Bryan Formhals, over at La Pura Vida where he has a history of featuring interesting and relevant commentary, made a post responding to a quote by Blake Andrews, which I’m reprinting here:
“The photography-integrated-into-life method is decidedly unfashionable. The huge majority of photographers I saw at Photolucida were more project oriented. The prevailing model is to develop a concept of something that has photographic potential —often of personal interest but not always— and then methodically take photographs of that project until a body of work is created, with the ultimate goal of showing the work at Photolucida or similar venue.
The potential pitfall of this method is that the resulting photographs can seem secondary to the project. Often the artist statement conveys all the information required and you needn’t look at more than a few photos to get the gist of it. Such projects may be appropriate for the idea-centric art world but they enslave photography as a tool, not a lifestyle.
I think photographs should come first. Arrange them in projects later if you must or else leave them as is in a big loose stack. Either way, photography that is integral to life seems to me to be the strongest because it comes from purest motivation: the very simple need to translate the world into photographs. Of course I am biased because this how I approach my own work, but it’s what I like to see in others too.”
This is something I have run into while reviewing portfolios myself, as well as being the subject of portfolio reviews. I think it may be considered obvious by some, but it’s important that it is still pointed out. It’s almost like no one talks about it because it’s so obvious. It’s just “the way things are.”
Bryan responds:
“Put simply, I don’t think the fine art photography establishment has much respect for [the non-project based] photographic philosophy or method (look at the general derision toward street photography and family photography for example). I know plenty of studious, intelligent photographers out there who treat photography as a way of life and don’t have any sort of fine art ambition.
Maybe that’s what it comes down to: ambition. I have this feeling, one I certainly can’t prove scientifically, but somehow I think having an ambition to make it in the fine art world interferes with your photographic intuition to some degree. There’s a danger that the conceptual part of your brain and eye will smother the intuitive part. Is there a way to find a balance? Of course. Do I have any idea how? Nope, but I do think mixing the vernacular, “integrated-into-life method” with the project method can lead to some very exciting photography. But will the fine art world pay attention?”
While there is an extensive history of recognized fine artists working with a diarist approach to photography, Bryan is referring specifically to our current commercial art world, dominated by photography contests and portfolio reviews.
It’s a fair question and one I felt warranted response. I left a comment there, but I’m reprinting it here as a way of inviting you to keep the discussion ongoing.
I think even with ambition, there is often a wall you hit.
I know I’ve had trouble explaining to people that a project is about visual sensibility. Often they want a quick subject: “I shoot heroin addicts” etc.
Like, with Gray Days, it really is a more poetic sequence, about the images themselves, not about subjects.
The art world is dominated, for the most part, by a fanatical adoration of subject (so work can be easily promoted and blurbed about) and object (as in the actual salable print or sculpture, etc.)
So basically, art “projects” tend to be about some “interesting” subject, in a series of a manageable length, lets say 10-20 pieces, which can be split up and sold as singular objects with assigned value.
When people talk about the art, they talk about the prints themselves, creating this value based upon less interesting aspects such as size or edition, or more ethereal criteria like “quality.”
When someone’s photographic career is discussed, “What do you shoot?” might be the most common early question. “What do you shoot with?” is probably a close second. Almost immeasurably rarer is “How do you shoot?” The answer is often a lot more interesting, though.
Concerning “what,” the photographic subject is often a player in a game of “bet you haven’t seen this before,” a game that only retains it’s excitement as long as “new” or “exotic” subjects are successively displayed for your viewing pleasure. The second question, asked more often by technical junkies (or a lensbro, as illustrated above), is usually only interesting to said equipment-aware inside crowd.
The third question, which I think should be asked more, helps us learn how others see, how they perceive. When people ask this question, my attention is held for longer, I become inquisitive about their mode of living, their subjective reality. Variations on this question: “How do you see?” or “Why do you shoot?”
So, a conversation at a portfolio review often follows a predictable formula.
“What do you shoot/shoot with?” followed by a discussion based upon subject + project = object.
The job of the photographer in this situation is to find and then pitch the subject, which they then do a project about, transforming the subject into an object that can be consumed and sold in a commercial setting, the gallery. Obviously there are variations, but 90% of the conversations between reviewer and photographer follow that kind of organization.
