photography

Wishing you health in 2020 and a message to support your artists.

Not much to add to the current discussions except to wish you & your family health and well-being.

As most artists are currently not working & client load is zero, please consider buying directly from artists if possible.

Some sites to consider for more direct purchasing include Vimeo On Demand for films, Bandcamp for music, and of course, personal websites, yours included.

Wishing you well and talk soon.

As a further note, if for example, I cannot process an order immediately (photo or art print), I will get it to you as soon as possible, and appreciate the patience.

Wishing you well, and enjoy some photos from a new series below (any avail to purchase, just let me know. haven’t yet decided the print number or size yet, but they will be limited prints).

IMG_0971.JPG
27805D5D-8C14-4266-994C-AD22BD2729F9.JPG
FullSizeRender 3.jpg
IMG_1040 2.JPG
IMG_1099.JPG
RNI-Films-IMG-689AB739-6173-4D02-A593-DA586C7852D0.JPG
IMG_0968.JPG
FullSizeRender.jpg
IMG_1259.JPG
IMG_1195.JPG


Hollywood Movies; a commodity?...and other sidetracked thoughts...

The distinction of movies as art, commerce or technology is not an easy one to make, once you extinguish the emotional commitment to one or a combination of the others. The filmic language is probably easier to differentiate itself from photography, whose had a historically more contentious relationship with itself as art work (see here for just a glimpse and one sided take on the subject) . Films just have more moving parts.

But the other argument to make is that most filmmaking, most of the time in it's largest scale is really closer to being a commodity than it is an art. Hollywood churns out a product, a seemingly efficient one, although still messy that resembles a factory process. Now, we all know that this is not true in the same way you produce a cereal product, but, it's main goals is too redo whats worked as sound business practice. However, we all know that repeating a historic process doesn't guarantee a future. And that is precisely where we are now.

My biggest question on the matter of the filmic language is whether or not the form itself demands a need for universality. The means of production and execution have historically been massive. One Hollywood blockbuster could get at at least 100 hundred startups up and running. But that's not the point. To make the money back, you basically need not offend a large group of people, but at the same time, give them a very mediocre experience that's worked in the past. That's top down, middle of the road commoditization. That's what you get at the grocery store. And since, at that huge level of production costs, Hollywood thrives as a monopoly, minimizing risk is the top priority. But, as we all know, a monopoly who doesn't innovate, implodes eventually. 

The real issue is whether movies in the way they are created and marketed could continue to sustain itself in the longer run in a world where media elsewhere keeps downsizing and splitting of into smaller, but more dedicated niches. Even in entrepreneurship, the shift is too micro.

But micro was historically never intended for narrative movies, which had for years depended on a large segment of a population, mildly agreeing with it's storytelling because of habit, to recoup the large costs of production. Of course, Hollywood also created some(a large percentage) of the most memorable movies in the history of the media. 

I believe for now, that the move to niche is only possible, if niches for these new stories exist. And even if they do, is it economically viable for creators to keep producing, or, are we not doing the work necessary, to create another language with similar tools? Or do need to spend the energy on new tools and platforms?

Because supply is everywhere you look. The other part of the equation is undoubtably lessening.