Twice this past summer I met with a friend of mine who is a photo editor of a photography magazine (incidentally not the one I usually work with). He had come to an exhibition I held in early August and a few weeks later I stopped by his office with some work to show. Both times he told me my prints were jimi (地味), an adjective in Japanese which in English directly translates into plain / simple / sober / subdued although the nuance in Japanese is less a pejorative and more of a waypoint on the aesthetic scale of Japan. To better explain the concept of jimi I was going to quote from Donald Richie’s lucid explanation from his book on Japanese aesthetics but I can’t find my copy or even remember who I might have loaned it to.
Jimi, with a touch of out-of-date, I get it. I can’t really argue.
At the show he asked me why I exhibit only my black and white work, pictures that utilize essentially the standard photo technique (and subject matter) as Japanese photographers who were working several decades earlier. As for monochrome images, when something that starts out somewhat unintentional becomes inseparable from the way you’ve seen, thought, and worked through life for over a decade it’s hard to give a better answer than “because I like it and I find peace in the process it involves”.
At his office I was chided in limiting myself as an artist by not working more digitally, in color, and that with all my jimi pictures he warned of risking a reputation in Japan as a “Japanese Photo Maniac”. That is, a fan and not a photographer. (Still others here warn of being typecast as the “Camera loving Gaijin”) He said that my lethargy in making the effort to learn to shoot/work digitally or even print color film in a color darkroom proved my stubbornness. It wasn’t about “telling a story” or getting “good” shots- but about the direction taken towards the goals of an individual artist.
He asked what I was after, what I want to do with all this. What, exactly, is the point? Now with that question we were on common ground. I ask myself that all the time but the only answer I’ve found is to keep working. My black and white work- shot on the streets, printed in the darkroom, and matted and framed and exhibited in a white-walled gallery– He said these methods in this era in the world of contemporary photography results in simply masturbatory picture making. “Nothing will be born from this” I was told.
At this point it is necessary that I explain the fact that I found his remarks as a good set of challenges to come up against. All commentary was given in an open atmosphere and I honestly respect this editor and enjoy working with him. Since these are actually the sorts of things which have been growing in my mind from over the past few months hearing them so intensely direct and in person got me focused on dealing with figuring out the bigger picture, so to speak.
My first car was a 1983 Ford Thunderbird. Almost immediately after getting it I started seeing all these other mid-eighties Ford T-birds and Mercury Cougars out on the streets of my hometown. Likewise, after these talks with this editor, elements of our conversation started to jump out at me on the internet. Here are a few examples.
One of the tumblrs I follow is the excellent Photographs on the Brain, the tumblr of the equally fantastic LPV Magazine.
A few days ago, this post, an excerpt from an article on The Guardian by Sean O’Hagan in regards to John Stezaker’s Deutsche Börse win, caught my eye:
Is Stezaker a photographer? No. Does that matter? Evidently not – except to other practitioners who may think photography still has something to do with deep seeing, and then capturing that moment of deep seeing, in a split second. That is now in danger of fast becoming an irredeemably old-fashioned idea, both in the teaching of photography and in the market-driven curating of photography.
After that, in a post on Street Level Japan Dan Abbe shares a similar perspective through the introduction of the book “Seung Woo Back: Nobody Reads Pictures,” by Sunjung Kim & Suki Kim:
In this era of images, there is nothing beyond the production and consumption of images. Photography is, of course, at the core of these processes. However, the traditional method of producing images that consisted of wandering passionately in search of subjects and shooting photos of them, no longer guarantees the meaning of photographic images as it once did. The explosion of digital images challenges the basic assumptions of photography that have been its support for the last one hundred and fifty years. The myth of direct representation, whether of a dramatic moment or a beautiful scene, has started to collapse and is finally coming to an end.
Following the excerpt Dan suggests that:
Photographers who fail (or refuse) to grasp the insight contained here will be left behind.
Photography that is “irredeemably old-fashioned”, photographers who are threatened of being “Left behind”.
Just like with my editor pal’s thoughts in the previous part of this post, I find Dan’s challenge frustrating and interesting at the same time. (I do suggest reading the comments of this post as well for a fuller picture of his thoughts on the topic)
That left behind part- perhaps that’s where I’m getting stuck. Who’s doing the moving? And for what reasons? The Guardian article admits flat out that it is “market-driven curating of photography”. There’s nothing shameful in dollar chasing I suppose. Certainly a majority of the entire history of Art has been fueled by it. Likewise, the “controversy” of the 2012 Deutsche Börse win (something which I have no problem with myself) is in part aimed at making a buzz about, well, the Deutsche Börse prize. But outside of money and media buzz, what are the stakes? Integrity? Fulfillment of ones artistic potential? Fame? I have no idea what all a universal rubric aimed at evaluating such things would contain.
