On "art" and making pictures, etc.
Okay, I may have neurodivergences that make parsing subtextual content difficult, but over the years, I think I've developed a semi-decent appreciation for art of several kinds. But something that I can't appreciate is the proliferation of photography influencers on YouTube. I want to believe they love their art and I want to be respectful (I definitely do contribute to their viewership) but I never find anything original or real or even fun about their work (because yes, fun is important to art as well and not all of it needs to be profound, etc.). All these channels seem to do is push out blindingly derivative work that — especially due to sheer volume — loses all meaning (for instance, the same pictures of abandoned buildings, found objects, or mundane street scenes devoid of synchronicities or any real meaning repeated a hundred, thousand times over??? WHY).
And I get that sometimes the details of the a photograph might be of more interest to the creator than the subject — I know this absolutely and perhaps too well(!) because I spent a decade of my life focusing on literally everything but subjects, but if you're a creator with a sizeable following, I don't understand what you're signalling especially to the young aspiring photographers who follow you and I fear once again that we're growing into a culture of doing things for the sake of it. Like making film photographs because "the grain is orgasmic" (?!) or because "it just feels nicer"(a valid, though perhaps incomplete point?) — literally something I have heard at least two "famous" photographers say in their videos. BUT WHERE is the critical application of film techniques to the work? Why aren't these people pushing the boundaries of what their stock or sensors can do? How is your art elevated by the medium of film? There appears to be entirely too much (misplaced?) pride in look, I shot this picture of a wrecked motel on film and then zooming into the grain for one's YT audience, and not enough why did I choose any of this? What makes me shoot abandoned buildings so often? (outside of copying/referencing famous photographers who, fwiw, did this to document the changing American landscape, not for pure ✨aesthetic✨). These very same YouTubers also speak frequently about studying said iconic photographers and artists, but do they even clock the use of intention as a vital part of making art? Soth shot Sleeping By the Mississippi with a personal goal in mind — and there's a startling amount of range there, both subject-wise and aesthetically AND YET all of it fits together (even his self-proclaimed "bad images") because HE HAD A NARRATIVE. He intended for the disparate pieces to go together. He was responding to a personal calling and that is forever sacred. It cannot be replicated by the scores of people who get in their cars with a medium format camera and go on "photo journeys" without adequate reflection.
And this isn't to say that only personal projects can have deep meaning. Even commercial work can have heart. War photography from Capa and the other greats is incredible in capturing the uncertainty and urgency of the times — and these were all commissioned projects! I MEAN, BRESSON WAS RELUCTANT about going to India on the trip that he ended up documenting Gandhi's assassination and funeral, but he framed each of those fucking photographs with the intent, discipline and compositional wizardry that comes only with honest practice. It wasn't just the high contrast b&w aesthetic of his work that we know him for even though that's the only thing that seems to be so widely emulated today. But merely turning up contrast does not a Bresson make.
Another widely copied artist, Martin Parr, shot extreme closeups for a project to capture the absurdity of capitalism (note also that he did not make this his entire visual identity as an artist); a hundred other people shooting "similar" closeups will not succeed in replicating this effect because their work will miss the point: the garishness and absurdity that he felt such a visceral response to that he had to pick up a camera and stick it in people's faces.
And again, I say all this with the knowledge that creating derivative work is an important part of growing creatively — BUT ONLY IF one is aware of that. Derivation and imitation are great for learning techniques and finding one's footing but there's got to be a point when one pauses in recognition of that and uses the learned techniques to pivot into a more original direction. And so I think my chief complaint here is against people misrepresenting their place on the learning curve and in the process, damaging what a lot of other people watching such algorithm-promoted content will mistake as some of the better art this generation can create.
Also, something that appears common to the entire content creation culture is mistaking the trees for the woods. If a piece of content gets enough views, that becomes an end in itself — it fulfils the purported goal of creating. To be fair, reaching wide audiences has historically been one of the aims of art, but should it the only end? I sound like a grouchy old person, but the content marketplace is shifting the focus of art from engaging in original examinations of the world to grabbing eyeballs. There is a lot of dissatisfaction expressed towards clickbait culture practiced by organisations, but not enough attention devoted to how it's damaging us at an individual level.
Important questions that can emerge through practice and deliberation for photographers: How do I employ my identity both within and without the image? How do I utilise my lived experiences in the act of creation, how does it inform my gaze and how does this gaze capture this scene of interest? How will it inform the overall aesthetic (colours, cropping, etc.) I present? How is my very interest in this scene influencing my shooting choices (angle, width, speed, subject selection, etc.)? What is this saying about the zeitgeist and my engagement with it and my place in the world? What emotions am I feeling? Which am I looking to evoke? (And this latter point must, must go beyond canonical tropes like black and white will inspire moodiness/isolation/distance or a blurry/out of focus image will evoke mystery. Not everyone Saul Leiter, get over it.)
Context and identity matter so much to picture making. I wonder often what a feminist approach to the visual arts will/can/should look like (e.g., Will its gaze be empathetic? Must it be? etc.) and one of my favourite examples of injecting a personal presence in document photography to great effect is Susan Meisela's project on carnival strippers. I have yet to see someone who succeeds in giving agency to one's subjects and not exploiting them for quick fame. Several (rather famous) photographers have shot sex workers, of course, and despite their stature, a lot of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Again, too much communal handwringing on people digitally altering their pictures and not enough on are you a shitty person despite being a technically sound photographer? (Not that these mutually exclusive things, but discourses often reduce things to zero-sum games...)
Uh, but anyway, I have calmed down a little over the course of writing this, so I guess whatever. We’re all going to die anyway — likely sooner than later.