image via google search for “Poetically Decayed Interiors”
“spending several months living among a [ENTER CULTURAL SUBGROUP HERE] people, examining their inner life by photographing a mix of rural social landscape, portraits, and poetically decayed interiors”
- Northern Exposures via Blake Andrews
Could describe an awful lot of projects.
You guys know how I feel about subject matter ruling photography. I just don’t… feel that I’m talented if everyone loves a photo just because I happened to be standing in front of a fresh kill or something. Being in the right place just isn’t enough for me as a photographer. I want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the boring time maybe, and still somehow say something. I don’t know.
It’s probably why all I’ve been doing lately is writing. I want to know what it’s like to create something from nothing, or at least as close as possible. I’m tired of feeling like I’m just pointing. I like pointing (it’s what I’m doing every time I click “share” on google reader), but I can’t just point. Or even just point well. You dig?
It’s not like there’s anything without a history and context though. Frustrating. I’m going through a frustrating time with my work – that’s safe to say.
Sounds like you are discovering the difference between photographers and artists that use photography. I suggest you try painting – I find painting makes my photography feel better. But the question is: are you a artist or a photographer?
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 4:07 pm
The “artists that use photography” phrase has been around for a long while now, but I’ve always felt a little strange about it. It seem somehow derogatory towards people who call themselves photographers. That’s the problem with labels, I guess. I don’t like calling myself a photographer because people seem to assume I’m driven by things that I’m not and my interests lie in areas that I’m not really interested in. And yet, I take a lot of photographs and am currently employed in creating photographs.
I’ve always been one of those difficult people who answers the “what do you do” question in annoying ways depending on my mood and what I’ve been up to – I’m sure there are people out there who really do think that “reading comic books and sleeping” is my profession. Or “I look at things. Sometimes I make more things.”
If you look at my card (link to the left) I think it’s obvious that I make things and I want people to approve of them/enjoy them and by association me (at least that’s the feeling I get from artists with business cards so I wanted to push it with mine) but I was really nervous about actually putting “artist” or something on the card. What if I wanted to just be a programmer later? Or an engineer? I could keep the name, website, and lust for approval without applying an art world context to the idea of “making things.”
[Reply]
Comment by Jerry — March 1, 2010 @ 11:58 am
The first half of your post I agree with. Completely.
Beautiful sunsets. Disaster areas. War orphans. Easy. Not that they are easy subjects, but rather how easy it is for such subjects to swallow up any idea that could be new or interesting. Photographers submit to them in droves like weak willed horndogs to buxom succubi.
But Pointing. Ian, Pointing is one of our greatest, richest traditions. Robert Adams Points. Robert Frank Points. The Bechers Point. Stephen Shore Points. Tunbjork, Fulford, Callahan, Moriyama, Lange, Salgado Point. Hell your post sounds like an echo of one hell of a Pointer “I’m at war with the obvious.”
Point, don’t Point. It’s up to you Ian. You are obviously an artist of talent, just don’t get entangled in other’s failures.
And to Jerry: What the difference between “painters” and “artists who use paint” Sheesh!
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
It’s true – pointing is a fine art and one I love. I do often think of photographers as being quite close to curators in how they think (at least, the good ones).
I’m just not sure if I’m personally satisfied with it. Some are driven to point, and some do it exceptionally well. I mean, look at I Heart Photo or Boing Boing even. There are people who are making quite a passtime of pointing, photography or no.
But I’m not sure if it’s for me. Just like I wouldn’t be satisfied if I only posted work at this blog and never wrote about it. I have to know that I’m somehow adding something to the conversation, to the subject, besides just bringing it to attention.
I do know that many of the artists you’ve mentioned added a lot in their work. Every photograph has a viewpoint. Some have amazingly strong ones that can change the course of the art world, history, etc.
I don’t know if my work will ever be about that though, or even if the time is right for a photographer with a strong eye. A lot of people talk about participating in a “discussion” as their motivation for making art but there are so many photographs out there and I feel like it would be very easy for my work to just be another pebble in the stream. Even if it’s a beautiful pebble. So maybe for it to really affect the flow, it needs to be something different. Like a dead beaver.