Photographs on the Brain posted this quote from Ryan Pfluger’s blog the other day:
The reason I say this is because it’s often asked of myself & my peers – “what kind of camera/equipment do you use?” or “how do I get to work for so & so magazine” – those are not the questions you should be asking. You should be asking yourself whether you have the commitment and drive to constantly be making work for yourself, whether people are commissioning/buying your work or not. In the end that’s what will make you successful. Creating because you love to create…and not for any other reason.
The only amendment I’d make to his statement would be to create not just because you love to, but also for the insight or revelations you discover from what you have made. How do you define success as a photographer/Artist? It’s too obtuse of a question to ever be one satisfactory answer for everyone.
Even more recently I met with another editor at a different magazine, a man who shoots roll after roll of film through his camera each week; a photographer who makes pictures that utilize the standard photo technique and subject matter as Japanese photographers who were working several decades earlier.
I told him about being told to step outside my out-of-date comfort zone and to get with the times. He figured that if I was serious about doing so I probably would have already been doing it.
I don’t know the answers. If there’s ANYTHING that I’ve learned from the example of committed and talented photographers whom I’ve been able to meet and learn from in my life, it’s to keep going. Saying that you don’t have time, that you’re in a slump, or that your hands are full- Artists make Art, not excuses. If it’s really in you, you just do it. Prizes or fame or money be damned.
Of course this doesn’t answer why, or even begin to solve the issue of being left in the speculative dust of The Cutting Edge, or whether that even matters.
Perhaps there’s truth and comfort that in the end what’s left is the work.
Why do people think their type of art is always the best one to go with? Its like somebody telling another person to stop being whatever makes them them. Maybe its a jealousy thing because you aren’t limiting yourself to technique and style, you are choosing it, while they have to limit it because of requirements of their job. Inward thinking like that is whats killing the world.
Comment by Tom — September 8, 2012 @ 12:57 am
Hi, this is really interesting, and it’s something I’ve thought about a lot too.
I kind of feel like the answer is in the Sean O’Hagan article. In it, he says that Stezaker has been basically plugging away, doing his own thing in relative obscurity, since the 1970′s. He didn’t change his approach so he’d be rediscovered and nominated for the Deutsche Borse prize, he has just been steadily following his own path. In a sense, he’s lucky the taste for the kind of work he does has come around again in his lifetime – it’s ‘having its moment”, as O’Hagan puts it.
Seems like a choice between either trying to stay ahead of the curve, or waiting till it inevitably spirals back. Chasing it is an option too, but by far the riskiest?
Comment by lucy carolan — September 8, 2012 @ 3:53 am
This is a really interesting post. Lets just keep making art!!
Comment by Young Ha Kim — September 8, 2012 @ 12:06 pm
“At the show he asked me why I exhibit only my black and white work, pictures that utilize essentially the standard photo technique (and subject matter) as Japanese photographers who were working several decades earlier.”
It’s a strange question. If it really is “Why do you exhibit only your B/W work?” (which I doubt), then it’s a good question. Because, uh, I think some of your web-only color stuff is more interesting than some of your exhibited B/W stuff.
If it’s instead “Why do you exhibit only pictures that utilize essentially the standard photo technique and subject matter as Japanese photographers who were working several decades earlier?” Then my answer would be: “Because B/W film served photographers well several decades ago and does so still now; and because the subject matter hasn’t been exhausted, won’t be exhausted, and is hugely more interesting than major trends that have come along in the intervening decades — even though it doesn’t go down well with you timid people running Japan’s generally uninteresting camera magazines.”
“At his office I was chided in limiting myself as an artist by not working more digitally, in color, and that with all my jimi pictures he warned of risking a reputation in Japan as a ‘Japanese Photo Maniac’. That is, a fan and not a photographer. (Still others here warn of being typecast as the ‘Camera loving Gaijin’) He said that my lethargy in making the effort to learn to shoot/work digitally or even print color film in a color darkroom proved my stubbornness.”
Bollocks. You can already shoot/work digitally. And if you wanted to work with color film — Why?! — you could entrust it to any decent C41 processor or, if/when you were feeling flush then somewhere like Horiuchi Color.
“It wasn’t about ‘telling a story’ or getting ‘good’ shots- but about the direction taken towards the goals of an individual artist.”
Oh really? Every photobookstore I know of has piles of books that neither tell much of a story nor have good shots but are pervaded by the sensibility of the individual artist (a sensibility that often is remarkably similar to that of a small number of other individual artists). I flick through them, they bore me, I put them back on the shelf. I suspect that most are destined for oblivion after fashions change again.
