Are good intentions and good art good enough to create inspirational campaigns? The “See the Difference” Charity business.
Written by duckrabbitSee the Difference is a organisation that I wanted to see succeed. They have tried many things I like to see work – they took a risk and we can all learn from their experience.
I look at this website and they have stated that they retain 5% of the donations given. Like Kickstarter and Just Giving except the art on their site is the differentiator.
The others rely on personal networks to the maximum: someone you know is doing something for charity and you support your friends.
So does Art make us “See the Difference”?
The top donated project is:-
Jiggers foot treatments in Kenya
Raising £2,335.22, getting 29 comments and 126 likes. £105 for STD.
£80 per comment and £18 per Like.
Dizzie Rascal, Amir Khan and Sarah Cawood supported.
Planting new elms in the UK
Raising £1,139, getting 27 comments and 209 likes. £56.95 for STD.
£42 per comment and £5.45 per Like.
Stephen Fry and Alastair Campbell supported.
And this is the best technical video I see on their in terms of the Art to answer my own question “Is quality of art an important differentiator”.
Help people cope with cancer in the UK
Raising £224.35, getting 8 comments and 8 likes. £11.22 for STD
£28 per comment and £28 per Like.
It seems to me they were very ambitious indeed… but must be burning cash simply because their income is so very small. Looking at their “who we are” page, you can find out more.
Look at the good will they started with – 500 people thanked during their start up – and some pretty good corporate partners too. Will that be burning out too?
If the Charities investing a lot of time and effort on their own side to produce work see such little returns, then will they buy into the idea again and do more or will their enthusiasm burn out after one go?
Why has this not worked so far?
I asked myself why stand alone pieces of creativity that have the power to change ideas do not take higher prominence in the field of photojournalistic endeavour and charitable giving when DuBeers can turn the diamond into the symbol on engagements and Evian can turn itself into the symbol liquid purity?
Campaigns do work but big companies outsource their big campaigns to specialists so could NGO’s do the same? Is it the in-house visions of what pleases these charities different from what inspires the public? Can they plan and place their campaigns thus look past the creation of the art and examine what is effective?
Are the good intentions of good people in charities/photographers peddling medium format beauty using quality of art as the catalyst for change a good enough idea for the public to invest in?
It does not appear so on face value and the evidence for now points to the need for better overall strategic thinking.
I hope Save the Difference works out in some form as some difference is better than none…
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (48 Comments)
A very interesting analysis. THANKS … of course charities do turn to agencies,including duckrabbit.
Out work on Condition critical cost MSF 3.6 p per comment. Big difference hey? The reason for that is much deeper then just the fact they contracted us, but it does show getting the right talent on board can make a big difference.
Last year I took an editorial photos of two famous Royal Ballet principal dancers. We auctioned one signed first print to raise fund for Oxfam’s Haiti earthquake relief. We got £350 for it in a short time. To me this is another way of using “beautiful craft object with keepsake value” to raise money. It’s a win-win. I wish I could go to Haiti myself and photograph the condition there as a photojournalist. But I can make as much difference as a commercial photog too.
Possibly more
We still need good photojournalists to report for charities. Can NGOs raise fund from the images they commissioned? I’ve seen many photojournalism images with high aesthetic quality. A photog friend bought a Paolo Pellegrin print of women mourning in Iran. It sounds macabre, but when I saw the picture I understand why. It’s beautiful. Also reminds us life is fleeting and precious.
We certainly do need photojournalists to shoot for charities but I very much disagree that they should be reporting for them. They should be shooting to a brief set by a journalist to prevent them from indulging their own forms of story telling for aesthetic reasons only.
Look at Larry Towell’s “Crisis in Afghanistan” – beautiful yet empty as journalism in my eyes. I love his images and would buy his book for that reason but I am a photography loving geek. I am not sure he s going to show me more than Junker’s/ Hetherington’s excellent Restrepo which is brutally beautiful yet so full of informational content.
Aesthetic value is very hard to quantify and convert into anything meaningful for an organisation interested in communications. It is very hard to measure its effectiveness apart from pleasing the curatorial/editorial community.
