(R4): Shooting For The Wrong Audience
O.K. Let me first state I am not a photographer. I am but a lowly soon-to-be-ex-model. What do I know about what constitutes art? I am merely one of those 99.9% of the uneducated public out there. I am not one of the photographic elite. I am untrained, ordinary. I am outside The Club, so to speak.
Secondly, has everyone read the editorial of Lenswork magazine this month? If you have received your copy and just skimmed the pretty pictures and then chucked it in the corner, then GO READ IT.
A brilliant piece of philosophical writing about the state of modern fine art photography. (One day when I grow up, I want to be able to write like that.)
Brooks Jensen argues that “too much of photography is about photographers.” He argues that there are too many trite mundane images out there, that “photography is so mechanical that it can seduce us into thinking that mere production (the capture and printing processes) is a creative act.” He makes the very valid point that too much of photography is taken up sweating over the photographic process, the subtleties of the type of paper used, the darkroom process, and for what? To be judged by other photographers, not the general population. Fine Art Photographers in particular shoot for their peers or for specialist collectors, not for the average Joe Bloggs like me who wouldn’t know the difference between different types of fine-art paper if it hit us between the eyes.
Jensen argues that there is little that is truly creative in photography any more, little that inspires and connects with non-artistic viewers. If the average person goes into the photography section of a bookshop, what does he find that really inspires him as Art?
I took up his challenge yesterday, in Norwich’s leading bookshop, and I have to (rather sadly) say that I agree with him. Books on photographic processes, fuzzy images, different bizarre displays of photographic techniques, some pretty landscapes. No obvious signs of outstanding fine art, that’s for sure. No wonder very few folks buy this stuff. I couldn’t find a single book I identified with. Not one that actually leapt off the page, and said “this book will change the way you see the world.” In other words, no real Art. I also went to an exhibition of modern art and photography over Christmas in Norwich’s leading art gallery. Same thing. Some unusual and bizarre stuff to be sure, and some very groovy colourful imagery, but nothing that stirred the soul. Nothing that I could lose myself in, until we reached the collection of old paintings in a corner of the gallery, at which point I came alive and spent way too much time having my mind blown by one of Francis Bacon’s paintings. But alas, the fine art photographs left me cold. Same ol, same ol. Lots of peculiar "arty" technique, but little that had real meaning.
Have photographers got so caught up in the making of photography, and the ease in which it can be displayed online, that they no longer concentrate on the “create” part of photography any more? How do you expect to make your art connect to the public, to connect with a viewer, to really GET THROUGH to your audience and really enrich their lives, if you are largely concerned with your work being judged by other photographers? Do you really think about the emotions stirred up by the image, or are you just concentrating on technique and the editorial process? When is a nude photograph just another B+W nude, and when does it really show beauty, meaning, soul?
Jensen says that “photography is not about light, as is so often proposed, but rather about life.”
So forget about competing with your peers for who produces the better picture, the better technique. Get on with the process of shooting photographic art that will generate emotion, that will give life to your art, and enrich the lives of the ordinary person like me who sees it.
And let me leave you with one last question from Jensen (particularly relevant for me at the moment also):
“If you knew you only had one day left to live, what [art] would you want to leave behind?”
Rich reckons he’d leave this one.
From this we conclude that his life's message to mankind is therefore located in my ass.
Secondly, has everyone read the editorial of Lenswork magazine this month? If you have received your copy and just skimmed the pretty pictures and then chucked it in the corner, then GO READ IT.
A brilliant piece of philosophical writing about the state of modern fine art photography. (One day when I grow up, I want to be able to write like that.)
Brooks Jensen argues that “too much of photography is about photographers.” He argues that there are too many trite mundane images out there, that “photography is so mechanical that it can seduce us into thinking that mere production (the capture and printing processes) is a creative act.” He makes the very valid point that too much of photography is taken up sweating over the photographic process, the subtleties of the type of paper used, the darkroom process, and for what? To be judged by other photographers, not the general population. Fine Art Photographers in particular shoot for their peers or for specialist collectors, not for the average Joe Bloggs like me who wouldn’t know the difference between different types of fine-art paper if it hit us between the eyes.