As I mentioned above, the problem with this approach is that the interest to the viewing public is almost a literal translation from the original objects pictured. I’ve often felt, in a gallery, that it would be more interesting to just have the still lives displayed as installations, the people in front of me to talk to, the actual subjects themselves, even with contemporary photography that’s quite “successful.”
The photographer often reacts: “But that’s impossible, I can’t bring that stuff in. And then it wouldn’t be something I created anyhow!” Well, maybe you can’t, but others do. It’s not impossible. They have, they did. People are putting up installations and performances and taking viewers to the interest right now. Maybe you should think of yourself as a curator instead, if that helps – you just have to do what is most interesting.
So what’s so special about photography? Photography is about the individual vision, whether it’s concerned with controlling context, aesthetic interpretation, etc. It’s not really about the subject, at least it can’t be just the subject that’s interesting.
This is, often, the same reason I’m not as interested in lifestyle work – it would be more interesting to actually be living that lifestyle than looking at pictures of it, and since many of those situations are actually within reach (party photography, drugs photography, a fair amount of sex photography), why would I be looking at photographs of some other people doing drugs and being cool when I’m already bored with it in real life? Or could be doing it myself at that moment, instead?
So I’m more interested in people who photograph because they are interested in what photography does. How it helps them understand their world, how it helps them organize, or find mystery, or express their mood. To an extent, every photographer understands this, but not enough allow it to be their primary creative force (as the quotes above talk about.) Regardless of their individual approach, a personal vision is so important.
The Bechers shot silos, yes, but the way they shot them was what was interesting. No one cares about silos, not really. They care about the idea of cateloges, the idea of grids, the idea of a centered and organized vision. Terry Richardson shoots sex, sure, but it’s his vision that moves with a particularly succesful brand of asshole. Eggleston, Goldin, even Ansel Adams in his way, though outdated in the importance he places on the print.
It’s a tradition that started, like all photography, in the dark rooms, and has been in the galleries for generations, but does seem strangely separate from the “emerging artist” culture we see at events like Photolucida. Maybe we are all trying too hard to be organized, to sum up our life’s work in a speed dating situation.
Many of the people who do amazing things on the net, often flickr but not always, care more about this mood, life, or overall sensibility that comes out of a body of images. For many of these artists, the print fetishism of prior generations just doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter how many times pieces are reproduced, and while many have the ability to create a good print or beautiful book, they print their work in zines, post it on blogs, hand it out in any way possible.
I love this way of working, and I think self publishing places like Blurb can be used to add a little more permanence to these publications, but I don’t see it necessarily even wanting to become the art/gallery world as it is.
A lot of this comes from the art school, where we are constantly asked to do projects, but the art school mode comes from the commercial world, since they are trying to train us to be viable.
In some ways, it’s totally positive. They want us to get in the mindset of constantly doing work so we don’t fall out of it after we graduate. On the flip side, it tends to burn out and frustrate people who would rather be working with longer periods of more organic creativity.
To be fair, portfolio review events are invaluable for the introductions they make – but they only show that value through ongoing relationships. Likewise, it is important to be able to recognize your subject matter and give it the attention it deserves. I just think it doesn’t need to be the primary obsession – the actual act of image making, the understanding of what images do, should take that role.
Anyway, there will be a balance. Commercial spaces with lots of funding will be able to continue to taut their bookings as highly influential and important, and blogs like this one will continue to feature work by people found at the edges of the art world, but only time will really tell what the most important photographic trends are right now. I think a good deal of them are these more home-brewed projects that tend to find their way into the public consciousness.
Further discussion and response:
Bryan Formhals at La Pura Vida
Amy comment on May 26, 2009 11:32 pm:
thanks Ian, I really needed to hear this
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 26th, 2009 11:39 pm:
No problem, Amy. I needed to say it. :)
Reply
Alexi comment on May 27, 2009 12:16 am:
I second that. It’s kind of a breath of fresh air.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 27th, 2009 1:31 am:
Thanks Alexi (Have you seen my alexi project?)
I just did a significant update to this post, hopefully it’s still enjoyable
Reply
Alexi reply on May 27th, 2009 8:13 am:
It is mos def still enjoyable.
So where is this alexi project !?!??
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 27th, 2009 8:15 am:
Check it out at http://www.ianaleksanderadams.com/ExposureTherapy/ and then http://www.alexi768544.com/
Reply
Alexi reply on May 27th, 2009 8:29 am:
Woah. Interesting how you catalog every online reaction.