The only way this selling Art has value model is to work would be for photojournalists to sell their images as art pieces for profit to the art community to raise money. This means selling your work as art to the wealthy minority which is entirely at odds with a communications function journalists should adhere to. Most people who pay premium prices for discretionary value can afford both the time and luxury to do so. The limited edition gallery print world is at odds with influencing the many.
Appealing to this minority will be contrary to the communications requirements of shooting for an NGO. That is just my take on it…
I was getting depressed today searching for umbrella charities that might fund photography. Mostly because when I do so, I end up in charities that specialise in funding something else, and after much searching I’ve concluded that there’s not such a thing as a charity dedicated to advancing photography in the UK by providing grants and bursaries to other organisations and people. I also bumped into places like the Henry Moore Foundation, that spends well over a million pounds a year in grants for sculpture, and another million and a lot in other related charitable activities. So, if you love sculpture with every bone in your body, you might just donate your inheritance there, but if you’d have to do the same with photography, where would you put your money?
Sorry for the mostly unrelated rant :o)
You call that a rant? Just read anything written by the mighty duckrabbit to see what a rant is!
“I’ve concluded that there’s not such a thing as a charity dedicated to advancing photography in the UK by providing grants and bursaries to other organisations and people.”
I am not sure why photography deserves to be given charitable status when it has never been so popular a medium of communication.
If you do not think so, look at Canon’s stock price in the last 30 years since photojournalism industry started to face it crisis in the 80’s.
That share price could not rise, give or take a few macro economic bumps, if people did not like photography.
I think they LOVE photography out there…
Yep, but once and again you’ll see that some ventures in photography (as in any other thing) do need funds that do not come from simply selling stuff. I’m not talking about getting paid for doing the work, but things as the odd campaign that is photography related, mantaining archives in institutions, putting up exhibitions, etc. All those things cost money (look at the £8m of refurbishing the Photographers’ Gallery), and in many other disciplines such money is sort of available in different pots and to different extents. I’m not even asking that these things should be paid for, but that at least the option existed that you could give money for the ventures if you wished to do so. OK, of course you can do it in an individual basis (how many photography galleries, organisations and festivals in the UK are charities or non profits after all?), but I guess that sometimes a bit of a more general pot to chip in would not be a bad thing. After all, it doesn’t seem that most photography related projects are sustainable anyway!
Photographers Gallery is run as a conceptual art basis which is tiny section of the meduim. It is elitist and the public don’t like elites nor do they like donating to elitism.
Selling stuff, providing a service, advertising shooting, event shooting all has a social function. Find a reason and find an audience. Then generating value will come if you can spot it.
The photographer community sometimes acts with a sense of entitlement. Pay me for what I Iove doing and love my shots as much as I do. I want to see more hard work and more risk taking in the way stories are shot with photos.
It is the only way. If people are to give to a cause, why fund the lifestyle choice of a photographer all because they love the medium with a passion? Why not fund a doctor to go save some lives for MSF or Save the Children instead?
That is the relative value equation photographers need to think about.
Thanks for the debate!
The thing is you (or I) may not like The Photographers Gallery, but their visitor numbers are excellent …
I must say that is a slippery slope towards not funding anything or donating for anything either (apart of humanitarian action). Also, if you set up your pot of money the right way, I doubt it would finance anybody’s lifestyle the way that arts councils might do. I think that we see the problem from the opposite direction: I try to look at how would trying to create a pot of money benefit us and how much trouble it would be creating and managing one, not receiving from it. I just wonder why photography is very UNDER-represented in this sense, no matter how much photographers complain about other photographers begging. Seriously, remove charitable giving, arts council funding, and grants from other organisations and I doubt you’ll have any theatre or opera left in the UK. I think that bashing photography is counterproductive in that sense.
Sometimes trying to get money by selling stuff can be quite funny, I remember this one:
– How much are the prints in the exhibition?
– £150.
– I meant one of them, I didn’t want them all.
After stuff like that you definitively put the begging bowl out or find a way of making money of 20×24” prints selling at £7 each.
WOW … what a great quote Joni.
OK, I think, that to make myself clearer, my question is not, “is charitable fundraising a good way to finance my photography?” but, “is there a benefit in me giving to photography?”. Obviously they are related, but on the opposite sides of the stick. If I had some money and was about to die I’d probably give to mantain long term photographic projects or institutions, if I thought that they’d needed it and they’d bring some positive change (from allowing photographers resources to finish a project to allowing an institution to run a workshop, e.g.).
