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.

Explosion in downtown Bozeman. Twitterers first on the scene.

Above image was pulled from a TwitPic post by @craigdugas

I experienced the power of social media first-hand this morning.

At 8:12AM Boodles, a very nice, albeit expensive, restaurant/bar in Historic Downtown Bozeman, MT exploded. Two more bars, a children’s apparel store, and an art gallery were also destroyed. At the time of this writing, a gas leak is the suspected cause.

Where did I get this information? Twitter. Thanks to Twitter, I was aware of many of the details (I had even seen some early photos of the destruction via TwittPic) long before any of the local news and radio began reporting it.

As the day progresses, I continue to receive tweets with new information as it becomes available. Twitter users among the likes of @manifestphil and @bozchron have taken it upon themselves to cover the situation, using the #bozexplod hashtag, with a level of precision and speed that rivals the local media. They are reporting not only the current state of the disaster, but also providing phone numbers and other information for those in need of assistance as well as those who would like to help out.

While I had heard myriad commentaries about Twitter and its usefulness in a reporting context, I had never experienced this phenomenon until today. Social media has completely transformed the way news is delivered to the masses. We no longer have to wait for our local news agencies; we get the news as it happens. This is truly an amazing concept.

Update: For more information about the explosion, see the Bozeman Daily Chronicle’s story here.
Update: Updates from the Billings Gazette.
Update: Go here for updates from the city of Bozeman.
Update: Collection of photos and video here.

Digital camera ISOs

Interesting article about claimed vs. actual ISO of digital cameras, brought to my attention by Christina Z Anderson.  I’ve noticed this with my D200, but never really gave it any thought beyond adding 1/3-1/2 stop in the camera’s exposure compensation.

Outsmarted by a camera…?

I was catching up on my Wired.com Gadgets rss feed and came across a review for the D90 with the (slightly insulting) headline “A Nikon DSLR That’s Smarter Than You Are“. The review begins with the following statement:

“The 12.3-megapixel D90 is a Mensa-worthy fistful of photo fury that could pave your way to MoMA’s permanent collection.”

This raised some interesting questions in my mind. Has technology simplified photography too much? With its 11-point autofocus system that focus on up to 5 faces at once, will this DSLR revolutionize the field (as Nikon would have us believe), or dumb down digital photography to the point where it loses respect in the art world? As a film photographer I can only hope it’s the latter. Just kidding…sort of.

More on Critical Mass

A judge’s perspective on Critical Mass over at The Intrepid Art Collector. Another piece of the puzzle for those of us wondering how the finalists were chosen.

Art, design, politics

Interesting interview with art historian/artist/philosopher Boris Groys. I haven’t fully digested it yet, so I’ll refrain from commenting on it. Worth reading.

Critical Mass finalists announced

Well, I didn’t make it into Critical Mass. But after looking at the list of finalists I can’t really say I’m too disappointed. There are some truly gifted artists on the list, including MSU’s own Ian Van Coller! So congratulations to those who made it through.

Welcome back to the blogosphere, Alec Soth!

This was a pleasant little surprise to read. I read this yesterday, but didn’t think to mention it here until this morning.

I’ve been a follower of the Magnum blog for a couple months now and have been disappointed with the low level of activity. I’m excited to see if Soth can bring some life back into it.

Burtynsky

Good write-up about one of my personal heroes, Edward Burtynsky over at Conscientious. Well worth reading.

Critiquing work online

Interesting post over at Conscientious about posting critiques online. I won’t regurgitate the whole thing here, but I will say this in response.

It’s a sad reality that many artists, professional and otherwise, take unfavorable critiques as personal attacks rather than constructive tools for improving their work. The fact that online discussions are open to anyone to read, negative comments about someone’s work become interpreted as a form of public humiliation.

Having said that, I can understand the reluctance to post critiques online. Piss off the wrong person and you could close a door forever.

I do, however, agree that there needs to be more public discussion online. So let’s get discussing!