How did you choose the name Alexi for the character ?
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 27th, 2009 8:31 am:
It’s sort of an amalgamation of my middle name and alyosha from the brothers karamazov, but with a more modern spelling. Just seemed to work and made the character less placable geographically.
Reply
Alexi reply on May 27th, 2009 8:42 am:
Yes, I suppose “Alexi” spelled this way doesn’t really have a nationality. It’s funny because everyone spells my name with an “s”, I’ve spent my life correcting it (!), and yet here is this fictional character with the same spelling.
It’s a cool project though and it must’ve been interesting to follow a character of your own making.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 27th, 2009 8:43 am:
I think the most interesting was finding out whether other people would follow it, haha
Reply
Alexi comment on May 27, 2009 8:46 am:
True ! hehe
Reply
Sharon Van Lieu comment on May 27, 2009 11:38 am:
Thank you for writing this post. Thank you.
Sharon
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 12:27 am:
no problem :)
Reply
Matt comment on May 27, 2009 11:53 am:
I agree very much with what you have to say here. I just finished my MFA and have been very frustrated by the emphasis on the idea based project by many faculty (although thankfully not my photo faculty). Over the last year or so I have allowed my work to dictate itself, and therefore abandoned the idea of working on projects, and in my final critique had one professor say to me that they didn’t think the type of work I wanted to make fit in a graduate school environment. I took that as a compliment, especially since I was on my way out of graduate school, but it wasn’t intended as one. I hope that ambition and the photographic lifestyle are not mutually exclusive, I do have fine art ambitions but I am not willing to compromise on my work. I think the key might be to realize that “The Art World” is not a monolithic thing, and there are ways to find a space in the world of fine art that fits what you want to do. It just might be more difficult if you aren’t into doing whatever is in fashion at a particular time. I have been meeting more and more young artists that are sick of the emphasis on ideas over feelings, theory over production, academics over experience that so pervades the art school and critical cultures, and that gives me hope.
Thanks for this post, it added to my hopefulness.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 12:17 am:
It’s so hard to approach, really, since it’s so nuanced. I really really understand the “graduate school environment” they’re talking about. I think it can be extraordinarily educational and I’ve seen people grow by leaps and bounds through it.
But there is a feeling that you have to play ball, you have to work within their rules and assignments. It makes sense, since they are required to grade you, but it’s frustrating.
Like you said, “The Art World” is not a monolithic thing, and I think that a problem is that people assume the way they have been working while they are learning is how they should work for the rest of their life.
But it’s just a way of working that encourages that type of learning. You don’t sound out each letter when you read, but you did while you learned about reading. I think it might be a bit like that. Run with the metaphor if you want, just throwing it out there.
Reply
Stephen comment on May 27, 2009 2:38 pm:
Wonderful observations, Ian. Thanks for the post.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 12:25 am:
My pleasure, Stephen. Thanks for the comment.
Reply
bryanF. comment on May 27, 2009 2:43 pm:
Well said Matt. Will use that in my follow up to Conscientious :)
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 12:26 am:
Just saw your followup. I added both of them to the bottom of the post.
Reply
Douglas Ljungkvist comment on May 27, 2009 8:58 pm:
I agree when you say that photography today needs to be more intuitive and less project driven. It especially seems to apply to recent MFA holders. I think there is also too much focus on having a strong narrative in fine art images, which results in the “project” driven work. This is very different in Europe.
Maybe that’s why I love the 70’s masters like Eggleston whose work is more intuitive and vernacular. I’m also guilty of having several projects, but most of my work is photographing scenes or moods that appeal to me and later I decide where/how to use it. Commercially it’s a challenge. And I think the Hiller influence is way to great. Some people want your scope to be so narrow as far as look and feel that an installation feels like monochromatic wallpaper. How boring!
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 12:20 am:
Eggleston is a perfect example, one I almost tried to shy away from since he’s so fitting, while other photographers are thought to work in a subject oriented manner, but I don’t think that’s always why their work is interesting.
Commercially it is a challenge, but I think this kind of work tends to go into book form much much better than project driven work.
Honestly, have you ever seen a 20 image grad portfolio being expanded to create a book? I mean, of course you have.
I’m much more interested in what comes out of the 40,000 images being edited down to 40, while the artist finds out themselves what the images have to say.
