Conceptual projects: photographic trend or stifling academic conspiracy? Discuss.

There’s been a discussion taking place between Ian Aleksander Adams, J.M. Colberg, and Bryan Formhals about the “photography-integrated-into-life method” and its relationship with the fine art world. It’s not a new topic of debate, but the contributions of everyone involved have been very interesting. I thought I’d jump into the ring with a response (expanded from a comment I left on Adams’ blog) to what has been discussed over the last few days. The following post won’t make much sense until you read the above posts so I’d suggest starting there.

I would argue that all photographic work, even that of the “non-project-based” variety is, in fact, project-based. 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. What seems to generate criticism about the integration methodology is an ambiguity of intent as a result of a longer timeline. The images span such a broad spectrum it becomes difficult to see a single coherent vision (this can be resolved in the oft-overlooked editing process).

Many who take on the “photography-as-lifestyle” approach feel discriminated against, but to me the reason is obvious. As it was mentioned  by both Adams and Colberg, it’s often used as an excuse for poor editing (even Eggleston’s shows are heavily edited based on curators’ intent). Problems arise when the photographer is unable to effectively edit the body and explain the motivations behind the work. In the case of the visual diary photographer, one could create several cohesive bodies from his/her archives. I tend to agree with Colberg on this one in that this method isn’t all that problematic within the context of commercial ambition (Mikael Kennedy has managed to gain a lot of attention recently), oversimplified as it may be: if it’s good, coherent, and interesting, the intended audience will consume it. Otherwise, it will be ignored.