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…

I’ve had a number of emails from other photographers asking how the print offers were going.  Whilst I’m not in any danger of selling out the edition, the response has been much greater than I expected. I’ve shipped two batches, and at times the surfaces of my work room were covered with prints drying – a great sight!

I combined launching on the blog with a marketing campaign based around my mailing list and had a couple of takers, but more surprising was a sale of two 20 x 60 inch versions to people who wanted it bigger. These were people who had never bought ‘photography’ before, but had bought ‘art’, which I guess is where the trips are centred. So is it worth it? Yes, it is. The sight of stacks of prints going out the door, images finding homes, was very satisfying.

I’ve already decided what to offer in exchange for donations next, one of my favourite images that currently only exists as part of  a diptych… it was also the first image of mine that Bee Flowers said he liked!

Tim Atherton has decided to sell small editioned prints. Looking-Glass Editions

These are shot on 8×10. I’m lucky enough to have a couple of prints from this series in my living room, and they are great. Buy now!!

Tim is also much cleverer than me as he has found a way to make the Paypal button work!

Since posting a slightly critical post concerning 20×200, I’ve now decided I’ve changed my mind. Having received a very full email from Jen B and reading this post I think the idea is good alround.

Between 2000 and 2003, I spent thousands of euros on photography. Equipment, film, paper and marketing – marketing took a huge chunk of that. After this I made a deal with my fully supportive wife – my photography is a business, I only spend in any 12 month period what I make, after living expenses. If anyone has ever tried this, you know how hard it is. The key thing is cash flow, and IMO anything that generates cash flow and allows me to continue producing work is a good thing.

In fact I’ve changed my mind SO much, I’m going to be offering cheap, small versions of prints on a regular basis! Watch this space

Well, not really ‘new’, but sort of. As I wrote in an earlier post, things are starting to move for me – more on this another day – but one of the consequences of having a lot of activity is I need my website to be a lot leaner and easier to get round than it was, so I’ve done a tidy-up and a bit of a rethink. I’d been meaning to do it for ages, but now it is done.

I’ve cut down on the number of projects, and cut back on the number of pics. So now each project has a page with an introductory text, 6 thumbnails and a pdf of the whole project. This means I now have pdfs available for everything, and people can get a taste of things without wading backwards and forwards. Only done the English side so far, but the Spanish is to come. The look of the site is the same as I have zippo design skills. As usual any thoughts or problems anyone finds I’d be grateful if they would pass them along

I’m on a bit of a high at the moment. Film is building up in the fridge for processing, the weather is now offically hot enough for Sangria, the rollei is working smoothly, and in the last two weeks I’ve had three people come by to look at work with a view to buying, and yes, two sales confirmed, one nearly so. I don’t usually see the people who buy prints, so opening up the boxes whilst someone is here is a rare experience.

Last night José Luis came around to view prints. We looked at the work on my terrace – he needs to smoke whilst he thinks, and I need to drink wine. José is a lecturer in Philosophy and Fine Art, so he is a critical viewer.

I was amazed. He is the first person I’ve met who could ‘read’ the reason for the pairings in the Scene of the Crime pics. He was also very enthusiastic about the new work, the trips, the urplace work. I got a real buzz from talking to him. He gave me a kick to take down some of the earlier work from the website, and to really concentrate on the montage and the less traditionally ‘photographic’ work – it was a real pleasure. We talked about the future, and different avenues to explore, both aesthetically and commercially.

It got me thinking about the relationship between artists and galleries. I’ve also had an interesting email from Jen Bekman who explained more clearly her work. Despite still not feeling comfortable with the Hot Shot side of things, I am very impressed with what she has created in such a short time and how clearly her photographers are benefiting from her efforts. However… whilst I think a gallery can be your best friend, I can’t help thinking it is an uneasy alliance. Chatting with some photographer friends I laughed myself silly at the following scenario… ‘Hi, yeah, who did you say? Fraenkel? Oh yeah hi. No, sorry, send me a cheque for 200usd and I’ll pop my portfolio round…’ Now while it is perfectly understandable that a gallery has to recoup their time and act as a gate keeper, it is just getting so darn expensive!

I also think there is a confusion between the act of getting your work shown, so you can communicate with an audience, and selling the stuff. In a way I’m lucky, I have three friends in various countries who act as agents. They have contacts to the right class of people. I give them a portfolio, and they sell from that. I get a steady ‘trickle’ of sales at gallery prices for a low outlay, but no more. I’m not getting critical reviews, which would lead to being able to show the work and actually get people to see the stuff. I think Bee Flowers seems to have cracked this and is getting some high profile shows. His focus certainly seems to be on the communicative side of things.

Anyway, I see a strong shadow cutting across the bar below, and there is a red plastic chair leg, partly in shadow framed by the legs of a yellow plastic table, plastic flowers on the table with that shadow bisecting them…

I had a customer come to look at some recent work. Whilst he was looking at some of the new trips, he said ‘Kieslwoski – the red movie’

Now, its a long time since I saw ‘Three colours red’ so I didn’t immediately get the reference, so I got the dvd out on loan at the weekend.

The photography is amazing. Almost every scene would make a good still, the sheer virtousity of the way the red motif is handled is an inspiration. I know, I’m gushing, but if you want a visual stimulus, see the film.

I really don’t know where I stand on Jen Bekman’s 20×200 scheme,

The idea of selling my stuff cheap, frankly appalls. I spend thousands of euros a year in film , processing, marketing, attending portfolio reviews. Every step of the way there are mechanisms to extract money from the artist, diverting energy and funds from producing work. If I’m lucky I get an exhibit and spend 10k on printing and framing. If I’m lucky, VERY lucky, I break even. More likely I’m paying off the bank loan, which eats into the ability to make new work. So I want a realistic price for my work, for the hours, the effort.

I’m also undecided about the Hot Shot phenomena. The idea of relegating photography to a series of one off’s I find to be part of a dumbing-down and commodification process that is strictly anti-art – I could here go into a philosophical ramble on the social funcion of art, but I’ll resist. I also find the idea of paying a gallery to look at my stuff so that if they approve they can sell it for a profit, to be, well, decidedly American.

Having said that, there is no denying the energy JB puts into marketing her photographers and her dedication to supporting new artists and finding new markets. The idea of making 2k (although it will probably be 1k after gallery cut) for only the expenditure of printing off a batch of A4s, would be very welcome, it would certainly help fund existing projects! Not to mention the publicity, and 200 names for the mailing list. So as a marketing tool I can see it being beneficial.

So where do I stand…

I guess ‘thanks but no thanks’ for me, but a hearty ‘go for it’ for JB and her stable of image-makers. I’ll sit on the sidelines and applaud from afar with a slightly worried frown on my face.

Update.

I had a very nice email from Jen Bekman explaining more fully the way her gallery works. Now whilst I’m still, from a philosophical point of view, unhappy about the Hotshot process, I have to say I think she is on the side of the Angels and I think having her fight your corner would be very valuable. I wish my last gallery had had her grit. I also made a comment about this here