Reply
Timothy comment on May 27, 2009 11:06 pm:
I just discovered this post via JM Colberg’s blog. I’ve grappled with this issue in recent months/years as I struggle to discover what works for me in making images. I really appreciate what you’ve said here. I was accepted to a photography MFA program a few years back, and when visiting them to see if it was a good fit, one of the faculty told me point blank, and seriously, that “photography was dead”. Only one student was doing prints of photographs, and it was clear this student was looked down upon. I didn’t enroll. I took a workshop with Keith Carter a few years ago. He’s someone who has really learned to integrate photography and life. His first book was a project like the one’s you describe (_From Uncertain to Blue_), but his more recent, more mature work, works on a different, deeper level. Those later books (_Holding Venus_, _A Certain Alchemy_) work at a level that’s more about his response to life, to integrating how he sees things, how he works, to his images, rather than trying to abandon that sensibility and try to fit everything into a project. Those images work at a more intuitive level that’s based on his response to life rather than a preconceived idea. That really hit home to me. Your statement here just reinforces and reminds me of that. Even still, as I’m considering going to Fotofest in Houston next year, I’ve struggled with the concern that my work doesn’t fit into an idea-based project, and when I try to do that, it feels wrong, somehow for me. I’m not knocking project-based work, but art-making and image making need to be about our response to life, in our own ways. I guess I’m still working out how to recognize my own needs with the perceived needs of the art world. Why I care about the latter escapes me, yet it’s been hard to shake these industry expectations. Great food for thought in your post. Thanks so much.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 12:24 am:
I sympathize to an extent with the person who said “photography is dead.”
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy photography (obviously), but it has lost its place as the driving form of the avant garde that it had 30 years ago when conceptual artists with cameras were probing the boundaries of visual culture.
I can understand why people are looking towards new genres in art and perhaps those are the artists trying to figure out what’s next.
But there is a lack of understanding in that statement, if meant to be taken at face value. Photography is obviously not dead. As a focus of the art world, it may be shifting, but as a force in visual culture it’s stronger than ever.
It’s often hard to reconcile my love of working with images with my utter detachment from photographic prints. I really just don’t care much about them. But I’d never look down on anyone else for wanting to work with them – people still manage to do interesting things with stone age tech (piling rocks. seriously) so I think photographic prints have life left in them.
Reply
Sharon Van Lieu comment on May 28, 2009 1:07 am:
For me, I love the print. A beautiful print is what I work for.
Sharon
Reply
Philip comment on May 28, 2009 4:09 am:
For some people, not being project based, is an excuse to justify their inconsistency.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on May 28th, 2009 5:55 am:
Absolutely. And, like I mentioned in passing, they could be interested in making projects, just after they find they’ve been shooting in an area. Obviously this makes more sense when talking about curatorial style photographers than studio, etc
Reply
Matt Dunn comment on May 28, 2009 2:26 pm:
I really enjoyed this post. Thanks!
Matt
http://www.mattdunn.us
Reply
» Blog Archive » SUBJECT+PROJECT=OBJECT Pingback on May 30, 2009 11:53 pm:
[...] excerpts come from an interesting article at IAA Blog, On Ambition and the Photographic Lifestyle, regarding the nature of photographic projects vs. the idea of photography as a “way of [...]
Camden Hardy comment on June 1, 2009 5:00 pm:
It’s been interesting reading the discussion between the various blogs involved. It’s too bad it can’t all be in the same place. In response to the debate at hand, I’d like to throw a few thoughts into the ring, albeit a few days late.
I would argue that all photographic work, even that of the “non-project-based” variety is, in fact, project-based. What seems to separate this style of photography is the timeline and what some might call an ambiguity of intent (this can be resolved in the editing process). Whether you’re intuitively responding to life or creating a witty satire, you’re still working on a preconceived idea, whether you want to or not.
Many who take on the “photography-as-lifestyle” approach feel discriminated against, but to me the reason is obvious. As it was mentioned both here and on Conscientious, it’s often used as an excuse for poor editing. Problems arise when the photographer is unable to effectively edit the body and explain the motivations behind the work. I tend to agree with J.M. Colberg on this one in that this methodology isn’t all that problematic within the context of the aforementioned commercial ambition (Mikael Kennedy is a contemporary example). If it’s good, people will consume it. If not, it will be ignored.
