognition would be confined to a fairly restricted group of enthusiasts. However the important thing is that the photographer in question keeps his/her feet on the ground and does not become convinced of their own esteem, as perceived by others.
While with David in Sicily on a workshop an American lady at our hotel recognized David and went up to him to say hello. She was a teacher who used National Geographic materials and recognized David from the magazine. David was very gracious and went up to his room to get a card with a photo (which he shot for a Nikon ad) which he signed for her.
several people have asked me why sally mann is not in this picture…
sally could not stay past her two hour talk at this festival because she wanted to drive home as soon as possible to be with her husband larry who is ill, as mentioned in the previous post…that is also why i posted the picture of sally first….
any good newspaper or magazine photographer “covering” this event would naturally try to get a picture with all three “legends” together…this just was not possible for me because i never saw them together….
i did take many photos at this event, but even then i was making no attempt to “cover” the proceedings….my primary reason for being at the festival was to teach a workshop and look at portfolios and to make two public slide show presentations myself…so i was a pretty busy boy…but, i too wish there had been a moment with all three legends together..
i will save my comments on the “fame” issue until more responses from you come in today…
Fame can sometimes bring criticism based purely on that persons fame, rather than any true thought on their work. It can also restrict an artists direction, so that they almost have to reproduce the same work that made them famous in the first place (“their new work is not as good as their old stuff!!!” etc). “Stardom” and “celebrity” can take this a step further as in today’s media where we are almost holding our breath for “celebrity failure”.
For me, I think most would appreciate the respect of their peers, and have a little chuckle at any celebrity moments they may get.
Is Bill Allard the more camera shy? definitely looks more like a “I’m getting a photo taken” pose.)
David… regarding to your question who is more shy…
on your picture you show that more shy is Bill Allard (look at his hat, he is covering himself by it!) :-) … Eugenie Richards looks here more confident – look at his hand on the Allard’s neck (he is trying to say – “come on Bill, don’t be shy” :-))
I love their body language on that picture :-)
I just read a book with a quote on fame, to paraphrase:
“Fame is passing like a fresh cut flower, dazzling and soon to wilt. Reputation is a tree of solid oak that may outlive you.”
Annie Liebowitz would’nt have got to make a picture of the Queen if she was’nt famous. Or was it her reputation? I’m sure the name “National Geographic” opens doors. Mind you, you can’t be a fly on the wall with a recongnisable face. My thought is that it depends how and who you shoot.
I guess it works on different levels too. The level of “stardom” or differentiation of having the big black camera has got me to interesting places with interesting people. Though sometimes my presence with the camera has hindered the “moment” and made people uncomfortable.
There is a balance? A compromise? Between easy access and hindering recognition. It depends on your personality too! For some its a badge of honour, for others a chain about their necks.
David:
I think its Eugene who doesnt like to be photographed, it’s in the broken fever of his own photographs…and the awkwardness of his beautiful face, i can sense his heels kicking to flee….though i could be wrong…
as to fame: irrelevant…these 2, along with many other, deserve whatever attendant accolades and joy they’re granted, just as each person should be granted joy and wide-birth knowing…but im afraid that’s a heady lottery jackpot for the very very few…we will and shall be scattered later, our images, our negatives, our words, our skin and hair and bone tossed away like evaporated songs (the dinted sound of music in stringing from a sitting-beside-us ipod, that sound, evaporation, is us)…no one shall remember us in a lifetime after our own…we too shall be reduced to that brilliant list of quote: the anonymous…the poor, bloody brillian bastards that history as reduced to the A….
Eugene’s work has sat inside me like a fever, but also because he himself is so brave and committed, as a person…the people in his images and stories have departed, as have the people in his life…I can only imagine how he would understand that this thing, “names on billboards” is just that, lit-up moments which shall be quickly removed, replaced and forgotten, but in the abacus of someone else’s dreamed-up memories….
fame distances people from the life of that person: we know their work, we think we know them. we grant them fame, we believe we’re entitled to them as well, unfortunately.
All we can do as people is to understand our fortune, our difficulties and our luck. Live as well and as understanding as possible, all the rest is dross…. What remains my friend, David, is nothing: scattered fractled parts of what was once whole….better, instead, to celebrate what is the more essential: not fame, but the act of the living, wherever it is done…
no one deserves fame, but what people do deserve is far far few and readily given: a sense of peace and place in this chimeric, disappearing world….
