People // David Garrison // Blog

The third post from a piece I wrote on the way back from SXSW. A panel on photography got me thinking about the relationship between musicians and the people who capture images of them. It made me wonder how musicians and photographers think about different elements of that relationship.

Money Makes the World Go Around - Sometimes Too Much So
We all have a perspective on money - its value to society, its symbolism, its corrupting or liberating influence. Some see it as an enabler, others as a distraction, others as both. But, for artists, it's a loaded topic.  Money implies objectives other than artistic ones.

Panel members suggested that they felt that not focusing on payment early in their careers improved the quality of and nature of their product and reflected their reasons for doing photography. Wright, for example, didn't even do music photography until he was old enough to retire. Natkin started because he liked the music itself and wanted to get into things for free.  De Wilde started out just taking photos with friends, some of who were musicians.

I suspect this really just goes to the greenfield point again - art for art's sake.  None of the panelists said they do photography for the money, although all have seen economic success come from it. And, while it may seem obvious to those of you who are artists, it's worth noting for the rest of us that not having a monetary goal necessarily means you have another one; not being distracted by money means you're more focused on something else, like the image you're capturing.

Now, I'm aware that the implication here is that young photographers should focus on their craft and success will follow. Frankly, I'm not sold on the idea that money comes entirely in its own time and fashion. I think, per the proverb that luck is the combination of preparation and opportunity, that successful people do things to position themselves to reap rewards.

What you do to position yourself is up to you, but creativity and discipline are requisite. Natkin, for example, talked about how he broke onto the scene by making sure he was at every show possible. Having been invited to shoot Prince's birthday party, he figured he'd be one of many photographers at the event, which wasn't in NYC. But, because it wasn't in NYC, when he got there he found he was the only photographer who'd bothered to show up. That was a couple days before Purple Rain was released. Prince had worn his new outfit for the occasion and, when he went into seclusion for the next six months, Natkin was the only one with pictures that could be marketed.

I don't think anyone on the panel was implying you should disregard money or not try to set yourself up to be successful. Instead, they were alluding to the idea that we often either reject success outright because it "distracts from our creative genius" or run headlong into success thinking we're big enough to handle it.

It seems to me that our greatest successes come when we work hard to position our work in the most favourable light (often requiring that we follow more than one path simultaneously - what the financial world calls "mitigating risk") and also acknowledge that the path we choose really does impact our perspective.