Search the Community

I posted this photo years ago on a photo forum. It was the cover photo from a maquette of 'Shadows in Time' which was an artist's book I was working on. I chanced upon the old thread years later. I don't always have the time to get back to all the threads I start. I'm on many forums and just too busy outside of the forums. I started with online forums way back in the BBS days. Even before that, we had snail mail forums, where someone printed out the forum contributions on a dot matrix printer, Xeroxed them and snail mailed them to all the members. Anyway, the forum person said they didn't like the shadow and liked the deer scene only. The subject of the thread was photographers' shadows in photos. I thought, goddamn, this was a photo forum, the shadow is what makes the photo, why don't they see it? But zir is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is; you can't force talent or an 'eye' on anyone. Some may be able to improve, but generally speaking, either you got an eye for this stuff or you don't. The genius produces outstanding work with little or no effort, whereas the non-genius may struggle to produce something mediocre. If we could all be geniuses at what we aspire to be by going to class or cracking a book open...we would. In the early 1970's I had a friend that went to Art Center College in L.A. (Old location) He studied photography. I would sometimes go to class with him to sit in on classes. I could not afford to go there, so that was as close as I got to Art Center. (I would also sneak in to use their dry mount press until they caught me and kicked me out.) Anyway, I noticed in the critique sessions for weekly assignments the same students would produce more or less outstanding photos for each assignment. Some would produce OK photos and maybe a great one once in a while and some would produce low end stuff as their general output. Later on with my work as an art director I noticed a similar thing with artists I would hire or do portfolio reviews on. Some had good technical abilities, but poor creativity. Others had creativity but poor technique. Others had both technique and creativity, but were flakes. Back in the 1980's I interviewed a gal for an art job. She was in her 40's and had retired from business. She was well off selling her business for millions and lived in a mini-mansion in San Marino, CA. Her new 'hobby' was she wanted to be an artist. She said she had taken some art classes and showed me her portfolio. The draftsmanship was poor and creativity was poor. And her prices to do jobs were very high. Her background as a successful business owner tainted her realistic conception of what is paid for art jobs. Her work smacked of someone with little art talent that struggled to put it down on paper or canvas. It wasn't in her, she had little talent and just studying art in school did not do much for her...she had no natural talent for art. Now someone with natural talent bangs it out with little or no effort, whereas she struggled just to produce sub-par work. That is what separates the genius from the non-genius. In my own case I tried to learn some creativity with book cover design. I used to produce lots of artist's books. Designing the cover has always been hard for me. I am not a creative person in that area. I bought a number of books on cover design. I studied and studied them over and over again. The best I could do with my creativity for cover design would be to try and copy off of other people's covers I liked in the book. It just wasn't in me. When I first started with photography in 1969 / 1970 I wanted to be a fashion / studio photographer. After a few years it sunk in I had no talent for that type of work. Eventually I stopped forcing things and moved to another area of work that I do have talent in...but it was just by chance. I could have dedicated my life to forcing myself to work in an area I was not suited for. We all have different abilities; we each have to decide how much of us we want to spend on areas we work in. Sometimes a thing clicks in the mind and you are ready to go. That is what happened to me after working on infrared flash for 4+ years and failing. Something clicked. But I could have easily given up after 4 years of failure. Sometimes it is just a crapshoot! Staten Island Ferry NYC, 2016 (Candid) Selection from The American's...60 years after Frank artist's book. by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. <><><><> Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

You know, art shows are only up for a few weeks or months. Most gallery shows are about 6 weeks then they go poof! Like they never existed. If you go to galleries or museums, shoot some photos and upload to the Internet Archive to preserve something of it. You don't have to make a big deal of it. Ask is photos are allowed, they almost always are, and shoot the show. If you get the display card in the photo you don't have to name the photos. It does not take much time to shoot a show. You are already there, so might as well contribute a bit to the historical record. Start at the entrance and get some shots. Throckmorton Gallery NYC 2018 Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr. You don't have to get artsy with your photos, but you can if you like. Whatever...it is all part of the historical record. Whitney Museum NYC: Warhol From A To B & Back Again (Candid) Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr. 2018 If you want to be more anal in nature and a 'just the facts mam' type of documentarian, then do that. Stifel Fine Art Center: Student Art Show 2022 Photo D.D.Teoli Jr. While it does not take much time to shoot a show...it can take lots of time to post process if it was shot poorly. When you shoot, try to do a half-ass job with exposure and not having things too catawampus. (You like that word? I learned it from an old hillbilly named Jim. He taught me about process cameras, blueprint machines and vacuum frames back in the old days, when I was a kid starting out in the graphic arts field in the early 70's.) Entrance to installation at the Museum of Sex for: The Incomplete Araki: Sex, Life, and Death in the Works of Nobuyoshi Araki Infrared Flash Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr. 2018 While flash photography is usually not allowed. I sneak in some invisible infrared flash photos once in a while. The IR flash really illuminated the ropes...huh! Reflections are a constant problem along with contrasty lighting. Just do the best you can. Since no one is paying you for your work, whatever you contribute to the historical record comes under the auspices of 'something is better than nothing.' Just don't put up anything embarrassing that may hurt your name, as far as producing low-quality work and have it follow you around on the internet if someone Googles your name. For me, I put up anything I like. I have no limits. I'm underground and not looking for a job...so I work without any restraints whatsoever as far as content. But I try to only show half-ass, decent work. Beining a social documentary still photographer, I do have standards in that area. Museum Of Sex NYC: Sculpture of 'Norah' by Shona Mc Andrew 2016 Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr. 2018 Beside circular fisheye, you can also shoot panoramic photos of the installation or joiner collages. If they have video / film running...shoot a video of their video to archive it! Joiner photography examples: Internet - Fair Use ...and don't forget the outside of the building if it is notable! Museum of Sex NYC 2018 Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr. One last thing... Don't put up any low-res garbage. Put up decent res photos. At least 1 or 2 MB....minimum! You never know when your photo/s will be the last extant record of the artwork / show / whatever and you don't want your legacy to be shit.