Photography websites and popularity

 There has been a lot of thinking around our increasing involvement with online communities and many blogs routinely seem to be tackling this issue. Online communities are separate from our real lives and yet everyday we devote some time to our online contacts and friends, so our being online is an integral part of our everyday lives.I have already attempted to discuss the interrelatedness of our online selves with our real life ones in another blog post so I will not repeat myself here.

But a recent journal on deviantArt by Solus made me reflect on a related issue, that  of online popularity gained through photography websites. What Solus made me think about was the popularity of photographs posted online, it kind of followed from what he was saying. In my dA journal this morning I began to address this issue. I received some interesting comments/replies.  In a nutshell, when I post photographs on deviantArt - a good example of an online photography community - some of them get thousands of views, others get fewer views but a higher number of favourites.  This often surprises me: the photographs of mine I personally like may not receive much attention, whereas it is often the ones I like the least that seem to get the most views.


What makes a photograph posted online popular? Is that popularity only gained  because the image is online? Is that popularity measured through  views or through faves? Is there a correlation with how the image would be received were it not made available online? And received by whom?


What is popularity to begin with?

I have found two definitions of it:

1. The quality or state of being popular; especially, the
state of being esteemed by, or of being in favor with, the
people at large; good will or favor proceeding from the
people; as, the popularity of a law, statesman, or a book.
[1913 Webster]

2. The quality or state of being adapted or pleasing to
common, poor, or vulgar people; hence, cheapness;
inferiority; vulgarity.
[1913 Webster]

Surely there must be something in between these two extremes!


Let me see if I can get my head around this. To begin with popularity is contextual. It follows that online popularity is not necessarily 'real' but then again it depends on which online context we are talking about, some online contexts are very real indeed - connected with real institutions and businesses, the websites are simply their online interface.

Popularity on a site such as deviantArt or Flickr is somewhat self contained. It does not bring the same rewards of  popularity gained in other contexts - no substantial income increase, no further work  opportunities, no recognition beyond the confines of the site, in the real world - just page views, comments and favourites, and the feeling of being part of a large virtual community of fellow artists/photographers.

On the version of this blog which I posted earlier on dA, while I was still  mulling over some of these ideas, Arrik Kim  left this comment, which I reproduce here and which relates to the two definitions of popularity I quoted above:

" If an online community is a slice of a demographic then there should be some kind of correlation.
I suppose 'real life' needs definition, but here is how it looks to me. If real life is how the artist and non artist are the same then it makes perfect sense that a pretty girl posing explicitly gets ten times the views, mostly those are men, like myself, who feel 'biological' desire... lots of views... some faves by people who don't do a lot of art... the percentage of faves to number of hits is low. She would get views -looks
As to the first definition, take a picture with one tenth of the views... but a higher percentage of faves... those faves will usually be more by those who do art. They want to see it again and again, because it speaks to them or reminds them of something they want to try.. Instead of getting comments like "what Genes" or "damn I want to...." the comments are more supportive of the art effort rather than subjects qualities. There are less artists and artistic people in a slice of society than men interested in women, generally speaking, so an artistic effort will be less popular in most cases... DD's (Daily Deviations on deviantArt) will be a bigger slice but should kind of follow that template... of popularity.
I can only look through my own eyes and consider the kinds of work I post.. but it seems to me to have real correlations. I think that the higher fave to view ratio, when viewed against the backdrop of comments is a good indication of 'quality' popularity over 'raw' popularity and will be similar online or at an art show in person.. If you don't put yourself forward in person or online you can't be popular either way"



The last sentence  sums it up: popularity comes through putting oneself forward, that's for sure. I am not convinced that online popularity truly equates with that gained through an art show, but the principles seem to have a remarkable similarity.  

(All photos by Michael Culhane modelled by Alex B, Michael Cooney and Siobhan Cooper Lyons)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

  1. I had a similar problem today and wrote about it in my next blog post. I feel I have an intuitive sense on what is good in my photography and then I post it. I am shocked sometimes that my favorite of a group was not the favorite of others. At the end though I have to realize that some part of my posting the favorite of others in the first place was my intuition saying, "this photo is a good one".

    ReplyDelete
  2. As you know, I've already commented elsewhere with a minor observation on the different cultures between one site and another. Some sites seem to generate comments and feedback, while others don't.
    Anyway, popularity aside, I have to say I LOVE this series of images! In particular the ones with all three of you in shot. Really strong photos, they are inspiring!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you ERosanne. I think people should go and read your excellent piece here http://erosanne.deviantart.com/journal/34965429/#comments
    I think that the different cultures may also be due to the fact that blogs are more exposed, they can be accessed by search engines, whereas dA is more contained. Maybe.
    I love this series too. There is more to come. It was shot during a dance impro, so it is very raw and immediate, and I like the fact the bodies at times look awkward as they were shot while in motion. Check out Solus page on dA, he will soon put up some more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You ever have a look at the timeline in the advanced gallery stats on dA?

    The way they're depicted shows that images with a higher ratio of comments and faves to views (presumably some kind of averaging of the two) indicates more popularity than an image with many views, but few comments and faves.

    I can't imagine how popularity on dA works anymore. It's next to impossible to get your work seen by anyone on dA who isn't watching you now, unless you consistently post one specific type of work.
    Nudes are always more popular. We know why. Many people browse the category. No need to go on about that.

    Almost anything else, you have a few seconds on the front page right after you post for someone to see your work, and after that you have to rely on watches or searches...

    Which means if you don't have a lot of faithful watchers that you end up like me with only 11 views on something you're proud of after weeks of something being posted.
    (I might be a little jaded).

    ANYWAY.

    Online popularity IS real world popularity. The online world is the real world in as much as it has been fully integrated.
    People who see and love you online will still love you offline.
    (Granted, most people who are popular online are not popular offline at all).

    I don't think I can agree that being popular on a site like flickr or deviantart doesn't provide job opportunities. Popular models get requests to work with photographers, popular photographers get requests to work with models, popular traditional artists sell prints and get commissions...

    However, there's a pretty sharp cut-off point between 'popular' and 'nobody gives a shit about you,' in the online world.
    And who knows what makes one person popular and not another?

    when it comes to what's popular, most people don't care how or why it was made, only that it was made, and from that point onward - all others will be judged on that level.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The good thing about blogging is that people - real people after all - do comment and through reading their views you begin to rethink your position - at least that's what I do as I don't see discussion as keeping obstinately to one's point if it turns out that it no longer suits. I am beginning to see that online communities are indeed interlinked with real life communities, so they are more like a continuum. The separation is being eroded. Definitely, one can turn the online popularity into something that brings in work opportunities, it is a matter of knowing how to do so - networking skills.
    dA popularity perhaps works through making yourself seen through comments, not just through your work, but I know of people who never comment and still get lots of page views and faves because their work has mass appeal. It is a bit of a mystery...
    Popularity always has its downside and can turn into unpopularity overnight and vice versa. It is a game, nothing more, nothing less, but it can have its rewards, including financial ones, as you have pointed out.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment