Ian Aleksander Adams wrote a thoughtful follow up that was much more nuanced and articulate than what I said, and Matthew Crowther made an insightul comment about the shortcomings of the way I defined ‘fine art’ world.
I hope that ambition and the photographic lifestyle are not mutually exclusive, I do have fine art ambitions but I am not willing to compromise on my work. I think the key might be to realize that “The Art World” is not a monolithic thing, and there are ways to find a space in the world of fine art that fits what you want to do. It just might be more difficult if you aren’t into doing whatever is in fashion at a particular time. I have been meeting more and more young artists that are sick of the emphasis on ideas over feelings, theory over production, academics over experience that so pervades the art school and critical cultures, and that gives me hope. (italics, bold mine) – Matthew Crowther
Conscientious followed up with a longer post on this as well, and he didn’t exactly agree with my sentiments, which doesn’t surprise me. However, there were a few passages that struck me as rather patronizing.
Photography as a lifestyle sounds great – it’s the archetypical image of the young (tormented, drinking, smoking, … – your choice of adjectives here) artist who can’t help but take images day after day, night after night.
The archetypal image? This is complete bullshit, and is a weak attempt to dismiss the idea by turning it into a generic stereotype. I know plenty of photographers who would fall into this category who are married with kids living a quiet existence in suburbia, and many others who work hard at their 9-5s, only to spend all their freetime shooting and scanning. To reduce it to some cliche, romantic archetype is lazy and a simple to way to dismiss the idea. Should I classify the archetypal MFA photography student as an earnest young Bard/Yale student running around America documenting the impact the economic crisis is having on the suburbs in the Midwest? No. Because it’s a stereotype and doesn’t accurately reflect the diversity you find in MFA students.
But if you want to take your photography anywhere (and let’s assume you want to do that) then you will have to start editing, you will have to start looking at what you see, and then you get what the military likes to call “mission creep”: You might end up in an area where it suddenly looks like you’re doing projects (even if in reality, you’re just doing what every successful artist has to do).
Where is anywhere? Chelsea? Sante Fe? Conscientious? This type of photographer is not a thoughtless zombie whose addicted to pushing the shutter. The people I know who fall into this category study photography books. They talk about editing and sequencing. They struggle with finding connections between their photographs. And sometimes they have no idea what they’re shooting and are ok with it. The only difference is that their definition of ‘anywhere’ isn’t Chelsea, Magnum or in a pavilion in Dumbo. For them, ‘anywhere’ is the place where they find a connection with their audience, whether that’s five people or five thousand people.
Most people complaining about portfolio reviews never seem to imagine what it is like to sit on the other side of the table. As a reviewer, you usually don’t want to look at just a bunch of pretty or not so pretty pictures – for that you can do random Google or Flickr searches – you want to meet unique artists who have something to say with their images (regardless of how they do them).
Wouldn’t a skilled reviewer be able to perhaps find the connective tissue in the “pretty” pictures? Again, an assumption that randomness, or lack of a clear theme means the photographer isn’t thinking or creating compelling imagery. It would seem to me that the point of the portfolio review would be to glean some sort of insight about the work from someone whose skilled at recognizing these things. But then again, I think photographers are much better off finding a strong peer group to bounce ideas off of than pay insane fees to have their work reviewed. And yes, please, I can do without the preaching about the value of having an expert or authority give you feedback. I’m all for it, I just don’t think it should be a revenue stream.
The art world does not judge photography by whether it’s done in projects or not, it judges it by whether it’s good or not
Whether it’s good or not? Really? So, a gallery never would look at a piece of work and consider how marketable it is? Or if it’s something their stable of collectors would be interested in? Yeah, the intentions of the art world are pure! They only care about promoting and elevating the most interesting work! It’s a horseshit, blanket statement. It’s obviously more complicated than that and I’m certain everyone passionate about photography will maintain the art world promotes some rather terrible work.
and coincidentally, that – and only that – is the reason why so little of what is on Flickr ever makes it, the few exceptions notwithstanding).
What is our definition of make it? And what do you mean by Flickr? It’s a diverse network with thousands of communities. Think of the old school photographers who were never really able to show their photographs to anyone. When Flickr came around they finally had a place to show their work. People like Chuck Patch and Tony Marciante. They have large followings now. For them, I’m sure this feels like making it to some degree.
The definition of making it is changing in our niche oriented landscape, not only in photography, but in every industry. If making it means finding gallery representation and receiving praise from Conscientious than I’m afraid photography would be incredibly one dimensional and boring.
( So if you think you’re being held back by some sort of establishment then of course that might fit neatly with your idea of yourself, but in reality you might be kidding yourself quite massively.
This plays nicely into the whole ‘hard drinking, reckless, uneducated, thoughtless, anti-establishment’ archetype, doesn’t it? It has nothing to do with fighting an amorphous establishment. And I’m fairly certain most intelligent, photography as a lifestyle practitioners don’t really wake up pissed off that the establishment is holding them back from reaping enormous rewards in the photography industry. Let’s take this full circle, back to Blake Andrew’s initial post.
Is this enough? For most curators, collectors, etc, probably not. I’m guessing that Gordon Stettinius’ photos received a lukewarm reception at the reviews. He was probably told he should edit, focus, develop a storyline, whatever. He was probably told his photographs don’t serve any broader story, that they’re just observations.
What I’m saying, and I think Blake is saying, as well as many others, is that it’s possible that great, interesting work is being overlooked by the photography establishment. But through the power of the web, those of us that find this work to be valuable, interesting, and worthy of praise are simply saying, “we have a different view about photography.”
To riff on Krishnamurti, “photography is a pathless land.”
Related posts:
- Thoughts on Blake Andrew’s post about “The photography-integrated-into-life method”
- Internet Photography Destinations of Note – 2009
- Ben Roberts Wins British Journal of Photography’s Project Assistance Award
- Photography Collectives and the Wu Tang Clan
- Update: American Suburb X, Copyright & Facebook
