I've been getting some marketing advice and feedback lately much of which is focused on developing consistency. They aren't just talking about consistent quality which I view as a given, but also consistency of medium, subject matter and style. 'If you are shooting B&W' the advice goes 'you should only shoot B&W'. If you are shooting panoramas, you should only shoot panoramas. If you are shooting flowers, you should only shoot flowers, etc. You get the idea. The advice is that while you can photograph anything you want you should decide upon and present to the world only one kind of photograph that is consistent in all respects across your portfolio.
I was commercially trained to be able to shoot anything the customer wanted, portraits, architecture, products, in other words everything and while I understand specializing in one general area, how fine does this go? I've had critical comment about work that it "doesn't fit" because although I had treated the image the same way as the others, I didn't push the effect quite as far. I shoot landscapes, wildflowers, fungi and the occasional panorama, all nature subjects. I occasionally apply digital editing to the extent that the image is no longer a "straight" photograph. I'm hesitant to ignore all but one. What are other folks feelings on this? Do you only put one kind of image in your portfolio and everything else in a shoebox that only you see?
Here is my philosophy: Shoot what you want, for reasons that make sense to you.
When it comes time to present your work, keep it consistent. When I have approached galleries, I generally keep it similar. Mostly landscapes, or floral, or insects. For my festival stock, I am trying to work everything but landscapes/still lifes out to present a uniform front to customers. When they ask about a particular subject, I either say no, I don't have it or direct them to my website.
What I don't want is for someone to look at my work and remember an image because it is so different from everything else. I'd rather they remember for quality. Unfortunately, my show stock as it currently stands has a fair number of anomalous images in it.
For website presentation, I am debating what to do with that. I am thinking that I will eventually build a second site to showcase work I think is good and should be seen but does not match my show stock.
I suppose that it really comes down to what you want the viewer to remember you for.
Whether this is a good idea/response to your question, or not, I'd be interested. I'll be following this thread to see how others react and address your questions.
I take my lessons from the dinosaurs, perhaps explaining why I get labelled that way. We have a photography business, which my wife is fond of pointing out is 5% photograhpy and 95% business. And trends, markets, tastes and opportunity change over the long haul. Where do the dinosaurs come in? They were specialists, and when the world change they didn't. The rest is history. From a business standpoint, NOT specializing has allowed our business to prosper for very close to 20 years. Sure I enjoy photography as "art," but it's business for me too. They most certainly can mean different things.
Posted by Cory Freeman on March 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM
For such a seemingly simple question it sure is complex and hard to answer! I have been struggling w/ the same thing as I think about the design and presentation of my new website. I generally think I should showcase a specific style appropriate for the market segment I'm trying to showcase to, i.e. fineart galleries/collectors or stock to name just a few. Unfortunately I have such an ecclectic style, if you can call it a style, it's been difficult to decide on what it is I want to show and to who.
I'm interested to read what others have to say about this as well.
If you don't want to be lumped in with every other photographer out there, it can be very helpful to develop a unique focus or approach. Why should they go to you as opposed to another photographer? I personally think it is helpful to figure out who you are,what you love and what your market is seeking. If you can find a good match, you may have a winner.
I spent a lot of time thinking about this when I was beginning and determined that for my area the best approach would be to become known as the guy to go to for photographs of Rocky Mtn. National Park. I then developed what is probably the most extensive collection of images of this park. This has worked very well for me. I still shoot other things, but I seek alternative venues for displaying the other work. I have a gallery next to the national park that features exclusively work from that park and later I hope to open other galleries focused on other areas. I suppose you could easily develop different web galleries or websites to host your different approaches.
I personally think that specialization is a key to surviving as a nature photographer. In business school one of the questions they often ask is "What can you become the best in the world at? Find out and do that." I think this is good advice. I do agree with Hank though that you need to keep your pulse on the changing world and be ahead of the game, ready to change as necessary.