One day, a structure will be in place that will be meritocratic enough for you to earn a fair living for working hard to give the audience what they want through adapting a desire for self expression with the social function to communicate information.
Then charitable donations can go directly to help to disadvantaged in the world and not those who cannot make a living dong what they want. Which is more deserving?
Maybe emphas.is will be the new darling although they just filter a form of Kickstarter so enabling the big agencies to effectively say ‘bring me the money without making me change’. I want this to succeed because it will enable a market based model where the purchasing power of the public control of what they want to compete with an unfiltered charity based model where the agencies keep control of what they want to produce.
I know which model I would follow thus in answer to your question, I would say there is relatively very little incentive to give to Emphas.is when viewed relatively all the other charities out there like local charities, the Gates Foundation, MSF, Save the Children, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International etc, etc.
If you do not believe me – ask your non photography friends this: You have £10 to give. A photography project or a development project in a poor place of the world?
Joni, I understand what you are feeling given the current situation but this is a very badly managed industry trying to keep an out of date structure in place to retain control for themselves (using the idea of editorial credibility as a differentiator at the top of the pyramid when the business model is the problem.
There are loads of great pictures out there and no method of managing their place sustainably.
Photographers have a perception of value problem. It is simple, if people do not buy the product then something is wrong and I bet it is not the audiences problem.
“After stuff like that you definitively put the begging bowl out or find a way of making money of 20×24” prints selling at £7 each.”
I assume you are guessing as I am pretty sure that nobody has really attacked the issue of price demand elasticity in the photographic print sale world. Galleries do not do it as they limit editions – good luck to them in the Art market but photography as Art is a very small part of its social function and that model cannot apply to the mainstream uses of the medium.
And it is not just about setting the price low enough for someone to bite – such a 2 dimensional view of business is part of the problem of the current industry.
It is the question of what it takes to bring a product to market at an acceptable price to your intended target audience in a sustainable way. Audiences are very clear, you have to serve their interests and not your own and photography has in the main failed to do this.
It is a business to business network and stock agencies aside, full of high minded hobbyists with no direct methodology to manage, build, sustain and gather the right information over the long term in order to generate value from an audience.
It has resorted to charity to keep the current rulers of the industry at the top of its bankrupt model.
It is that simple and photographers around the world are losing out because of this which is a massive massive shame.
Happy to be made aware of a business where this is not the case!
Interesting, interesting.
@super: “Photographers Gallery is run as a conceptual art basis which is tiny section of the medium. It is elitist and the public don’t like elites nor do they like donating to elitism.”
People do like beautiful, elitist stuff. It’s the photojournalists that don’t like elitist stuff because they’re bit socialist. Not fair to call beautiful, high end things elitist. On luxury things Karl Lagerfeld said, “It’s great to see things you may not buy — because you don’t have the money — but it is very ugly to think they shouldn’t exist because you cannot buy them.”
@Joni: “After stuff like that you definitively put the begging bowl out or find a way of making money of 20×24” prints selling at £7 each.”
100 people can easily afford £7. That’s £700. Tell us where to shop.
Charities: Compassion is down to individuals, no photogs. Really, £5 quid for 4 charities = Only £20. Charity should be a temporary help until the victims are strong enough to be independent. Not forever and ever.
Failing business models: The good news photog industry is shipwrecked together with journalism and creative industry. We can compare notes. It’s time to look at our neighbours and see who can make a fire first out of the twigs. And learn from that person.
Elite gallery art world are valuable part of the cultural make up. The works inside them are beautiful at times and I love them.
They are elitist simply because they work a high value wealthy demographic. Does not mean they have no validity. They are equally valid. I visit them although I cannot but anything other than a book from them.
To my mind, they represent a mature part of the photography market which is structured to serve very few people – the cultural and financial elites (most of the time they are the same people).
We are speaking of photography and social change, of social function, of creating value both economically and culturally. I want to see a magnificent Magnum, Agence VU, Noor all providing honest work for fair wages to as many photographers as they can.
Is this happening? I would be happy to hear if this is. Providing scrutiny is not the same as wanting people to fail. I would love it if all these people were flourishing but are they?
