[Leica] Fewer PJ outlets. A modest proposal.

[lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

Fewer pages available in fewer publications willing to pay for photos to
order. More and more publications turning to stock photography rather than
original, commissioned photography because stock pictures are accessible and
helps keep costs down. Amateur photographers willing to get paid less than
professional photojournalists, which makes their work that much more
enticing to publications. How shocking!

A while back I attended a seminar for artists in which many of the same
complaints were echoed. There were not enough galleries willing to hang
artist's paintings. There were too many amateur artists (read old ladies who
paint on Sundays). Pre-stretched canvases and acrylic paints made the
technology of art too simple. Photos were taking the place of real painted
portraits.

Substitute a few words and you get the litany of complaints that have
clogged photo web sites the last few years. Auto everything digital cameras
make photography too easy and devalue hard learned skills. Ink jet prints
replace gelatin/silver prints to the detriment of darkroom work. And, of
course the unspoken feeling that "real" photographers work with film in B&W.

In an adjacent room there was a seminar for achieving archival quality in
paintings and prints. Artists want their paintings to last 1000 years just
as photographers want their prints and digital files to be immortal. They,
the artists, and we, the photographers fail to realize that long lasting
works of creation are our worst enemy. Consider the following:

1. There is a limited amount of space to display creative graphic works. For
artists, there have been few new galleries or museums built in the last
decades and of those built, form often takes precedence over display space.
For photographers, the number of publication pages and photo outlets has
decreased markedly over the years.

2. Archival works, both paintings and photos last a very long time, often
many times longer than the person who created them. If the works are good,
museums and galleries that hang them on their walls are reluctant to remove
them. They don't discard Picassos or throw Ansel Adams photos in the trash.
Antiquated photos live forever in stock agencies. Seventy year old photos of
the Great Depression are recycled during every financial crisis.

3. There are far more artists and photographers now than there were in the
50s and 60s. Because of advances in technology it has become easier to
create graphic works of excellent quality. The ability to realize one's
imaginative vision has been placed in the hands of everyman.

4. The consequence of more artists and photographers, limited outlets, and
archival quality is that every modern creative graphic artist is competing
for display space not only with his or her peers but with every artist whose
work survives. As time goes on the competition will get more intense.

The answer is not to bemoan the ease of entry into the field but to minimize
the longevity of art works and photographs. Suppose original paintings and
photos had only a ten year life. Art galleries and museums would have to
replace their holdings every decade. Stock photo collections would find it
hard to exist. Could it be done? Sure. Manufacturers expend great effort to
get paints and inks that won't fade and paper that won't deteriorate. Look
at your old slide collection and you will wonder where the yellow went. Try
turning the pages of a twenty year old newspaper. But we continue to buy the
good stuff for the most trivial of pictures, unable to face the conjoint
facts of our own mortality and that no one will give a damn about our
pictures in 50 years.

I haven't worked out how this will apply to digital media except to make
disc drives, CDs and DVDs self destruct in a few years. But they do that
anyway. Why worry.

Larry Z