ku # 907 ~ you can have this, you can have that - but you should have have both

Spring tangle ~ The Flats / Wilmington, NY in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenA short time back, in the entry civilized ku # 924-25 ~ "rankly derivative" / standing on the shoulders of giants, I commented on "the idea of "originality" or lack thereof in the making of pictures." Since that time, a few topics which I feel are related have emerged on the blog-o-sphere - 1 by Martin Parr regarding Photographic Clichés and 1 by Jörg M. Colberg regarding the question What should be the role of the photographer in modern society? (a question being asked on the blog WHAT'S NEXT? A SEARCH INTO THE FUTURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY).

Parr's basic assertion, after listing 13 "basic genres" that dominate the "Fine Art and Documentary" world, is that "we [those in the Fine Art and Documentary world] are fairly predictable in what we photograph." To that observation, Parr adds, "This core subject matter and approach is also constantly shifting and changing as new photographers arrive and have impact on our accumulative photographic culture and language." - which seems like a slightly veiled art-speak attempt to exempt the work of the FA&D crowd from the label of "clichéd". Although, I think it is clear that, while Parr may not necessarily consider "predictable" referents to be clichéd referents, there are plenty of clichéd pictures made by the FA&D crowd.

What Parr seems to value as a cure for the common cliché is quite simply a "freshness of approach to the subject matter" which helps the resultant pictures obfuscate (but not necessarily eliminate) the "inspiration and lineage" thereof. He also suggests that a change of subject matter is called for as well:

I think ... that we need to consider our subject matter more carefully ... if we think of what is going on in our world, there seems to be many subjects which are avoided, because we all need that echo of familiarity to help us have the confidence to make a body of work. We want to emulate the impact that these images had on us, and this can be as restricting as it can be liberating.

On the other hand, Jörg M. Colberg doesn't seem to be overly pre-occupied by subject matter or how a picture was made. He seems to be much more concerned with what a picture conveys:

... photography is a social medium ... photographs can make other people see things differently .. [T]he role of the photographer should be ... to help or guide or make other people see things differently (regardless of the photography). Note that I’m using “to see” not necessarily literally, and I’m including emotional as well as intellectual reactions. The moment a photograph has done that to a person it has moved beyond the realm of the illustrative and decorative. That’s when it gets interesting.

To a certain extent, it seems that Parr's POV regarding what constitutes engaging pictures differs from that of Colberg - "freshness of approach" / obfuscation of "inspiration and lineage" vs. helping, guiding, or making "other people see things differently (regardless of the photography)". Whereas Parr wants to be surprised by a fresh approach, Colberg wants to be directed to see things differently regardless of the approach. Parr wants to see new subjects (aka - "subjects that are avoided") whereas Colberg just wants to see subjects - new or old - differently.

However, to my eye and sensibilities, I can appreciate either POV and the pictures that are representative of them.

I mean, who doesn't like seeing a new visual approach to things which bears little or no visual resemblance to anything else you have ever seen (especially "new" things)? I know I do. However, if the "new-approach" picture doesn't take me to a new / different place somewhere beyond the visual, well, for me, it's just a short-lived curiosity.

Conversely, if a picture is all about seeing things differently concept wise - pictures from the subject-doesn't-matter crowd with emphasis exclusively upon the intellect - but is without any redeemable visual appeal, well, for me, it's just another short-lived curiosity.

To be honest, I would rather live with the former rather than the latter - but only if I absolutely had to do so, there being no other choice. Fortunately, that is not the case. Fortunately, there are enough pictures that, as Colberg states (and Parr does not necessarily contest), get interesting by getting beyond, but not ignoring, the realm of the illustrative and the decorative.

Pictures that are, as I have stated many times in the past, both illustrative and illuminative.