Conceptual projects: photographic trend or stifling academic conspiracy? Discuss.
Posted: June 1st, 2009 | 9 Comments »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.
[...] Camden Hardy’s Blog [...]
I do feel that I didn’t put enough emphases on the editing process in my post. Possibly since I do a fair amount of work with images not created by myself, I feel that it’s importance can’t be understated. It’s often the most creative part of the process for me.
ugh, I hate when I type too fast and leave something like “it’s” vs “its.” Makes me feel stupid, haha.
Absolutely. Having been out of school for a couple years while still working within our photo program, I find myself amazed at how few students actually spend time editing their work. I can’t help but wonder if I was that bad about it…
As is often the case, I think some of these ideas and arguments are starting to blur.
For me, the ambiguity of intent isn’t at all problematic. Why do I need to know what the project is about before I start? Nobody asked Jackson Pollock what his paintings would look like before he started. Why? Because he had no idea. The painting only emerged during the act of creation.
Have you ever watched live improv? A jam band? Jazz?
Maybe photography is too attached to literature and cinema. I don’t know, but for me, it’s closer to music than anything.
I think, just like music, you can jam for awhile without understanding where anything is going, until one day, wham, everything starts to come together.
And you’re dead right, the key to this is editing, but what’s wrong with discovering your ideas through editing? For me, that’s more interesting….
Hi Bryan, thanks for the comment.
Ambiguity of intent, while out photographing, is not a problem. I was referring to the presentation of a broad range of images that, when viewed as a whole by the intended audience, don’t have any common thread. This thread can be anything: aesthetic, thematic, whatever. This is where editing comes in.
I’m not at all saying that a clear idea needs to exist in order to make images. In fact, I believe that all good projects start from a very unclear idea (i.e. “go out, shoot, see what happens”). Over time, that vague concept becomes a more specific one.
For example, I had no idea what I was doing when I started The Daily Polaroid (still don’t, after 275 days). Initially, my “artist statement”, for all intents and purposes, was to take a Polaroid every day. Eventually I began to ponder why I felt compelled to take the images, and in doing so it evolved into something much deeper, although I have yet to be able to fully articulate it.
yes, it seems that this is basically boiling down to presentation, and the oft debated ‘artist statement.’
With the web though, we’re starting to see projects take on multiple forms. Many of us often present our work as ‘in progress’ and may not show a final piece until years later.
And perhaps, a piece of work that is presented on the web as a series will eventually be folded into a larger project.
In progress, yeah, hell, after selling copies of one of my books for a year, I just revised the order of two images and reissued. Nothing has to be permanent anymore since you don’t have to print in large batches.
Great post!