Useless Idiot – January 20, 2008
You know, I respect Brooks
Jensen and his magazine LensWork
for doing a great deal to promote photography. I like the fact that he’s
not afraid to write about more than camera equipment and Photoshop techniques,
and that he actually discusses the creative process and everything that
goes along with it. There aren’t a lot of publications that do this,
and hats off to Brooks for his willingness to do so. But that aside, more
often than not Brooks Jensen is full of crap.
I think he’s spent way too much time trying to make ends meet
hawking magazines. He seems way too concerned with making photography
appeal to the masses. He’s touched on this a bit in the past, venting
about his perception that photography sold as art is generally overpriced.
But nowhere was his obsession with appealing to the masses more evident
than in his essay, Photography and the Meaning of Life in LensWork
#74.
I won’t bore you with the details of the entire article, but he
basically rails against photographers that have the gall to pursue photography
that has no commercial appeal. Instead he seems to think photographers
would be better served by sticking to themes with universal appeal, rather
than photography that is personally meaningful. The whole article, along
with Brooks’ ridiculous assumptions made me want to retch.
One of his points deals with the fact that some photographers waste
time on details that the average viewer would never even notice. He says:
If “civilians” – i.e., folks not trained with
a photographer’s eye – can’t see the difference between
a platinum and a silver gelatin print, then why, pray tell, are we darkroom
mavens sweating bullets over the subtle difference between Zone III
and Zone III½? Well, we do so for those individuals who can see
the difference – for our peers, for collectors, for mavens, you
might say. I suppose there is some solace in that; at least there is
someone who appreciates the subtleties in our work. But, what about
the general public? Are we to ignore that 99.999% of the population
who are not fine art photographers? At what level of elitism have we
crossed a line that makes our work meaningless?
What an idiotic thing to say. Just because 99.999% percent of the population
doesn’t appreciate the work, that somehow makes it meaningless?
That’s insulting to say the least. Do photographers really need
to dumb everything down so their work has some appeal to the general public?
I suppose that might be the case if your primary goal is to sell generic
$20 prints.
But for me I really don’t care if 100% of the public finds my
work utterly meaningless as long as I find meaning in it. And I could
care less if no one besides me can see the difference between Zone III
and Zone III½ in one of my prints. Contrary to what Brooks blindly
thinks is a given, I don’t make my photographs for my peers, or
collectors, or some maven. And I sure as hell don’t make them for
the general public. I make them for me and only me. They’re personal.
And when it comes down to it, I don’t really care if someone else
likes my work or not, it only matters that I do, and that my work provides
personal satisfaction and meaning for me.
That doesn’t mean I don’t want people to like my work, or
appreciate it, or that I’ll turn down money if someone is willing
to pay for a print. But I don’t spend hour after hour taking photographs
or suffocating in the darkroom to satisfy Brooks Jensen or some fat cat
collector. I spend that time trying to satisfy me, and trying to provide
some meaning in my own life. That’s why pursue photography.
So if Brooks Jensen wants to sell thousands of $20 digital prints to
the general public, more power to him. Go ahead and do it. Just don’t
blindly assume that I want the same thing. Quite frankly my photography
is more important than that. And I fully realize that my work may mean
nothing to Brooks Jensen or everyone else in the world, but it does to
me, and in the end that’s all that matters. |
