Stock Photography as Seen Through Sociological Lenses
An essay on how society shapes the conventions of stock photography and how, by abiding them, stock photogrpahy creats its own aesthetics. Submitted for SOC 3008 on March 11, 2021.
The idea that stock photography is a product of a collective, social consciousness may be somewhat unsatisfying, but it is surely arguable. One can be dismayed at the existence of the stock photo of a woman affectionately kissing a fish, but one cannot deny that for that photo to exist in the first place and be accessible to consumers, someone in our society believed this particular composition is appropriate as a stock photo in our epoch. One approach to understanding stock photography’s peculiar aesthetics is to review what makes stock photography known as stock photography. In this paper, I will examine stock photography through the sociological lenses of cultural conventions and contextual specificity. I will first position stock photography in the framework of artistic conventions. Then, I will analyze a specific example of a stock photograph within that framework. Finally, I will conclude with observations on how society shapes the conventions of stock photography, and how, by abiding by them, stock photography created its own aesthetics.
Considering stock photography’s popularity and reputation, it is understandable if one does not immediately see it as a form of cultural production, or something of artistic value. A handful of decades back, in the 1940s, the status of photography in general as a form of art was evidently contentionable. Some object to this relatively new form of documenting human activities and nature as being of artistic value due to its inherently mechanical nature. That is, what the “mechanical eye” of the camera sees is different from what the human eye and, ultimately, what the human imagination sees (Brock). As a result, the camera’s production is considered merely a reproduction of the tool’s constitution, not a capture of our human creativity, which some extol is what grants something artistic value (Brock). Since then, however, photography has been widely regarded as a form of art that warrants institutionally supported, systematic study, curated exhibitions, and continuous critical discussion. Cinematography, a medium built upon photography, has also long since been viewed as art (Kaufman).
Nonetheless, this paper’s purpose is not to argue that stock photography is necessarily an art form due to it being a subdivision of photography, for that would be a discussion too lengthy to ever leave room for the purpose of this paper, which is to examine the conventions that shape stock photos’ production and how they function within the society. The purpose of this brief backdrop is to situate stock photography as a form of cultural production operating within the artistic conventions similar to that of photography, despite it not generating the level of critical discussion and recognition like the later.
Shaped by previous exposures to the subject, when people nowadays think of stock photography now, it is now customary to conjure up photographs of cheesy, exaggerated, and sometimes nonsensical images. Such was not the case in its early inception in the 1920s.
The impression given to us by a famous early stock photo, titled “Group in Front of Tri-Motor Airplane,” patently goes against the contemporary notion of a stock photo. Indeed, assuming they do not know for a fact that this is a stock photo, due to its grayscale hues and ordinary composition, a contemporary viewer who is accustomed to the apparent artificiality that we associate with stock photos today most likely will not consider this a stock photo at all. This discord between its actual purpose and our immediate interpretation, according to Michael Baxandall’s theory, can be explained by the fact that the “institutions and conventions” that the photographer and the market for this type of photographs back then were different than today’s (Baxandall 1). That is, the way we view this photograph today is different from how people in the 1920s may view it because photographic conventions have changed.
Let us examine how exactly institutions and conventions back then account for these distinct interpretations. Contrary to the ubiquity of color photography we enjoy nowadays owing to the proliferation of smartphones and the popularization of digital cameras, taking a colored photo was rather difficult in the early 20th century. Although the color photography process Lumiere Autochrome had been commercially available since 1907, its high price and long exposure time still constrained most photographers to black-and-white photography (National Science and Media Museum). Such limitation is an integral part of the “system of conventions” that governed what photographers were able to make then (Becker 772). Becker notes that, especially in the field of photography, “[a]vailable lenses, camera bodies, shutter speeds, apertures, films, and printing paper” are, albeit often tiny in comparison to the photographer’s own craft, certainly matters that affect the final product (772). This means that stock photographers needed to find ways to accomplish the communication of certain emotions and themes within the constraints imposed by their tools; that is, without the help of colors.
Stock photos also met different institutional ends back then. Initially, stock photography found its market in newspapers, magazines, and advertisements as the less risky and more economic alternative to payrolled staff photographers and photo shoots (Peres 351). Images like the Tri-Motor Airplane photo can be reasonably inferred to capture the eye of readers in the 1920s due to its notion of innovation, but it does not hold the same impression of progress to viewers now. In fact, its black-and-white coloring, the distinctively 20th century fashion, and the airplane’s relatively simplistic construction all convey to a contemporary viewer a historical, antiquated narrative. Similarly, the photo of a wood texture plank that was the third best selling photo on the microstock platform Dreamstime in 2018 may not be so relevant to photojournalists in 1938, who were probably more interested in photos depicting the growing tension in Europe in the dawn of World War II (Struck).
In addition to the historical aspect of the war, what makes the wood texture plank photo unattractive to the 1938 photojournalists is that the wood photo serves an end different to theirs. The invention of digital cameras in 1991 opened the floodgate to mass accumulation of digital photos, and the broader context of the digital age of the late 20th century allowed for a much wider range of people to purchase stock photos, but the hefty fees are still daunting to many. It was not until the founding of microstock agencies in the early 21st century that stock photos became financially viable to the general public. In comparison to the several hundreds or several thousands per image for a single use one pays to a traditional stock photo agency, they can now pay as few as a few dollars to use a stock image however and whenever they want (Taub). With the help of microstock agencies, the ends of corporations, small businesses, and even individuals are now also what stock photography aspires to meet. A wood texture plank, for instance, may be helpful as a website background image on a business’ or a personal website to express prudence and modesty.
