What Does Talent Have to Do with It?

[benjikan]

What’s the Score? Marketing-13 Talent-7

It is becoming more evident to me, the longer I am in this business, that it has become more of a marketing game than that of talent, for those wishing to succeed in any "Artistic" venture.

I am reminded, that in the last decade and even more so prior to it, if you wanted to get an assignment for a magazine or an Ad Campaign, you had to always pass through the Art Director or Creative Director. Once doing so and if the response was positive, you would be introduced to the Fashion Editor on that particular assignment or the traffic coordinator at the ad agency. You basically were hired because you either had talent, or your work had been seen in a competing magazine or on some billboard and you thoroughly impressed the Art Director or who ever turned you on to them to call you in. So either way, someone recognized your talent. In that environment the score would be closer to Talent-21 Marketing-3.* Not taking in to consideration a great agent.

Today, in most cases, the Art Director has been assigned a more pragmatic and cursory role as a layout artist for the major magazines out there. The decision for hiring the photographer, is in the hands of the Fashion Stylist and Editor more often than not. That has changed the dynamic dramatically and as a result the criteria for choosing talent has changed. It is not only talent that matters, but the celebrity or top model that was used in the image, as well as the recognized Fashion Designer that is featured in it. If you do not have any of these key ingredients, in most cases, it doesn't matter how incredible your image is, it may be passed over due to that glaring over sight.

As a result of this new dynamic, what is more important than ever is NOT talent, (which I believe has taken a back seat role in this scenario) and given rise to the importance of Marketing. Now this in it's own right is another form of creative talent, that must be taken in to consideration as well, when embarking in this or any of the other Media oriented forms of expression. I am not saying that talent does not count. What I am saying is that talent has been re-calibrated so to speak, to reflect the social landscape of our culture. Thus, talent is not only equated by the perceived beauty of the imagery, music or art form, but by the way it has been marketed. The marketing has become an integral part of the art form, thus the art form.

So the next time you observe an image in VOGUE, Harper's BAZAAR, ELLE, Marie Claire, Numero Magazine, or what ever and say to yourself, "I could have done that..." Just be reminded, that you probably could have. So what's the problem then? I suggest you go ahead. But just remember, that having Talent is only around 10% of the formula. The rest is a highly guarded secret.

So what's the score? I'll give you a play by play update as it comes in. But the gap is widening and as of now, it is Marketing-26 Talent-7...

Benjamin Kanarek Blog | Benjamin Kanarek Blog

[mwfanelli2]

Look. media is about selling copy. As the tastes of the public change, so do the demands on the photographer and the magazine. It is all well and good to talk about "art" and "talent" but that seldom moves a magazine off the rack. The business has obviously changed, that is neither good nor bad. It just is!

The key to this is simple. As a pro, provide what is required by the customer to whomever the customer assigns as a contact. If that is a problem for you. go into business only for yourself: open a gallery, sell your art on the left bank in Paris, buy a museum, etc.

Bottom line: change happens. Move with the change or get left behind.

[monkey44]

If you want to sell something - anything - it's ALL about marketing. If you want to create ART, then you need to be inspired for yourself. Art exists for the observer. Selling artwork once it's produced/created will always be marketing = 100% ...

No true artist creates a piece of art by first deciding "I'm going to create this beautiful 'piece', and then am going to sell it for $xxx.xx ... " Price never enters the picture for any true and inspired artist.

After working years and years as a photojournalist, my opinion remains: The secret to success in the publishing world is "Dependabiltiy" not, "Creativity" ...

There are lots of individuals (but not every individual) out there that can use the exact same equipment and produce the exact same images. It's the individuals that produce it on time every time that succeed.

Once you decide the purpose of your "ART" is "for selling", it's no longer art and becomes simply another commodity.

[Anbesol]

The growing devaluation of photography as art is why I'm now running away from the field as a profession. Photography is treated more like a commodity than an art today. I will continue my own pursuits of photography for my own pleasure.

To many consumers, because photography is an "art" means that all "artistic styles" have their merit. Consumers end up accepting lesser quality results and call it artistic personality, thinking its sensibility.

This is largely a problem of cameras being much more sophisticated and simple to use tools. Because the tools, and the metering and TTL strobe accuracy have improved so much, people entering the field become more and more reliant on the equipment to do the work for them and they produce better 'auto' results now than they ever have. Theoretically, many pro's don't need to understand technique of metering, focal ranges and f-stops. They just need to show up with auto-gear.

Though I'm sure we all agree that improving technology is a good thing, the hype of being "simple to use" as a marketable feature of equipment has devalued the typical consumers perceived merit in full manual control and technique. To the extent of which, consumers don't understand how important knowledge and training is to technique.

No true artist creates a piece of art by first deciding "I'm going to create this beautiful 'piece', and then am going to sell it for $xxx.xx ... " Price never enters the picture for any true and inspired artist

I would LOVE this to be true. Unfortunately however, I rent a place, I have to pay my land lord, I have to pay to provide electricity and heat, I have to buy food, I also have to take care of my 6 year old son, you get the idea. I don't ask people to provide my heat for the love of heat first and foremost and I'll pay them just what I feel like. I ask them to do it by paying them money, money they specifically ask me for. If you can afford to just dick around with your time making your art without concern of food or shelter, if you have the time to just dump into photography without any need for recompense, then you are lucky. But, some of us want to make a living and devote ourselves to the art as a profession. This requires, for many of us, that we are paid in dollars and cents!

Also, my specific field of interest is in personal portraiture, not fashion/glamour as the OP, which is quite a different field.

[monkey44]

QUOTE: "I would LOVE this to be true. Unfortunately however, I rent a place, I have to pay my land lord, I have to pay to provide electricity and heat, I have to buy food, I also have to take care of my 6 year old son, you get the idea..."

Yes, of course, we get the idea ... I have photos hanging on my walls (my art), but also sell photos (my work)and the published commodity "pays the rent" ... could even be the same image.

As professionals, we need to individually define which is which. There is no reason you can't have both, art and commodity. The trick is satisfying the artistic self while earning a living, and separating the artistic creative self from the "worker bee" self ...

And I couldn't agree more that the quality of published work degrades with the "improvement" in technology. Unfortunately, every parent or fan (for example) can shoot an 'auto-photo' and get a byline (free - no pay) in today's fast-paced online everything publishing world. You no longer need a quality photo to publish it online or in the media. And many magazines or ad campaigns are developing online presence instead of print presence. SO, the amount of work available for the pros decreases and the competition leaves many in the dust, under-employed if employed at all.

And, in this economy (maybe all future economies) the editors / art directors will pay 'free or little' bucks for a 'auto-shot' if it fills the space. And photoshop can do wonders, even with poor quality. It's become a problem of "look at the budget" instead of "find the best art" - accepting the very higher end markets ...

But, back to the OP ... it's still a segmentation of Art and Product ... and marketing is still the primary ingredient in earning a living, and unfortunately, that will not change much as long as we exist in a market driven economy... as long as you sit in your house and enjoy your image, you can label it art. But it's tough to find anyone willing to pay you to sit in the house and look at your walls simply because you enjoy your art. As soon as you open the door and carry it out for a sale, it transfers to "selling your product".

[Photo-John]

Good post, Ben. Lately, I've noticed your posts haven't been getting much response. But you definitely stirred things up with this one. Good job