Photographers Gallery: give me a gallery in the middle of London, a set of curators like Danielle Pender, Laura Noble, Chris Littlewood or even someone from HOST or the Cardiff people on the Third Floor. Free them from from their commercial responsibilities and really show off the diversity of the medium. Sell prints at prices people can afford set by business people. Hold exciting events that do not debate abstract conceptual artistic theory. Make it relevant to the majority in the subjects that you choose to show there. Is it that hard?
@super: At Third Floor we do not have any commercial responsabilities. There are no wages, no employees, no stuff is sold (we’ve tried, but the best is to limit it to fridge magnets and t-shirts :o) ). Too tired today to say much more, went swimming for the first time in months and months.
Points of fact:
Photographers Gallery is the most popular photographic gallery by visitor numbers in the UK and it’s FREE.
On what basis is it therefore ‘elitist’?
The private galleries could arguably have that claim levelelled at them, but their aim is to make money so they can do as they want.
No gallery, public or private has any obligation to be “social”. Their aim is to be successful, which in terms of free venues can only really be gauged in visitor numbers as the aethetic merits are always going to be subjective?
Thanks for your comment. You make a good point but numbers alone are not an indication of quality (or wether a venue is elitist or not)
Have you seen how many people stand outside Buckingham Palace? Or pay to watch Man U?
When I produced documentary strands for the BBC if the programme was good I got a large audience and if the programme was shit I got a large audience, quality could never be measured by the audience alone. Engagement is much more important.
I knew if I made a good programme that engaged the audience because there was a clear response (letters, phonecalls, reviews).
Why are you suggesting photography shows are any different? Its an argument for complacency.
What about film. Are numbers a a mark of success? And here is where I differ with IAMNOT, let’s not judge success in money made or money raised.
But even if we do play the numbers game how do you know that the Photographers Gallery couldn’t attract more people by having a more cultured understanding of photography?
“No gallery, public or private has any obligation to be “social”.
I reckon they do if public funds are directed towards them – it is our money after all!
“Photographers Gallery is the most popular photographic gallery by visitor numbers in the UK and it’s FREE.”
How hard is it to beat that – big state subsidy and a central london location just off Oxford Street, the premier shopping street in the UK.
Elitism = look at their prices. Who are they aimed at? Who are they targeting? The work is very abstract trending towards the Art side of the medium and that is a very small part of what photography is.
(The rest is in a tone to try and be a bit more entertaining so forgive me!)
Who has the luxury of life studying artistic contemplation using abstract concepts? Who can afford a life studying say History of Art at University instead of a vocational degree? Who can afford limited edition prints of a medium who’s strength is that it is infinitely reproducable perfectly?
Oh hang on… they do however seem to have a “Gift ideas for under £600” as “with Christmas fast approaching these would make very special gifts.”
SIX HUNDRED POUNDS!!!!!
Who thinks that is a bargain? Cheap at twice the price?
Not me nor the ordinary punter. Who thinks selling prints for £600 is amazingly good value – enough to shout about it and create a section on the website for it? The financial elite.
I prefer to pay off 10 months of my electricity bill as I am not part of that financial elite.
The average income of a person in the UK is somthing around £24,000 a year. Look it up.
Anyhow, who am I and what do I know… Lets ask someone else shall we!
http://www.duckrabbit.info/2010/06/a-larger-corpse-does-not-stop-rotting-chris-steele-perkins-on-the-photographers-gallery/
OK – they have some books in a shop and a cafe to be fair… and a Stephen Gill talk. I did see a great talk with Antoine D’Agata… such is the pull of speaking there. His exhibition was magnificient but that was during the old times when it was in Covent Garden…
Favorite quote in a long time:
‘I prefer to pay off 10 months of my electricity bill as I am not part of that financial elite.’
Priceless.
With regard to the elitist claim, I’m still not clear how that can be aserted by the original poster (though when they see this they’ll perhaps respond).
Not sure what you mean by “engagement”? How do you define that and more significantly, how do you measure it with the varying range of work and styles on show because not all work is designed to be informative, literal, or designed to impress “within the moment”? If the remit of the PG was to inform people about social issues, world events, etc. then the kind of gauges you mention might be appropriate (questionaires, etc).