Jensen argues that there is little that is truly creative in photography any more, little that inspires and connects with non-artistic viewers. If the average person goes into the photography section of a bookshop, what does he find that really inspires him as Art?
I took up his challenge yesterday, in Norwich’s leading bookshop, and I have to (rather sadly) say that I agree with him. Books on photographic processes, fuzzy images, different bizarre displays of photographic techniques, some pretty landscapes. No obvious signs of outstanding fine art, that’s for sure. No wonder very few folks buy this stuff. I couldn’t find a single book I identified with. Not one that actually leapt off the page, and said “this book will change the way you see the world.” In other words, no real Art. I also went to an exhibition of modern art and photography over Christmas in Norwich’s leading art gallery. Same thing. Some unusual and bizarre stuff to be sure, and some very groovy colourful imagery, but nothing that stirred the soul. Nothing that I could lose myself in, until we reached the collection of old paintings in a corner of the gallery, at which point I came alive and spent way too much time having my mind blown by one of Francis Bacon’s paintings. But alas, the fine art photographs left me cold. Same ol, same ol. Lots of peculiar "arty" technique, but little that had real meaning.
Have photographers got so caught up in the making of photography, and the ease in which it can be displayed online, that they no longer concentrate on the “create” part of photography any more? How do you expect to make your art connect to the public, to connect with a viewer, to really GET THROUGH to your audience and really enrich their lives, if you are largely concerned with your work being judged by other photographers? Do you really think about the emotions stirred up by the image, or are you just concentrating on technique and the editorial process? When is a nude photograph just another B+W nude, and when does it really show beauty, meaning, soul?
Jensen says that “photography is not about light, as is so often proposed, but rather about life.”
So forget about competing with your peers for who produces the better picture, the better technique. Get on with the process of shooting photographic art that will generate emotion, that will give life to your art, and enrich the lives of the ordinary person like me who sees it.
And let me leave you with one last question from Jensen (particularly relevant for me at the moment also):
“If you knew you only had one day left to live, what [art] would you want to leave behind?”
Rich reckons he’d leave this one.
From this we conclude that his life's message to mankind is therefore located in my ass.
Labels: L-von-B, Philosophy, rant
posted by Lin at 1:03 PM
8 Comments:
Sounds a bit like your excursion to the bookstore and the library was tainted with a rather confrontational attitude... "I DARE you to move me, you gearheads" ...so no wonder you were disappointed. You're steeped in photographic art, so other art forms are going to seem more significant by their relative novelty to you.
Book publishers are largely in the business of "lowest common denominator art" -- they're looking for the next Anne Geddes or Thomas Kincaide. There is a LOT of assembly-line crap published because that's what "Joe Bloggs" knows and understands, while "true artists" still tend to dwell in obscurity.
Lin,
You are 100% correct with your statement in my opinion. Cameras, Lenses and even the printing process' are nothing more than tools to convey the photographers vision. All that matters is the photographic art presented to the viewer for their interpretation. In my opinion, Photographic Elitist methodology only matters to those photographers that have the need to booster their self worth, perhaps out of need to "feel" valid and important in the eyes of other photographers (vein attempt to improve their significance). True Collectors of photographs care not the methodology...only that it is a good photograph (including the casual collector). I suggest that if the methodology (camera type, film, Polaroid or digital, lighting, print medium) is SO important to the photographer with respect to presenting a valid photograph to the viewer, perhaps the photographer has not the faith in his work to stand alone, without using the "how" as crutch of some sort..BUT again...these claims made to appeal to other photographers...as the viewer cares not the methodology. Why do we feel the need to explain the HOW?...nothing wrong with that for educational purposes...but when presenting our work as art....how is it relevant?
Art should be about the vision of the artist or photographic artist. I have insisted that my photos ARE about me (but not my methods..my methods, camera...printing method..etc matter not.....). They are about MY ideas and artistic visions..and the way I see things. I think this is the way photographic artists should approach their photographs, and not in an attempt to impress other photographers with their stylizing...technique...etc. You are right, ..Duchamp says the Viewers involvement is paramount to the validation of the art piece. Meaning..if it does not connect with the viewer...then it has missed its mark. What other photographers think of our work matters not to the viewer. BUT, we all have different tastes...and to this...all is subjective.
