Stock: The Aesthetics
of Conformity

By Dale O’Dell





         Five years ago when I wrote Stock is Not a Style, I had hoped that the “content” or “uniqueness” of the imagery would determine its price, but I was wrong. (And I dare you to find any other stock photo “expert” who’ll admit they’re wrong, even
 
after they’re proven to be completely full of crap.) Usage still determines rights-managed rates, and file size determines royalty-free rates, and nothing about the pictures themselves has any bearing on pricing. That’s right, in the grand marketplace of stock photography all the images are the same and the artists are nameless, interchangeable and irrelevant.

         Real artistic expression and exploration requires independence from corporate-think, isolation from the monoculture of universal sameness, and a certain amount of risk-taking and adventurousness. My personal experience with corporate editors (and again I ask, who are these people and what are their qualifications for editing?) is they will crush you with negativity and rejection if you don’t follow the tried-and-true formula. But unique and memorable imagery is not, and never will be, the result of following formula. Only individuals with unique perspectives and a passion for expression can create truly unique and new imagery. The agencies* that allow artists to be artists and don’t constrain them to conform to some arbitrary generic aesthetic, will have the most diverse, interesting and innovative imagery in the marketplace. Unfortunately few agencies encourage, or even recognize, truly original imagery.

         Corporations are risk-adverse entities, and corporate stock agencies are the worst perpetrators because they promote formulaic generic sameness as cutting edge art! The thing is, too often picture buyers are so inexperienced and time-constrained that they believe this marketing garbage. If you continually tell the consumer that your offerings are “cutting edge” they’ll eventually believe it.

         Despite the agencies’ marketing propaganda, uh, verbiage, they’d do well to remember the old advertising adage: Perception is Reality. Most picture buyers and photo researchers believe, based on past experience, that stock is, well, stock, as in: average, plain, unexceptional, routine, dull, formulaic and just not that creative. Sure, when they need that last minute, low budget, and hole-in-the-layout filling picture they’ll use stock. But when they get that bigger budget creative job, they don’t even think about using stock.

THE CYCLE CONTINUES

         They don’t consider stock imagery because by and large, the agencies don’t market the unique stuff. Sure, there’s a little to be found, but usually buried so deep in the database that it’s too much effort for the user to locate it, so they don’t think it’s there
. So it doesn’t get licensed. So the agencies accept less and less of it. So it’s licensed less and less. The cycle continues.

         “Creativity” in the corporate world means new versions of the same old thing. Frustratingly, as an artist, the harder you try to be creative and unique the more your imagery will be rejected because it doesn’t fit into the corporate editors’ preconceived idea of acceptability.

         It would be fabulous if one of the huge corporate agencies would accept and actively promote truly creative artworks. They could legitimately claim to have a unique product and they could charge the big bucks for it. It would be a boutique niche for sure, but it’s one that no one has yet filled. Unfortunately the stock image business has been “Walmarted” and it doesn’t look like there’s any turning back.

Dale O'Dell is a regular contributor to PhotoStockNotes. He produces cyber-generated stock photography from his studio in Prescott, Arizona. Email: HYPERLINK "mailto:dale@cybertrails.com;VF"dale@cybertrails.com; Web: http://www.dalephoto.com"http://www.dalephoto.com


           


           

Tommy Thompson

Kerry Kolb

Jon Saban

Jake Nelson