Im happy for them (especially for Sally) not for their fame, but because they continue to make great work, regardless and commit themselves to that which is the only marquee in town: the life around…..
remember Ozmandias ;))))
cheers,
bob
p.s. by the way, Sally’s daughter (artist in her own right) has talked about that cloak “fame”…too, you should chat with her :)))….cheers,b
I think fame in photography is not as dangerous thing as in other worlds like cinema or sports. But in all cases, is the personality of the individual what defines how he/she deals with fame.
It can be a trap for everybody.
For the photographer, because of the reason mentioned by Stephen before, the repetition of the same formula, and the belief of his own legend.
And also for the public, because seeing famous photographers work is like drinking a famous brand of wine: maybe you don’t like the taste of the wine but you buy it because “is a good wine”.
Maybe a certain amount of recognition can be helpful for starting photographer, to get job I mean… I don’t know really.
Fame in photography has also different effect in the person depending of the importance of photography in the place where he lives. I remember a documentary of Cartier-Bresson in which he says how he hated celebrity. Maybe if he lived in another country, he wouldn’t have such a heavy load.
¿Could be a shy person a fame-driven person?…
And regarding to shyness, it has always seemed to me that Richards is in general more shy person, but in this particular photo, is Allard the shy… non?
Saludos,
At the beginning of his presentation, Eugene Richards admitted that at the beginning of his career, he was scared to death of people. So I’d have to say he’s the shy one, although by the power of his images, you’d never know it. His images and demeanor reminded me of a talk that I attended years ago by W. Eugene Smith.
There’s not much I can add to the previous posts about fame. It’s dealt with in various degrees, according to an individual photographer’s personality. I guess it goes back to earlier comments about ego. As long as it’s kept under control, it’s alright. I think fame is a good thing in that it adds to one’s credibility, and access not to mention that with fame, one can sell original prints for a premium price….
All in all, the festival was truly amazing. I can’t say enough about the high quality of exhibits and presentations. It really blew me away.
I have a feeling this event is going to blossom more in the future….can hardly wait for next year.
By the way, David, your showing of work you did as a teenager was inspiring.
allard in the crowd
I think that fame is a relative thing. Since I left newspapers to come to art school as a graduate student, I have learned about a lot of famous art photographers I had never heard of before. I also have informed my classmates about some famous photographers in journalism or documentary or street style they had never heard of. Maybe it is because what we do is not brain surgery, to paraphrase Paul D’Amato. But then again, I have not heard of many brain surgeons.
Hi David
First, thank you for your candid insights into Look3. I could not attend this year but I am intent on going next year. I am most intrigued by your story on Sally Mann and her work, for personal reasons…
Regarding your question, I think it comes down to the almighty dollar. For a working professional photographer, fame is a valuable marketing tool, providing for food and shelter. For an independently wealthy photographer, fame is more likely to be a hindrance to creativity, feeding the ego only.
Asher
Recognition from peers in the field you specialise in is good for any artist/tradeperson. When that recognition extends beyond that initially small realm, it can serve as a means to expose their work to more people. If one is going to dedicate their life to a career that is all about exposing other peoples’ lives, admirers of that person’s work will undoubtedly want to know a little about the photographer and their motivations.
If fame can be the thing that gets that photographer the next job or funding, then that is to their advantage. However, I believe that photographers/artists should primarily be assessed on the merits of their previous work, irrespective of their fame, but I know this has happened to the contrary.
I’m sure both of these men appreciate the fact that those who admire their work may recognise them, yet rejoice in the fact that they can walk down the street and not attract attention from hordes of fans like that of a movie celebrity…well, this may not be the current case in Charlottesville.
David,
Re. fame vs, anonymity… Hmm, it *is* a tricky question (not least because we probably ought to be drawing some distinctions between fame, and celebrity and success…). But anyway, here goes with an answer. Industry success surely requires some variant of ‘fame’, does it not — at least, some kind of acclaim, of recognition. Whereas photographic or artistic success can probably thrive equally and perhaps even better on anonymity.
Perhaps the real question shouldn’t be about fame vs. anonymity but about what kind of ‘fame’ photographers should aim for, or agree to put up with, or try and accommodate, or positively and ruthlessly pursue!!
