Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Talent? It's Not Needed  (Read 792 times)
BenjaminKanarek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« on: January 26, 2012, 01:04:29 AM »
ReplyReply

What’s the Score? Marketing-13 Talent-7

It is becoming more evident to me, the longer I am in this business, that it has become more of a marketing game than that of talent, for those wishing to succeed in any "Artistic" venture.

I am reminded, that in the last decade and even more so prior to it, if you wanted to get an assignment for a magazine or an Ad Campaign, you had to always pass through the Art Director or Creative Director. Once doing so and if the response was positive, you would be introduced to the Fashion Editor on that particular assignment or the traffic coordinator at the ad agency. You basically were hired because you either had talent, or your work had been seen in a competing magazine or on some billboard and you thoroughly impressed the Art Director or who ever turned you on to them to call you in. So either way, someone recognized your talent. In that environment the score would be closer to Talent-21 Marketing-3.  Not taking in to consideration a great agent.

Today, in most cases, the Art Director has been assigned a more pragmatic and cursory role as a layout artist for the major magazines out there. The decision for hiring the photographer, is in the hands of the Fashion Stylist and Editor more often than not. That has changed the dynamic dramatically and as a result the criteria for choosing talent has changed. It is not only talent that matters, but the celebrity or top model that was used in the image, as well as the recognized Fashion Designer that is featured in it. If you do not have any of these key ingredients, in most cases, it doesn't matter how incredible your image is, it may be passed over due to that glaring over sight.

As a result of this new dynamic, what is more important than ever is NOT talent, (which I believe has taken a back seat role in this scenario) and given rise to the importance of Marketing. Now this in it's own right is another form of creative talent, that must be taken in to consideration as well, when embarking in this or any of the other Media oriented forms of expression. I am not saying that talent does not count. What I am saying is that talent has been re-calibrated so to speak, to reflect the social landscape of our culture. Thus, talent is not only equated by the perceived beauty of the imagery, music or art form, but by the way it has been marketed. The marketing has become an integral part of the art form, thus the art form.

So the next time you observe an image in VOGUE, Harper's BAZAAR, ELLE, Marie Claire, Numero Magazine, or what ever and say to yourself, "I could have done that..." Just be reminded, that you probably could have. So what's the problem then? I suggest you go ahead. But just remember, that having Talent is only around 10% of the formula. The rest is a highly guarded secret.

So what's the score? I'll give you a play by play update as it comes in. But the gap is widening and as of now, it is Marketing-26 Talent-7...

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2011/02/24/what-is-score-marketing-talent/
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2012, 04:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Why does it take 10 rock guitarists to change a light bulb?

One to change it, and 9 to say ”I could have done that better!”  Grin
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6065



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2012, 08:32:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Benjamin,

To really see how bad it's gotten, go on the web and look up Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #96," which sold at Christies in May for 3.9 million. Then check Andreas Gursky's "Rhein II," which Christies sold for 4.3 million in November.

Here's one I shot a couple weeks ago in a men's room. If I could get it into one of Christies's auctions, I figure it ought to sell for at least 2 million.
Logged

Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 222


« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2012, 09:43:45 AM »
ReplyReply

...

Here's one I shot a couple weeks ago in a men's room. If I could get it into one of Christies's auctions, I figure it ought to sell for at least 2 million.

You need to print it about 12 feet by 10 feet first, then you got a shot.  Or perhaps we should reverse the trend and begin offering postage-stamp prints bundled with a magnifier.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad