Art vs Audience: What Photography Can Learn from the Movie Business

In my previous post, I explored the movie business. One major difference between filmmaking and photography is that movies are almost always commercial ventures. Someone fronts the production costs, and they expect a return. Directors must create stories that connect with audiences—not just artistically, but financially.

📸 But is photography the same?

In Brooks Jensen’s podcast, he insists he makes photographs solely for himself. Audience size doesn’t matter to him. He sees his role as carrying forward the lessons and philosophies of great photographers before him. That said, I suspect he still appreciates affirmation from peers he respects.

Photographers can afford this independence because the cost of creating images is relatively low. We don’t need investors. Depending on the genre, we often don’t need assistants—let alone a full production crew.

🎧 In a recent episode titled HT2403 – Sales Are Not a Measure of Success, Brooks argued that bestselling photographs simply resonate with the most people. That doesn’t automatically make them great art. I agree. But it raises a question:

If no one responds to a photograph I post, can it still be considered great art?

Some of my favorite images have received little interaction. Others I felt lukewarm about ended up resonating strongly. Is it just a matter of finding the right audience? Or does even that not matter?

💬 Personally, I still value audience interaction. My sense of great art is similar to how I view movies:

• Some photographs resonate with a wide audience.

• Others connect deeply with a smaller, more passionate group.

I don’t want to make work so obscure that no one understands it. I want my photographs to spark something—emotion, memory, curiosity. And yes, I’d love for them to generate income.