NY Times "Discovers" Women Photographers
OK that title is a little disingenuous but the article in question is more than a little condescending and deserving of mocking. In Sunday's business section the New York Times published Baby on Board, and a Photography Business, Too about women who come to photography as a business after photographing their own children, expanding to their friends and then beyond. For women that approach photography as a business this is actually not a bad business model to follow. They find out they love something, they do it first only out of love and then gradually expand their pursuit into a money making venture. As the article pointed out many of these women do have other jobs that pay their bills so they can start small, with just a few clients and low rates, and still turn a profit. If they are serious about photography as a business and have talent and determination their potential for growth and success is pretty limitless.
That's not really the article's point though. Actually I don't think the article has much of a point but I'll share the impression that I got from the article "oh look isn't it cute how women can now be photographers, well photographers of children, because cheap, easy to use digital cameras make it so simple for them. It's so cute as long as it doesn't hurt, you know "real" photographers too much."
"Lots of mom-with-a-camera businesses fail because they try to do it around the edges," said Mrs. Brophy, who has a preschool-age daughter and two teenagers and works as director of external relations at the Warner School of the University of Rochester in addition to running her weekend photography business. "Plus, women face a business dilemma when they have to ask their husbands if they can buy a new camera."Emphasis mine.
A more interesting article would have been about new photographers in general who have come to photography because cheaper equipment and digital technologies have removed some of the previous barriers to photography both as an art and a business. This article also could have focused on how many of these new photographers are establishing portrait businesses because it's a more direct route to actually making money than say advertising photography, the pennies for picture microstock business model, or the decidedly small travel and landscape market. If you had to have the "Moms with a camera angle" the article could have focused on women who use the profits from their portrait businesses to give them the time and equipment to pursue other artistic photography pursuits, or used the profits to decrease their "normal" working hours and have more time with their kids and families. But no, pitting "Mom's with cameras" against "real professional" photographers is so much easier and much more fun and turning up your nose at digital photography for the supposed glory days of film is much better as well.
< / sarcasm>
"A man only comes to my studio when a woman decides that she wants a picture of him. So if moms are driving all the photo sales, then it makes sense that all these new photographers armed with digital cameras are moms." - Kirk Voclain
Tags: photography, mwac, portrait photography
Hm. Brophy's comment about the reality of family financial decisions didn't rankle me as much. I know that if I were going to go into business, that I'd need to buy better, more expensive equipment (like that Leica M8 I'm drooling over). I would have to dip into joint family finances to buy the kit and all the accessories needed to get up and running as a portrait photographer. I don't think a person - regardless of their gender - should enter into such a huge expense before discussing it with their partner.
I agree that it might have been a more effective article if they hadn't trotted out the "real" photographers vs. "hobby" photographers angle, but I actually appreciated that the article offered an option to women (one I hadn't even considered) who might be looking for a way to do what they love/what they're good at while allowing them to spend more time with their children.
Makes me wish I had a greater affinity for kids, I tell you.
I completely agree with you about discussing large purchases with your partner. I discuss, in detail with B, every piece of equipment or gear I want to buy. But the phrasing of the above quote irked me because it seemed more of a subservient "ask permission" situation instead of equal partners discussing joint finances.
You're right about the article at least publicizing an alternate career path for certain women and that is good in and of itself. Good comment.
I see your point on the subservience issue. Not all couples approach money in terms of 'equal partners contributing to the household finances' - you only need to watch a couple of episodes of Dr. Phil to have that reinforced. I think Brophy was attempting to speak for those women who may still be on (unpaid) mat leave but who discover an affinity for photography. They're not bringing any money home, so in many ways they are dependent on their husbands to support their new business venture. I spent the first two and a half years of my marriage completely dependent on Rik for everything, and I think that's why I'm willing to give Brophy a pass on what she said. It was kind of ham-fisted, but I think her head was in the right place.
You have a great perspective on this that is different from mine. Thanks for your comments on this issue.
As one who was interviewed, I was appalled at the way I was "lumped into" the category of MWAC when that is not the direction the interview went. I'm still shaking my head about that entire article, but I do appreciate your discussion of it.
Jodie Otte
www.jottestudios.com