The Art of Photography?

[Mike Farley]

The story of one man's attempt to break into the fine art photography market. And what he found when he started knocking on doors.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/08/08/qu ... #more-9222

[davidc]

An interesting article. Although his account of what happened when trying to break into the fine art market is no doubt accurate and perhaps, sadly, all too common, in the end I found myself unsurprised by the opinions of the galleries he approached. I looked at his photos first rather than dive into the text and thought they were all very solid examples of photographer's images with the possible except of the man & lady at the table. I can see instantly why he took them and I bet everyone here has done something similar too - the first image on the article actually reminded me of something from a club exhibition though I can't remember the photographer responsible! I'm not surprised they aren't picked up as fine art images though, they're extremely generic and what all photographers everywhere do at some point - essentially the dictionary definition of a photographer's image Nice to look at for a few seconds but would you spend thousands to put one on a wall? Would anyone? Probably not. (Though let's not forget the nonsense of Rhine II and Peter Lik!)

So when I read the article after seeing his pictures although I initially felt a little sorry for him, by the end I think his hurt-and-upset reaction was feeling more like an "I was rejected but hey, what do they know and I shoot for MYSELF, screw them!" eulogy. At one stage it's not his fault, it's that people don't know what art is, the next is a rail against an x-factor style "fine art is too consumer driven" market. Erm, yes? Consumers buy what they want, art buyers buy what consumers want. Quelle surprise? Capping it all off he even finishes with the fact he's come to terms with it and didn't really want to be in the fine art business anyway. Riiiight... so if he DID get picked up and sold for millions, he'd still have written this? Nah, don't buy it.

It's not that I don't disagree with his main sentiment - I 100% believe in shooting for myself first, anyone else liking it is a bonus - but the manner in which he's put it across and the examples of images he thinks are unique/special/groundbreaking enough to be considered art just made me feel like he'd written a reactionary piece because someone snubbed him.

I realize now I've seen things he has written before on other sites but don't ever remember seeing his site, I'll certainly have another look and a deeper read, thanks for bringing him up

[Mike Farley]

An interesting article. Although his account of what happened when trying to break into the fine art market is no doubt accurate and perhaps, sadly, all too common, in the end I found myself unsurprised by the opinions of the galleries he approached. I looked at his photos first rather than dive into the text and thought they were all very solid examples of photographer's images with the possible except of the man & lady at the table. I can see instantly why he took them and I bet everyone here has done something similar too - the first image on the article actually reminded me of something from a club exhibition though I can't remember the photographer responsible! I'm not surprised they aren't picked up as fine art images though, they're extremely generic and what all photographers everywhere do at some point - essentially the dictionary definition of a photographer's image Nice to look at for a few seconds but would you spend thousands to put one on a wall? Would anyone? Probably not. (Though let's not forget the nonsense of Rhine II and Peter Lik!)

Quite possibly what Ming Thein overlooks is that he already earns a good living from his photography, having given up a lucrative career in another industry if his bio is to be believed. He is a photographer's photographer rather than an out and out artist, which allows him to derive part of his income from leading courses in different locations around the world. I am sure many of us would settle for that given the opportunity.

The fine art world, not just photography, is very reputation driven and that is what sells. As an example, just think of those paintings which are bought for comparatively small sums but suddenly leap in value when they are found to be by a well known artist. That does make it a very different market to crack and I am not sure that most jobbing photographers can succeed in both worlds, which is more or less the conclusion to which Thein himself came. Admittedly circumstances have changed over the years with photography becoming more of an accepted medium, but Ansel Adams made very little money in his lifetime from the images for which he is now famous. He had to take on more commercial jobs to scrape a living and it was only in his later years that he became more financially secure.

There is also the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome which is alluded to. That some people buy photographs without understanding them and the work has to be explained is hardly a surprise. Earlier this year, I visited someone with aspirations to succeed in fine art photography. I like to think that I know a reasonable amount about our craft, but honestly I did not understand very much at all of what he babbled on about, nor did I care for much of what he had produced. Still, looking at things like the RPS International Print Exhibition or many of the exhibitions at The Photographers' Gallery, there must be some who like this stuff.

I realize now I've seen things he has written before on other sites but don't ever remember seeing his site, I'll certainly have another look and a deeper read, thanks for bringing him up

He is certainly one of the more interesting, entertaining and prolific bloggers out there, and in particular I find his equipment reviews useful, being based on actual usage rather than more technical analysis. Glad you like him.