“My black and white work- shot on the streets, printed in the darkroom, and matted and framed and exhibited in a white-walled gallery– He said these methods in this era in the world of contemporary photography results in simply masturbatory picture making.”
Funny, I recently went to one such masturbathon: “Photography Today 4″ at MoMAT. There was stuff there by five newish, youngish Japanese photographers. Of these, I think three used B/W film. As for the two others, the work of one (Nakamura) made no impact on me whatever; and the other (Arai) had daguerrotypes that I find at least mildly interesting when reproduced on paper, but showed them in the most gimmicky and obnoxious photographic “installation” I’ve ever been to. (I walked out before it induced migraine or worse.)
O’Hagan:
“Is Stezaker a photographer? No. Does that matter? Evidently not – except to other practitioners who may think photography still has something to do with deep seeing, and then capturing that moment of deep seeing, in a split second. That is now in danger of fast becoming an irredeemably old-fashioned idea, both in the teaching of photography and in the market-driven curating of photography.”
The market-driven curating of photography is one modestly-priced area within market-driven curating of art, which has been a joke since at least as far back as Warhol. (Do yourself a favor and buy and read Robert Hughes’ book “Nothing if Not Critical”.)
It’s an irredeemably old-fashioned idea both in bad schools of photography (which may well be the majority) and in the kind of galleries that cater for people wanting to invest. (Of course, the bad schools can still turn out good people from time to time, and plutocrats can occasionally buy good stuff.)
As for the Deutsche Börse prize, you’re right. Well, it’s run, or co-run, by the rather boring and (therefore?) amply subsidized Photographers’ Gallery, The shortlisted stuff is often high concept (or “conceptual” as it’s more politely called). O’Hagan often writes good articles and sometimes writes excellent ones; but he shares the obsession of the British arts press with “prestigious” British prizes. An article before the award on the strengths of each contender, an article on how fuddy-duddies are sure not to like this or that contender, an article on the winning photos, an article on the winner … I vaguely infer that whoever’s in charge thinks that most readers have limited attention-spans, interest and memory; so instead of writing about a lot of photographers whose work merits attention, better to bang on about a small number of Big Awards and Major Artists.
(As for Stezaker, http://sn.im/dr_stezaker at Duckrabbit says it all, I think.)
Comment by microcord — September 8, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
At least you have a style.
The moment I think I like blurry 1/2 sec exposures I then decided I like no depth of field stuff then studio girls then street etc. At the moment it’s Tri-X on my FE-2 / 50mm but next week it won’t be.
Be glad you have a style.
Comment by Ian — September 10, 2012 @ 5:50 am
That is one man’s opinion. He also is in the business of selling magazines, so I would take that with some caution.
The key to success is being happy with what you do and how you do it. If you love B&W film and darkroom work, then proceed as usual. I don’t think making art requires a goal.
Comment by Jeff Wieser — September 11, 2012 @ 4:49 am
Adapt to the market and its current needs and trends – or perish.
Comment by cb — September 12, 2012 @ 3:40 pm
I wouldn’t worry too much what an editor tells you, as it’s simply his opinion. One’s nationality, who wins what prize and the “market” count for little, too. The biggest dead end in all forms of art is wanting to be “famous.”
Posterity determines that, after we’re gone. So, while you’re on this mortal coil, concentrate on building a body of work that tells stories…visual stories that go beyond verbal interpretation. That’s the magic, the beautiful discipline, and glorious difficulty of meaningful visual work. Your work has value, John. Stick with it..you’ll get there.
Comment by Jim Clinefelter — September 14, 2012 @ 4:48 pm
Jimi, but not Hendrix
Mr. Sypal,
Amazon’s ad for Richie’s Tractate is enhanced with a Look Inside feature, so I looked up “jimi” there.
“Good taste in an understated, plain style” sounds like a worthy artistic aim to me. I’d be thrilled if somebody said that about anything I do.
Your editor friend’s suggestion that you branch out resembles every art teacher’s standard chestnut. If you’re working big, “Work small.” If your line is good, “Use color.” If you’re using color, “Try a limited palette.” They are trying to be helpful.
…
Fresh out of high school and lacking the cash to start art school I went to work as an office boy for a downtown architectural firm. A necessary skill in that profession is visualizing an object and mentally rotating it through three dimensions so that you may draw it in two dimensions.
