Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Photos About Themselves

Most photos, almost all photos, are naive witnesses to something or to someone. The snapshot from the party or the beach, the selfie, whatever. These are maybe not well-made, these are maybe meaningful only to a few people. That's ok. All they do is attest to that-which-was, and that's all they are meant to do.

At the other end, there are well-made photos that are about something else. Maybe they're very beautiful, or they witness something more universal, more accessible.

In the middle, where all the photographers live, there is a desperate hell-scape of photos that are about themselves.

Consider the dismal grey mess from the MFA student, the photo that's allegedly a biting critique of late-stage capitalism but is in the end a cluster of weeds in front of a trash bin. This thing isn't about capitalism or weeds or trash, it testifies only to the student's opinion of themself as an insightful commentator of late-stage capitalism, whatever that even is. With a quick adjustment of the text, it's a profound commentary on patriarchy, or a plea for de-growth, or a satirical commentary on climate change. It witnesses nothing except that the photographer is in an MFA program.

By the same token, the minimalist photo of the peach on a cutting board, illuminated by the well-placed warm ray of sunshine witnesses nothing more than the insightful eye of the photographer. It may be in some way beautiful, but god damn it we've seen this picture so many times, and it's always the same, and after a while you realize that most of what you like about it is the way the photographer cranked the saturation and warmth sliders up.

The witty juxtaposition street photo. Look, the pedestrian walks left under the big arrow pointing right! Ha ha it looks like the steam is coming from the person's head! The giant hand in the poster appears to be grabbing the bus! Ha ha! Nobody cares. Again, the photo does nothing more than testify that you're in the hands a sharp and curious photographic eye, an insightful and witty commenter on the human condition.

Except that none of these actually comment on whatever. They all comment on the photographer, and ultimately, on themselves. They are hermetically sealed into a self-referential container. These photographs mainly observe that they themselves are examples of a well-worn trope, the well-observed something-or-other.

As a rule, photographs like these are made to appeal to other photographers, and photographers, as a rule, are the only people who like them.

There are endless awful little silos of photographers. There's the "5 light studio portrait" guys, the Miksang guys, the nude figure studies guys, the dismal grey bullshit MFA guys, the street photography guys, and so on. The common thread is that people in the silo are the only people in the world who give the smallest shit about the photos made by the people in the silo. Even they don't care that much. They print their own photos, and drone on about how important it is to print your work, but they don't even want prints of one another's photos, and don't much care about them. They buy one another's books, but it's purely a quid pro quo. The average self-styled Serious Photographer's interest in printed photos, while intense, begins and ends with their own photos.

You can tell the narrowness of interest by the commentary. Everything is "wow! So good. Just.. so good. wow. wow." We might reasonably expect many photographers to be kind of inarticulate, but surely not every single one?

Normies don't care about any of this shit even slightly. None of these photos would incite even a flicker of interest from anyone outside the relevant silo. Ok, maybe the first time you see that goddamned peach photo, you'll glance at it. But normies instinctively feel the emptiness of these things, they're much more interested in even the naive snaps.

To be fair, it's not like normies pace slowly through the gallery, minutely examining everything. Still, for even the most jaded normie there's that one painting, that one photo; they'll wander over and puzzle over it for a minute or two.

This is, essentially, why photo communities are bad. They seem, inevitably, to turn into weird echo chambers that endlessly refine an increasingly uninteresting set of tropes. Everything from twitter to forums to MFA programs to local photo clubs of middle-aged ladies does the same thing: they all converge on some remarkably limited and uninteresting set of visual ideas, and grind them into a sort of thin gruel that nobody likes. I don't know if painters do the same thing. Maybe it's just photographers that are special in some way.

Certainly photographers are, as a group, remarkably lazy. Many a photographer aspires to creativity without labor. The AI Art community seems to have a lot of photographers in it, presumably because it's even easier than taking photos. Photographers, more than any other single group, seem to be in love with the insane idea that "art is subjective" especially as a justification for pretty much any kind of dumb shit.

I won't describe it as universal, but it is at any rate common to discover that the photographers I actually like are loners, or at best hang (hung) out in a fairly small, fairly thoughtful, community of like-minded people. Often they hang around with literary types, but not photographers. What a poet has to say about a photo might be a lot more interesting than what another photographer has to say about it. And, perhaps, vice versa.

In any case, do try not to take photographs mainly for the purpose of illustrating your own incisive wit or whatever. Or, you know, do, if you like. It costs me nothing, after all.

13 comments:

  1. "but they don't even print one another's photos"

    What do you mean by this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is remarkably clumsy and insane isn't it? It was (is) a placeholder, roughly. What I meant is that while photographers tend to be Very Interested in Print, their interest actually begins and ends with their own pictures. Nobody, not even photographers, want to actually own prints of other people's photos.

      I will rewrite that at some point today. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. I own one of your prints (which I didn't print and AFAIK, you didn't either), and I don't even print my own photos.

      I am a weirdo.

      Delete
    3. That seems quite a controversial view, as print sales seem to be a central feature of much of online photography discourse as far as I can tell. NFT talk tried to latch on to it, but that has died down, while I still see many prints listed, and presumably sold, as there are follow ups of frames or archival replies from their customers. Am I looking in a different corner of the internet maybe?

      Delete
    4. One of my best lessons was when my teacher gave me one of their negatives and asked me to print it platinum & palladium. I learnt so much from the exercise. I regularly process my students photographs to show them what’s possible and what I might think to do. (Of course I get them to volunteer the images knowing what will be done to them. I also ask them to process them themselves first.)

      Printing other peoples work is a thing and many famous printers do the prints of many photographers. Just adding this into the discussion. As I think it is more than a placeholder.

      Delete
  2. Woah... Harsh. My insightful eye and incisive wit are pretty much all I've got, and I'm content to illustrate the hell out of them. Are you sure you actually *like* photography?

    Plus bloody normies don't even read books, so why should we care what they think?

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your eye and wit are rolled out in service of rather more than simply demonstrating themselves to the world! And I do like photography, just not anything on flickr, and very little that MACK publishes!

      Delete
  3. Sounds like you're pissed off at members of a collective or gallery, or just frustrated that there's no reincarnation of Robert Frank or Diane Arbus.

    And Flickr? Really?

    Actually I like Flickr. I mean, democracy is messy, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not pissed off at a collective, I'm pissed off at all of them!!!!

      Delete
    2. "creativity without labour" is a pretty good take, reaching its literal apotheosis in ai.

      Delete
  4. Actually Andrew, I must your thank you for this sort of post.

    I was absolutely an individual who walked around Prague with a Pentax 6x7, taking embittered black and white photos of junk. I was somewhat interested in 'Dasein', but I was probably kidding myself, or hungover, probably both.

    I think there is a use for photography in recording (platonic) forms, but to as to what end, I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what Andrew saying in most cases, but I also used to take photos like what he's describing, but maybe you just enjoyed taking pictures like that? its niche but I don't think it's *that* weird. Building and tear down sites in particular are pretty fucking interesting and there's lots of dynamic shapes, interesting people, interesting crack patterns in concrete etc.

      Sometimes the end is just itself and that's okay, it's when you start acting like you're the next marks that it's a problem, right?

      Delete
    2. The next MARX**

      Delete