It is a case of great injustice that a talent like you cannot be rich by his photos.
I feel after all these threads that you are an artist Gulliver robbed by accountant dwarfs.
Sometimes I feel that is true for the state of this whole planet and that the joint creative force should take words like swords
to rip the bureocrats to pieces.
What do you think?
LOL ... I agree with you, I should be rich!
Most journalists, I know, are not in it for the money, including myself. It's sorta odd, but it's all about the job. Of course, it is always better to make a lot of money doing what you love, as opposed to not making a lot of money doing what you love. The benefits are that I worked relatively independently, free travel, free food (most of the time) and free film.
Personally, I think that Police and Teachers should be amongst the highest paid in our society.
As to my great 'talent'. When I first started at
The Times, it was a changing of the guards. I was the tail end of a rush of young journalists, hired to replace a very aging staff. This was the mid 1970's and I was in my early 20's. The photogs that were retiring still wore suits, sport coats, ties and even hats (like a Trilby). After a few months, the young "smart asses" went back to our blue jeans, Polo Shirts and Adidas. I remember going to one of the first Times party, a group of us Smart Asses got together at one of the photog's apartment (M.K. Yee). At one point we introduced ourselves and spoke a bit about where we came. One guy came from the Enquirer, which is a movie star and gossip paper and we all had a good laugh. In the end, each and every one of us new dozens of journalists that were better than ourselves ... we all wondered how we were chosen ... we were all very thankful to be at The Times and earning a decent wage.
