This is probably going to be a very rambling post, so be warned!
Probably the most important thing an artist has to decide is the strategy s/he adopts to carry out the aim of the artwork. It is fundamental, because if the strategy is flawed, then no matter how perfectly conceived and executed the image, the overall work fails.
I’ve tried many, diptychs where the individual images inform and contrast with each other, montage, triptychs. Even single images arranged in a sequence! Each of them are OK as far as they go, but I’m still left thinking ‘not quite this time…’ .
This might be clearer if I outline a problem and then look at some answers.
Once a photographer has mastered the basics of making a ‘good’ picture, and starts to think about the ‘what’ - what do I want to say - the question bumping into this is the ‘how’ - how do I communicate this to an audience.
The Bechers are a good example of this. In an attempt to reclaim Germany’s history from fascism, they recorded examples of a heritage that existed prior to Hitler. Almost identical images, presented singly. This has become very popular in recent times, and works when done well, but it has become a prop for those who have an idea but who don’t seem to want to investigate alternate strategies. It reduces the work to stamp collecting - ‘look what I got, and this one, and this one…’
The level of communication from artist to viewer goes something like this ‘I think this, see what I mean, see what I mean, see what I mean see what I mean see what I mean’.
What purpose does the ’see what I mean’ serve?
It is akin to listening to a conversation on a bus amongst a group of adolescents… ‘it’s kinda, like, well, yeah, know what I mean, heavy, see?’ Now, I know in the hands of some, and for some purposes, it is an apt tool. But as a default methodology it is boring and I see this very often as a lack of sufficient thought in the strategy of the project.
Please I note I include Candid Hofer’s image above as an example of someone who does this kind of work well.
Ahh, well, a slight sidetrack.
Mike Ryder has a strategic problem with his work that I find fascinating. I ‘ve written about him before.
I’ll even go as far as to say that I think a major component of his work is the dialectical tension that exists in his work as a result of his attempts to resolve the strategic problem about how to present his vision.
For instance, this set of 131 pics.
When Mike posted this set, he asked for advice on how to present it. He’d just recently been told by a reviewer at Rhubarb Rhubarb that his work ‘wasn’t photography’ (and you pay HOW MUCH for that kind of advice???) . Now I see these working in many ways - a book, a slide show, short sequences printed on a single sheet of paper similar to a film strip, or laid out in a non-linear fashion. Where I don’t see it working is as single framed images in a traditional gallery setting, sold off one by one. In fact when Mike presents these images on the web, they are laid out on a page as thumbnails, with NO clickable enlargements.
Like Mike, I’m more-or-less interested usually in narrative.
I had a ‘eureka moment’ about this at a Robert Frank retrospective (I had a PhD supervisor who coined this term, one of those moments when the light dawns in a profound, life-changing way).
I’m one of those philistines who love his Mabou work and am a bit so-so about ‘The Americans’.
When I view exhibits I like to take a random route on my first pass through as I don’t want some curator hi-jacking my perceptions (my wife gets crazy asI always go round exhibits backwards - she likes to read all the texts, and take things in order).
Anyway, I was looking at some contacts of the ‘Americans’ and took a glance at another wall that was in my line of sight - some Mabou work - and I had the full spotlight-from-on-high-’yeah-Elwood-the-BAND’ moment.
Note that it isn’t that I’m incapable of a more classical reference, just that I prefer the visual image of me doing backflips down the aisle towards James Brown and a Gospel Chorus, to the image of me running down the street naked and still wet from the bath.
The movement from ‘The Americans’ to the Mabou work isn’t a leap. It is a logical step, via film-making, of a person committed to working with narrative, where the narrative is contained in the whole artwork. A move away from the narrative in sequenced images usually found in book form - an excellent maestro of this format being Sylvia Plachy.
Now, this was/is a key concern for me, as I think it is for Mike. The crux of the strategic problem.
I’m distinctly unhappy with my work at the moment. A nagging feeling that used to leave me sleepless for days, now I know the feeling is a sign of something around the corner. I really don’t know how, or what is going to emerge, but I’m looking for something where I can contain the narrative and the ‘meaning’ of a body of work in a single image. The ability to contain in a single piece, or at the most two or three panels, the complete ‘idea’. No ‘and this and this and this’ - but the exposition and elaboration, the whole nine yards, in a unit.
I’ve talked about this with artists and photographers - photographers look puzzled and say I’m not a photographer anymore, the artists look puzzled and don’t really understand my problem. Anyway, watch this space…