Thanks for comments. I agree that when you are doing a show or presentation, the work should all fit, should look like it belonged together but some of the advice I've gotten was extreme, like "don't show verticals and horizontals together" and "everything should be exactly the same size". I'm working on a website where I will group like photos together into a galleries so that each gallery has a consistent look.
Excellent thoughts competently written, Guy. I'd been mulling my possible comments for this thread and came back to it to post. I saw your post and link and read, and realized I needed to add nothing.
Well, almost nothing.
I'll add this: Extreme specialization is more a limitation than a freedom, and when does art thrive on limitation?
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 4, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Thank you Guy. Your question in the next to the last paragraph "How many artists came home depressed and defeated from a review after hearing such a blunt missive?" is precisely where I was coming from. I have been resisting the advice but wondering if I was simply being stubborn and resistant to the 'wisdom' of the critics. Thank you again for your reassurance.
I keep coming back to the first words in your post, Jim:
" I've been getting some marketing advice and feedback lately....."
From a purely business standpoint, I'm very suspicious of their credentials in recommending "consistency." Sure I can buy it for reasons of "art," but that brings to mind my favorite line from the '60's: "What if they gave a war, and nobody came?"
You can be an exceptional artist and lose your butt trying to make a living at it. It happens all the time.
In my experience there's a healthy tension between art and business, with one feeding and supporting the other, and neither providing the sole answer for turning your art into a living. I shade more to the business side, with decisions about what to shoot and how to market it driven by opportunities more than my artisitc muse. The purely artistic side of photography is more of a hobby for me, but one that certainly feeds the skills I bring to the business table. The other model, with the artistic side of the relationship dominating and the business being the hobby, is also valid. As long as you have an outside income source to support your art.
The really successful artists I know are very effective business managers, or at least smart enough to hire out the service if they're unwilling or unable to do it themselves. But business management and cold, hard business decisions and practices have to provide the foundation if you expect art to provide a living.
I tend to agree with Hank. Ansel Adams is known for his landscape art, but he supported his family for almost his entire life through his commercial photography and he also shot portraits.
But on the other side of the coin also understand the point made by the person providing your feedback. There is an old saying that you can be a jack of all trades and a master of none. There are so many themes in art photography that I doubt anyone could be truly proficient in all of them. At the same time it is not unreasonable to become proficient in several areas, say still life and portraiture. Regarding the a mix of color and B&W, my interpretation of their comments is that they are recommending that you create a consistent show. Switching between B&W and Color or between sizes can create the appearance of a discordant or unbalanced show. The use of dividers or separating works between various rooms or walls seems a logical way to make this work.
Hey Jim, a good tread and some good advice being given. For me consistency has been a good thing. I have photographers that idenify my images as mine before they see the name, and I've have two photographers that have taken my macro workshops that are now doing the same art shows that I do, and both have told me they have customers that have enter their booth and say, "hey these images look like Mike Moats's work" so by having a stlye or consistent look helps your customers remember you and your name. That consistency has help me get people to take my workshops, and camera clubs that ask me to speak to their groups. I have a style and a look that helps me make money, so from a business stand point, I think its a good thing.
Hank hits the nail square on the head, if your looking to make money at this, than you better be at the top of your game on the buisness end. Being a great artist doesn't mean squat if you can't run a good effective buisness and marketing program. I turned my nature photography hobby into a full time business in a very short time, but it was based on past experience of running two successful businesses over a twenty five year period. Those skills, and the endless amounts of time invested in running the business and marketing is what makes this work for me.
As much as artist don't care for what the art critics, gallery owners, art show juries, art consultants, etc. have to say about consistency, they make the rules and if your not playing the game, then you don't work. I do about twenty five art shows a year, and when you apply to a juried art show its well known amoung artist that the juries are looking for consistency, so it would not be a good business decision to send in a variety of styles if I want to work those shows.
