I had a couple of people over to look at prints and work-in-progress over the weekend which resulted in an order for a trip and a BW 50cm x 50cm ‘Green Thing’ pic (REALLY excited about this last as I’ve never done a fine print of this as I was using a flatbed when I was doing this project – I also think I’ll be talking to John Brownlow again as his Epson printing on silver rag is amazing).
I came away from these sessions quite energised, but at the same time slightly perplexed. I’ve noticed that some photographers, and some photography collectors, build a ring fence around photography with a strict personal definition of what photography ‘is’ and what it ‘isn’t’.
Looking at the montage/construction lying on my worktable, I had comments like ‘these are all good images, why are you ripping them up, and layering them like this?’ Which got us into a nice conversation about what I’m trying to achieve – always good to check your intentions! But I’m finding that this whole question never even crosses the mind of art collectors. Although I admit the work I’m showing ranging from BW landscapes, through colour urban landscape work to the latest projects, can be confusing!
I was also contacted recently out of the blue by my ex-wife, Pauline Thomas. I’d not heard from her for many years, but she was very complimentary about my work now. She was a bit surprised I think, as I was a musician when she knew me ( a career sadly curtailed by a car crash). She is an ex-Art Development Officer in the UK and her approach to career progression is remarkably open and not suffering from the ‘is it photography or not’ scenario. But she’s given me a lot to think about – thanks Pauline!
People who like that what is generally referred to as photography, do so because that stuff has certain characteristics that other art media don’t. Much of this has to do with photography’s special relationship to visible reality. So when your work lets go of those very characteristics those people enjoy, they stop being interested. Blame yourself; it’s fair, I agree with them that you’re crossing a line over to a different field. Fine with me, as you know. But people who are dedicated photo fans will not be happy; otherwise they’d be art fans, not photo fans. Photo vs the rest is not like oils vs acrylics; photography has something that nothing else does. So you get people who are serious about that… because that’s the reason they look/buy.
As far as I know you’re ex wife is not a photographer so these issues mean little to her, which doesn’t they aren’t real and serious to those committed to the medium.
But hey it’s da ghetto, man, and you’re breaking out.
Bee
Good point Bee. One of my favourite philosophers, Adorno, said that for art to be authentic, the materials and/or techniques used had to bring something unique to the work, to inform the work. So I guess according to that and your comments it is a fair response. Trouble is I don’t FEEL any different! I still think of myself as a photographer – in fact I feel as if I’m doing more personal work now than I’ve ever done. True, ripping and layering photos goes a bit far, but I really don’t think the trips and pairs/fours are THAT far from traditional photography concerns.