amateur vs pro

A student writes:

In the future, I will try to look through other mediums, and try to limit my use of “high” photography.

i have nothing against “high” photography (or any other “high” theme you pick).

here
the concept is different.

if you write on “high” photography,
you have no title
and furthermore we can read a huge amount of things about it,
without having specific need to have you adding stuff.

at the opposite,

if you write on different kind of photography (on different kind of any subject)
first of all we are impressed because we never thought about such a theme (whatever is the theme as long as it is new and it has a logical sense)
secondly,
since no one ever wrote about it,
you automatically become the expert on it.

possible examples of what i mean:

– the way human body is used (photography) by the italian press (and comparison to your country)
– the way foreigners are represented in the italian press (and comparison to your country)
– milan and photography: xyz authors in different periods
– italian portraits as found on the daily press (on internet on any other thing you like): a collection of milanese faces, one per day
– etcetcetc

this exercise should define you as an expert on something (we never heard about it before)
not being an amateur, pretending to be a well established professional critics.

(above: Armin Linke, Book on demand)

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: