amateur – The Daily Opinion

That’s something that’s commonly said by professional photographers these days. As soon as they lose a client to a rookie they automatically turn on them and then they fly into a rage that lasts for the rest of the day. However, are these rookies really killing the industry of professional photography? Do professionals have a right to be upset?

To answer the latter question, professionals do have a right to be upset. But it’s not for the reason you are thinking of. The only reason they have a right to be upset is because they are losing business. Although, it has to be mentioned that this is just the nature of the industry. These days it’s simple to pick up a good camera. The days of the photographer in a darkroom are gone. Today all you have to do is upload your pictures to Facebook and you already have professional-looking photographs. Add on the fact that Photoshop and other image editing programs are available and what exactly does the professional provide?

At this point the only thing a professional provides is experience, but experience is not something that’s a defining factor these days. If you can shoot professional photographs and present them in an attractive manner then you can do the same job that these professionals can. In essence, it’s a case of sour grapes.

In the past, the photographers were on a plane of their own. If you took a photograph from one of these cameras then people knew you were serious. If you took one from a poor quality camera then they knew you were just an amateur. Technology has advanced by so much that this isn’t the case anymore. This means it can be harder to differentiate between the hobbyist and the one who does it for a living. Many of them don’t like this. In fact, they absolutely hate it as it doesn’t have the status it once did. Ok, I would be upset too if I was in this position, but if a professional is losing lots of their business then it’s their fault in part.

Why do I say that?

Simple, professional photographers have often been in the game for so long that they are unwilling to change. Previously they could just sit on their arses and wait for clients to come to them. So they didn’t have to do that much marketing as they had the equipment, the experience, and the work to put them well above everybody else. Now that everybody has that stuff they are forced to start marketing. Many of them can’t or won’t do this, though. So instead of adapting to a changing industry they have to whine, they have to moan, and they have to bitch about all the rookies entering the industry.

“What about those evil low prices?” I hear a master whine.

Well those evil low prices are a problem, it’s true. That means it’s natural that trade will decline a little bit. However, those who are looking for quality will pay a higher price. If they want a $100 photo then they can have a $100 photo, but they could have a $200 photo instead. So really it’s a case of educating one’s customer base. How can this be done? Well that can be done through marketing. You educate your customers and you will get the people to pay that little bit extra for quality.

Those who decide to sit around and cry about it will only falter as the amateurs and hobbyists continue to take great photos and make lots of money out of them. Don’t want to adapt? Then too bad, I’ll see you when I walk past the local job centre.

If you take a look at the picture I have provided you just below this paragraph then what would you say about this example of contemporary art? Painted by an eight-year-old, bland and boring, basic and amateurish? I would say all of those things, but what would you say if I told you that someone paid £53.8m for it?

Red, Orange, Yellow — The 'masterpiece' on show.

It’s no joke; somebody broke the record for the highest price ever paid for a piece of contemporary art at auction.

The piece itself was painted by Mark Rothko and is entitled “Orange, Red, Yellow”. And if you look at some of his other work then you will discover that he has made a fortune on the same idea. This is just different shades of colour on a canvas in quite frankly basic and pathetic shapes.

When I want to see art I want to see skill. And that’s what one of the dictionary definitions of art is: “Skilled.” Leonardo Da Vinci, Picasso, Cezanne, Botticelli, all of these were skilled at what they did. This is an insult to art and this is precisely why many people believe that contemporary art is utter trash. I’m one of these people and I just hope that whoever paid for this realises how stupid he is.

And I know that fans of this are going to try and put people off with their elitist rhetoric about how some people are too stupid to see the true meaning in it. But you can find meanings in anything if you like, it doesn’t make the item you are taking a meaning from art, though.

Take a stereotypical yellow, number two test pencil, with eraser, and here is my meaning for it:

“This pencil demonstrates the transitioning of the past to the modern day as this tool has been transformed from the creative purposes it was once instilled with to the rigid structuring of modern day life. The point is the crowning glory of what can symbolise the pointlessness of the modern educational system and the stifling of creative thought. And, yet, at the same time, the fact that it creates these feelings is a demonstration of artistic genius in itself.”

I could go on, but it demonstrates that you can see a meaning in even the most mundane things.

I’ve also noticed something else quite interesting as well. If we look back to the past, and I mean centuries prior to this one, the skilled were praised. The skilled were praised in a society that was rather primitive. And those skilled artists of today are still incredibly difficult to replicate in our modern age, without the aid of computers. But as we have advanced throughout the ages we have actually opted for more primitive forms of art; and this is what we call contemporary art.

The only thing that is skilled here is the fact that Mark Rothko managed to convince someone to pay that much for something that was most likely painted within a day.

This is nothing but a few colours splashed on to the page in a childlike manner. As we advance further, are artists just going to debase themselves further in a sad attempt to seem different?

That’s something that has always bothered me about the art industry. They are so desperate to move away from mainstream society that they are willing to damage their own art because of it.

This further enhances my view that contemporary art is based off of nothing but connections and who has the most cash. Granted, to an extent, it was always like this. But no artist can succeed with things like this without having powerful and influential connections and lots of money to do the talking.

Tag: amateur

Rookie Photographers are Killing the Industry

The Multimillion Pound Art Sale and the Joke that is Contemporary Art