We have noted the changes in the equipment, platform, and the form of stock photography over the past number of decades. We shall now explore how such changes in the system of conventions shape what stock images are photographed and how we value them today. Unlike in the past, where photographers in traditional stock agencies were told what their client needs and then goes on to shoot the requested photo, stock photographers today deal mainly with microstock agencies, and they anticipate the customers’ needs. As one can imagine, the photographer’s estimation is not always accurate, so it is common for a stock photographer to upload thousands of stock photos in order to maximize their income. In 2007, one photographer likened this less precise mode of operation to “shooting arrows in the air”—the upshot is that the arrows will fall somewhere, eventually (Taub).
As they collect more user data and improve their algorithms, microstock companies are in a better position to help stock photographers to predict what the market demands with each passing day. Photographers are given tools like “keyword trends and popular searches so they ‘can find out what people are looking for and when’” (Garber). An example of this is Shutterstock’s monthly guide to their most requested content, “The Shot List,” which contains short descriptions of each hot topic and a sample photo to inspire photographers (Shutterstock). Because a single download of their stock image pays out for as little as a quarter, stock photographers, in particular, have an incentive to follow the socially constructed market trend , or they risk not having enough income to sustain their career solely as a stock photographer (Lebendig). Since more people are becoming fond of consuming cultural contents on their digital devices, the criteria of a good stock photograph is shifting: web content creators, the new institutions of stock photography, need photos that will “visual pop” against the white background of the webpage, so stock photographers offer photos that are cleanly edited, that clearly separates the foreground and the background, and that convey a certain degree of unnaturalness (Garber).
Through interactions with the stock agencies as well as their customers, which nowadays consist mainly of online communications through quantitative feedback including frequency of downloads and amount of payout, stock photographers learn the conventions of modern stock photography. They learn that their cultural products do not need to be “self-conscious representation[s] of space, meaning and light” like those under the category of fine arts photography (Rosenblum 425). In fact, a greater degree of abstraction may dilute the clarity of the image, which renders an image less marketable as a stock image. The result is the development of a new, socially constructed aesthetic that is stock photography—“[i]t is posed; it is weird; it is fraught. But it is also unapologetic” (Garber). These qualities are what make stock photos legible to us as stock photos; we understand their purpose through their specific style that is molded by the current cultural conventions. The stock images that do not grab the viewer’s attention or deliver a healthy amount of “stockiness” lose their appeal as stock photos and get gradually eliminated from the category. The cooperative network producing stock photography, then, does not contain just the photographers, the models, the stock agencies, and the customers, but also what a given society associates with the idea of stock photos based on the system of conventions governing that period. And this network is what makes us recognize that certain photos are properly situated under the category of stock photography, and why others are not.
References
Baxandall, M (1988). Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy: A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books/about/Painting_and_Experience_in_Fifteenth_Cen.html?id=dmpMcyeEX5EC
Becker, H. (1974). Art As Collective Action. American Sociological Review, 39(6), 767-776. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094151
Peres, Michael R. (2007). The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography: Digital Imaging, Theory and Applications, History, and Science. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=VYyldcYfq3MC&q=history+of+stock+photo+agencies&pg=PA351#v=snippet&q=history%20of%20stock%20photo%20agencies&f=false
National Science and Media Museum. History of the Autochrome: The Dawn of Colour Photography. Retrieved from https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/autochromes-the-dawn-of-colour-photography/
Rosenblum, B. (1978). Style as Social Process. American Sociological Review, 43(3), 422-438. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/stable/2094499
Kaufman, B. (1960). Film Making as an Art. Daedalus, 89(1), 138-143. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20026554
Brock, H.I. (1941, Feb 16). Is Photography an Art?. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/historical-newspapers/is-photography-art/docview/105601664/se-2?accountid=14816
Roberts, H. Armstrong (1920). 1920s 1930s Group of Passengers Waiting in Front of Ford Tri-Motor Airplane. Retrieved from https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1920s-1930s-group-of-passengers-waiting-in-front-of-ford-tri-motor-12664508.html
Lebendig, U. Making Money with Stock Photography. Retrieved from https://shotkit.com/making-money-with-stock-photography/
Taub, E. A. When Are Photos Like Penny Stocks? When They Sell. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/technology/circuits/05syndicate.html?em&ex=1181188800&en=687225a44f80273c&ei=5087%0A
Struck, A. The 60 Most Downloaded Images in 2018 from Top Stock Photo Agencies Compared. Retrieved from https://www.stockphotosecrets.com/stock-agency-insights/most-downloaded-images-2018.html
Shutterstock. The Shot List. Retrieved from https://www.shutterstock.com/explore/the-shot-list
Schoenfeld, J. Beautiful Young Woman Kissing a Fish Stock Photo. Retrieved from https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/beautiful-young-woman-kissing-a-fish-gm114378778-16030430