As far as how I run the business part of my art, the only consistency is hard work. I have diversified in to all kinds of ways to make money. I do the art shows, sell my images through art consultants, sell through art galleries, sell images online, teach workshops, sell products at my workshops, I have a new self published how-to macro book out now, I started offering online workshops, I will be coming out with a how-to macro DVD hopefully this year. I work with sponsors that help pay for speaking engagements, I sell articles and images to magazine, I sell some images as stock off my website, I've even done workshops on doing art shows, and just recently presented at the NANPA convention on doing art shows, I may even do a workshop on running a nature photography business. So there's lots of ways to make money in nature photography, and with all these streams of income is how I pull it off. If I tried to do any one of these by itself I couldn't make it. People don't know your alive and in business if you don't tell them. I'm even marketing myself right now, someone may read what I wrote here, check out my website, and decide to take a workshop.
And I believe the lesson in Mike's experience is that even if you specialize in subject matter to distinguish yourself from the crowd, you have to diversity your revenue streams to be successful as a business.
This is a great thread - and several folks have made several great points.
My addition is quite simplistic: Why would anyone expect that there is only one path to follow to create a successful (nature) photography business? Individuals vary dramatically - some naturally thrive on specialization while others are able to master (and successfully cross over between) many disciplines. About the only common thread I can see is that to be successful you must treat a business like a business, even if it's the business of art. And running any small business requires tremendous effort and focus. I work tremendously hard on the "art" end of my trade/profession, and equally hard on the "business" end of it - and love them both.
In terms of my own views on the issue of being a specialist vs. a generalist: I DO have preferred subject matter, but make a point of shooting different material on a regular basis - if for no other reason to keep my eye fresh. And it's surprising how shooting "off-speciality" material changes how I work on my main subject matter.
Thanks to everyone above for making this such an interesting thread.
Discussion
14 repliesI was commercially trained to be able to shoot anything the customer wanted, portraits, architecture, products, in other words everything and while I understand specializing in one general area, how fine does this go? I've had critical comment about work that it "doesn't fit" because although I had treated the image the same way as the others, I didn't push the effect quite as far. I shoot landscapes, wildflowers, fungi and the occasional panorama, all nature subjects. I occasionally apply digital editing to the extent that the image is no longer a "straight" photograph. I'm hesitant to ignore all but one. What are other folks feelings on this? Do you only put one kind of image in your portfolio and everything else in a shoebox that only you see?
When it comes time to present your work, keep it consistent. When I have approached galleries, I generally keep it similar. Mostly landscapes, or floral, or insects. For my festival stock, I am trying to work everything but landscapes/still lifes out to present a uniform front to customers. When they ask about a particular subject, I either say no, I don't have it or direct them to my website.
What I don't want is for someone to look at my work and remember an image because it is so different from everything else. I'd rather they remember for quality. Unfortunately, my show stock as it currently stands has a fair number of anomalous images in it.
For website presentation, I am debating what to do with that. I am thinking that I will eventually build a second site to showcase work I think is good and should be seen but does not match my show stock.
I suppose that it really comes down to what you want the viewer to remember you for.
Whether this is a good idea/response to your question, or not, I'd be interested. I'll be following this thread to see how others react and address your questions.
I'm interested to read what others have to say about this as well.
I spent a lot of time thinking about this when I was beginning and determined that for my area the best approach would be to become known as the guy to go to for photographs of Rocky Mtn. National Park. I then developed what is probably the most extensive collection of images of this park. This has worked very well for me. I still shoot other things, but I seek alternative venues for displaying the other work. I have a gallery next to the national park that features exclusively work from that park and later I hope to open other galleries focused on other areas. I suppose you could easily develop different web galleries or websites to host your different approaches.
I personally think that specialization is a key to surviving as a nature photographer. In business school one of the questions they often ask is "What can you become the best in the world at? Find out and do that." I think this is good advice. I do agree with Hank though that you need to keep your pulse on the changing world and be ahead of the game, ready to change as necessary.
The Proverbial “Body of Work” and The Narrow-Minded Art Critic
Guy
Well, almost nothing.
