I think all of this is symptomatic of the fundamental break down in communication between photographer and art director that started in the mid 1980's with Stock Photos, Art Buyers, Fed-Ex, bike messengers, fax machines, unreal work loads and isolation. It later escalated with the ability to e-mail photos, and inflation.
Stock Photos caused many people in advertising to view photography not as a creative medium but as a commodity. It killed imagination. Whereas art directors often came from art backgrounds and had the ability to draw and employ graphic design; many of today's Art Directors design by swipe -- namely they find stock images, add type, and voila an ad is born. The problem is that these ad comps are shown to non-creatives who immediately become slaves to the comp, they can't imagine the ad looking different or better. Plus, now that the comp is approved everyone in the chain-of-command involved with producing this ad is too scared to deviate from the comp lest it anger the client. At this point the photographer becomes a technician and not a real artist. Their is no longer a place for magic or inspiration. Of course in this setting the photographer will not be respected or valued and will therefore have a great uphill battle with regards to making suggestions to improve the photography. The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened.
Art Buyers put a barrier between Art Directors and photographers. These Art Buyers are self-appointed experts that often have a background in subjects like art history. What they generally all have in common is that they've never been an Art Director or a Photographer. Therefore, when an Art Director needs a photographer, why is the non-creative suit Art Buyer making strong suggestions regarding which photographer is suitable? And why are so many Art Directors too lazy to perform the part of their jobs involving staying current with photographers. I've had Art Buyers tell me they could get the photos produced more cheaply in another country, even though for logistical reasons it needed to be done locally. Most Art Buyers treat photographers condescendingly, and I've never seen someone produce their best work in this atmosphere. The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened.
Fed-Ex & Bike Messengers, really took off in the mid 1980's and the consequence for photographers was that Art Directors and clients decided they no longer needed to attend many shoots -- still-life in particular. The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened.
Fax Machines encouraged many lazy Art Directors to art direct from the comfort of their offices. Rather than collaborate with a photographer they choose to dictate to a photographer. Faxing fuzzy polaroid prints to Art Directors, and then waiting long periods of time was not an ideal way to work or interact: The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened.
Unreal Work Loads: I'm sure we're all aware of the massive layoffs that have befallen every company. Art Directors are doing the work that used to be done by three employees. They're not adequately compensated and have very little job security. If the ad agency loses the account they lose their jobs. As a result Art Directors avoid leaving their offices to attend photo shoots. The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened.
Isolation: Over-burdening Art Directors and appointing Art Buyers as their effective superiors has led to isolation. The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened. Art Directors and Art Buyers can be very arrogant. This wasn't always the case. And it's sad, because it was truly great, back in the day, to see how well photographers and Art Directors worked together and how photos benefited from their collaboration.
E-mailing photos, ftp'ing photos, and Internet photo galleries all combined to enable the creation of long-distance art directing. The result: The relationship and respect for photographer's contributions was weakened.
continued below on next post:
Dan - I've done a couple shoots with rented digital backs and I was
awed and thrilled by the results. (Personal work.) OMG, I can only
wish I had clients who valued that image quality enough to pay for it!
Art directors have always wanted more for less, but since film
technologies had been stable for 20 years or so, there was less
screwy price pressure. Somehow there's this whole notion of "digital
is cheaper" and "more pixels just means add a few megabytes"...
Absurd.
Nikon D3, Nikon D300, Nikon Lenses 10.5, 14-24, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 VR, 60 2.8 AF-S Micro, 85 1.4 Other brands: Zeiss 50 1.4, Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x,Three SB800's, Canon G-9 & Underwater housing, Two Quantum 5d-r's, & More.
