civilized ku # 872 ~ on idiocracies and confederacies of dunces, pt II
Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:55AM 
Dining room window view ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenYesterday, while pursuing the picture maker blog-o-sphere, I came across a link to an incredibly inane and idiotic (see entry above re: my crankiness) "discussion" about what constitutes a "real" photographer. FYI, I am providing no links to the either of the blogs simply because I don't wish to start a flame war with the opinions I am about to express in ...
Encounter/exhibit # 2 (see above entry for # 1) - Granting that the originator of the idiotic idea that there are "real" photographer as opposed to ... what? ... "unreal" / non-real photographers? ... may simply be the victim of his/her own ineptitude, re: the use of the word "real", I still don't understand what purpose is served by attempting to determine what it is that makes a picture maker a "real" photographer as opposed to ... ??????
I mean, get real. A photographer is a person who makes/takes pictures with a camera (or some other still image capture device).
Assuming that the person in question is an actual human being and not, say, a replicant - although apparently even replicants have a relationship to/with photographs (as a part of creating "memories"), I would conclude that every person who makes/takes pictures with a camera is a "real" photographer.
Perhaps this idea of "real" vs not "real" comes from the idea that, picturing making wise, the wheat needs to separated from the chaff, although, for what purpose I don't know. That, in order to be consider as "real", a picture maker must conform to certain standards (and 11 conditions/characteristics are suggested) that denote "seriousness", that is, a requisite and demonstrable seriousness of intent to make good/great pictures.
In response to this idiotic idea, some have suggested that the difference between "real" and non-real is not the point. That the "real" point is the what constitutes the distinction between good photographers and bad photographers.
However, IMO, whatever the idea, the entire concept is utter hogwash, completely inane, and a total waste of time.
No matter the "real"ness or seriousness any given picture maker may possess, if he/she is making pictures with a camera, he/she is a real photographer.
It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker's pictures are judged to be "good" or "bad", he/she is a real photographer.
It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker makes pictures with a M/mickey M/mouse (literally/ figuratively) camera or the latest/greatest techno picture making gadget in the universe, he/she is a real photographer.
It doesn't matter what techniques are employed or what effort it required to make a picture, whoever made it is a real photographer.
It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker's pictures get noticed or not, he/she is a real photographer.
And, the idea that there are rules, characteristics, or traits that define what is or is not a real / serious / successful / photographer or that those rules, characteristics, or traits are what picture makers should aspire to in order to gain "real"ness, be deemed "serious", or judged to be "good" or "bad" is so far off the mark of what it is to be a photographer that, IMO, it qualifies as little more than senseless navel gazing when, in fact, one should be gazing at the world around him/herself and be making pictures.
In short, just get on with making pictures and, in that pursuit, being the best that you can, want, or need to be.
Really. I'm serious.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: photoman (no link provided) wrote: "Too bad you are such an a--hole. I'll never vist your site again."
Featured Comment: Juha Haataja wrote: "Good discussion ..."
my response: it's a split decision.
Reader Comments (4)
I thought you had to have a Canon 1DsMk17 and surpass 50 pounds of lenses around your neck to be a real photographer? Or that you had to take pictures of sullen young teenagers in foggy landscapes or 1970's living rooms. You mean you don't?
Too bad you are such an a--hole. I'll never vist your site again.
Mark, I think you are being too harsh in your assessment of the "Real photography" blog entry.
I've read the blog entry in question and it's clear to me the author is trying to formulate an idea. His use of the word "real" and the 11 bullet-points are a first attempt and open to debate. He asks for discussion / debate.
In the comments section (not the main post) the author states:
"Ultimately I'd like to know what makes certain photographer's work stand out from others, whether they were unknown during their lives like Vivian Maier or extremely well known like Steve McCurry? What do the best have in common?"
I believe the above paragraph would have been a better starting point for the blog entry. It would probably have altered his criteria as well, not to mention dropping the word "real"!
The last sentence in your post is quite telling as well:
"In short, just get on with making pictures and, in that pursuit, being the best that you can, want, or need to be."
Perhaps your are implying [sub-consciously] that a photographer needs to be engaged in some sort of "pursuit" or process of continuous improvement (however relaxed or frantic that may be).
Good discussion. This was to the point, as Sven W mentioned: "In short, just get on with making pictures and, in that pursuit, being the best that you can, want, or need to be." Indeed!