But as far as I’m aware (and I might be wrong) there is no obligation for them to stick within these areas or any other sub-categories of photography for that matter in which case measuring it via the means you mention might not so straightforward? I mean you could ask the visitors on the way out “did you have a good time?” but I’m not sure it would really be indicative of much (they might say yes as much down to the feeling of well being brought on by the latte and fat slice of carrot cake they’ve just crammed down their throats.)
Don’t get me wrong though, like many I think the PG went off the rails a couple of years ago (seemed much better in the Soho venue), but I don’t think it’s become more elitist. Boring maybe, but elitist?
‘How do you measure engagement?’. Do some qualitative research?
For a publicly funded gallery talking to the people who fund you is not such a bad idea, right?
By the way I certainly don’t want it to show one genre, so I agree with many of the good points you are making. A good debate. THANK YOU.
Duckrabbit
Value is not only financial. I agree. I talk about it more because I know business quite well and it is the more disfunctional aspect of the business.
Falling solider
Fair question on elitism. I introduced it earlier in respect of private galleries selling limited editions. Why I use the term elitist?
“They are elitist simply because they work a high value wealthy demographic. Does not mean they have no validity. They are equally valid.”
I visit them although I cannot but anything other than a book from them.
Publically funded institutions should be much more diverse so I do not think giving them validity in the same way as say Flowers in London works for me. I just don’t like seeing my cash, public funds legitimising cultural elites at stupid prices.
You know you can get an interest free loan for up to £2,000 to buy a print from the photographers gallery?
What planet do they think the public are on when £24,000 a year is the average family? Should I shop at Lidl for 3-4 years instead to pay for my print limited editioned from a negative or digital file?
They think their elitist lives are so normal yet they are so out of touch – this comes across in their curatorial work post-soho… It is all linked to my mind… But maybe only mine!
I can tell that some of you will never buy a woman a diamond ring. Ha! 🙂
Hahaha!!!
Sojournposse…
My partner is a true limited edition impossible to replicate and in any case, we break the normal supply and demand laws of economics where she demands all the time and I struggle to supply the goods!
She has an aesthetic quality that is perfectly composed but aestheic value is fleeting and superficial and as frequently discussed, only the real wealthy can pay for such superficiality or for modifications with a bit or post production. However, the quality of content is huge providing endless intellectual stimulation and she is constantly engaging!
Maybe that makes things different?
This whole print issue aspect is surely a red herring?
How many people visit the PG each year? 500,000?
How many prints do they sell each year? 500 if they’re lucky?
So, as a percentage of customers, you could say 0.1% of the attending customers buy prints. In other words, 99.9% of the visitors don’t buy prints nor even think about it. Hardly a basis therefore for suggesting they are elitist?
The qualitative research issue – well, yeah might have legs if the work was of a consistent type (e.g. social documentary). But imagine a scenario where you had Robert Frank’s ‘The Americans’ exhibited on one floor and some Gregory Crewdson stuff exhibited on another.
‘The Americans’ continues to confound. I’ve go two versions of it (including the one that came out last year). I’ve seen exhibitions of it, thought about it, and still can’t make my mind up whether I like it. And that after years of contemplation. And what about Crewdson’s stuff? There’s an uncanny element that’s intended to unsettle, stimulate thought/the power of imagination in the same way a David Lynch film might. How do you quantitively gauge that? What if the work has no one meaning or reading?
Let’s be clear here, the PG went off the rails (and hopefully when it reopens it will have found its mojo again) but I don’t think that was down to elitism. It was down to poor gallery layout design and overall a poor choice of work to exhibit.
You guys are probably aware of this site: http://500photographers.blogspot.com/ Jam packed with great photography of all styles. Not difficult for PG to find good gallery material to show – just needs a bit of vision.
Your answer is valuable as qualitative research. Repeat that enough times and you get a good sense of your audience. That’s not to say you should always give them what they want!
I don’t think we’d be called duckrabbit it we don’t appreciate work that has ‘no one meaning or reading’ Infact I’d like to think that is true of a lot of my own work.
How come the debate is happening here and not at The Photographers Gallery?
If they filled their/our walls with these, then they’d be very popular.
“This whole print issue aspect is surely a red herring?
How many people visit the PG each year? 500,000?