Good question, interesting discussion.
alun
David:…
another quick note (about the fame shit), as im racing to go see a movie….here’s John Berryman’s hearbreaking poem about things like that, from Dream Songs, Dream Song 118:
I should add, a small foot note, about fame: my grandmother was a photographer. In fact, the first “women-owned/run” photo and photo processing store in Philadelphia…she wasn’t “famous” (only to me) and my memories of her are that: always with a camera…when she died thousands and thousands of slides….i didnt become a “serious” photographer (whatever that means ;) ) until after she’d died…and how often I want to talk to her about things, tell her of my memories of her and simply talk…now, i’ve come into my own much to late to sit and chat, so i do often with her inside the aches of my body, though chats with my wife have replaced those aches…
anyway, here’s Berryman’s song for you…..(also, all day i’ve been thinking of Gene’s 1st wife…or the girl with the fist in her mouth, or the dorchester chickens, or the man in the grate, etc…): recongition, when and if it ever comes, serves 2 things: MOMENTARY joy (“christ, how could this have happened to me”) and then maybe sorrow…if fame has any value at all, (and it is totally irrelevant to work or a life, it’s something of the dead), it may just fertilize an understanding of exactly how little it actually serves…(from napalm in Vietnam to Paris in LA, if you’ve been following the coverage of that bizarre life-of-a-photographer story)….
okay, a song for u: Berryman….cheers, bob
——————————————–
He wondered: Do I love? all this applause,
young beauties sitting at my feet & all,
and all.
It tires me out, he pondered: I’m tempted to break laws
and love myself, or the stupid questions asked me
move me to homicide—
so many beauties, one on either side,
the wall’s behind me, into which I crawl
out of my repeating voice—
the mike folds down, the foolish askers fall
over theirselves in an audience of ashes
and Henry returns to rejoice
in dark & and still, and one sole beauty only
who never walked near Henry while the mob
was at him like a club:
she saw through things, she saw that he was lonely
and waited while he hid behind the wall
and all.
-DREAM SONG 118
Godamm that is beautiful..
I actually don’t personally know anyone that would have heard of any of these photographers, well maybe one or two photographers but certainly not anyone who isn’t a photographer. I even know photographers that wouldn’t have heard of these guys!.. But that says more about them and the world around them. I suppose it would be useful to have a famous name but not recognisable. Especially for a documentary photographer, the reasons are obvious.
Looking at that pic I would say definitely say Allard is the shy one…surprisingly.
Is there any really famous photographer, really? We cant really decide here because we are all interested in photography so we know these people. But talk to a layperson, somebody not interested in photography. How many photographers would that person know? I just dont think fame and photography go hand in hand. Not yet anyway. perhaps when photography achieves the status of painting, then we could talk about famous photographers. But I would also make a bet that most young people didnt really know who Da Vinci was when the Da Vinci Code first came out. Famous today means Snoop Doggy Dog, Oprah and Paris Hilton….. not photographers or artists.
But I dont think thats a bad thing. Infact who would really want to be famous?
keep the comments coming….i will write soonest on my philosophy of all of this..
one thing should be clear however…
when i used the word “fame”, i only meant it within the narrow context of our profession…not famous as in paris hilton…
Shy Richards. A very interesting question that you posed. I work with a photographer who just won the biggest award in journalism. I can see what the fame is doing to her and I think she may have been better off without the attention. I would be lying if I said that I wasn’t a little bit jealous of course. Though I believe it invigorates me to work harder at my craft. I do not know James Nachtwey personally, though what I have seen of him, I like the way he seems to handle the attention. His demeanor never seems to deviate from his mission to tell important stories. I could be completely wrong. I mean you never know a person until you spend time with them. But I get the impression that if he could choose, he’d simply take a gentlemanly bow and exit stage right.
hm… you all say that the shy one is Richards and I see on the picture that more shy is Allard…
If fame means the audience has a chance to hear the artist describe his place in his work, as we heard Eugene and others do this weekend, then yes, I think it’s valid.
Days later, i am still finding myself particularly affected by Richard’s images, stories of his subjects and the process of getting there.
I am most in awe of the gentleness and respect he brings to difficult settings, allowing the essence of the person or people to be revealed.
