Ted, So you’re comparing an Irving Penn still life, or B/W portrait, to these Schoeller images?

And in the Penn analogy, to me, somehow the concept of time passing seems involved. To be able to have the luxury of looking back forty years, and then pulling out that Penn image (that was originally shot as a job), seems more OK than putting that Schoeller stuff in a gallery, when it was in GQ or something, only eighteen months ago.

I admitted up front that it was my issue, and that I might be wrong. I just feel like, when it was an assigned job, with however little money involved, it was still a JOB, and somehow, that taints it, corrupts it even. Once it’s a job, it needs to stay a job. You’re either a commercial photographer, (who receives commission money), or you’re a fine artist, who uses his own money to finance his work.

I like that (supposed) Gregory Crewdson story. No idea if it’s even true. I just like it. Supposedly, he does his first commercial job, a job for Six Feet Under, and then after enduring the bullshit factor of their demands, swears off commercial work forever, and goes back to doing his own self financed work. Whether or not it’s true, I just love the story.

It’s about your Motivation. Where you come from with the work. To me, there’s a very clear line in the sand between the two. But hey, that’s just me.

I also remember seeing a Nadav Kander image in a gallery in Chelsea. It was from a job. Just really felt icky to me, hanging in a group show, next to other personal work. I know, I know — “It’s all about the image”, but to me, it’s not.

What is AMISS

Here is a great quote from the article:”WE ARE LIVING THROUGH A PROTRACTED EPIDEMIC OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTWORKS AND DOCUMENTS. A BORDER IS BEING BLURRED”

Seems pretty relevant to me. Enjoy. HT to JM Colberg.

INNER LIFE/

Whatever you want to call it:

Spirit, Intelligence , SOUL :

Photography will always hearken back to these values..

This is so aggressively sterile

and has a “flash in the pan ” span….

the images are strong; yet, for some reason, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to “port it over” to another type of venue, (maybe just because a gallery owner thought he could sell some prints), or maybe because the photographer thought that calling it art would help his resume?

i swear to god, i’m trying not to sound negative, even though this clearly is negative. i just think a commercial guy is a commercial guy; and a fine artist is a fine artist. or, if the commercial guy wants to walk away from the business for a few months, and do something entirely NEW, in a new style, then maybe that would be ok. but to just recycle commercial work in a gallery just makes me feel a bit icky.

i feel the same way when i see an annie liebovitz image, (shot for VF), hanging in an art gallery, with a mat around it, in a frame. it just does not feel right. IT WAS A JOB. LET IT BE A JOB.

to me, it’s about the Motivation. Once an image starts as a job, or even a style starts as a job, i just think it needs to stay a job. it needs to stay in the commercial realm. you can’t “port it over” to another type of market. (well, obviously, you can, but to me, you risk blowing your credibility).

just one opinion. i’m sure martin schoeller is a fine person, and i wish him the best. i just know, when i read this, i sorta downgraded him a bit, in my mental rolodex.

or, maybe the line is getting blurred so much, between ny magazines, and ny galleries, that there is no hard-and-fast distinction any longer. maybe it just about “promotion and sales” now, no matter where it comes from.

i admit, i am certainly old-school in this line of thinking. i admit it.