The effect of schedule compression on risk and creativity is well documented in the field of Information Technology. Books like “The Mythical Man-Month” and “Surviving the Death March” reveal the fallacies that create this paradigm, but they do not fully succeed in revealing how death marching destroys creative thinking.

In IT, creative thinking is often an elegant sauce on a main course of grunt work, but in photo editing as well as graphic design in general, it is part of the meat, per se.

Further, deadline compression increases the incestuous regionalism and faddishness that passes for (and often defines) the au currant. It finally filters down to regional markets, whose ‘edgy’ work looks horribly dated before it it leaves the light table.

Like the photographer’s need to avoid being pigeon-holed and then eventually being made irrelevant, the designer/editor must look away from what the cultural trance is fascinated by, to other ideas, images, and memes that are compelling on their own face. The creative dynamo gets spun in the office, but the magnets that resist it and the wires that carry the current come from the world around you and beyond you.

You need to fight back against the tug toward death marching. That way leads to greater mediocrity. And while no one thinks badly of a mediocre programmer, mediocre visual products get blown away by the first paradigm breaker who gets a clear shot.

Dynasties ossify and break. Only stuff with real live sap running through it survives the April storms. The fact that you are being squeezed only makes the need to refresh your eyes and broaden your scope more compelling.

Just my .01’s worth.

What is more interesting is the initial recognition that someone or something receives (before the “success” phase), which I believe comes from a small group of like-minded influential people who wield all the power — those so-called “gatekeepers”.

In the case of cinema, it might be different than photography because “success” is almost aways determined by box office sales. In photography, “success” is more determined by landing prominent gigs, a show at an important gallery, etc. It is almost always not determined by popular consensus (with the exception of internet celebrities).

Of course you could argue that cinema operates under the same rules if you consider that the gatekeepers are the producers who really decide which people to hire for a likely “blockbuster”, but that is another conversation.

Anyway, I believe that in photography, it is good to look at someone’s earliest work, just prior to or at the point of initial recognition, free from contagions, influence of gatekeepers, or any of the other factors that start the self-perpetuating cycle of success. That is where you can really tell how they were “interesting.”

I didn’t mean to reinvent the the wheel every month, just change the tread
accordingly.

anyway, isn’t this the economic theory for an open market?

“Magazines come out monthly or quarterly.
Each issue should NEW and interesting.”

———

Dream on. In an ideal world, yes. But in this modern world, each magazine is a “brand”, just like Pottern Barn, or Pier One, or Taco Bell, or Starbucks.

You flip thru Vanity Fair — they sell ads, based on dependability of the look of the product. Same for Martha Stewart Living, or InStyle, or W, or Dwell. In a way, it’s based on NOT surprising the reader. It’s about repeatability, month after month. Of course, each issue should be “new and interesting”, but only so far as the same reader demographic is offered new clothing, accessories, or perfume that’s within their brand range.

Trust me, Annie and Seliger and Norman Roy are a commodity. Even Roversi and Meisel. It’s kinda nasty to think about, but in that hard-core money world of advertising sales, they certainly are. They will continue to bring home the “visually accepted bacon”, month and after month, that fits within that brand.

Once value has been ascribed to a piece of art or to an artist good luck changing that perception. Those artists that have been chosen for whatever reason, wether good or bad, timeless or not will remain well know or valued precisely because they are economically valuable, in part.

A self perpetrating myth is created over time to uphold the work as important, worthy of its price tag. Over time much of the artistic importance give way to economic importance.

The only way “important” artist are dethroned over time are societal cataclysms like wars or the destruction of the art itself or its patrons. Once that happens it lives in the imagination and the myth becomes the story itself, generating value as a story in fiction, popular culture or economically successful story telling.

Investments, especially artistic ones are fiercely protected because they very much unlike stocks and bonds, they are not nearly as capricious as the vagaries of economic conflagrations, quite the opposite.

With artistic success comes value and with success comes the story to reinforce and justify that value to secure and reinforce it. Entire institutions are created for that single purpose, some are called museums, others are call endowments…..etc…. Wether they choose to see themselves partially in that light is a matter of honest discussion.

Multiply this principle by a million on a micro and macro level and there you are.

pssst I’m a artist pass it along.

Networking for the win.

It goes far beyond photography, to the heart of all fashion, and consumption. Plus I am *very* impressed by your personal reading. ;>)

I see folks here complain about the commonality of the work they see in magazines. I think your analysis previously was right on in terms of who you are willing to hire. It applies to *any* kind of risk analysis, as your quote above applies to any kind of consumption:

[I] “where x is the cost of plane ticket and hotel and y is the chance a photographer already living there whos work you like will fail and z is the cost of a reshoot” [/I]

I would turn the question of “Visually Acceptable” photography around, though, and ask which magazines you and others think *are* worth looking at?

I have a list of more than 50 I would like to subscribe to. Many are from the UK or Europe. I really enjoy (some of) the work I see in them. At the start of every year I review the list and decide which to subscribe to. Some from my current list:

Exit, Big, Wad, Qvest, Another Magazine, Dazed and Confused, Zoo Germany, Metro Pop, Surface, Flaunt, Zink, Blind Spot, Hobo, and Crash.

FWIW, I have chronic back pain and can’t fly anywhere. I am going back to fine art photography to do exactly what I want to do. ;>)

Best.

These are two “successful” high demand LA photogs. Personally I don’t think Kwaku is that horrible, but for the love of god Jay S. is just… wait, what would mom say if I finish this sentence:
http://bitterphotographer.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-kwaku-alston-black-jay-silverman.html

Jeff

This is why so many new photographers are willing to give away (or do for darn cheap) the first job in many cases. They want their chance to prove their ability. Creating new images outside of the working sphere, personal work so to speak, can generate interest but it still takes a photo editor or art buyer a good bit more legwork to get the decision makers to take the leap of faith that this photographer can complete a project professionally.

What option do photographers, or any artist for that matter, have other than to create to their own liking and the best of their abilities/situation, hope to get their work noticed, and find a patron to award a job? Great talent does rise, sometimes it just takes longer to be noticed.

NYC is the biggest market in the country and if you want to participate in a big market you have to BE in that market. A lot of these “NYC” photographers live outside NYC. I’m one of those “bicostal” photographers previously mentioned in other threads. Why? Because I want to be in the LA market and there is an open niche there for people who shoot sophisticated images that DON’T pander to the dominant industry there (Celebrity). I didn’t mean to offend anyone with my playful jab at LA, but there is a lack of photographers who don’t do typical pander-to-the-celebrity images in that market. So my clients fly me in quite a bit, of if it’s attractive enough a job, I say “sure I can be in LA on Friday” and I buy a ticket on Jetblue and swallow the cost so I can compete with local photographers.

Get your work out there because most photo editors and art buyers (and especially ones who have a limited ammount of time to produce a shoot) don’t look at local media (if they even have access to local magazines from Anchorage or Muskogee or wherever) so you have to be visible in the NYC (or LA in my case) market.