AWACs: Why “Amateurs With A Camera” are Great for Photography
I however… yes, even I, get nervous when I see the annual spawning of hundreds of new photographers’ studios and websites in my market, and yes, sometimes I see work in some portfolios that makes me cringe, but the reality is WE WERE ALL THERE ONCE! Only the most arrogant and unrealistic photographers could claim that they were never, at any point in their career not a master of the art. We’ve all been students of the art form, and I still am, and hope to be for the rest of my life, and I’ll quit when the day comes when I think I know it all!
As a full-time “professional” photographer of 5 years (Wikipedia: professional = “…someone who makes a living” from their art), I proudly admit I was once an AWAC, too, and I hope the love of photography never fades and I truly am an amateur at heart, always. I am the breed of photographer who, because I had no formal training in photography, I am my own self-made expert, with no imposed preconceptions about the “rule of art” or the “gospel of technique”. There is no photography “canon” to which I adhere; my entire existence as a photographer is one of playful experimentation, and the constant development of new philosophies and techniques that advance my art.
I think the most telling “sign-of-the-times” quote of the article was the fear-tactic sales pitch:
“Sometimes I will ask the client if they were having surgery would they prefer a board-certified surgeon or not?” noted Orlando, FL-based photographer Jeff Hawkins. “Of course they always reply that they’d chose a board-certified surgeon—a perfect segue to explaining our credentials and how we too are ‘board-certified’ having taken and passed numerous exams to gain our credentials as master photographers.”
It’s pretty obvious that this is a terrible analogy. Surgery is nothing like art when it comes to the client’s objective analysis of it: It’s simply not a subjective skill set, “Well, I think I like your heart transplant better, Tom…” Either surgery works or it doesn’t, and you live or you die.
With photography, what sets one potential client’s heart on fire, another may not find thrilling. I tell potential clients all the time: there is no such thing as a “one-size-fits-all-photographer”. Photography is a personal, subjective relationship with unique individual clients. I want people to book with me because they love my art, not because I scared them into it! I feel that telling clients to shop based on “credentials” is like telling clients to shop based on price. They should shop based on their emotional reaction to the photographer and their work.
I personally give very little credence to formal education in the visual arts: either you’ve got it or you don’t, and no amount of technical knowledge and art critique will create it, in you. All great artists are born with their abilities and a formal education (in the visual arts) either refines their skills and promotes their latent abilities, or it or damages them by encasing their free creativity within the confines and boundaries of formal objective definitions of “good art” and “bad art”.
How can you teach anything to anyone without objectified examples of “good an bad”? And that, I feel, is the fatal flaw of formal education (in the visual arts): art is subjective. There is no singular definition of what makes “good art”.
Can you teach someone to be Michelangelo? No, and while you can teach the techniques and style of the master, any work created by that student without the latent artistic skill of Michelangelo will simply be an empty reproduction.
I personally believe most artists are hindered creatively while surviving within the confines of formal education. It is only after they emerge into the real world, broken and beaten down to fit the mold of what their instructors believed made a good photographer, are they finally free (again) to explore the limitless possibilities of creative passion. It is only then that they can recover from their “education” in school and create their own identity.
I think it was best said by Anna Freud:
“Creative minds have always been known to survive any kind of bad training.”
In closing, Rangefinder magazine should know better (than any in this industry), that when it comes to art, “the proof is in the pudding”. Talented newcomers shake up the photography world every day, and it has nothing to do with their education, their equipment, or the products they offer the consumer. It has everything to do with their talent. And if Rangefinder and WPPI lack the wisdom and the foresight to embrace this massive new influx of talent (today’s AWACs are tomorrow’s trendsetters), then perhaps they aren’t the industry leader they purport to be.
No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit. - Ansel Adams
Great job building confidence in the creative spirit, Rangefinder!
Please leave your comments if you agree, or not…
Pages: 1 2
«Previous PageNext page»
It’s a wonderful thing to have new additions to the photography industry but there’s a big difference between an amature and a professional in one respect. One knows what is required and has spent the time and energy to learn to capture the shot the other still needs to make those investments.
This industry is complicated, for most to be successful they have to be both artist and business executive. To be profitable in this industry requires more then just a camera. To many people enter the industry thinking we just snap a camera and charge obsene amounts of money for a piece of paper.
Many people don’t realize that it’s not that simple, and actually can damage the industry more then build it up. It’s great if someone finds a passion for photography, but it doesn’t mean they should buy a digital SLR and start doing shoot and burn weddings for $500. That, that is the dis-service “Amateurs” give to our industry. Making it that much harder for clients to not see photographers as artist but instead just a service that and five year old can do.
@Zack -
I don’t see “shoot and burn” photographers at $500 a pop as competitors for my clientele! Those consumers were never considering me in the first place.
I don’t understand why the industry is considering that a threat to established professionals.
Plus, if you’re a young photographer, there’s no better way to build a portfolio than starting low.
Well I didn’t get a chance to read the article from Rangefinder, but I’m not sure I really want to. I think Trig has it right, every one at one point was an amatuer. My husband and I are definately what you’d call amateurs (me having a slight training from college in digital photography and teaching myself the rest). We haven’t made any money on what we’ve done, but we love doing it. I love being able to catch a shot in action. It’s all about timing. I may have a dream one day to make good money with a camera, but for now – I love it.
The people who are getting a photographer at $500 are just that. Making a start. Yeah they may do a couple at that price, but realize they need the equipment to capture needed photos. I have a friend who is willing to help out those with less money and shoot their weddings for cheaper. And she does great work, but in the end – to me anyway – there is a lack of experience. You can click the camera so much in a wedding and get some good shots, but its knowing what ARE the good shots. Its knowing when to shoot – when to not – what to shoot and how to do it.
heh. Someday maybe I’ll go into wedding photography, maybe I won’t. I don’t think photography would be the same without the amateurs. Without the fresh new look on things.