Now none of this is to say that I don’t feel driven to have my work seen. But the drive comes from a much different place than what I would call “professional”. You had paraphrased that quote about a photograph being a message without a code – well, I prefer to think about pictures in terms of a language. A language in the way that math is a language in that it is descriptive on many different levels. For example, a layperson uses math on a daily basis: checkbook, tips… But if the same person were to pick up a copy of Physics Today they would be unable to follow along. It’s the same with good pictures – they operate on many levels and can speak to those with different levels of understanding and literacy. For me, to not have the work seen is similar to a conversation unfinished. I like seeing the effect my images have on the viewer and hearing what they have to say.

The reviewers didn’t necessarily use the phrasing I used in question #1 (I’m quite a bit more brusque), but at FotoFest I believe there is the presumption from the part of the reviewers that the work may not be worth caring about. The FotoFest meeting place is one of the portfolio reviews where if you pay, you play so there is a lot of [let's say] not-good-work floating around.

I do agree with you on the selling point, but that’s just part of being a professional artist in a post-patron world. If you want to ‘make art for art’s sake’ or do art as personal therapy there is nothing wrong with that, but then you’ve answered questions #1–it’s not for you it’s for me. Then again, if you’re just making art for yourself do you need to show it? If you’re wanting to show your work because you have a message or statement then that’s your answer to #1. This is just me being pedantic though as I do agree with you, but I don’t think it’s realistic in today’s art world to expect accolades without selling yourself.

However, I do object to the asking of an aggressive question by a reviewer as a means of discerning the capability of the photographer; hence my plea to look at the pictures. Question #1 is loaded: 1) it carries a presumption that the pictures are not worth caring about; 2) it creates a master/supplicant relationship; and, 3) it generates an ethos wherein “average” works may be explained away, or said another way – bullshit.

But one of the main reason for my original response was something that I find troubling in all areas of art – that of selling. You see, in my response when I wrote: “…it’s odd to expect a photographer to expect you to talk you into liking (the pictures)”. The emphasis was on “talk you into”; you can fill in the blank after that. Early in your original post you spoke of passion, and then make the case for intellectual preparedness, but then at the end of your post, refer to yourself as “no one” and hearken all that is wrong with this country: Brittney Spears (marketing over substance). Then, this second post discusses at length the number of photographs being made, the need to distinguish one’s self verbally, and again engages the “why” dialogue (“why should I care, buy, see…”). To my mind what you are arguing for here is selling. Really, it doesn’t matter what you’re selling – pictures, ideas, microchips, or widgets… selling is selling.

Why am I uncomfortable with selling? Well, that’s complicated: it feels corporate (I always feel awkward with the notion of “professional” fine artists – I recently ran across a fine artist who was in the process of “rebranding”…) and disingenuous; it represents the collision of art and commerce, and the notion that there is now a lingering dissatisfaction in making the work, or that it is “not enough”. I suppose that my ultimate fear is that the process of being an artist is no longer the goal, but that goal may have become Brittney Spears.

Cheers,
Kevin

I am a photographer and I attended session2/day 4 and all of session 3.

I had contact with 78 people from the other side of the table, including formal reviews, extra reviews and informal conversations (bar, bus tours, dinner, etc.). 40 of them I knew already, 38 reviewers were new to me.

It’s important to do homework first. This applies to all three questions. One and two are easy because these questions will be answered during the development of a body of work. Question three is difficult for many because they don’t study the reviewer’s bios enough or at all. If there are 52 reviewers on the list, for each of them you have to look up who they are, what they do and what they are looking for. This involves a lot of time. For an event like FotoFest you’ll have to spend a couple of days doing that. Only then can you fill out the preference list in a meaningful way.

Also keep expectations low. I tend to say “Be hopeful but don’t expect anything”. Book publications, solo shows, gallery representations and print sales do happen occasionally but this should be never the expectation.

I think a lot depends on the personality of the photographer. I have colleagues who have very strong work to present but they just don’t enjoy the review situation. If one is relaxed and still focused and enjoys talking about one’s project, the reviewer will have a much better time too.

And don’t miss out on getting to know the other artists and share work with them. The critique from peers is always brutally honest and very valuable. The time spent with the other photographers is half of what makes FotoFest a great event. The network among photographers is an important one.

Sometimes I’d like more access but not for shows or books but exactly for what you’ve talked about here; Relationships. The relationships with people that are thinking and doing the work in contemporary photography, for access to new ideas and enough exposure to get clear of the day to day.