Comments on: Discover and Cultivate Talent

By: Oh Boy

Oh Boy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:53:44 +0000

@Arty Farty, and others,

Hi,

I was lucky to be selected as a winner for this contest. A warm relationship ensued and I felt involved in a larger discussion, understood and honored.

I’m a fine art photographer, I’ve just started showing work in galleries in 2006 after completing a masters program in photography. I’m not a photojournalist, or a fashion photographer. My subject matter isn’t particularly politically correct, I didn’t personally know anyone on the judges’ panel.

It’s disappointing to read some of the comments; that there wasn’t much of a talent pool, or that I (or any of the winners) was a safe bet, it’s who you know, etc. Thanks for the high five.

But my experience with this show has been positive. Hearst could have done 101 other things with their communications budgets, they could have shown known and worthy photography from their archives which I’d imagine would have been easier. But that they decided on the concept of highlighting photographers who are not widely known should be a beacon: for other companies, institutions and galleries like themselves who encourage the infusion of fresh blood into their own and other’s attention spans, and for all the photographers out there like me who are working very hard at making a photograph and hoping that someone is listening.

Yes, a show like this benefits Hearst: in drawing attention to their ability to spot and nurture talent. It’s a cool thing to be known for.

By: Reinfried Marass

Reinfried Marass — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:53:54 +0000

To mark Watanabe as ‘emerging’ is a real downgrade, he should sue ‘em.
Watanabe – rookie of the year, or what ?
If he has luck he will be featured in PDN’s 30 as well ?

Maybe once the Time magazine will run a similar contest and ‘discovering’ Pulitzer price winner Antony Suau (e.g)as ‘photojournalist arising’ ???

By: Mike C.

Mike C. — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:01:30 +0000

@elizabeth avedon,
I think the 10 honorable mentions was an afterthought — a way to acknowledge some of the other outstanding entries. If you read the original press release, it mentions 8 photographers selected by 10 jurors, as in “8 (selected) by 10″. It doesn’t mention anything about honorable mentions.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:37:29 +0000

To everyone bitching about the winners and honorable mentions, get over it. The images all have something in common: they are compelling. So all you “emerging photographers”, stop bitching, get off the interweb, be self critical and produce compelling work that doesn’t suck. You want to be successful? Get that compelling work in front of people who buy photos and stop entering contests. There is an industry of paid contests/consultants/products etc. that feeds on your fear and burning desire to be a “professional” photographer. 8×10 is NOT part of that industry. Don’t think about contests and fear. Stop bitching and start shooting, then shoot some more.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:23:37 +0000

@Arty Farty, you are right about lots of the industry and the whole “emerging photographer” BS, but not the 8×10. The judges and the judging are straight-up.

By: elizabeth avedon

elizabeth avedon — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:32:07 +0000

@Mike C., 1> I thought it was called 8×10 because it’s 8 Winners and 10 Honorable Mentions(see their names on the website)

By: Mike C.

Mike C. — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:38:40 +0000

A few things:
1. The show was called 8×10 because there were 8 photographers selected by 10 judges.
2. I think the term “emerging” is getting thrown around a lot. The fact is, I don’t think Hearst intentionally excluded people who have already “emerged” (whatever that means). I think Hearst tried to create a show of the best of the work that was submitted. Without question, a lot of the artists on the list have extensive resumes and accomplishments (representation, publications, exhibitions, etc.) — Watanabe, Prior, Dunville — but who cares?
3. I don’t think there was a conspiracy amongst the divergent group of judges (who probably all judged the work independently, anyway) to intentionally exclude fashion photographers (or any other segment or genre of photographers) unilaterally. Call me an optimist, but I believe that they all probably just wanted the best work in the show in general (after all, there names are at stake here, too).
4. Personally I really like the selection. And even if I didn’t, I still would applaud Hearst for doing this. (I think these things are always controversial. Even the Whitney can’t do a Biennial without polarizing tons of people.)

By: phototktk

phototktk — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:59:28 +0000

@A Photo Editor,
That being said, they may have done the best with what they got. Who is to say, without having been one of the judges? It’s all behind closed doors anyway.

But, maybe the publicity of the contest just wasn’t in the right places to reach more emerging people.

By: phototktk

phototktk — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:53:05 +0000

@A Photo Editor,
The premise behind the creation of the contest is noble/admirable and the roster of judges is impressive, but the selection choices fall short of achieving the goal. As I didn’t enter this contest, I don’t know if there was additional eligibility criteria beyond what is now available on the site: “Hearst 8 X 10 Photography Biennial will be open to photographers who have at least two years of professional experience, both in the United States and abroad.” That could be about 90% of the photo community. Generally, contests to find valid “emerging” photographers set and enforce more strict rules about *who* is considered “emerging” (i.e. you can’t have a rep, you can’t be with a gallery, you can’t have been published before, etc.). “A Fan” and “Mark” are quite correct: I wouldn’t consider many of these people emerging.

(But, as a side note: even if I did, the list doesn’t thrill me.)

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:37:45 +0000

I agree Hearst deserves some credit for sponsoring the competition — at least it wasn’t one of those money grab things where you have to pay to enter. But the real proof of Hearst’s desire to uncover new talent will be if they choose some of the winning photographers to do real (i.e., paying market rates) shoots for Hearst magazines. Otherwise the contest is more of a Hearst promotional vehicle than a real talent search.