I read this passage a few minutes ago and it made me think of Eugene’s work. Forgive the wordiness. It’s by a guy named Louis Lavelle, who was a professor at the Sorbonne:
“…Some scientists pursue truth as though they were going into battle. They fancy that she gives up her secrets only to those who bring her to bay by the rigor of their demonstrations, or by torturing her with their instruments. But with this kind of violence, although truth may be taken by surprise, she will never become our ally. If the mind is to know her, the thinker must be docile and sensitive enough to follow the subtly sinuous contours of reality. Truth requires him to achieve a sort of co-operation with the real, a sort of coincidence even, the perfection of which will be, in fact, exactly proportionate to his gentleness. We must listen to truth’s answers to our questions, holding ourselves in a sort of immobility and inner silence…”
I couldn’t have said it as pretty as this French guy.
I wish I’d been able to be immersed in more shows, and I will be thinking about you this Thursday, David–have fun!
After having poured through Eugene Richards’ picture books so long recently I often wondered how the man would be in person.
The first guess would be a tough as nails reporter with a brusque manner. A sort of American working class version of Robert Capa maybe, minus the alcohol and social graces. Who else could wake up each morning and continue taking pictures in this country with such tragic overtones and not collapse under the physical and emotional weight? Or want to do something lighter or whimsical once in a while for a break?
But then I saw War Photographer on Nachtwey and was blown away how the man approaced his photography more like a monk than a prototypical news reporter under the most dangerous and impoverished of conditions.
So perhaps it’s not surprising that Richards remains so shy and unassuming in person. Quick to brush aside compliments, uncomfortable, even slightly irritated with any form of adulation. It was only on the beckoning of his wife Janine that he was proferred a smile in his pictures with his fans. I guess fame and photography can be mutually exclusive desires even for someone of this caliber
Allard… well on Friday night after all the students had sauntered home home exhausted, he was still on the dance floor mingling with everyone and posing for any number of picures. This man knows how to enjoy the limelight when the mood is right. more power to him.
My observations…
dear all…
it is really interesting how everyone guessed on the allard/richards shy vs. not so shy….
i have known both men for 30 yrs….gene is surely the most camera shy….allard is very much a “performer” and loves to be photographed…
both men are “famous” within our profession, but paris hilton does not know who they are..and i doubt they would be very excited to meet her either..
so, i think we agree that photographers rarely, if ever, become “famous” in the modern pop culture over marketed game of being famous for being famous…and if they did, they would lose whatever respect they had in their peer group..
ironically, many “famous” celeb personalities do know serious photographers…why? authenticity….most celebs etc are often “pretending” to be “something”..or marketed to become “somebody”…they more than anyone can “smell” authenticity…the real thing…
you would be quite amazed if you knew how many “celebrity” types really do know most of the “known” photographers or want “cred” as photographers themselves…..elton john is a huge collector of photography and knows everyone…richard gere has himself published a photo book on tibet and hangs out sometimes….jessica lange just had her photo essay in “aperture” … david byrne is a talented photographer and knows all…matt dillon, who collects photographs, tried to hitch a ride to cuba with me on the same night i was speaking spanish with his girlfriend cameron diaz… sissy spacek came to my birthday party (friend of nick) and was the “least known” person at that particular party and, of course, clint eastwood played a National Geographic photographer in love in “Bridges of Madison County”…
all of the above is amusing or entertaining or whatever, but no photographer that i know would spend more than a nanosecond thinking much about it…
my feeling is this….all of us are born with a normal healthy natural desire for a hug and a “pat on the back”….we want to be loved…absolutely nothing wrong with that!!
as photographers, i think we just want to be appreciated by our peers….pretty normal too…i.e. a good brick layer wants the “high five” from other brick layers…he knows a race car driver would probably not care much about nor appreciate his art…
the photographers that i know who have achieved a kind of “celebrity” status are in great danger….great danger of becoming the “public persona” image of themselves rather than being a living growing artistic organism…they become afraid to fail…afraid to experiment or to change…they can get “locked in” to who they are “supposed to be”…this is true of all creative types..musicians, actors, writers, etc etc…
you need to be hungry to be good….you need to be starving to be great….creativity comes from a “need”, not from being fulfilled..
