"Cheap Johns"

[cathyslife]

I work full-time but am finishing up my AA degree in Graphic/Web Design. This semester I am taking a History of Photography class.

"In the 1860s, when photography was still in the beginning stages, a group of "cheap johns" churned out low-priced photographs, which was in direct contrast to those who hoped to elevate photography to a fine art form."

So it appears that the advent of microstock has not ruined photography, but in fact "cheap johns" have been around since photography was invented! It is very funny reading about this in our textbook, Photography: A Cultural History, by Mary Warner Marien. The discussion sounds exactly like the traditional photographers today blaming microstockers for ruining photography! Here is a quote from the book, you tell me if it doesn't sound familiar:

"By the mid-1850s, members of the Photographic Society in England worried that members who made their living as photographers would degrade the society, and some attempted to pass a rule that would exclude from the society's exhibitions any photography that had hung in a shop window."

Too funny!

[Jo Ann Snover]

It is funny - and a great illustration of the ideas in a book I loved "The Way We Never Were" - about mistaken nostalgia for a "better" time in the past.

Mirrors some snobbery from the art world - separating fine art from commercial art - or literature - my grandfather talked about being chastised as a boy for loving to read these stories in cheap editions that older people called "Penny dreadfuls"

In England, there's another element that wouldn't make as much sense to someone from the US - the aristocratic snobbery over any type of commerce and working for a living in general. It's changed a lot, but I always loathed that (as it involved a lot of willful ignorance about how the aristocracy came to be the aristocracy if you just studied history)

[lisafx]

Really interesting discussion.  Thanks for sharing the historical perspective Cathy and JoAnn. 

Seems like technology changes, but human nature never really does

ETA:  From the title, I thought it was some sort of prostitution reference, LOL.  (maybe it is in a way - I know I felt like a prostitute when I first started selling at microstock prices)

[cathyslife]

Really interesting discussion.  Thanks for sharing the historical perspective Cathy and JoAnn. 

Seems like technology changes, but human nature never really does

ETA:  From the title, I thought it was some sort of prostitution reference, LOL.  (maybe it is in a way - I know I felt like a prostitute when I first started selling at microstock prices)

I thought the same! I wasnt sure if it was a reference to that, or a more generic reference because John was a very common name at the time. 

[Jo Ann Snover]

I was curious about the origin of Cheap Johns and thought perhaps Google might help me out. Less than I thought, but there was still a hit or two, one of which was from some text from Henry Mayhew's book London Labour and the London Poor. That recent Guardian article about the book is fascinating.

Dictionary.com says Cheap Jack was synonymous with Cheap John

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheap+john

And here's a chapter from Mayhew's book talking about Cheap Johns:

http://dl.tufts.edu/catalog/tei/tufts:MS004.002.052.001.00001/chapter/c15s3

So for gentlemen, or those who aspired to be gentlemen, to be referred to a Cheap Johns was a pretty big insult

[Jo Ann Snover]

Perhaps I should change my symbiostock site to "Cheap John's Stock Photos"? (The domain name is available!)

[klsbear]

Perhaps I should change my symbiostock site to "Cheap John's Stock Photos"? (The domain name is available!)

LOL - great idea!

[topol]

Actually if you come from a background of classical art, extensively learned drawing, painting, the whole of photography is bit of a 'cheap art' as for talent needed, time and effort invested...

[cuppacoffee]

In a similar vein, some really great illustrators were disparaged by the "fine" art community in their day for selling their work to advertisers. Charles Russell, Frederic Remington, the Wyeths, Norman Rockwell, Howard Pyle, Jessie Wilcox Smith, Maxfield Parish and many, many others. They were certainly artists but had to make a living. They sold their work cheap so they could eat. Perhaps they were the microstock illustrators of their day. It was popular artwork so was not considered fine enough for the elite. Much of that art hangs in museums today.

[ShadySue]

Really interesting discussion.  Thanks for sharing the historical perspective Cathy and JoAnn. 

Seems like technology changes, but human nature never really does

ETA:  From the title, I thought it was some sort of prostitution reference, LOL.  (maybe it is in a way - I know I felt like a prostitute when I first started selling at microstock prices)

I thought the same! I wasnt sure if it was a reference to that, or a more generic reference because John was a very common name at the time. 

Interesting info, thanks for sharing.
My mum (UK) used to refer to 'Cheap Jack' shops, where you could get cheap stuff but the quality wouldn't be up to much.

[OM]

OT but remember when the Olympic games were only for amateurs! Athletes receiving payment or endorsements for their sport were regarded with disdain and prohibited from competing. How things have changed!

[tab62]

I know a few "Working Girls" and their definition of "Cheap John's" isn't what was mention above 

[Uncle Pete]

Some see commercial art vs fine art, modern art, and what? I like them ball, just as much, in their own ways. Yep, making a living on what people want and need vs snobs and wannabees. It's a bunch of pretentious, fakes. Commercial art has just as much soul as Fine Art.

Photos are the same. In fact that's the basis of some arguments. Is photography art like drawing or painting.

Great historical views.