One of the senior architects, Mr. Anderson, had a varnished wooden leadholder which I really admired. It looked more like a watercolor brush than the usual refillable drafting pencil. There was no pushbutton, he had to twist it to loosen the jaws. He seemed to like holding it, for I remember him with it in his hand back by the coffee maker where we didn’t really need to carry our drawing tools.
He gave me a terrific piece of advice. He said, “Don’t think. Draw.”
Mr. Anderson’s aphorism immunized me from any self-doubt induced by well-meaning art teachers.
[www.flickr.com/photos/31338966@N08/7997141628/in/photostream]
The photo shows a leadholder like Mr. Anderson’s beside a pair of a popular design. The background sketches are designs for an adapter. I bought a mini-tripod for an old German film camera and while it was in the mail I started worrying that the camera socket might not match the tripod screw. They matched up fine.
…
Thank you for the book citation. I’ve ordered a copy, but not from Amazon, from a real bookstore in the Advanced Book Exchange. Cost me an extra nickel.
–Laurie Schmidtke
Comment by Laurie Schmidtke — September 18, 2012 @ 4:47 am
There have been some insightful comments here. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
One’s on intuition and interest is all any of us have to really go from- The trick is to keep the right amount of attention to the past and the present, but not at the risk of letting a skewed or limited perspective of either take over the process of creation. Who determines that boundary, I don’t know.
Comment by John — September 18, 2012 @ 9:37 pm
Hi. Have you ever read “The Act of Seeing” by Wim Wenders? The article called “The Urban Landscape” in that book might give you some positive thoughts. Good Luck!
Comment by T.H — September 20, 2012 @ 3:23 pm
I’ve been thinking . . . this photography magazine (not the one you usually work with) — could it possibly be related to the magazine whose July issue was a special on the subject of “attractive young girls (notably their nipples)” http://publications.asahi.com/ecs/detail/?item_id=13931 and whose current issue is a special on the subject of “attractive young girls (notably their nipples)” http://publications.asahi.com/ecs/detail/?item_id=14228 ? Clearly this is a very daring and cutting-edge field, one that wouldn’t have been conceivable before the Digital Revolution, before Instagran http://sn.im/instagran , and the rest.
Another idea I had: How about autumn foliage? You know: red, brown, russet, whatever. I know of metaphotography of it http://sn.im/leafpeeper , but the idea of direct, detailed, explicit, in-your-face photos of trees with their leaves dying might just click with the daring and cutting-edge editors of some uberhip Japanese photo magazine.
Comment by microcord — September 23, 2012 @ 2:21 pm
My two cents…Some people have no choice but to take photographs ( b&w, color, film or digital), with film you have a “delay” between the time the picture is taken and the time it is seen, that waiting period, is, I find, necessary to evaluate the work you did. The French photographer Raymond Depardon once wrote that he gave himself some parameters when he worked: a certain type of film, camera, lens, composition.
Comment by Francois — September 24, 2012 @ 3:18 am
Mr. Microcord-
Or women in foliage and nothing else? Best of both worlds?
Francois-
Agreed. There is a real freedom in working within parameters like that. The time delay you mention is something I quite enjoy.
Comment by John — September 24, 2012 @ 9:57 am
John, I deeply sympathize with you
I know the position you’re in. But, isn’t this what artists do? Constantly re-examine their own work?
I’d like to get back to your quote, which actually summarizes what I think about this: “Artists make Art, not excuses.”
The advice you received from your editor friend seems rather slanted (or market-oriented, if you wish). In a nutshell, “you’ll be left behind”… “Left behind” as opposed to what? The latest fad?
I think that you should come to terms with the eternal dychotomy “art vs. market”: do you make something because you feel the urge to do it, or are you trying to become successful (and/or famous)? Define “successful”… “Successful” under whose terms? Market appreciation? Money?
IMHO, what separates artists from “Artists” is the approach to the above: the former create something because they just have to: they have no choice – their creations surface the way they do whether the artist wants them to or not. The latter (“Artists” in quotes – they are deliberate) are trying to project a certain image to the world – they want to be percieved as “Artistes”, and are usually in for the money, success, etc. – their “art” is just means to get to their projected goal(s).
So, in contrast to your editor friend, I’d like to ask you what your photography means to you? Is it a means of self-expression, an urge that cannot and will not be silenced, or is it a means to another end (“success”,recognition, fame, money)?
Therein lies your answer, and your way.
Do not let yourself be distracted: if you try to follow the path set for you by others, I don’t think you can ever get anywhere – if you’re trying to get somewhere, that is
Follow your own creative urge, and forget about well-meaning critics…
Sorry for the rambling
PS: I immensely liked the article: very good and thought-provoking!
Comment by Denis — October 13, 2012 @ 8:04 pm