Metaphors are trouble.
[Reply]
Jerry Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:03 am
A painter is someone who paints to please you – an artist is someone who uses paint to please themselves. Photography is a special case as most people can get pretty good results without a lot of effort or actual involvement – right place right time, lots of shots – it can seduce you into thinking your making art when you are not. I’m not talking gallery art but art from your own gut that is frighteningly important. That’s why I suggest changing mediums when you are blocked – an end run around fear
BTW There is nothing wrong with being a photographer, nothing superior in being an artist. (and you can be both) I just think its essential to know.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:46 am
I’d guess that every person has to “know” for themselves if they can. The only definition of art I’ve ever been able to pin down allows for a lot of different working methods.
[Reply]
Comment by Sebastien Boncy — March 1, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
jerry, why can’t a photographer be an artist as well?
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 4:33 pm
It might be a reference to the famous quote:
“For every photographer who clamors to make it as an artist, there is an artist running a grave risk of turning into a photographer.” –Artforum, 1976
Basically in the late 60s and through the 70s a lot of conceptual artists starting turning to the camera – both as a means of documenting (and interacting with) their performances, sculptures, installations, and other pieces, but also as part of a recording method for actions and (basically) a way of producing their thoughts. Often the result was similar to what was thought of as photography then, but many placed emphasis on conceptual differences – one was observing in order to create a fine print, but the other was simply clicking a shutter as proof of a thought. Well, the discussion ranged along those lines.
Nowadays, all lines are blurred, (of course, it’s often hard to see where critics and galleries placed the lines in the first place, or why) but many people do feel a large gap between “fine art” photo work and commercial or industrial photography, say fashion or passport photographs.
This can be a very long discussion.
The quick answer to your question, I think, is that of course a photographer can be an artist. And an artist can decide they are not a photographer, but use cameras… And a photographer can decide they are not an artist… Or maybe they’re a craftsperson. Or just a camera operator. Or…
Well, you see.
[Reply]
Comment by Courtney M — March 1, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
“Metaphors are Trouble” that’s a good title for some thing some time. Mind if I keep it?
I feel you on the pebble/dead beaver thing. As your pebbledom-rejecting neighbor, I have to ask you how do you define that stream? where do you locate this discussion?
My own crisis has me constantly wondering how much acceptance/rejection is too much/not enough. In “Ways of Seeing”, I seem to remember Berger making the point that the vast majority of the painting canon is made up of exceptions. Artists that were so outside the day’s discussions and traditions that they were often seen as heretics and retards.
Though we come at it in different ways, I think there might be significant overlap in how we wrestle with the “What Now” question.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Might get you in trouble – I’ve been known to say it before (I’ve a habit of falling into terrible metaphors. Maybe I hope it lightens the conversation).
Your question is a good one. It’s hard to wonder where you stand in the art world when we have such trouble defining the term. Or the idea. I’m definitely no expert. Many would say that simply because I currently live outside of NYC that I’m pretty much an outsider or a caveman. Who knows. Maybe NYC is the stream. Maybe the internet is the stream.
More likely, it’s just a way of thinking of everything happening around you, art related or not, and as an artist, having the desire to reach out your arms and divert the flow a little. Not enough to cause a flood or any other disaster, but just enough send your little paper boats in the right direction.
See, I’m using metaphors to get you my wavelength. Hah. Wavelength. Waves. But such figurative language lets me still be vague since I have such trouble actually quantifying what I desire (or others do) to do as an artist.
Berger, and Ways of Seeing, is good to have around in this discussion. Such an amazing book (I’m sure the series was too, though I haven’t seen it). It’s true – just like in politics and science. What we consider mundane was revolutionary (or insanity) in its time.
Maybe it’s my goal to be mundane someday? hah.
It’s possible that the “What Now” is simpler than the discussion, really – it might be that the best thing to do is just create shit. Create a lot of shit. Look back on it and see what’s doing what you want it to do. Put that shit out there. Seems simplistic and skips over a lot of important stuff (where to start, what materials, what style) etc – but maybe that’s because none of that stuff will ever be universal. What I think is interesting is always boring to someone else. So it’s impossible to give advice there.