How many prints do they sell each year? 500 if they’re lucky?
So, as a percentage of customers, you could say 0.1% of the attending customers buy prints. In other words, 99.9% of the visitors don’t buy prints nor even think about it. Hardly a basis therefore for suggesting they are elitist?”
I rest my case. Those selling are out if touch. That conversion rate is appalling and sack whoever is in charge… if that is the case. They have a complete department focused on selling prints.
That puts the business plan of the print store in line with Spammers… suck in 0.1% of people you reach for mega big bucks with a limited edition scam. Boiler rooms selling dubious “investments” have been shut down for less.
Why can’t normal punters just pay a reasonable price for a print they think looks nice or says something about the world that can be printed to order at the size they want without a frame chosen by someone else from a public institution?
Think about it, that is a public body PRICE FIXING!
Those numbers are simply not acceptable are they… who would you blame? Who is responsible for that outrageous outcome? Where is the accountability?
No way these people would listen to the likes of myself. Easier for them to share chardonnays at private openings via invitation than to open themselves up.
Think about it, they invite so they control therefore it is a cultural elite, like Magnum Foundation grant scheme. Trickle down economics failed and trickle down culture fails too.
0.1%… at the TPG… oh my and with public… our money…
Sorry falling solider, forgot to specifically answer your question…
Trickle down culture comes from the top hence must be intrinsically elitist.
“And what about Crewdson’s stuff? There’s an uncanny element that’s intended to unsettle, stimulate thought/the power of imagination in the same way a David Lynch film might”
I am bored of Crewson to be honest. Prefer edgy 35mm of Anderson or Bendiksen. Thing is a Lynch film costs more to produce and for me only a tenner at the flicks and maybe another tenner to own on DVD.
How much are Crewson prints?
If I wanted unsettling, I would switch channels during Eastenders whist my better half is watching… for free!
You see… We are both different and good thing too yet I happen to think we are both legitimate audiences for photography but who does TPG serve?
You expensive prints and me a slice of banana cake and costly latte in the old days at Soho… Not anymore. I go to KK Outlet on Hoxton Square instead and Flowers for the high concepts.
I think you’re missing my point here.
The fact is, the gallery probably makes little money from print sales and is therefore can not be said to be aimed at people who buy them? It’s aimed at the 99.9% of people who DON’T buy. How is it therefore elitist because it sells prints? Those print sales might help cover its operating costs, hardly a crime. Sorry – I just don’t follow the rational of your response.
The role of a public gallery is not to make money (although it might do) – it is to inform, entertain, provoke, and stimulate. It’s what the prints on the wall look and feel like that matter.
The whole ideology is elitist – not just print room strategy!
It is a symptom of the institutionalised bankrupt elitist ideology.
So is their choice of what to show, so was the choice of building design… Stick the premier gallery on the top floor where it is least accessible… so it is not about bottom line income!
Look at Tate Britain “Off the Wall” event. Look at the diversity of people in a space full of paintings from an era long gone. What a great democratic inclusive initiative that has nothing to do with bottom line income.
That is the example. Let me have a go at TPG!!!! I would have not a talk about critical art theory, or photography and architecture in 70’s Open University style… I would put on a night with DJ, edgy urban work from contemporary street photography and flyer it. Matt Stewart? JR Women are Heroes… Get a buzz about the place.
One of the primary reasons we end up having this debate I suppose is that there is a derth of photo venues here compared to other big cites. Everyone is fighting over the same small patch.
Here’s hoping when the KX/Tate redevelopments are finished there are a few new galleries that can accomodate some photography.
One thing we can all agree on I think – London is sh*t when it comes to photographic galleries!
London is not sh*t – there are some cool things out there.
Whenever the KK Outlet shows some photography, go check them out and their choice of books. They have the most diverse range of stuff always with an edge. Danielle Pender I think is the curator and she consistently shows the most interesting work and all done in a small space at great price points. My favourite so I buy my books there.
Flowers East also sometimes get it very right indeed if you like the more artistic side (although I am bored of Burtynsky, Kander and Polidori larger format print it large stuff but see the commercial reasons for it to exist and many other photog’s love it).