I have to agree with what others have said — some of the winners aren’t all that unknown. So the Hearst winner selections seem kind of “safe.” But congratulations to the winners nonetheless. It’s good visibility.

By: Arty Farty

Arty Farty — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:27:33 +0000

@Steven Rood, Exactly. Doesn’t this just go to show that in the great majority of this industry its who you’re connected with and not what you can do that get’s you a leg up.

What a load of old tosh!

By: elizabeth avedon

elizabeth avedon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:43:58 +0000

@Darrell Eager, Maybe you combined him with Andy Grundberg, photography critic for NY Times, Aperture, etc.

By: Steven Rood

Steven Rood — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:42:08 +0000

@A Photo Editor

Nice.

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:38:19 +0000

@Steven Rood,
Too much whining about a contest that Hearst created to give some exposure to photographers they think are hot and who they’ve never heard of. Simply pathetic.

By: Edoardo Pasero

Edoardo Pasero — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:17:01 +0000

you forgot to put watanabe in your names list. anyway, loved the selection even if I have to say that is really hard to think at them as “emerging”, but again, interesting to see where the trend is going

By: Darrell Eager

Darrell Eager — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:42:10 +0000

Your right, my bad. Andy Freeberg. But now I’m wondering who Andy Greenberg is.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:27:26 +0000

@Darrell Eager,
Who’s Andy Greenberg?

By: Steven Rood

Steven Rood — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 03:02:38 +0000

@A Photo Editor

I’m with Mark and A Fan on this one. There are some recognizable names here. Hiroshi Watanabe won Photolucida a couple years ago, had a book published and is on the roster of several fine art galleries. I own his book. This contest is a crock. If the contest was designed to search out emerging talent, the winners should be new to the industry, not to the magazine. Period. This is just another case of a promotional handjob by a publisher trying to improve its image and wanting to work with certain talent under the guise of a contest.

By: Mark M

Mark M — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:55:27 +0000

@A Photo Editor
I agree (strongly) that it’s cool that people are looking for good work, especially people who are in a position to promote the work. My point is simply that if you are going to have a competition to discover emerging talent, then discover emerging talent. Otherwise just dispense with this trendy ‘emerging photographers’ business.

My Penn example is only as ridiculous as the idea that new is equivalent to “we’ve never published it.”

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:25:05 +0000

@Mark M,
I think you’re being ultra bitchy about it. The judges include 4 big name photographers, the editor of Esquire, a couple curators and a couple communications people at Hearst.

The fact that they don’t know a couple photographers (who’s work I’m vaguely familiar with so we’re not talking about household names here like your ridiculous Penn example) who you claim are well-known has nothing to do with “insular little worlds” people live in but rather how little time people have to discover new talent and how cool it is they’ve taken the time to try and do so.

Believe me I know exactly where you are headed with this and the industry doesn’t work the way you think it does.

By: Mark M

Mark M — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:54:54 +0000

@A Photo Editor, I’m with ‘A Fan’ here. There are some well-known names on this list. That they don’t know them, consider them ‘emerging,’ and think that they have ‘discovered’ some of these artists that have been quite well known for a while speaks volumes of the insular little word they live in. I’m sorry, but “we’ve never published this photographer” does not make that photographer a discovery. There are plenty of magazines that have not published Irving Penn and it would be just as ridiculous for them to hold a competition and ‘discover’ his emerging talent. The point here is that they wouldn’t need a competition to find some of these names if they had any idea what was going on around them. It’s not just their lack of vision, it’s their lack of any real interest.

By: Darrell Eager

Darrell Eager — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:40:11 +0000

@Heather Curiel,

I sorry but what Hearst magazine Wouldn’t publish Andy Greenbergs work?

By: A Fan

A Fan — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:56:52 +0000

So did they discover new talent here in Christoph Bangert and Rachel Dunville? I don’t think so. That’s my point! And I’m neutral here as I did not enter this contest.

By: Heather Curiel

Heather Curiel — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:35:03 +0000

I think this contest is great. Ironic, yes. The photos of the winners look NOTHING like what is in Hearst magazines but the judges are not the photo editors of the magazines either. Maybe older great photographers should pair with our current photo editors and become the photo editors of tomorrow.

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:49:21 +0000

@A Fan,
Seriously? You want THAT group of judges to pick people just out of school? I think that’s ridiculous.

They should define it to fit their needs. It’s about them discovering new talent. Not you.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:40:43 +0000

@John Fulton, its petty.

By: A Fan

A Fan — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:29:04 +0000

I have to disagree, then one can be considered “emerging” for every magazine that has not published them i.e. the rest of your career. I thought this was about discovering new talent.

Put some firmer rules in place to avoid sandbagging, no published books, no representation, no major solo shows, etc.

By: John Fulton

John Fulton — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:06:25 +0000

Yes, really. Not okay with you I guess? Why is that different then others saying it’s stupid they didn’t choose any fashion when it said that’s what they were looking for?

By: PK

PK — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:59:56 +0000

Interesting that Louie Palu is a “new and emerging photographer”. The guy is one of Canada’s best shooters and he’s been around for nearly 20 years, working for all the major mags, newspapers and galleries all over North America. Seriously, if you’re going to have a contest like this, make it for photogs just graduating or something. Louie’s work is terrific – this is kinda beneath him, not to mention, frustrating for the next generation of untapped photogs I’d imagine.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:58:17 +0000

@John Fulton, This is your complaint? The title of the competition? Really?