For me, Paul Graham’s The Unreasonable Apple, in which Graham lays out the argument for so-called straight photography —”photographs taken from the world as it is”— and its place in the art world, was one of those essays that seemed to come along at just the right moment. I had been thinking and writing a lot about these ideas, and the Graham essay seemed to crystalize the issue in a way that mirrored my own thoughts.

As powerful as Graham’s essay was, the real revelation for me was that it was put forth by an established art world figure. Paul Graham isn’t some outcast yelling from the back row. He’s a reputable figure in contemporary photography. Written from an insider’s perspective, his argument provided both hope and philosophical cover to many of us. Reading the essay I felt like a young kid in a Top-40 town who’s just discovered punk rock on the underground station. You mean there are others? And in positions of power? If Graham was thinking along these lines, I wondered, what did that mean for the art world at large? Was there some broader shift afoot?

If Jörg Colberg’s response to Graham is any guide, the answer is probably not. According to Colberg, photography’s problem isn’t lack of understanding. It’s too much internal debate. “People are still pulling their hair out,” he writes, “over how to differentiate between a photograph and what they call a ‘photo illustration,’ for example. Or about defining how much ‘manipulation’ is allowed until a photo stops being a photo. Or about how a lot of digital photography isn’t really photography. Or how artist XYZ took 500 individual source photographs to build a composite.”

Although Colberg doesn’t cite specific cases, his list of arguments is familiar. As he notes they seem to arise over and over, especially when straight photography is discussed. The general drift of these arguments is that touting the strengths of one form calls into question the legitimacy of others. That is, if I express a preference for straight photography, I’m seen as dogmatic or arrogant or drawing artificial definitions or claiming what is photography and what isn’t.

I think that whole line of thinking is a red herring. While there may be a small minority quibbling over definitions, most would agree that all types of photography are legitimate forms of expression. Straight, staged, composited, ray–o-graphed, jpged, sun-scorched, whatever, it’s all photography. To use Graham’s words, “it is emphatically not an either/or situation.” Few of us are “worrying themselves sick over whether it’s photography or not.” We’re beyond that. What many of us are wondering is why straight photography has been relegated to a secondary role in the art world.

Since its inception, photography has been a uniquely accurate method of visually describing the real world. Photography can also be applied —and has been used increasingly for roughly the past quarter century— as a tool to illustrate what’s in an artist’s head. Point a camera at a food prop and the picture might describe an advertising idea. Photograph an elaborate set on the street and the picture might describe a pre-conceived fantasy world. Or use a computer to collage several images and the resulting picture might approximate a painting. These are all legitimate uses of photography, but for me they are generally less interesting that what you get when you point a camera at objects as they are found in the world. When put to the task of blunt conceptual illustration, photography’s most profound and beautiful burden — to show us the world as it is— is ignored.

Even so, the art world seems to prefer this application. Why? According to Colberg it’s the sheer amount of internal debate. He writes, “If so many people in the photography world are having debates about photographs as documents, or how adding a caption changes the meaning (or whatever), or when a photo stops being a photo – why do we expect the art world to take photography seriously as an art form?” Thus the reason the art world prefers photographers like Wall, Sherman, Casebere, and Demand is that they don’t get bogged down in silly rhetoric.

Really? Personally I view internal debate as a sign of a discipline’s health. It means things are unsettled and dynamic. Would you rather photography be like pottery or glass-blowing? Do they have boundless arguments about the varying importance of cup styles or window glazings? Probably not, and that may be a reason why those crafts are not usually at the forefront of art discussions. Judging by its internal debates (and I suppose I’m adding to the pile with this essay), photography is perhaps the most vibrant and alive of all the arts. We photographers love a good argument. It seems this internal tension should attract interest in the art world not discourage it.

Instead, I think the art world’s fondness for conceptual photography is just as Graham says: “The art world doesn’t get photography”. Specifically, straight photography. Is it a craft? Is it science? Is it history? Is it art? How do we judge if a documentary image is good or not? Yes indeed it is 2010, yet these questions still linger. Unlike, say, a Crewdson image which is easily pegged as conceptual and perhaps even cinematic, rich with internal art-world references and counter movements and comparisons to Hollywood production and so on, a straight photograph taken from the real world defies easy explanation. What exactly is it? If it is taken by someone like Paul Graham, there is at least a chance it will be understood. He has a reputation and therefore the photo must mean something.

But what if the exact same photograph of reality is made by Joe Flickr? Then what is it? That is a question which will probably never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction. Yet it is the exactly the question which keeps us straight photographers going.

