4 ms·

So social media is good for marketing, but bad for true creatives trying to be innovative. That makes sense. I've heard a lot of film makers and authors who d

So social media is good for marketing, but bad for true creatives trying to be innovative. That makes sense. I've heard a lot of film makers and authors who don't really watch movies or read others books so that they voice will be unaffected and stay unique.

skilled 8y ago
I resonate with the last statement. When I write, I want to avoid ALL similar writing just so I can work with pure inspiration.
leejo 8y ago
> So social media is good for marketing, but bad for true creatives trying to be innovative. I dunno, there is some interesting and innovative work being posted to the likes of Instagram, etc, you just don't see it so much in the explore feed or hear about it outside of the fine art photographic circles because it's not the kind of work that attracts tens of thousands of followers. The original post, somewhat ironically cross-posted to the largest photographic news and blog post aggregator on the web today, seems to be more a case of redefining success at a tangent to what social media defines as success. There are plenty of photographers making a good steady living doing what they do without worrying about follower count, likes, or getting on the content treadmill. Arguably they have found success within their photographic niche. If you're really trying to make it as a photographer you're probably concentrating more on calls for work, portfolio reviews, attending seminars/retreats, building a body of work, networking with those in the art world who can get your work in front of the "right" people, personal projects, long term ideas, and so on. Social media won't help you achieve those things. It seems that the author had the revelation that success on social media (from a photographic point of view) is more an indication of how good you are at marketing yourself and not necessarily how good you are[1] as a photographer. Another example is YouTube, there are dozens of very popular photography channels run by photographers that produce mediocre, uninteresting work. That's not a bad thing, per se, but if it redefines what "success" is as a photographer to those who go purely by follower counts, etc then, well, who knows? An analogy would be Red Bull: a hugely successful marketing company that happens to also produce really awful soft drinks. I should probably turn this into a blog post... [1] Beyond the realms of the boring technicalities i should say. There are countless photographers creating technically excellent, beautifully composed, utterly mundane work.
- NovaS1X 8y ago
  >Beyond the realms of the boring technicalities i should say. There are countless photographers creating technically excellent, beautifully composed, utterly mundane work. This is the real definition of success in my opinion. A few years in, pleasing composition and technical prowess is not exactly hard anymore. To create something with meaning, or a real story behind it, that's the meat of photography. I'm at this point now, and I hate it. I'm creating beautiful photos of nothing. I think the author is seeing this too however. Social media encourages you to make frequent, beautiful compositions that fit your brand or style, and that often compromises the soul of your work. If you're thinking about how your photo will fit on your feed, then you're victim of this anti-creative pattern of thinking, if your intention is to create meaningful, personal work.
  - dbcurtis 8y ago
    Certainly you have something to say photographically. Keep seeking. Recall that the big names are all remembered for a tiny fraction of their work. Ansel Adams is remembered for approximately 40 photographs, out of a lifetime of art images and countless advertising photos from his commercial business that paid the bills. Weston, Eisenstadt, Cartier-Bresson, Karsh, we remember them for a fraction of their output. As you point out, social media rewards what people want to hear/see, not whatever it is you have to say. Mastery of craft should serve articulating the message, and the message must come from within, not serve someone else’s utility function.

skilled 8y ago

I resonate with the last statement. When I write, I want to avoid ALL similar writing just so I can work with pure inspiration.

leejo 8y ago

> So social media is good for marketing, but bad for true creatives trying to be innovative. I dunno, there is some interesting and innovative work being posted to the likes of Instagram, etc, you just don't see it so much in the explore feed or hear about it outside of the fine art photographic circles because it's not the kind of work that attracts tens of thousands of followers. The original post, somewhat ironically cross-posted to the largest photographic news and blog post aggregator on the web today, seems to be more a case of redefining success at a tangent to what social media defines as success. There are plenty of photographers making a good steady living doing what they do without worrying about follower count, likes, or getting on the content treadmill. Arguably they have found success within their photographic niche. If you're really trying to make it as a photographer you're probably concentrating more on calls for work, portfolio reviews, attending seminars/retreats, building a body of work, networking with those in the art world who can get your work in front of the "right" people, personal projects, long term ideas, and so on. Social media won't help you achieve those things. It seems that the author had the revelation that success on social media (from a photographic point of view) is more an indication of how good you are at marketing yourself and not necessarily how good you are[1] as a photographer. Another example is YouTube, there are dozens of very popular photography channels run by photographers that produce mediocre, uninteresting work. That's not a bad thing, per se, but if it redefines what "success" is as a photographer to those who go purely by follower counts, etc then, well, who knows? An analogy would be Red Bull: a hugely successful marketing company that happens to also produce really awful soft drinks. I should probably turn this into a blog post... [1] Beyond the realms of the boring technicalities i should say. There are countless photographers creating technically excellent, beautifully composed, utterly mundane work.

NovaS1X 8y ago
>Beyond the realms of the boring technicalities i should say. There are countless photographers creating technically excellent, beautifully composed, utterly mundane work. This is the real definition of success in my opinion. A few years in, pleasing composition and technical prowess is not exactly hard anymore. To create something with meaning, or a real story behind it, that's the meat of photography. I'm at this point now, and I hate it. I'm creating beautiful photos of nothing. I think the author is seeing this too however. Social media encourages you to make frequent, beautiful compositions that fit your brand or style, and that often compromises the soul of your work. If you're thinking about how your photo will fit on your feed, then you're victim of this anti-creative pattern of thinking, if your intention is to create meaningful, personal work.
- dbcurtis 8y ago
  Certainly you have something to say photographically. Keep seeking. Recall that the big names are all remembered for a tiny fraction of their work. Ansel Adams is remembered for approximately 40 photographs, out of a lifetime of art images and countless advertising photos from his commercial business that paid the bills. Weston, Eisenstadt, Cartier-Bresson, Karsh, we remember them for a fraction of their output. As you point out, social media rewards what people want to hear/see, not whatever it is you have to say. Mastery of craft should serve articulating the message, and the message must come from within, not serve someone else’s utility function.