Wow, it is the end of a decade (yes I know the decade officially starts 2011) a lot has happened in the last 10 years. I have lived in at least 11 places, worked for 7 companies, and generally embraced change.
The world outside has embraced this change as well. In the technology arena we have seen the emergence of ipods and cheap, portable computers. Politically the world has seen turmoil and huge changes. Socially we are much more connected via email, internet sites, and cell phones. We are arguably changing faster than ever before in history. Pretty amazing actually...
In this upcoming decade, I hope to get my photography to come into its own, both as a business and as an artistic expression. My two children will be growing up and starting their own lives. I am looking forward to it.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
New Photos
Yes, I know, I don't write here very much. A lot of things have been happening. I have started a new job, which has been a huge challenge (and eats a lot of time...) but I have been trying to get out to photograph.
Some of my photos are on my website at http:klughammer.dnsalias.com. Please have a look, and rate them...
Some of my photos are on my website at http:klughammer.dnsalias.com. Please have a look, and rate them...
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Legal Mumbo Jumbo
I found this on Slashdot as a comment on legaleas:
I think I will just have a coffee...
This is like describing cup of coffee as a "insulating ceramic material vessel for the transportation of central nervous system-stimulant-laden liquids of temperatures approaching gradual evaporation adapted to both manipulation and imbibation for the purposes of maximum early-hours alertness and/or circadian rhythm modulation."
I think I will just have a coffee...
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Moving
So I have moved into my new place. It is a bit smaller than my last place, but nicer (except for all the damn boxes waiting to be unpacked...) Some day I will be able to get out and get some photography done...
Oh, and go Canucks...
Oh, and go Canucks...
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Artist Copyright
I have been thinking a bit lately about copyright. Specifically, the use of others' art to create new art. South of the border, the US seems very concerned and protective about copyright, especially music, movie, and software copyright, with RIAA, MPAA, WTFAA, etc suing everyone they can drag into court.
In the fine art world, copying a work is considered an honour to the original artist. Homage to ...
In fact, when you get right down to it, all art is based to some degree on what has come before. We all learn from the masters, and hopefully extrapolate so the next generation can build on what we have done.
Maybe this is the attraction for me of open source software. Any programmer can build on what has been done before, Thus learning from the talent (and mistakes) of the previous generation.
In the music world, there seems to be a real dichotomy. On the one hand, it is illegal to copy music. You can be sued for exorbitant sums for downloading one song from the internet. On the other hand, a lot of "artists" blatantly copy songs from a couple of generations ago, yet they add little to the original. Of course there are exceptions to this. If it didn't spoil my argument, I might even say many, if not most renditions are unique.
As an artist myself, I don't want anyone using my work as their own, however I would be pretty excited if someone wanted to use one of my photographs as a starting point to build an image of their own. (of course depending if I like the resultant image, and there is the rub...) I want to maintain control of my creations, but the reason I take photos is to share my vision of the world. If someone else were to use my images in a compilation, I would like to see what they could do, but I also think I would want a percentage of any money they make from the image.
I guess there isn't an easy answer.
but after all that, I still want to share my vision. Here is an image I took recently at Francis King park.
In the fine art world, copying a work is considered an honour to the original artist. Homage to ...
In fact, when you get right down to it, all art is based to some degree on what has come before. We all learn from the masters, and hopefully extrapolate so the next generation can build on what we have done.
Maybe this is the attraction for me of open source software. Any programmer can build on what has been done before, Thus learning from the talent (and mistakes) of the previous generation.
In the music world, there seems to be a real dichotomy. On the one hand, it is illegal to copy music. You can be sued for exorbitant sums for downloading one song from the internet. On the other hand, a lot of "artists" blatantly copy songs from a couple of generations ago, yet they add little to the original. Of course there are exceptions to this. If it didn't spoil my argument, I might even say many, if not most renditions are unique.
As an artist myself, I don't want anyone using my work as their own, however I would be pretty excited if someone wanted to use one of my photographs as a starting point to build an image of their own. (of course depending if I like the resultant image, and there is the rub...) I want to maintain control of my creations, but the reason I take photos is to share my vision of the world. If someone else were to use my images in a compilation, I would like to see what they could do, but I also think I would want a percentage of any money they make from the image.
I guess there isn't an easy answer.
but after all that, I still want to share my vision. Here is an image I took recently at Francis King park.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
What goes wrong on photoshoots
I was reading here about troubles on location shoots...
I have one better...
I used to do a bit of fashion photography and I had one client who produced a catalogue every year. On one shoot we were in a tropical garden (Crystal Gardens. Doesn't exist any more. I think it got turned into a casino....). Anyway, there were a half dozen or so female models, the client, me and my assistant. As I was composing a shot, I backed into a light stand and tore the seat out of my jeans. I had backup cameras, backup lights, but no backup pants. And for those of you that don't know the meaning of commando, lets just say it was not a dignified position. But the show must go on. We finished the shoot, and after the catalogue was produced I am sure a lot of people wondered why all the models has such laughter in their eyes...
I have one better...