HOST/Foto8 support stories based work although I am not sure if they are fully realising their political potential as much as they can but I don’t think they are sh*t at all. They are a tiered pricing membership club so must have a brief to keep their members happy. They do have some great talks if you ever find out about them. They have some nice books too for sale.
I pick on the TPG as it gets public funds so I have a right to have a say and no confidence that they will ever listen. That right extends to everyone else – all of us!
Fair point Mr Falling Soldier. re: derth of photo venues. A very good point.
The reason I am having this debate is I do not see many shooters out there being helped by those sitting at the top of the pile presiding over an industry that needs more radical restructuring to turn upside down the trickle down cultural elitism I see everywhere.
The financials are just the manifestation, the symptom, the most visible part of this elitist ideology.
The structural problems in this industry are visible in non-financial areas too and I think more debate, proper levels of scrutiny, accountability and more democratic power structures are needed from the education system teaching the same stuff to a new generation because that is all they know from their degree’s to the top down editorial business decisions being made by the big agencies to maintain control of the medium.
All one has to do is ask: Is this industry in a healthy state? If you think “no” then the obligation is to remove the problems and find solutions. Who benefits from change? Everyone else apart from the current cultural and financial elite who have presided over the current photojournalistic landscape we live in.
We done duckrabbit for being a catalyst for change and thank you for your contribution to this process.
@falling: London has great photo galleries. I cannot tell you how lucky we Londoners are to have international photogs and emerging photogs presenting work/giving talks at venues. Hard to find this in other cities. There is always something going on each evening, you just have to look.
We get so much pleasure out of these galleries, whether just looking or buying something. Perhaps PG should research why quite of few of us seem to not get pleasure from it.
@super: diamond and lowers. no woman is that feminist, trust me 🙂
Sorry, we seem to have deviated a bit here from the original question.
Can we start another post:
“Is London the arse-end of europe for photo galleries?”
🙂
Ever been to Bristol?
Passed through there once on the way to a friends in Wells.
Why do you ask?
Because if you think London is bad for photography galleries, at least it has some.
@ Sojournposse “diamond and flowers. no woman is that feminist, trust me”
Hahaha – thanks… no woman is that feminist but surely it is better to try take a risk and do something more original!!!????
@super: No woman is that feminist, just as no photojournalist is that socialist.
@falling: I prefer London photo galleries/scene. Maybe I can’t convince you, but last 6 months alone I saw Marcus Bleasdale, Sean O’Hagan, Colin Jacobson, Finbarr O’Reilly, Michelle Sank, Peter DiCampo, Christian Luz, curators etc explained photography/their work in person. Maybe Tom Hunter tomorrow. Most of these events are free (bless the galleries) or really affordable even for skint students. Only in London, so I’m not complaining.
@Sojournposse –
When you say “saw” do you mean as in exhibitions, or saw them talk? If actually saw exhobitions, whereabouts and how big were they?
My beef is not about a lack of photography talks (they’re numerous) it’s about a lack of specialist and permanent photographic exhibition spaces where I can turn up, without prior researching, and likely see something worthwhile/varied.
The venues IAMNOT.. mentions are small (Host), retail spaces (KK Outlet), or places so elitist it hurts me to name them (Flowers East) – they’re not ‘proper’ photo galleries where I can always see major photo exhibitions with extended edits/bodies of work, professionally curated. Compare that to the amount of major art galleries in the captial (NPG, Tate x 2, Hayward, Courthald, NG, Barbican, Saatchi, V&A, ICA) and my point becomes clearer.
Problem is not therefore the PG (and we should be fair about them even if they’re boring). It’s these other places that don’t exist and should!
Barbican – consistently the most amazing place to see photography anywhere I have ever been. Great shout falling soldier. Araki, cappa-taro, lee miller… TPG are so far behind them.
Small does not equal bad? HOST gave Tim Hetherington a great platform for his wonderful Liberia project. Ed Kashi too for his Curse of Black Gold. Not into their gallery speak and not want to be part of a clubby PJ’ism feel but they support great work. Retail does not equal bad.. In fact I love the fact they have no baggage and no pretentions. Just great interesting photography where they seek out the most interesting work and not just the famous stuff suitable for the big guns. Just my preferences.
Flowers is a bit too elitist centrally but East is better grounded and they do show good art based photography. Better than TPG by miles.