I don’t know, I could say “make something about the internet.”
[Reply]
Sebastien Boncy Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:35 am
Amen, neighbor. Let’s make shit. Loads of it, and lets put it out there (out there being even beyond the white boxes) We’ll worry about the rest later.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:47 am
Or just worry about it with a different part of our mind. Hard to stay productive if they slosh around together too much.
It might be that lizard reflex where the good stuff comes from.
[Reply]
Comment by Sebastien Boncy — March 1, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
As a fellow photographer, I feel both your concerns — it doesn’t feel like it’s original, or yours, or even art if all you do is capture something that happened to show up when you happened to be there with your camera. On the other hand, if you can capture something that isn’t obviously speaking, and give it a voice — I think that can be art. Which is why I used to photograph obscure gray things, like rocks and driftwood. But it turns out that’s still the camera capturing something else that’s already there, and it didn’t feel like it was expressing something unique.
Like you, I began working my way around this with writing, but what I’ve found is that there’s still something in me (some would call it apophatic) that cannot be expressed through normal cataphatic/obvious/articulable constructions. So lately I’ve taken to photographing REALLY REALLY ordinary things — cement floors, for example — and then using photoshop to call out “that which lies within” which craves expression in the same way that which lies within ME craves expression. And in giving voice to the floor’s inner yearning, or wisdom, I give voice to my own. Because I don’t think that what you’re looking for is to create something from nothing, but to give voice to the nothing that is really something, it’s just not in our normal spectrum of vision…
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 am
Haha, funny you mention gray things. Got a bit of a thing with the idea of “gray”.
anyway, yeah – you can take a more painterly (not meant literally) approach to it. That’s definitely one way of working with the dilemma.
I’m not into using photoshop like that on the work I’m doing now (though it reminds me of how I handled the Bad News series) but I think that the idea of “that which lies within” is one that a lot of photographers emphasize with. We often feel that others are missing what we are seeing and want to bring that out somehow. Hence the clicking.
[Reply]
Comment by diane walker — March 1, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
“Being in the right place just isn’t enough for me as a photographer. I want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the boring time maybe, and still somehow say something. I don’t know.”
Beautiful words Ian. Miss you. See you soon.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 am
absolutely. Are you heading back to the sav? I have high lifes.
[Reply]
John Michael Fulton Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I shall be there during part of spring break. I will call you.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 12:59 am
word. do.
[Reply]
Comment by John Michael Fulton — March 2, 2010 @ 3:09 am
[...] “Being in the right place just isn’t enough for me as a photographer. I want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the boring time maybe, and still somehow say something” Ian Alexander Adams [...]
Pingback by blog : luis díaz díaz — March 2, 2010 @ 6:29 am
These sentiments of being in the ‘wrong place’ are uncannily similar to what I wrote about on my own blog a few weeks ago michaelgrievephotographer.blogspot.com. Indeed being in the wrong place is my natural home, its how I see things. My intuition points me towards it. It is the right place of my being. And to point, well thats just the reality of this mediation mechanism called a camera. Most of us take photographs with our eye and keep it in our minds archive. Thats the greatest pleasure. But we need evidence of our vision, such is our insecurity, and the camera is the compromise. A filter to the exterior.
Photographers as artists. Photographers should deal with being creative and leave the labels to those who feel the need to compartmentalise. This process of labelling is really for the galleries and the institutions to construct neat catagories. Makes them feel better.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:57 am
yeah, I actually remember reading that and seeing the shot (one of a few hundreds posts a day. I’m getting better on commenting right away now with this buzz thing, a shame most people don’t see it though.) Maybe the “wrong place” title bounced around in my head a bit before ending up here.
It’s possible, that in a simple sense, “The Wrong Place” is simply somewhere no one else is yet. Once you show them that it’s not a boring place to be, chances are someone will follow you to that place. Or you will find that others are thinking like you, at least.
