Other people’s photos are always more interesting to me. When I look at other people’s photos, I always find them better made than mine: the technique is better, the composition is better, the tones are better, the colours or contrast are better, the artistic vision is more obvious, they’re more innovative, and the general idea is more interesting.
It doesn’t matter what the subject matter is, how mundane or ordinary what is pictured is, I always find other people’s photos more interesting to look at than mine.
This isn’t the classical “creator’s curse” in which the burden of the creative process you experience taints the final product, when other people’s products come free of that burden and therefore look more accomplished, as if they appeared instantly, out of nowhere, following no painful process (it must be “talent”, right?).
I don’t think is just unexpectedness either. Our brains are wired to look for the new. That’s how social media trap people: the endless exposure to new stuff people create generates a constant dopamine high. It doesn’t matter if it’s low quality garbage (think AI). The simple fact that others’ images have been thought of by a different brain makes them immediately more appealing. Conversely, spending time making something creates familiarity that diminishes its dopamine value. But I think it goes deeper than that.
I know I suffer from “done it, move on” syndrome: I’m interested in the process, much less in the result. Doing something is important to me. But the resulting thing generally has little importance. Even having done something is unimportant. To me, an idea or a process are interesting, an object or a past achievement aren’t.
It might all come down to one thing: processes vs product oriented temperament. I’m clearly process oriented: the process is what keeps me interested, what motivates me, what makes me start something new. In that process, I learn things, discover things, solve problems, and grow. Validation is internal and can’t come from anyone else.
Other people are more product oriented: they have a goal, they achieve it, they’ve achieved something tangible. Often they don’t mind doing it again because each time they produce a new thing. They derive their satisfaction of having produced the thing. They grow by having created more things that others validate for them. They create portfolios, exhibitions, and show their photos in social media.
“Success” under these conditions has a very different meaning depending on whether you’re process or product oriented.
I suspect product oriented photographers are more successful on our materialist societies. Both in their feeling about themselves (they’ve achieved the product they wanted and others validate it) and commercially (they’ve delivered the product to the client/social group). Without even considering monetary value, the fact that you can present something to people who can then give it value for you with little investment makes life easy.
It’s more difficult to even have the feeling of being successful when there is no end point, no physical thing to show others. In a very transactional society, not being interested in the produced things is a disadvantage.
It’s possible, though less straightforward, to be successful if you’re process oriented. For example by documenting that process, for yourself and others. Creating BTS or howto videos. Creating a Substack newsletter on how you do things (hint hint). They all take more time to produce, and require more involvement from others to work, which makes them less suitable for social media.
If you’re process oriented like me, you might need to abandon the idea of being social media successful and find other ways to reach satisfaction.
#Photography #Opinion #IMayBeWrong #Theory #PhotographyTheory