I heard a comment from the Architectural Photographer Julius Shulman a couple of years ago that blew me away, I have plagiarized (blatantly stole from) this statement and used it many times. Mr Shulman was talking in this interview about a recent gallery expo, and the interviewer said something along the lines of (paraphrased) "how Julius allowed others to see through his camera to see what he saw with his eye". Mr. Shulman politely corrected the interviewer by stating "actually, I use the Camera, Lens to allow others to see what I see in my mind". To me this statement is the Holy Grail of statements artistically...and clearly defines the "why" in my photography...and I hope others understand its profoundness as well.
True artists I believe accomplish this task. Like a painter, they create from a batch of pigments .really nothing if you think about it other than a smudge of color at first..........they ultimately create works of art that only exist in their minds AND how they interoperate things. I want to see what they see in their minds. I suggest as photographic artists that we MUST do the same thing, or we are simply editorial in our photography. CREATE...that is the key....don't capture.
Technique, Light, Camera, Print Medium, Digital, Polaroid, Film....none of this matters to the final photograph presented for the viewer to interoperate for its posterity. The final print presented to the viewer is the statement, and that is all that matters artistically.
I choose my weapons according to what I am enjoying. Right now...I enjoy the Polaroid medium (pack film and large format). I don't champion this as being elite...simply right for me. I still shoot digital...and enjoy both.
.."I don't know to many things, but I know what I know if you know what I mean".
~Edie Brickell & New Bohemians
(Edie Brickell & Kenny Withrow)
from the states...and without a clue
bt
ps...sorry for any misspellings...I am simply lazy with spellcheck
I've been struggling with a decision lately. Your article and the Lenswork editorial clarified what I need to do.
PS: The editorial (LensWork, Issue #74) is available here.
I really have no comment about what art is. Wait, that was a comment. See you get me thinking about politics and I start talking like one. :)
Really like the image, I think it's art, Butt if that is Richs' message - it's a good one - one he can rigidly stand behind.
D.L. Wood
I'm really becoming bored with most of what I see, and just trying to figure out what I as a model can bring to the table that hasn't been done to death. I feel like so many photographers are hung up on techniques that they could just as easily be photographing fruit, because they aren't really connecting with their models. They are just concerned with lighting, and shadows, and making something pretty. I'm bored with pretty. I want something that invokes feeling.
I must disagree with some of the points made in the editorial and the comments here.
Mr. Jensen seems to be saying that the subtleties of the art are lost on the common viewer, and therefore (we photographers) fail to be inclusive or waste our efforts on only those that have certain appreciations for technique.
I'd have to say that good photography--including subjects that Mr. Jensen would consider "mundane" or ONLY about "sexual angst"--is still good photography. And, I would argue that these subjects and much of the good work done on them would indeed qualify as expressions of the way some people see and feel life.
Most kids would rather listen to three-chord hits or hip-hop than sit and marvel at the beauty and expression on life that Mozart would compose.
People who are musically inclined, or have learned to tell the difference, can appreciate the classics. Others tend not to. So, should we throw out the classics because they don't contain easy-to-understand lyrics?
Or do we acknowledge that many things are "art" despite the fact that it may not connect with everyone on every level?
No, technique is not art. But, yes, as Richard Avedon admitted, the art is often very much about the photographer.
So, when Mr. Jensen says that the "best art" is about lofty things, meaningful things. He should remember that what is meaningless to him, is not necessarily meaningless to someone else.
Good point Ed!
Rich said much the same thing (he needs to comment more - subtle hint Rich!)
Another point I realised, which again contradicts Jensen - isn't he forgetting the whole concept of Art as fun? Why exactly does it have to be meaningful and life-changing all the time anyway?
The several responses to your post provide a perfect example as to the various tastes with regard to art and photographic art. Mr Verosky brings a brilliant point to light...and tastes alone abound and dictate appreciation of art at a personal level to each viewer. Art is not science, and no definitive good or bad label will ever be agreed upon.
As photographic artists, the only audience that we should create for is self. If we exhibit, accept the fact that others may or may not like our work...but quite frankly...who cares?...as I believe we should never target our work for the acceptance of others….if we do…then I suggest we are manufacturing mass appeal “art”..as opposed to being faithful to the creative self.
Bt
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home