Related posts:

1. OpEd: Appreciating Straight Photography
2. OpEd: Getting Drunk at Photography’s Funeral
3. OpEd: The Photography Surplus

“But… what of those who work today with equal commitment and sincerity, using straight photography in the cacophonous present? I will not name names here, but for these serious photographers the fog of time still obfuscates their efforts, and the blindness j’accuse some of the art world of suffering from, narrows their options. It means their work will almost never be considered for Documenta, or placed alongside other artists in a Biennale, or found for sale in major contemporary art galleries and art fairs. This does not just deprive the public of the work, and the work of its place, it denies these artists the self-confidence that enables them to grow, to feel appreciation and affirmation, not to mention some modest financial reward allowing them to continue to work. It is also, most importantly, seeing the world of visual art in narrow terms. It is seeing the apple as unreasonable.” – Paul Graham

Every few weeks an essay or blog post appears that seems to strike a chord with a cross-section photography folks. Those YES! EXACTLY! type pieces of writing that seem to articulate ideas and thoughts we all intuitively feel but often aren’t able to communicate.  But when we read the words and see other people Tweeting and quoting the piece, we know that we’re a little less crazy.  It’s comforting, but more importantly inspiring.  One such article was Paul Graham’s essay ‘The Unreasonable Apple,’ a presentation he made at first MoMA Photography Forum, 16th February 2010.

In essence, he’s making an argument or plea for the importance and appreciation of ‘straight’ photography in the fine art world. He’s able to articulate much better than I, so I won’t try, but what struck me, and what I found inspiring was that he’s making this case even though he’s been widely embraced in art circles (or maybe not, but I think so).  He hasn’t strayed too far from the ‘New Documents’ that inspired him to pursue photography in the first place.  There certainly are many others working in this tradition that have broken through like Alec Soth for example, but for the most part it seems that if you’re out doing this work, there’s very little chance it’ll be widely seen in the fine art photography world.

But that’s nothing new, right? Very little photography deserves the accolades and attention.  But much like Paul, I believe in this type of photography and want to see it reach an audience that appreciates it.  I’m sure many of you can see where I’m going with this, and that’s the web.  Anyone whose followed ‘street photography’ the last ten years know that it’s having a bit of a renaissance because it’s practitioners and enthusiasts have been able to network through the internet, create communities (like iN-Public, HCSP, and many others) and discover an audience many probably didn’t think existed.  While I’m speaking about street photography, you should check out Nick Turpin’s post, Undefining Street Photography, which makes a point that I agree with about the essence of street photography, and really photography itself.

“When a child picks up a camera and pushes the button that simple spontaneous image is a Street Photograph, it is, first of all, a raw reaction to the scene in front of it, a person, a car, a color. That primitive urge to react, to make a picture is at the heart of Street Photography beyond any other area of picture making, it comes before any other agenda.” – Nick Turpin

It would be impossible for me to argue that these are novel ideas, but that’s not really important. What I’m excited about and what drives my passion for photography is that I know there are thousands of photographers devoted to and passionate about this type of work.  And irregardless whether or not it’s accepted again in fine art circles, it will be appreciated.  The photographers I’m most interested in these days all seem to be working without ambition. And when I say without ambition, I mean they aren’t concerned with contests, portfolio reviews, gallery shows or a photography career (I also respect many that have fine art career ambitions. It’s not an either or situation).  They’re just out there making work, refining their vision and building their audiences online.  For many, that’s good enough, and for some of those photographers who were out there in the ’60s and ’70s when Winnogrand and Friedlander were making their name, gaining a bit of an audience online all these years later probably makes them feel like they’ve arrived.

We’ve been following a few photographers who have been shooting for years, and are now posting their work, new and old online.  We have a few features lined up, and are always on the look out for new work.  If you haven’t seen it before, check out our feature on Pierre Wayser whose a prime example of this type of photographer.

Related posts:

1. OpEd: Getting Drunk at Photography’s Funeral
2. Thoughts on Blake Andrew’s post about “The photography-integrated-into-life method”
3. OpEd: Some New Work From….

I would call it ‘intentionality’. Sometimes I meet young artists and it becomes clear that for some the main motivation is getting a show in Chelsea. It strikes me that this is very different to the way it was for me, which was that I wanted to understand photography and the world and myself. To do that, I produced work. The work that was shown was like a by-product, but never the purpose of my photography. The thought process doesn’t even have to be conceptual or intellectual. It can be visual, or a layer of thought that’s wordless. I’m always exploring some question or other, but it may not even be formulate as such. I believe the work produced by most established artists, was produced as a by-product of their personal explorations.- Stephen Shore via Hin Chua

Ok, so how do I make sense of that never ending flow, the fog that covers life here and now. How do I see through that, how do I cross that boundary? Do I walk down the street and make pictures of strangers, do I make a drama-tableaux with my friends, do I only photograph my beloved, my family, myself? Or maybe I should just photograph the land, the rocks and trees – they don’t move or complain or push back. The old houses? The new houses? Do I go to a war zone on the other side of the world, or just to the corner store, or not leave my room at all?- Paul Graham via AmericanSuburbX

It’s always encouraging when quotes make you stand up and shout YES!  For me, the best writing about photography more often than not comes from photographers.  I wish we would see more photographers ruminating on the philosophy of making photographs and projects.  I find that much more illuminating than the ponderous writing of academics and critics.

(bold and italics mine)

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on Blake Andrew’s post about “The photography-integrated-into-life method”
2. Thoughts on the Hetherington/Stein Presentation on Blogging
3. Internet Photography Destinations of Note – 2009