Quote of the day

Messages
7,897
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
“I would prefer photography to be a folk art - cheap and available to everybody, rather than elevated to mandarin proportions created through an artificial scarcity.” - Eve Arnold


 
Last edited:
I love a good quote :)

Which for me at least means one I can understand, and unfortunately I don't understand this one as I've no idea what 'mandarin proportions' are, nor how photography could suffer 'artificial scarcity'

Oh, and if it has to be explained was it good?

Maybe I'm just a bit too thick :)

Dave
 
Last edited:
I like Halsman's

"I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for the money."

also

"The word “photography” can be interpreted as “writing with light” or “drawing with light.” Some photographers are producing beautiful photographs by drawing with light.. Some other photographers are trying to tell something with their photographs. They are writing with light"

and also...

"This is the essence of a work of art: that you never touch bottom. If a picture has for everybody exactly the same meaning, it is a platitude, and it is meaningless as a work of art. The same is true for a portrait: if it is not rich in character and meaning, it is a poor portrait"

and also....

"The immortal photographers will be straightforward photographers, those who do not rely on tricks or special techniques"

The one photographer I would love to have had round for dinner.
 
I like Halsman's

"I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for the money."

also

"The word “photography” can be interpreted as “writing with light” or “drawing with light.” Some photographers are producing beautiful photographs by drawing with light.. Some other photographers are trying to tell something with their photographs. They are writing with light"

and also...

"This is the essence of a work of art: that you never touch bottom. If a picture has for everybody exactly the same meaning, it is a platitude, and it is meaningless as a work of art. The same is true for a portrait: if it is not rich in character and meaning, it is a poor portrait"

and also....

"The immortal photographers will be straightforward photographers, those who do not rely on tricks or special techniques"

The one photographer I would love to have had round for dinner.

Now those I understand and like :)

Dave
 
I love a good quote :)

Which for me at least means one I can understand, and unfortunately I don't understand this one as I've no idea what 'mandarin proportions' are, nor how photography could suffer 'artificial scarcity'

Oh, and if it has to be explained was it good?

Maybe I'm just a bit too thick :)

Dave
"Yorkshire born and Yorkshire bred, strong in the arm and weak in the head." - Proverbial saying, mid 19th century. :D
 
“I would prefer photography to be a folk art - cheap and available to everybody, rather than elevated to mandarin proportions created through an artificial scarcity.” - Eve Arnold
well her wish has certainly come true with the smart phone and internet.

never touch bottom.
Great advice, I always try to avoid touching bottoms :D

"The immortal photographers will be straightforward photographers, those who do not rely on tricks or special techniques"
Edward Steichen might disagree
 
I think I disagree with the quote, if I understand it (is she asking for all photography to be dumbed down). I hope photography continues as now with all types photography encouraged and people choosing whatever equipment they wish (or can afford) from pinhole to Leica.

Dave
 
I understand it to mean that some photographers elevate their art by making it expensive, therefore making it artificially scarce to the masses (who can't afford it). She's saying everyone should have access to good photography.

She died in 2012 so right on the cusp of the digital explosion where (to quote Elliot Erwitt) "every man, woman and chimpanzee could be a photographer". It's from a time where the (paid for) print was the final outcome of a photograph. It's not any more. The value of photography has gone through the floor in the last ten years (in my opinion of course!) so I do think she got her wish. There are some photographers still attempting to do this, but they are few and far between I think (Peter Lik).

Hardest thing these days is sorting the wheat from the chaff.
 
I think I disagree with the quote, if I understand it (is she asking for all photography to be dumbed down).
She means the reverse - for everyone to be able to own good photographs.

Are you from Yorkshire too? :giggle:
 
I understand it to mean that some photographers elevate their art by making it expensive, therefore making it artificially scarce to the masses (who can't afford it). She's saying everyone should have access to good photography.

Baa !! I've just had to delete the carefully crafted post I was writing as it just repeated what you had already written.
 
“I would prefer photography to be a folk art - cheap and available to everybody, rather than elevated to mandarin proportions created through an artificial scarcity.” - Eve Arnold
And TBH isn't that a bit rich coming from a Magum agency photographer, aren't agencies exactly about making work scarce or exclusive to drive up the prices
 
And TBH isn't that a bit rich coming from a Magum agency photographer, aren't agencies exactly about making work scarce or exclusive to drive up the prices
I thought Magnum was originally a distribution agency for news photographs, which is about professionals getting paid for their work. It may well have become something different in recent times.
 
In the context of posts already made: "You always have to go too far, to get anywhere in art or life" Francis Bacon.

And also "After I'm dead I would much rather men ask why I have no statue than why I have one." Cato the elder.
 
I thought Magnum was originally a distribution agency for news photographs, which is about professionals getting paid for their work. It may well have become something different in recent times.
But photographers could always sell their photos to news papers or anyone else for that matter. Agencies only provide value if they get more money for the photographer than the photographer could get by themselves and they do that in part by controlling supply and use.
 
But photographers could always sell their photos to news papers or anyone else for that matter. Agencies only provide value if they get more money for the photographer than the photographer could get by themselves and they do that in part by controlling supply and use.
Agencies allow photographers to spend more time doing what they are good at and less time marketing their work. It could be argued that by distributing photographs to news outlets they are disseminating (good) photographs to a wider audience than the photographers probably could.

I don't know if Eve Armold sold limited edition prints or not. If she did I would agree that she was hypocritical with the statement I quoted.

Whatever the case I think £30 for a poster is better value than the tiny prints Magnum have been selling. Especially when the jpegs were easily downloaded and good enough for home printing at the same size. You'd think Magnum would have had a better protected website! :oops: :$

“Make postcards not 'fine prints'." - Dave Lumb 2021 :D
 
But photographers could always sell their photos to news papers or anyone else for that matter. Agencies only provide value if they get more money for the photographer than the photographer could get by themselves and they do that in part by controlling supply and use.
Isn't this a good thing? Photo agencies ensuring that professional photographers are paid the going rate for commercially used photographs.

This seems very different to Eve Arnold's folk art argument.

And for some photographers (e.g. war or conflict photographers ) it would be impossible to be in the field and be in a position to sell photographs of "current" events at the same time. They need to have someone back home to be doing this for them, and from what I have read, few, if any, of them made enough money to finance their own organisation back home and relied very heavily on being signed with an agency to make a living.

I realise that some press type photographs have become iconic and now may well be selling for "art" level prices, but I suspect this is a tiny minority of the pictures that go through a press agency.

On a broader point, being with an agency (press or general photo library) isn't so much about getting more money per picture, but about getting access to a market, that might be difficult or impossible to access as an individual.
 
I'm sure it is but I am having a little difficulty squaring being a member of arguably the most elite photo agency in the world and

But isn't it elite because of the quality of the photographers it employs rather than it being related to specific mechanisms put in place simply to raise a photographs financial value (ie limited editions).
 
For some reason I am reminded of the Billy Bragg album "Talking with the Taxman about poetry"
 
Back
Top