you may imagine that i too have been in some situations where i could enjoy my andy warhol “15 minutes of fame”.. press interviews, signing books, applause after a slideshow…that sort of thing…as a matter of fact, i will walk into some version of my “15 minutes” tonight at my show…but, any photographer who starts “believing” in his or her own publicity or hype is surely doomed from a creative standpoint…
personally, i prefer to struggle than to achieve..i see the danger of becoming any kind of icon…
i think one of the reasons that i can totally and honestly identify with all of you here in this forum is because i am much much more like you than i am like “me”…that is,the “me” that you may think i am….
i might have a little more experience, but i face the same or similar struggles as you on a daily basis….
you just need to learn to “love the struggle”…seriously….i actually love lov e the “survival” instincts cranked all the way up…
on survival instinct “mode”, you see better, you hear better, you think better..you run faster…like a wild animal in the jungle..nobody can touch you….nobody would dare….
fame is boring….the struggle is authentic
so, tonight i will appreciate any hugs i may receive..after lots and lots and lots of hard work over two and a half years, a couple of hours of “high five” i think will not cause me to “lose my way”…
mostly tonight, i will be so so proud to have my two sons and my brother and their families with me tonight..we all know that nothing beats the family “hug”…it is my family that i hold way way above any other “accomplishment”…they are my priceless asset…
and tomorrow, i will try to figure out how to “survive” the next day….maybe this will lead to interesting new work…i surely hope so..this is what i want…but, whatever it is will not be “known” for a long long time..
and this “unknown” time is the sweetest time of all….
peace, david
David:
“prefer to struggle than to achieve.”
right on brother, right on! :)))))…
im giving you a “virtual hug” big-big and shout out for you show tonight!….(real life, eventually you’ll seem Im a big hugger type too)….
okay, this is for you, david. I wanted to put it under your post about Russell, but seeing what you wrote above, and your show tonight, i think its more appropriate….
to me, its also about you, at least the you of your words here so often….my hug for y ou, from Langston Hughes..:
Negro Speaks of Rivers
I’ve known rivers:
I’ve known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human rivers
My soul has grown deep like the rivers.
I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I’ve seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset
I’ve known rivers:
Ancient, dusky rivers.
My soul has grown deep like the rivers.
Langston Hughes
Some personal thought about fame and photography.
I was born as a painter, not as a photographer.
I see, smell, feel, hear, and think like a painter. I did not paint any picture since two years. Even if I will not paint any pictures before I die, I will be painter anyway. Because I was born handicapped this way.
But one day I thought myself , I should start making photos. Well… exactly I don’t know why….
In old time in art fame not exist. Exist glory.
You must be genius if you was really, really famous in art. Touched by God. It was good time…
Be genius it something more than be talented, good, amazing or gorgeous .
But photography is not the Art for me, photography is the Life. This is something so simple, that hard is not fall in love in this. Catching moments which will be passing by anyway. Details, persons, light. Everything what will passing by…
But if your work will be not interesting for another people, If your works will not enough good, it will pass by like life witch your photos should save.
Aspiration for fame and recognition is some way purpose of photography. if you want save your world, reality showed your eyes you should want fame. You should want be the best. Even if you are journalist only. Photography not exist without interest.
But if you want save something, even your fame you have to be really good, because time is cruel for everyone who not give something timeless.
And then even world press photo not save you.
Only yours little genius are.
This is what I think.
Snapshoot will surviving forever! you will see!
Sorry for crime on yours language.
Hey David,
I’ve never read truer words on the subject of fame & art.
Part of what makes you a living legend amongs us younger group of photographers struggling to find our way or meaning in our images is your tendency to toss everything you’ve built up when a body of work is complete and re-invent yourself frequently.
There aren’t many artists in any genre that I can think of who do that. For every Miles Davis, there are a dozen De Niro’s out there who are coasting on their reputation and doing what once as brilliant and fresh as a exercise in easy paychecks. No criticism meant to the latter group, giving up fame and staying hungry is very hard to do. History is rife with the tragic demises of the artists who struggle to the end.
‘Living Proof’ is nothing like ‘Divided Soul’ stylistically which is night and day from ‘Tell it like it. But there is a common thread weaving its way through all of them in a grander sense that makes a grand retrospective.
I still find “Tell it like it is” your most moving tale. But only because there is sometimes just something about the raw, blossoming authenticity of early images that can be very difficult to re-capture the same way in subsequent, more polished work no matter how interesting or superlative that work is.
