Originally Posted by billschwab
Originally Posted by billschwab
Well, let me first state our "mailing list policy" -- the same policy we've had since the inception of LensWork back in 1993: We will never, ever sell, rent, loan or in any way make our mailing list available to anyone for any purpose. Period. We never have, we never will. Period.
Now as to offering my own work via LensWork emails, I did and do -- but only to people who have signed up for our email notifications and have requested emails from us. We don't SPAM. Never have, never will. In our email signup, there are various areas of information you can choose to receive (or not receive) as you'd like. You may sign up to receive information about my personal prints. You may sign up to receive emails about items available in the LensWork store. Yesterday we sent an email to those two lists (only) about two new prints of mine. You would have only received these emails if you have signed up for them.
As to the larger issue of "editor neutrality," I have always been very up front with our readers about this. I have no neutrality and have never claimed to be neutral. I am an advocate for fine art photography. I believe passionately about photography and the creative path, about prints, about creative vision, about making photographs. I've been passionate about photography for over 35 years and LensWork is an outgrowth of that passion. I am not neutral because I was a photographer long before I was an editor and will be one long after LensWork is a publishing memory.
I wonder if this thread is about me or about "commerce"? Some of you know how expensive it is to publish a magazine. None of you have any idea how expensive it is to publish a magazine printed on a book press to museum-book printing standards. I do. I do it every sixty days. And I do it without taking any outside advertising. Where do you think the money comes from? We don't take outside advertising because we don't want to waste the valuable space in LensWork with ads and because we don't think photography is about equipment. We want to preserve every square inch of the magazine we can for CONTENT. Compare LensWork to any other magazine, and you'll see the difference immediately. I suppose I don't need to mention this to most of you. We do, however, use a few pages, in the back (usually 7-9, rarely more) to inform our readers about other products we publish -- call it advertsing if you'd like -- and we do sell things to help pay for the cost of running our business. I am not apologetic about this. Nor am I apologetic about the fact that some of the items we sell are things I produce myself -- like my books of essays about photography, my discs of podcasts -- or my prints.
You see, I am one of the luckiest guys I know. My "work" and my "play" are the same thing. I do not distinguish between what I do for a living and what I do for passion. My life in photography is not divided between my "business" and my "hobby." I think photography everyday. I do photography everyday. I talk photography everyday. I love it. If you think that I should somehow separate my personal work from my professional work then you miss the essence of LensWork entirely. Since LensWork #1 we've include this statement on the very first page of every issue of LensWork -- that "Photography is, or can be, a way of life." I am simply living that statement.
I know some of you have begun to sour on LensWork, on me -- partly because of my use of digital stuff, partly other reasons. I feel badly about this; it is my nature to be bothered that I seem to have offended folks. But I must admit that I have been puzzled by this animosity toward the one publication that seems to be exclusively devoted to the highest quality reproduction of fine art photographs rather than the latest equipment.
The bottom line: I am who I am. LensWork is my publicaiton (I should say "ours" because it belong entirely to Maureen and me -- by the way, we were married 9 months before the birth of LensWork and remain blissfully so) and will continue to be an advocate for fine art photography as long as we choose to continue publishing it. We will continue to offer other products to help us defray the costs. Some of these products will be our "personal" photographic artwork -- as it has been since our very first LensWork Special Editions offerings in 1998, one of Maureen's nudes titled Suspended. If this is offensive to you or you think this violates some concept of "editor neutrality" I guess there is little I can do to persuade you otherwise. To the rest of our readers who find inspiration and fellow travelers when they read our magazine, books, and CDs, sometimes listen to our podcasts, or buy our prints, thanks. If it weren't for those of you who appreciate what we publish, we'd be out of business in a flash. In fact, you guys are the reason we are in the publishing business. You mean more to use than you'll ever know.
Editor, LensWork Publishing
I appreciate the quality of the reproductions in LensWork Brooks.
(added later) How does that saying go again...you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Bully for you, Brooks! I read your magazine as well as other magazines. I see no conflict of interest with you or Lenswork. Digital or not. It's about the creative process. I have seen other magazines do some interesting things with their space but its just business and we the consumers need to be aware of this.
If you don't want your personal information given? Just say so if you can. If you can't then buy your magazines at the local community retailor. This goes many things. It supports your local business, keeps you off the magazines radar and if enough copies are sold then more are purchase by the retailor.
I have signed up to; and generally enjoy Brooks Podcasts, I don't alway agree with him, but that's another matter. I do not currently subscribe to his magazine, although it's high-time I did. I cannot recollect receiving any unsolicited emails from him.
IMO, this screams out "CONFLICT OF INTEREST", unless said editor actually paid for the advertising space. Even then, I find it to be questionable. It would be in much better taste to advertise elsewhere. I would expect an editor to be unbiased in providing/approving material for the publication. Providing their own personal work disappoints that expectation, unless of course that publication is by and about the editor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
One characteristic of Lenswork (and it's in abundant evidence in Brook's post above) is that there is simply no ambiguity whatsoever about where the editorial point of view comes from or who it serves. Try to accurately discover what agendas drive the editorial bias of any other magazine. The 'popular' photo mags seem to be slavishly beholden to whatever their advertisers are pushing, and that creates the almost amusing hypocrisy of digicam advocacy illustrated by traditionally taken photographs. Even B&W seems to 'respond' in kind to their advertisers with feature articles and the like (recall the extensive spread on Michael and Paula whose photographs are advertised at the very front of the magazine in almost every issue. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it can raise eyebrows nonetheless.).
In the interest of avoiding hypocrisy it would be interesting to have those who are throwing stones here be upfront about their own agendas and motives if they have any that haven't been disclosed.
A neutral, or unbiased editor is an absolute impossibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdholden
Brooks is not just the editor...the whole enchilada is his and Maureens to do with as they see fit...they own it!
I initially replied to the original post. I have since edited my comment since reading all the other replies. It seems that Brooks is the exception, not the rule. Most magazines are cheaply printed and have several advertisements.
Hi Chris, no worries mate ;)
P.S. I'm a slave to the edit button...