Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Some great photographers were born into well off families, like Ansel Adams, Alfred Stieglitz, and Henri Cartier-Bresson. Some made a lot of money doing something non-photo related and used that income to do photography, like Salgado. Those of us from middle class backgrounds had the ability to buy some gear but none of the support needed to live for the years it takes to start making money. I've spent a lot of my time studying the history of art (not just photography but all types of art) and I am doing so academically now that I am back in school getting my masters degree. It is interesting and saddening to see how many artists were supported by wealthy families most of their lives. In modern times those from more modest backgrounds had little chance. -- Chris Crawford Fine Art Photography Fort Wayne, Indiana 260-424-0897 http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work! On 3/11/10 10:43 PM, "Vince Passaro" <passaro.vince at gmail.com> wrote: > Eugene Smith -- who, you might remember from an earlier thread, used five > or > six cameras at a time on a shoot if he could, mounted with lenses ranging > from the very wide to the longest available -- frequently after he quit > Life > Mag found himself with no cameras and all of them in hock and he would go > around and find people to give him the money to get them out again. He lost > more than a few this way. > > Was he enough of a real photographer? > > Sometimes, especially when others are relying on you, you do what you have > to do. No part of one's work or one's equipment remains sacred in the face > of a child. You'd have to turn away from that face in order to think it so. > And many artists do that -- including Gene Smith, whose work was paramount > to him, making him quit a good job and leave a good family too. But he sold > off and pawned equipment many times when the wolf was finally sitting on > the > studio floor checking his watch. The idea that art -- serious art -- is > good > for people makes me laugh. It's more like Sherman's March. > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > > >> Apparently I don't view my photo gear as liquid part of my net worth. Its >> a >> solid. In 33.3 years as a photographer with most my friends being >> photographers and this was the real world before the internet but we did >> have the Shutterbug I cant think of somebody who sold off a bulk of >> their >> gear because they was having "a slow year". I'm sure it must have >> happened; >> I just cant think of an example. >> >> I did have a few friends who loved to buy and sell or trade cameras back >> and >> forth but I think they thought of better excuses to do so. Like "it was >> not >> so sharp in the corners". "the canons have better shift lenes - I'm >> trading in all my Nikons for Canons.". >> If always having new gear is the point then we can pick any excuse we want >> to to justify that And the rest of us can all pretend we believe it. >> Cameras are not money. >> >> >> [Rabs] >> Mark William Rabiner >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information