Something I realized after much thinking and study: it seems that photographers see painters as superior to them. Thus the desire is the photographer is to become a painter, because the history of painting is longer and more legitimate than that of photography.

But perhaps the best is for the photographer to think of himself or herself as superior to the painter?

Why?

• 

• 

What do we photographers lack? Self-respect.

Why do we lack self-respect? Several things:

First of all, the history of photography is a lot less than the history of painting. But funny enough, the painter once saw himself as inferior to the poet, in which poetry had a longer lineage than painting.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The barrier to entry in Photography as very low

Another problem: the past history of art was in which one had to enter a master apprentice relationship, and train for many years to become adept. for example, everyone can make a photograph with their iPhone, but not everyone can paint an oil painting.

• 

• 

• 

Photography is very easy

• 

• 

• 

Another big thing: photography is very easy. All you have to do is frame and click the shutter. It’s also done practically instantly. And actually we have a bias that we think that the longer something takes, the more valuable it is. That is why people see film photography as superior to digital photography, because film photography is more mysterious, more difficult, and not everyone could do it.

Maybe we should think about photography like chess

The reason why I love chess is this: any child could learn chess in a matter of hours, but it takes a lifetime to master. in this way, chess is very egalitarian. Kind of similar to how the universe of “ready player one” is the same: everyone starts off at zero, and with one’s perseverance and courage, does one ascend the ranks.

I think this is also the big appeal of Instagram, Facebook, and other social media platforms: there is a perceived notion of fairness and equality.

Effort should not equate worth

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Once again, we think the worthiness of something is associated with the difficultness of achieving it.

But should we actually think that to accomplish something great with the minimum effort is more majestic and graceful? “Sprettezura” should be seen as better?

Houdini made it look too easy

Apparently when Houdini first started doing his magic tricks, he made it look too easy. He would unchain himself in seconds, thus leaving no intrigue to the viewer. Thus overtime he learned that the best way to attract an audience was to show “perceived fake difficulty”. To witness the struggle is what made it so fascinating to watch.

For example, I know personally when I see somebody attempt a one rep max lift, it is seeing them struggle and push them selves to the maximum is what makes it so interesting. If somebody lifts a very heavy weight too easily, it is less interesting to watch.

What makes something sexy?

Maybe the reason why pornography is so boring is that it is almost too easy. When a woman unreveals herself too quickly and easily, it is actually not very attractive. Often the opposite.

For example, maybe the reason why we are more attractive to women with cleavage than bare breasts, is because the cleavage is more mysterious than seeing the actual breast.

And maybe that is why Japanese pornography with censoring is maybe more erotic for Japanese men viewing it. Because when you could see all the sexual organs to clearly, it is less interesting.

Conclusion

Before I get to off-topic, a quick conclusion:

Photographers shouldn’t see ourselves as below painters. In fact maybe the opposite. We should see ourselves as superior to painters.

ERIC