I just don’t want to be defined by subject matter, really. When I’m in a certain philosophical mood, I want all the pictures in that series or that body to seem to work with that mood regardless of where they are or what they are of… If that makes sense.
Talking about evidence, did you read the essay I wrote for Ahorn?
http://www.ahornmagazine.com/essay_adams.html
I keep referring back to it, but it’s really starting to feel like an anchor for me in my current thoughts. If you haven’t, I think it touches on stuff you’d be interested in and I’d be excited to hear your thoughts after reading it.
As for labeling, I feel like I’ve talked about that enough above, and I agree – mainly it’s for galleries and institutions. Individuals can live fine just doing what they do.
[Reply]
Comment by Michael Grieve — March 2, 2010 @ 10:26 am
This is one person who most definitely has gone beyond “the right time” part.
http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com/2010/02/eva-leitolf-looking-for-evidence.html
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:58 am
I remember seeing that post, Stan. Wish I had more of a photo book budget. Maybe I should just take this blogging thing more seriously and people will start sending me them. Works for some.
[Reply]
Stan B. Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:05 am
Yup- I got two in five years…
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:13 am
haha, that’s two!
[Reply]
Comment by Stan B. — March 2, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Ian
I’m going to continue your metaphor. You’re a good sized, noticeable pebble (portfolio) in one of the main tributaries (photography) to a worthwhile river (art) which eventually flows to a big ocean (consciousness) where it’ll all get forgotten anyway. Anything that it trumped up too much, is eventually scuppered (ask James Cameron).
The mosses that grows on your pebble are your writing and while others are dredging streams, trawling seas, removing mountain-tops and scything canals through our cultural ecosystem just to get noticed, your quietly enjoying your mossy pebble and pebbly moss knowing that others like you will pool in significant and natural eddies and loop and share good things.
Fuck the dams, the reservoirs and interstates.
You’re right, metaphors are dangerous …
Me? I’m just a babbling Brook that dries up quite often.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 am
When you put it that way, I’m certainly glad I’m not removing mountain tops.
Often your comfort in a situation is just a matter of perspective.
Moss is nice, very pleasant. Thank you.
[Reply]
Comment by Pete Brook — March 2, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
[...] buzz a lot already, though you can’t see a conversation on there unless we are contacts.), the original post, and even a couple places where it’s been linked or [...]
Pingback by Statement Of Purpose | Ian Aleksander Adams — March 3, 2010 @ 1:56 am
This post is a refreshing point of view, I’m growing tired of subject matter ruling photography. It seems that most work I see now involves choosing a subject group, setting up a large format camera opposite it , getting it all in frame avoiding any parallax (probably from distance that avoids any real involvement) and repeating the process. Its like we have wondered back into the Pictorialist era with all its rules and restrictions.
More and more I am drawn to more graphic, exploratory work such as the excellent books of Bertrand Fleuret.
[Reply]
Ian Aleksander Adams Reply:
May 27th, 2010 at 4:27 am
absolutely, chris! And thanks for your comment. I’m sorry it took me so long to get back to it, must have somehow got lost in my inbox.
It seems that I’ve been seeing more exploratory work lately, but it’s quite possible that I’m only seeing it because I’m looking for it more.
[Reply]
Comment by Chris — March 3, 2010 @ 6:09 am
[...] a recent photography graduate stateside and has a great blog here. Yesterday he published a rather bleak statement of his frustrations which is well worth a read through, and its [...]
Pingback by “spending several months living among a [ENTER CULTURAL SUBGROUP HERE] people, examining their inner life by photographing a mix of rural social landscape, portraits, and poetically decayed interiors” « Thomas James — March 3, 2010 @ 10:27 am
[...] the contemporary tastes and aspirations of local home buyers. Though I try, I can’t resist poetic images of decay. Here’s a sampling of my own snapshots from Dinuba: Muirfield development © Thomas Locke [...]
Pingback by Foreclosure, USA by Kirk Crippens and the fractal nature of San Joaquin Valley towns « Thomas Locke Hobbs Blog — March 5, 2010 @ 12:03 pm