I'll add this: Extreme specialization is more a limitation than a freedom, and when does art thrive on limitation?
" I've been getting some marketing advice and feedback lately....."
From a purely business standpoint, I'm very suspicious of their credentials in recommending "consistency." Sure I can buy it for reasons of "art," but that brings to mind my favorite line from the '60's: "What if they gave a war, and nobody came?"
You can be an exceptional artist and lose your butt trying to make a living at it. It happens all the time.
In my experience there's a healthy tension between art and business, with one feeding and supporting the other, and neither providing the sole answer for turning your art into a living. I shade more to the business side, with decisions about what to shoot and how to market it driven by opportunities more than my artisitc muse. The purely artistic side of photography is more of a hobby for me, but one that certainly feeds the skills I bring to the business table. The other model, with the artistic side of the relationship dominating and the business being the hobby, is also valid. As long as you have an outside income source to support your art.
The really successful artists I know are very effective business managers, or at least smart enough to hire out the service if they're unwilling or unable to do it themselves. But business management and cold, hard business decisions and practices have to provide the foundation if you expect art to provide a living.
But on the other side of the coin also understand the point made by the person providing your feedback. There is an old saying that you can be a jack of all trades and a master of none. There are so many themes in art photography that I doubt anyone could be truly proficient in all of them. At the same time it is not unreasonable to become proficient in several areas, say still life and portraiture. Regarding the a mix of color and B&W, my interpretation of their comments is that they are recommending that you create a consistent show. Switching between B&W and Color or between sizes can create the appearance of a discordant or unbalanced show. The use of dividers or separating works between various rooms or walls seems a logical way to make this work.
Hank hits the nail square on the head, if your looking to make money at this, than you better be at the top of your game on the buisness end. Being a great artist doesn't mean squat if you can't run a good effective buisness and marketing program. I turned my nature photography hobby into a full time business in a very short time, but it was based on past experience of running two successful businesses over a twenty five year period. Those skills, and the endless amounts of time invested in running the business and marketing is what makes this work for me.
As much as artist don't care for what the art critics, gallery owners, art show juries, art consultants, etc. have to say about consistency, they make the rules and if your not playing the game, then you don't work. I do about twenty five art shows a year, and when you apply to a juried art show its well known amoung artist that the juries are looking for consistency, so it would not be a good business decision to send in a variety of styles if I want to work those shows.
As far as how I run the business part of my art, the only consistency is hard work. I have diversified in to all kinds of ways to make money. I do the art shows, sell my images through art consultants, sell through art galleries, sell images online, teach workshops, sell products at my workshops, I have a new self published how-to macro book out now, I started offering online workshops, I will be coming out with a how-to macro DVD hopefully this year. I work with sponsors that help pay for speaking engagements, I sell articles and images to magazine, I sell some images as stock off my website, I've even done workshops on doing art shows, and just recently presented at the NANPA convention on doing art shows, I may even do a workshop on running a nature photography business. So there's lots of ways to make money in nature photography, and with all these streams of income is how I pull it off. If I tried to do any one of these by itself I couldn't make it. People don't know your alive and in business if you don't tell them. I'm even marketing myself right now, someone may read what I wrote here, check out my website, and decide to take a workshop.
My addition is quite simplistic: Why would anyone expect that there is only one path to follow to create a successful (nature) photography business? Individuals vary dramatically - some naturally thrive on specialization while others are able to master (and successfully cross over between) many disciplines. About the only common thread I can see is that to be successful you must treat a business like a business, even if it's the business of art. And running any small business requires tremendous effort and focus. I work tremendously hard on the "art" end of my trade/profession, and equally hard on the "business" end of it - and love them both.
In terms of my own views on the issue of being a specialist vs. a generalist: I DO have preferred subject matter, but make a point of shooting different material on a regular basis - if for no other reason to keep my eye fresh. And it's surprising how shooting "off-speciality" material changes how I work on my main subject matter.
Thanks to everyone above for making this such an interesting thread.