I used to do a bit of fashion photography and I had one client who produced a catalogue every year. On one shoot we were in a tropical garden (Crystal Gardens. Doesn't exist any more. I think it got turned into a casino....). Anyway, there were a half dozen or so female models, the client, me and my assistant. As I was composing a shot, I backed into a light stand and tore the seat out of my jeans. I had backup cameras, backup lights, but no backup pants. And for those of you that don't know the meaning of commando, lets just say it was not a dignified position. But the show must go on. We finished the shoot, and after the catalogue was produced I am sure a lot of people wondered why all the models has such laughter in their eyes...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
15 minutes of 1000 fans
I just read TOP's discussion of 1000 True Fans. I agree with John Scalzi's comments, by the time you can get "1000 true fans" you already have a (untrue?) fanbase well in excess of 1000, or even more likely, 100,000.
I probably have close to 1000 people who enjoy my photography, and maybe even follow what I am doing on this blog, my home website, or my deviant art page. From all these people, I have no "true fans". I haven't made a cent directly from these sites (yet...) But do I resent this? Not at all, in fact I think it is very cool that some people like what I am doing. It lets me show off what I am doing. It gives me an outlet for my creativity.
The concept of subscribers paying a yearly fee is very much a double edged sword. If you are being paid to produce work, you are expected to produce work of the same type and caliber as your previous work. Experimentation becomes much more dangerous.
To illustrate what I think this means, I will use two successful Canadian photographers as examples.
Freeman Patterson has always been an inspiration for me. In my view, he has stayed true to his "artistic vision" (for want of a better term). He does make his living from photography and design, but he still pushes his personal envelope. I hope I am not putting words in his mouth, but I see him as enjoying photography first and foremost. The money and business are secondary. If no one else enjoyed his vision (blatantly impossible, his photography is amazing...) I think he would still be out crawling through grass taking photos of spider webs...
Another talented photographer who I will not mention by name, uses photography as a means to an end. I was at a lecture of his once, right after the release of another of his books. He was recounting a story of a cab ride between interviews. He suddenly asked the cabbie to stop. He stepped out of the car and took a photo. When he got back in the cabbie asked him if he got a good shot. His reply was along the lines of "Not really, but someone will buy it."
I am not saying one of these approaches is better than the other. One stresses "success" as an artist, the other, financial success.
The "1000 True Fans" strategy encourages the second approach. You are producing work for a financial end. Your motivation is to please your existing clientèle because they have already paid you. I think most portrait and commercial photographers already subscribe to this model. Most studios I know have a base of repeat customers that make up a large part of their income.
I guess the bottom line is, What is most important to you? Money or freedom? It is very difficult to have both...
This reminds me of an old joke:
A man approaches a hot dog vendor and notices there are two prices for hot dogs.
"what is the difference?" asks the hungry man.
"If you choose the less expensive hot dog, I mutter "cheapskate" under my breath."
If you send me $100 a year, I promise I will produce more work. However if you don't send $100, I will still produce the same artwork, I will just mutter "cheapskate" under my breath...
.
I probably have close to 1000 people who enjoy my photography, and maybe even follow what I am doing on this blog, my home website, or my deviant art page. From all these people, I have no "true fans". I haven't made a cent directly from these sites (yet...) But do I resent this? Not at all, in fact I think it is very cool that some people like what I am doing. It lets me show off what I am doing. It gives me an outlet for my creativity.
The concept of subscribers paying a yearly fee is very much a double edged sword. If you are being paid to produce work, you are expected to produce work of the same type and caliber as your previous work. Experimentation becomes much more dangerous.
To illustrate what I think this means, I will use two successful Canadian photographers as examples.
Freeman Patterson has always been an inspiration for me. In my view, he has stayed true to his "artistic vision" (for want of a better term). He does make his living from photography and design, but he still pushes his personal envelope. I hope I am not putting words in his mouth, but I see him as enjoying photography first and foremost. The money and business are secondary. If no one else enjoyed his vision (blatantly impossible, his photography is amazing...) I think he would still be out crawling through grass taking photos of spider webs...
Another talented photographer who I will not mention by name, uses photography as a means to an end. I was at a lecture of his once, right after the release of another of his books. He was recounting a story of a cab ride between interviews. He suddenly asked the cabbie to stop. He stepped out of the car and took a photo. When he got back in the cabbie asked him if he got a good shot. His reply was along the lines of "Not really, but someone will buy it."
I am not saying one of these approaches is better than the other. One stresses "success" as an artist, the other, financial success.
The "1000 True Fans" strategy encourages the second approach. You are producing work for a financial end. Your motivation is to please your existing clientèle because they have already paid you. I think most portrait and commercial photographers already subscribe to this model. Most studios I know have a base of repeat customers that make up a large part of their income.
I guess the bottom line is, What is most important to you? Money or freedom? It is very difficult to have both...
This reminds me of an old joke:
A man approaches a hot dog vendor and notices there are two prices for hot dogs.
"what is the difference?" asks the hungry man.
"If you choose the less expensive hot dog, I mutter "cheapskate" under my breath."
If you send me $100 a year, I promise I will produce more work. However if you don't send $100, I will still produce the same artwork, I will just mutter "cheapskate" under my breath...
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
