Before I start this post, let me say up front that I have absolutely nothing against good contemporary photography. Though it is not what I ‘do’, I enjoy looking at the work of many photographers of this genre.
However, what disturbs me a bit is the idea that goes along the lines of “how many pictures of pretty (fill in the blank) do we need?”, as if all the expressive landscapes, florals, abstracts etc that the world needs have already been taken; as if there were no talent or further individuality to be expressed by these genres. This logic then frequently leads to the idea that to be ‘good’, to be expressive, one needs to make images that are different. Fair enough, but this generally seems to translate not into ‘different viewpoint’ ,‘different message’, or ‘different way of personal expression’ but just into different, as in something that no one has taken a series of pictures of before. That, it seems to some people, can be used to define images as art.
The case that comes to my mind first is that which was dealt with in a LensWork podcast several months back. This particular instance was a photo book, whose title I can no longer remember, that featured a photographer who made images of herself publicly urinating in cities across the
I don’t know, maybe I am just old fashioned, maybe I am just too old, or maybe I just don’t ‘get it’. Like I said, I do enjoy many contemporary style photographers, I just think that there is a lot of ‘junk’ out there that is masquerading as meritorious contemporary work.
OK, I will get off the soapbox now!
By the way, the list of photography magazines that people have recommended has been updated, complete with links to all the publications. It can be found here.
10 comments:
Sometimes, no matter how hard I try to understand the work, I feel it was done for shock value. To be noticed....like a 3 year old who wants attention. I don't think it is going to make the final four in photography's March madness in 10 years.
It does sometimes seem as if shock value plays a role, doesn't it.
Your comment is particularly adequate for my country (Spain) these days, Howard, since many people is in an uproar because one of our regional governments has edited a book containing a series of pornographic and scatological photographies of Christ, the Virgin, and the Saints. The images are of very low photographic value in my opinion, but the free advertisement this guy is getting is priceless.
I always disagreed with this sort of 'meta-art', where the value is supposedly into the idea shaping the work, and not in the work itself, like in Manzoni's 'merde d'artiste'. To be honest, in most cases I consider it something like a big swindle.
Howard,
Some interesting thoughts here, how do we as artists, involved in a creative process, whether we be photographers or any other art mediums find our inner voice that represents who we really are ? ( especially over a period of time ), not an easy task, sometimes I think the easy way out is to be different for today's sake, come tomorrow today's "different" is passé.
Gary
It was with some trepidation that I wrote this post because, after all, what one person has the right to say that something does or does not have artistic merit. On the other hand, there are times when things seem obvious. A very difficult issue...
I remember Brooks talking a bit about this, I can't recall if it was in one of his podcasts, or during the excellent Candid Frame interview with him. Something that stuck with me in what he said is that we can make images that are as personal as we want, but there is a certain aspect of a photograph that needs to be somewhat accessible to others in order for it to really be effective.
I've noticed it's happening the same with advertisements, on paper and on tv. They more often than not try to shock the audience with rather morbid contents. As billie said, certain photographs are taken only for the photographer to get noticed...
I do think we have some need to be aware of the recipients or audience of our artistic statements in order for them to have any validity. We create art to express something in us that we wish to communicate to others. If it doesn't communicate, then it has failed. At the same time, it has to be an authentic voice of our own, or it will also fail to communicate.
Shocking the audience will only work once, or the shock factor needs to escalate. In the end this means the message gets overtaken by the packaging.
How old is 'too old'? Howard, I think one would be too old when the caring-about factor has gone from a person's ability to discern quality work of any kind. I don't think you're 'too old', yet, do you? You wouldn't have a blog, called Motivation no less, and about an acknowledged creative medium, in which you participate more than competently, from what I've seen so far, on your blog and your website in particular. Whether it's contemporary or ancient makes no difference. Your capacity to look and learn is what matters.
My view is that, for those who have been photographing a lifetime, the ability to know good from really fantastic to absolutely ugly has become an inherent intuitive thing/process. All commenters to this post will have that ability. So, what do I do whenever I come across such ugliness? It takes me all of a few seconds to recognize it, and to then move away from it as quickly as possible; sometimes I may complain about it to the owner if I feel strongly enough.
PS: Howard, I think you may also be referring to my blog, and you'd be justified in doing so! In fact, yesterday I had a brutal culling (my first since commencing in jan07), removing 50 posts (one-third of my blog size) and also removing labels categories from a large number of the posts as being no longer appropriate. This culling process won't be my last. I will continue to refine/keep the better images, and remove the deadwood, as I continue to develop my skill using my cellphone camera which, hopefully, will show in image quality/content. I feel this is an absolutely essential part of my own creativity and discernment.
Janina, Thanks for the kind and thoughtful words. Just so you know, I wasn't in any way referring to your blog! I enjoy checking out your cameraphone shots.
Post a Comment