Looking forward to the show tonight. We’re all very blessed to have you as a mentor and the subject of Hip Hop could not have asked for a keener vision to bring it fruition.
Warmest,
Praveen
I have enjoyed all the comments–most recently Martin’s. Photography for me has been a connection–an intensity of awareness. I want to be good enough that others want to see my images–this is part of the connection. It doesn’t matter if they know my name–only if they know my images. It would also help to have some money coming in to keep pursuing this “quest.” I will never have “fame”, but I think there is something in all of us that we want to make a difference. David, I wish you the very best for your show tonight. Rosemary
David- your insights are ever so elegant! Truly inspiring.
Wynton Marsalis appears to agree with you: “I don’t believe in the fad theory of art. ‘Now what? Now what? Now what?’ Being the favorite flavor of the month is interesting and I’m not against it. I mean, it could taste good. But I just don’t think it sustains a grand vision.”
Having been at the Festival, I would concur with the notion that Gene is the more shy, Bill more of an extrovert. Type “define fame” into Google, and the first listing reads “the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed”, sourced from Princeton.
How wide? Within your community? Within your peer group? Your state? Country? The World? We all think of Madonna as famous, yet, her name is far far less well known than the similar-looking latin superstar Xuxa.
Fame has a tendency to make people “fat and happy”, and, yes, it can create a diminished drive to continue to achieve and succeed. But, achive what? Succeed how? These are measures of success that are a moving target, and, depending upon the audience, different end goals.
With great ability comes great responsibility. As with the hippocratic oath, “first, do no harm”, photographers with great ability and/or great notoriety, should adhere to this creed as well. Use your powers for good, is another way to make the point.
I don’t find struggling to be all that attractive. What it says, in a way, is that you are not achieving all that you want to/need to/can, and the struggle is the manifestation of that lack of achieving. IF struggling is a motivating factor for one, then, perhaps it’s useful, but remaining in a struggling state too long has a detrmental effect on one’s psyche. It’s different than saying “I enjoy a challenge.” To say “I’d rather be constantly challenged, than to achieve”, suggests surmountable obstacles, and an ability to do so.
David,
I would tend to agree with what you wrote but I think that the big issue that you adress here is the question of doubt.
Reading what you wrote, it seems that fame can provide certainty, which is very dangerous, as far as creation is concerned.
If you want to create (ie build something new), you need, in my opinion, to cultivate doubt.
Descartes, in his “Discours de la Méthode”, said that, in order to think well and to be able to find some kind of truth, you need to be suspicious of everything, all the things which you thought were true.
I think the same is true with art and creation in general.
For instance, I can look at classic pictures and think they’re not true to me, even if they looked good in the first place.
I don’t know if that’s clear enough, it’s hard to explain in english…
And thanks for writing this blog ! I have been a regular reader for some time, and I really enjoy !!
Hi David,
I agree with this fame question, it’s an important one …I have seen an young and upcoming photog behaving quite ill-manneredly with a veteran photographer just because he tasted some amount of success in his rookie years…I feel one needs to stay grounded..I remember reading a particular line from Milan Kundera’s book ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ which read ” ..the absolute absence of a burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant….”
I just wanted to tell you I was going through my old National Geographic collection. I found an issue(July 1989)on France celebrating it’s Bicentennial. In it I saw one series done by you on a student failing to clear her baccalaureat exam…it’s a fantastic story telling series…I wonder how you managed to cover it in such an incognito manner…(I know and am quite afraid that I am diverting away from the topic here)…I just thought it would be nice if you consider writing on this sometime in the future ..something about your experiences while on an assignment… also, I found another issue (April 2001) in which you did a photo essay along with writer Charles E. Cobb,Jr. on Harlem for the Zip USA section….my question is did you conceive your “Living Proof” series back then..I mean did it have any inkling to your current work?
Warm Regards,
Siddhartha
David,
I don’t agree with the fame question. It’s inconsequential and totally irrelevant.
But it seems you’ve struck a chord. There are many (too many) photographers interested in the subject…
I just can’t imagine any photographer worth their salt actually considering fame within the scope of their work.
And especially photographers like Allard, Richards or Mann. There is much more calculation involved than a generic label called fame.