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on June 3rd, 2009 12:09 am:
I guess the discussion hinges a bet on the definition of “project.” If given a broad meaning, everything is project based, yeah. I’m using it in a more direct manner, I think, referring to the working method associated with commercial assignments, homework assignments, etc.
I think it’s obvious that any photographer worth his salt has some kind of idea flow going through his head while before, after, and during shooting, but it’s certainly different when working in one mode than an other. Basically, there’s a distinction between thinking “I’m working to get a shot that means this” or “I’m getting this shot that is doing something for me, what does it mean?”
I’ll elaborate on this further, and on why I think doing ideational projects (verses gut curatorial) is important in another post soon.
Reply
Conceptual projects: photographic trend or stifling academic conspiracy? Discuss. | Camden Hardy Photography: the blog Pingback on June 1, 2009 6:00 pm:
[...] been a discussion taking place between Ian Aleksander Adams, J.M. Colberg, and Bryan Formhals about the “photography-integrated-into-life method” [...]
Meredith comment on June 15, 2009 1:53 pm:
This is something ive always struggled with. I used to refer to myself as a photographer before i went to college, because i took so many dang pictures. i took pictures of everything and everyone in my life, and every insignificant happening, though significant to me, and everything that looked interesting. I went to art school and didnt major in photography, but now work as one. shooting specific things for work of course. but it totally ignores emotions and art. it’s just what’s necessary because i work at an ad agency. though i’ve learned a lot of about technique in this way, it might have improved some things, which i am thankful for.
but also, since working more and more in photography, my desire to go purely photography has been brought to the surface. because i am going through the process on a daily basis thinking “what can i start to take pictures of to get noticed? what can i collect photos of to try to get them published?” but i realize the photos i love are the ones i take of friends and family, and just daily life things that happen or i see. and i don’t know how to clump them together to make something that someone else would see as worthwhile. and i start to think that maybe photography is just a hobby, an emotional thing that i am attached to, but can never really make a living of it? at least not happily.
it’s hard, and i’d like to know how i can use it to my advantage. :)
Reply
Ian Aleksander Adams reply on January 9th, 2010 10:06 am:
It is hard. Honestly I don’t know if I could ever tell anyone that photography is a good career path.
Well, it’s hard and it’s not hard. We’re lucky enough that we live in a world that it’s relatively easy to eat – in america anyway I can find a job and earn money and feed myself. I don’t need to hunt, I don’t need to fight others over scraps. So it’s not that hard, really. And I try to appreciate how amazing and plentiful life is…
but to be creatively satisfied? To be living my fullest, yes that is hard.. I’m probably going to find it through teaching, in the long run, and not just my visual work. There may have to be a balance for most people.
The commercial world always felt more like fighting over scraps to me, so I’m just not heading in that direction anymore.
Reply
Ariandrane comment on January 18, 2010 6:18 am:
Good day!
I would like to present interesting site:
acomplia espana acomplia uk ceftin online ceftin oral celexa prices celexa nextday cleocin canada cleocin order diflucan overnight diflucan generic elavil oral elavil prices hytrin online hytrin buy imitrex doctor imitrex generic lexapro rezept lexapro effects prednisone price prednisone sale remarin discount remarin drug prevacid prix prevacid uk sustiva generic sustiva sale testosterone price testosterone espana topamax fedex topamax oral viramune generic viramune buying xenical oral xenical drug zyban generic zyban discount zyloprim prescription zyloprim price zyprexa fedex zyprexa online
To greet!
Bye
Reply
Follow up to “The photography-integrated-into-life method” | la pura vida Pingback on January 30, 2010 4:15 pm:
[...] Ian Aleksander Adams wrote a thoughtful follow up that was much more nuanced and articulate than what I said, and Matthew Crowther made an insightul comment about the shortcomings of the way I defined ‘fine art’ world. I hope that ambition and the photographic lifestyle are not mutually exclusive, I do have fine art ambitions but I am not willing to compromise on my work. I think the key might be to realize that “The Art World” is not a monolithic thing, and there are ways to find a space in the world of fine art that fits what you want to do. It just might be more difficult if you aren’t into doing whatever is in fashion at a particular time. I have been meeting more and more young artists that are sick of the emphasis on ideas over feelings, theory over production, academics over experience that so pervades the art school and critical cultures, and that gives me hope. (italics, bold mine) – Matthew Crowther [...]