diptych # 120 / civilized ku # 2862 ~ getting (to) the point
Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 10:24AM 
Pittsburgh house / tree + snow ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen
Pittsburgh house / terrace + pool ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggen3 of the last 4 entries have been about narrative and content which was basically a "conversation" between Eric Fredine and myself. As has been demonstrated in many of our past discourse(s), we generally agree on most aspects, re: the medium of photography and it apparatus. Lest you think it to be a mutual admiration society type of thing, I would add that in our various and varied conversations there is a synergy of sorts which raises both of our understanding and appreciation of things picture making.
In this most recent conversation, Eric and I have agreed that in many, if not most cases, concept (the picture maker's driving directive) emerges, ex post facto, from the act of just making pictures. In a sense, making pictures to find out what something will look like photographed and then moving on to develop / refine a concept that emerges from what that something looks like when photographed. Although ....
.... while a concept can be good thing, its primary function is to keep a picture maker on track, re: the concept. However, as much value as this might have for the picture maker, in most cases, its value to the viewer of the pictures which result from the concept is of little or no concern (academic lunatic fringe excepted). IMO, Gary Winogrand and Jeff Wall - 2 picture makers whose picture making M.O.s couldn't be more different - stated it best:
For me the true business of photography is to capture a bit of reality (whatever that is) on film ... if, later, the reality means something to someone else, so much the better. ~ Winogrand
I'm aware that the subjects I choose do have meaning, but over the years I've found that understanding these meanings is less important for me. My burning issue is how to make the next picture good .... People are going to take it where they want ... All I can do is make my picture, and meanings will flow out of it. But I can't control them. ~ Wall
Now it should be noted that while Winogrand was reticent about his work - There are things I back off from trying to talk about, you know. Particularly my own work. Also, there may be things better left unsaid. - and while Wall wrote and spoke a trillion billion words about his work, much of it artspeak and art history-ese, much has been written, re: meaning(s) / message(s) / narrative(s) / understanding wise, about their pictures. And much of it is all over the map, opinion wise. Some of it may have even come as surprise to the picture makers themselves inasmuch as they seem to be focused on casting picture bread upon the water - whether it be the ocean or their own bath tub - and seeing what floats.*
Often, what floats, is the germ of a concept idea. Whether that concept is applied to the work as the prime instigator for the making of pictures or is applied to work, ex post facto, as a sort of understanding of the work, is, IMO, beside the point ....
.... because, ultimately the pictures and what the viewer decides to see in them, actual and implied, are the point.
*IMO, that art making M.O. - concentrate on making art and letting the chips float where they may - is a characteristic shared by many, if not most, good (minor) / great (major) artists. I believe most artists do what they do because, come hell or high water, it's what they do.
Reader Comments (3)
I like to think of it as ‘talking out loud’ on the presumption other’s might find the conversation interesting. I benefit from your higher frequency posting cadence. It allows me to prune certain lines of inquiry.
I once made the mistake of buying a book of essays by Jeff Wall - it was impenetrable to me. Which is unfortunate as I find his work interesting even though it’s not something I would pursue.
Some points I take away from the last couple of posts: too many academics have over-emphasized concept at the expense of other values; the artist’s concepts may have little or no impact on the viewer’s response; it’s immaterial whether concept drives the photographs or the concept is an after-the-fact rationalization and don’t worry about concept if it gets in the way of making photographs. I’d agree with all that.
As I said at the outset, my interests in discussing concept are self-serving. I think I’m getting to the heart of it. I’m considering how I might use concept to make better art. Overthinking sucks the life out of pictures, so there’s a balance to be struck. But appropriate thinking might put one in the path of different opportunities.
Eric - thanks for keeping this dialogue going. It's done me a world of good.
A mutually beneficial society.