ku # 513 ~ see spot run
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 08:28AM 
Hazy Spring view of Whiteface above the Au Sable • click to embiggenI recently read an interesting comment by the esteemed photography critic, A.D. Coleman, from a piece he wrote about Emmet Gowin:
Most photographers working within the snapshot aesthetic have gone the way of intentional incoherence, and have adopted the arrogance necessary to defend this posture. Emmet Gowin is one of the few who have accepted articulate communication as the obligation of the artist, and he has taken from the snapshot those qualities which increase the accessibility of his message rather than those which obfuscate it. (ed. emphasis added)
The idea of "articulate communication as the obligation of the artist" runs rather contrary to oft-voiced expression of, "I'm doing it for me. As long as it pleases me, I'm happy." - to which my response is simply, "That's nice." Apparently, this attitude is what Coleman refers to as "arrogance".
However, I hear that attitude much more as a response to a criticism, not of incoherence, but rather of a dumbed-down attempt at "pictured" coherence which is little more than an appeal to a base or simplistic emotion - a picture with high-impact visual appeal but with little or no intellectual / emotional content. I don't read this attitude as arrogance, rather, I see it as ignorance, or, perhaps more accurately, as a withering defense of a photographer's inability to create an "articulate" picture.
Personally, my preference in pictures runs towards the complexly articulate end of the spectrum. Although, as I have stated many times, I like pictures best when I can have it, at least to some significant extent, both ways - illustrative and illuminative.
A question for you - how "articulate" do you like your photography? By "your photography", I mean the photography that you make and the photography of others that you like.
Reader Comments (6)
I do wonder how the increased amount of imagery viewed on line impacts this articulate communication.
Most of the images, through convention or fear of misappropriation or other limitations, are small. Much smaller than gallery prints. Mostly smaller than prints in a book.
Those images that do well in a small web world seem to have a different way of communicating. Just like most people don't read small print, small, articulate images with a lot to say in subtle ways, don't do very well.
So images that succeed in a web world, seem to be those that read more easily or more cleanly. Bold statements. Lots of that visual appeal. But not a lot to say after that.
I feel I'm a bit stuck in that particular approach. Almost all my experience and practice has been for web display, so I play to that audience. Many of my pictures seem to be screaming when printed larger than 8x10 - because there isn't much room for subtlety in the original compositions.
Now, if that is a symptom of the web and small images or just a failing in me, I'll leave for someone else to point out.
Gordon,
I know EXACTLY what you are saying. I was a longtime Flickr junkie and made lots of very good friends there, even to this day I have taken advantage of offers for free room and board in NY, LA, and Paris...plus Mexico City if I ever go there.
My work was extremely under the radar. My friends averaged 300-400 views per image...mine was more around 60. And those were just the loyal followers. Even my images at larger sizes do not work well online. I was starting to get caught in this mentality of almost subconsciously altering my images for the purpose of being more visible in online crowds (artist ego, I know!). That is when I quit posting to all of my online sites and forums. I didn't like what was happening.
Now if you happen to shoot stock images for online photo sites, then perhaps some adjustments might be necessary, but I do believe, and have experienced, that all the sharing sites (flickr, photonet, artlimited, et al) can totally mess with your way of shooting if you allow it to happen.
Now if you happen to shoot stock images for online photo sites, then perhaps some adjustments might be necessary, but I do believe, and have experienced, that all the sharing sites (flickr, photonet, artlimited, et al) can totally mess with your way of shooting if you allow it to happen.
This 640x480 mentality is all I know. All I've ever known to date, too. I certainly have no web stock aspirations, nor really any stock aspirations - been there, done that.
I'm reasonably good at the small, readable image. Not so practiced at making images that might hold your attention for longer. I suppose I should buy a bigger printer and start making prints if I wanted to cross over.
If I want to do that is an open question.
I have no preference one way or the other. How articulate I want my own or the work of others to be is like asking what kind of women I like. I know what I like when I see something I like. I do however think that the issue is important, but very complex. What is articulate to me isn't necessarily articulate for you. I do however interpret AD's message to circle around the old "a picture is worth more than a thousand words" myth.
Being an artist should be all about communication (I don’t count hobbyists as artist in this context – just 24-7 pros). One should do it because it pleases yourself first and foremost, but that shouldn't make you forget about the audience. If your articulation is so complex that you're the only one to understand it, you are arrogant (if you choose to publish such work), or maybe just ignorant in a different sense.
There is a tendency for some to over complicate the meaning of photographs, which in my mind is just as stupid as oversimplifying it. Sometimes photographs are just photographs, not visual poems. I don't like photographs that are open to interpretation. I like to know why an artist chose to publish what he has published. Ultimately I am always more interested in why than how. The thoughts of an artist will always remain more interesting to me than his work on a stand alone basis. After all, art is expressions of life, and sharing the human experience is the therapy and medicine that keeps me alive in this crazy world.
See, that's why I really enjoy this blog... there's always something here to consider and ponder.
Thanks for editing my post Mark, but you've editet the wrong should to shouldn't... In the second paragraph it should say ", but that SHOULDN'T make you forget about the audience".