An insult to every photographer in the world...

[regnaD kciN]

So, I've been out pounding the pavements in the Seattle area, looking for possible venues to display/sell my photos. Then, at night, I come home and find this story about a photographer who's leapfrogged me and the rest of us struggling professionals, pulling off a gallery exhibit with his first set of photographs.

A cat.

A cat fitted with a camera on his collar timed to take random photos every two minutes.

Take enough random photos, pick out the ones you like the most, and voilà!. Instant artist!

(Isn't that the way far too many people think of photography?)

FWIW, here is my letter to the editor on this article:

Dear Sirs:

As a professional photographer who would kill (almost) for a Seattle gallery exhibit, it galls me that space -- not to mention a P-I news story -- is being given to an exhibit of random photos taken by a "collar camera" on a cat when there are so many real photographers in Seattle deserving of such exposure (pun not intended).

Upon reading your story, I asked my own orange tabby, The Great Pumpkin, why he hadn't yet created any museum-quality work. He responded by coughing up a hairball, which, I guess, was his way of reminding me that, while some are born to be artists, others are born to be critics.

Sincerely,
James David Walley

[dbmk]

1. I guess it depends a little..

..on whether you, in this case, view the actual photographs as individual pieces of art. Or the concept of the project.

In either case I would argue you had a case - I just wanted to argue that the quality of the photos was not necessarily the qualifying factor in this case.

I like the Great Pumpkin story though. :)

This part of the article made me shake my head:
"Law said that if you look at Cooper's photos, they follow the "rule of thirds.""
To which my answer is: "Moran".

[Celebration]

2. not really photography

I would call it "performance art", and yes, it's a gimmick.

In defense of cats, they can be pretty amazing creatures. And I sure would have voted for your orange tabby over McCain, if those were the two choices.

[Mz Pip]

3. I wonder who will get the proceeds

from any sale. The cat? Or its owner?

We had a small gallery here in town that had an exhibit of cat paintings. Put paint on Fluffy's paws...

Unfortunately people seem to love gimmicks. Note Sarah Palin.

Is it art? I think not. But that debate of what is art, who decides what is art and the validity of the marketplace in the debate goes on.

For me I would definitely prefer a photo taken by a cat to one of the saccharin monstrosities that Thomas Kincaid passes off as art. I'd put any of your work far above both.

Mz Pip

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Oh, yes, the animal paintings.

Our dear departed Annabelle, a much-loved elephant at the Alaska Zoo, used to do paintings. She really seemed to enjoy it, but "art"? I don't know...

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I love your letter, regnaD

and I would agree. It's a gimmick.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. i didn't think it possible to be more insulted

than we have been already over the past few years, but I was wrong.

Consider me insulted.

[superconnected]

7. This just means that you have to find a gimmick. And here I thought photography was art.

I suspected you've simply ran into that giant wall where if you want to be commerical, then commericals rules - the rules of selling, wins. Embrace the gimmick, it's not so bad. Your stuff will stand out among the people who are purely in it for money's photos. How many contest here do you think the cat would win anyway? Other than the photo being shot by a timed digital camera on a cat, what have those photos got going for them? Random interesting shots from a foot off the ground, those end up looking all the same pretty soon.

[Maestro]

8. He'll be forgotten soon.

It's a gimmick and quick interesting news story, but it has no staying power although I understand how frustrating it can be.

[Mira]

9. Taking a shot at this :) realizing I'm out of my element because I

am only one of the people you welcome here, the amateur photographer, and now I'm speaking to a pro.

I like the letter a lot. It keeps pressure on the serious message and your genuine displeasure, while also showing your ability to poke fun all the way around while you have their attention, which is what the letter afforded you, written in such a multi-faceted way.

This letter may get you a foot in the door. I would request a short meeting, and go "armed" with your work, based on "did you get my letter, and did it give you enough pause to let me show you my work?"

I think those who set themselves apart some sort of way win.
Obama did it with superior intelligence, brilliant strategy, housed in a black body, and following the disaster of you know who (the others were not "apart" enough)

The world is full of incredible talent along with you, BUT you wrote the letter, you'll (maybe) request a little audience claiming that foot in the door, and then you show them something angled in a way they have not seen before.

I have come here to this forum by stealth and great interest with a good eye and a big mouth, but no excellent photography to back up anything, because I don't know how to do that yet. I have found acceptance in spite of it, and have a place.
You could in a reverse way go there with excellent photography, and infuse yourself with the knowledge that showing up, or finding a way to show up, is what distinguishes yourself from the world full of talent, and claim your place.

If I need to be forgiven for overstepping, we don't know each other, please do so.

[regnaD kciN]

10. Postscript...

The P-I not only published my letter in this morning's edition, but placed a "teaser" for the letter at the top of the front page of that section. So far, no letters to my business account from supportive photographers or outraged cat-owners.