Please, stay in the realm of inspiration.
Fame is a detractor from the serious business of survival. Photographers overly curious about a moniker like fame need not be photographers and (I predict) most won’t last in this profession…
Humbly wondering, how have you lasted, indeed flourished? Survival can’t be it entirely…
Sean- I’m curious, given your comments above, why your website tagline is “Award Winning Wedding Photography”? ;-)
sean….
you may have missed my response above….if you have a chance to read it, you will see that i agree with you and did so in my comment posted june 14….
i like to ask provocative questions, let my readers respond, then give my own opinion….i totally plan to keep my feet here planted in the realm of inspiration….
praveen…
yes, for sure, “tell it like it is” can never be outdone by anything else i ever do…so so pure and innocent…
john…
i suppose it is just a personal thing….struggling for me works….now, if there was never any success attached at the end of it, then i also suppose that would give..all of this a different meaning…avoidance of “fat and happy” is probably a better way to view it..
sean….
i just re-read my question and all of the comments from readers and i could find nothing that would indicate that anyone suggested that “fame” was to be honored or sought after…peer recognition yes, fame no….
to answer your last question, i think i have “lasted”, “flourished” and “survived” in our beloved craft by absolutely never thinking about “fame” as any kind of goal at all…i did see the power of photography early on as a teenager, but there was no way to relate “fame” to what i saw in the works of henri cartier-bresson for example…
also, i would like to point out that in my developing years,with the work ethic from my family etc., “fame” just was not a concept or a word or any kind of idea to be discussed or thought about in any way…
siddartha….
on the “french teenager” story i decided that i would shoot i “microcosm of the whole” by just sticking with one group of teenagers….i thought probably that teenagers in france were not so unlike teenagers in america…i found judith, the girl with the cigarette, through a friend and realized she was the “leader of the group”…you know, the one who organized everything, made all the phone calls, made sure her friends got to certain things at certain times…there is always a “leader” in every peer group..anyway, i made friends with judith and just hung with her and her friends for weeks….that story has never really been published…maybe i should publish it here!!!
pierre yves…
yes…you and descartes have a good point…there certainly has to be some kind of “discomfort” for creativity to take place and for sure “fame” would not lead to any kind of creativity…
after this post i wrote a piece about “creative environment” which was intended as a totally separate issue, but now i see that there is so much “crossover” between these two subjects..
rosemary…
yes , yes…good comment…just to make a difference…that is it…the ideal is to have your pictures known and you to be unknown!!!!
kevin…
james nachtwey is a personal friend…yes, yes, he is very aware of the danger of fame…
martin…
well, as usual, you have such an interesting way of looking at things…and, yes, of course, “snapshoot” will survive forever!!!
asher…
“flavor of the month” is ranked down there even below “fame”…but the modern quest and thirst for “fame” allows many to rejoice in “flavor of the month”….too bad…
I’m going to chime in here again and thank David for a very provocative question. I was too quickly provoked into a response:)
David, thanks. You’re presence online is just a fantastic little lighthouse showing people a whole ‘nother path. And I love to read your blogs. They’re great fun.
Here I am again, now the devil’s advocate — Fame for photographers is a relevant consideration (not something to aspire to) but a consideration for survival and growth.
Who’s to say that one shouldn’t consider it? Without being frozen into a state of iconic fear (not sure that’s a term) wouldn’t one achieve more with fame than without?
Suppose, for instance, that Nachtwey’s speech for the TED award never happened and never got e-mailed and posted around the internet who knows how many times.
Would his wish be closer to coming true?
Is he famous now? Was he famous before? He made a movie about himself…
Has a war photographer actually crossed a bridge to larger stature within our cultural consciousness? Has he forged a divide that amounts to something more and greater than peer recognition?
Certainly, he’s not Paris Hilton, Michael Jordan, or Ali, but isn’t he famous? And isn’t that good for his intentions as a photographer?
Ok, sorry for the ol’ reversal (call me a flip-flopper) but I think it’s a question that caused me to react and respond one way and upon consideration perhaps reverse my position.
(To Asher, the ‘award winning photographer’ is something a web developer insisted on putting on my web site to increased search results, I guess we’re all looking for a little fame:)
Thanks again David!
david,
i think you are the shy one :)
please check out our roadtrip blog :)
http://moroadtrip.us