About three years ago I decided to get my photography out into the world. I had no idea what I was doing. I fumbled around because I didn’t go to art school and I had no experience in the art world. So I looked at successful photographers and tried to figure out how they became successful. I started by submitting my photos to juried exhibitions.
My earliest show submissions were collections of random images I thought were visually related. When I put those submissions together I had no idea what to write for artist statements. I thought I couldn’t write something straightforward about the photographs because the artist statements of successful photographers were full of sophisticated concepts that were unfamiliar to me.
As I learned about other photographers’ work, the direction of my photography changed. I wanted to start with a concept because if I didn’t, I was making up bogus explanations after the fact. I thought I needed to study Barthes and semiotics in order to advance my photography. My work suffered as I struggled to come up with original concepts for projects instead of going out and making photographs.
It’s only my studies at the San Francisco Studio School that brought me back on track.
In class, we frequently discuss the state of the medium of photography. Lately it’s been on my mind because of my mixed experiences during my portfolio reviews at Fotofest. Some recent related blog posts that have caught my eye: Joerg Colberg on Fotofest part one and two, Eyecurious and Blake Andrews on Paul Graham’s recent essay, and one from Dalton Rooney. I will respond to two other posts directly.
On his blog Anonymous Vernacular, Jeremy D Moore writes about Fotofest:
photographers who don’t want to deal with their own work at a conceptual level[...] it’s either lack of dedication to do something that is incredibly difficult to do or it’s a matter of the Emperor’s New Clothes whereby they are afraid if they demystify the ‘creative process’ there won’t be any substance to the work.
I agree that a photographer should be able to intelligently discuss his or her work, but being lazy or being scared of being exposed as a fraud aren’t the only choices here. Another possibility is that a photographer isn’t working conceptually. Conceptual work may be dominant in fine art photography today, but it does not mean it’s the only style of photography that has substance.
There were a number of photographers who wanted to ‘let their work speak for itself’ at FotoFest and, without fail, after seeing the work the reviewers had to ask what it was about.
Yes, it’s pointless to attend a portfolio review if you have nothing to say about your work, but why does the reviewer need to know what the work is about? Who says it has to be about something?
Photography is now too easy and photographers too good for process to be the end-all-be-all of photograph as art. I am talking about a photograph that you could show to a random assortment of 100 people and they would think it was a “good picture”.
Is photography easy today? Is Moore suggesting that improvements in technology have made photography easier? Although photography has a mechanical component, it isn’t a science that is propelled to higher levels of sophistication by discoveries of increasing complexity. Was Carleton Watkins successful simply because he was able to figure out how to make a proper exposure?
Photography is a two-dimensional visual art like painting. Principles that govern visual arts have developed through centuries of art making. I see a rejection of these principles in much of today’s photography. Painters can create compositions based on formal principles. So can photographers, and they can do so without imitating painting. We can accentuate the intrinsic qualities of the medium of photography, like the way a photograph is able to capture subtle qualities of light. I do not accept the idea that it is easy to make a fully-resolved photograph even with technical advances in cameras (although the immediate feedback of digital cameras can speed up the learning process).
Which leads into a quote from my friend Camden Hardy’s post “‘Because I said so’ doesn’t cut it. A rant.”
It’s too easy to make a good looking photography these days; people want more intellectual engagement.
Who wants more intellectual engagement? I would be surprised if the general public is interested since they are already alienated by conceptual art. So that leaves the academic community, curators, gallery owners, art collectors, and other fine art photographers. These are the people who make up the economy of the art world, people who have financial interests in selling work.
I know what I want in photography: visually challenging images that provide me with a new experience each time I revisit them. I want feeling, I want emotion. I want to see the presence of the artist. And this is what I am trying to put into my own work.
I am forty years old and I have been photographing since I was two, but I am a beginner. Here is my plan to further my photographic practice:
1. Spend as much time as I can making photographs
2. Increase my understanding of the formal principles of art (I’m reading Art Fundamentals: Theory and Practice by Ocvirk)
3. Seek out artists who are open to new ideas about where we can take the medium of photography
4. Learn about the history of photography, especially pre-1970s
5. Study art history, especially painting
6. Create my own opportunities (self-publishing for example) with a community of like-minded artists
As I have learned more about photography and the art world, my goals have changed. I am now focused on what I am putting into my images instead of looking for approval from others. My involvement in the art world is comprised of a series of small decisions and I will make these decisions confidently knowing that I am motivated by my own vision of success.
Facebook Page
twitter.com/noahbeil
Subscribe to my blog feed