Phil, I think you touch on what may be the most burning question about photography today ... at least it is a big question for me as I leave behind the world of defined purpose (or excuse to shoot) that paying work was, and find myself once again adrift on a vast ocean of possibilities ... which sounds good, but is actually quite intimidating ... making a thread like this perhaps the most important one I've run across yet. So, dear readers, forgive the following ramblings of a temporarily lost soul
On one hand we shoot because we want or need to express ourselves ... even, as you say, "
to stay sane" ... on the other hand, photography is without a doubt the most practiced visual form of expression in history. The latter has made me question the very nature of my content driven philosophy, and your last line actually resonated with me:
"I do have a problem with images where content is supposed to trump technique ... "
While I could argue that "
technique," or use of aesthetic principles, is integral to making the content sing, or making a single image story speak to viewers, its' relevance in today's world seems to be waining. Content oriented images have become the domaine of the masses, who take photos of everything and anything to the point that it dilutes any insightful story telling attempts. The audience for such work has dried up. I noticed this with my wedding photography ... where even those educated in the arts, including practiced photographers, can't see the difference (which to me is obvious) ... or perhaps they never did. I cannot tell you how frustrating that has been in the past few years.
It could be said, ignore the audience, shoot for yourself and let the chips fall where they may ... yet a Picasso quote on that subject haunts me:
"A painting kept in the closet, may as well be kept in the head".
Therefore, I DO care about what I shoot, and not for some social reason like problems with the environment, or to make cool pictures of a social condition, but to advance my vision of the world around me, and hopefully by extension the vision of those whom I share with. I want that way of seeing to be unique and worthwhile, not something that "funds the clutter' that photography has become.
Therein, dear readers, lies the rub.
Personally, like a sponge, I suck up every published, hung, or posted image I can, yet am left dry. I find little inspiration in the endless parade of street photography, or post card landscapes with a few notable exceptions ... and it is those exceptions give me a glimmer of hope.
What I do find more challenging is exploring photography's role in modern art. Most of which destroys much revered beliefs we attach to photography. Take a moment to peruse this MOMA presentation and click on the names in white to see what I mean:
MoMA.org | Interactives | Exhibitions | 1997 | New Photography 13
Perhaps we are on the cusp of a deconstructivist movement, or a dadaist teardown of photography as we know it. Or does photography slavishly suffer from the tyranny of reason?
- Marc
As I cautioned, mere ramblings of a disheveled mind
Good morning Marc
I agree with you – we are experiencing a sea change in photography. On the one hand cameras are ubiquitous, photography for the masses (maybe they said the same thing about the box brownie). Photos taken that will never be printed; you cannot go into a restaurant or walk down the street without seeing cell phones held up taking photos. I do think there is an upside to this as far as photos are concerned; such as recording things, taking a picture of a product to remember (helpful as we age) , communicating with photos, proving things, which otherwise are hearsay.
BUT and here is the big but in my opinion.
I think (again without getting esoteric or too philosophical) there is a difference between photos and images. I have seen your work, to use your images in this post, these are great images, they tease the imagination. Not “candid” shots, nor haphazard street shots, they are composed, balanced, framed (we are taking exposure for granted) and it is obvious they are thought out. As photographers – we work within a frame, we decide what to put in the frame, what to dodge and burn, what to accentuate with contrast and focus, if we want color or black and white. To put a fine point on it, I don’t think of Cartier-Bresson as a great “Street” photographer, I think he made great images on the street. Same with Dorothea Lange in her world, she did not just take photos of destitute people, or Arnold Newman didn't just take snapshots of famous people, Ansel Adams didn’t just take photos of mountains, they all created great images. The list goes on.......
I think that Images are like songs, the good ones take us someplace, stimulate our imagination. I don’t think there is just a passing relationship between the words image and imagination. This is the elusive challenge. To stay on this analogy for a moment more, look how many orchestrates do Mozart, Strauss, Tchaikovsky or for that matter covers of Dylan, The Beatles, some are great, almost mysterious, and others well – you ask yourself why?
One of the comments you made – is disconcerting; the audience for such work has dried up. I noticed this with my wedding photography ... where even those educated in the arts, including practiced photographers, can't see the difference (which to me is obvious) ... or perhaps they never did. I cannot tell you how frustrating that has been in the past few years. This must be very frustrating. You are probably correct, “perhaps they never did.”
When I made the statement “If I look at what I made and like it, then that’s enough” I did not mean it in an absolute sense, I meant that – I see something there, and yes I value criticism – but I must temper it with “not all opinions are equal”.
I think we are always working on our skills, learning by looking and listening, but it does not follow that we should follow the crowd, we should listen to our own drum. We should constantly try to define our vision, much as a painter is constantly challenged to get it down on canvas.
We are our own meanest critics, we are always working without boundaries, sometimes we see something, and we know what we want the final print to look like, other times, we see something, we like, make sure we have done the fundamentals correct, exposure and framing, and stop there, then if the final image comes back to us later, we look at it, and it tells us what to do to it. This weekend I went back to look at some shots I took in January which I found interesting, to see it I can communicate the sensation, I felt when I saw them.
The only goal is to try to constantly improve, try new things, get better at our ability to express ourselves.
If I ran on with the trite and the obvious, then with all due respect I apologize.
Best
Phil
