Photograph of a photograph. My Grandmother taking pictures on the beach, photographed by my Grandfather.
My grandparents were dairy farmers in Waukesha County for over 50 years. I didn't find out until much later that the both of them spent their free time together taking photographs, and even had a hidden darkroom in their old farmhouse. I spent every Christmas and Thanksgiving over there for over 13 years and had no clue it was even there. I knew that my Grandmother dabbled with photography, but had no idea to what extent, or that my grandfather who never spoke much about anything except the cattle and the farm had taken interest in it as well.
When my Grandfather past away last October, I inherited some 13 film cameras and assorted lenses they had collected over the years. And that is nothing compared to the amount of slides and negatives that my uncle took home. It would take years to archive all of their photos, but it is something that I feel is necessary to justify the years spent capturing these memories.
Question for the class
How do you feel about photographers with no background in art? Is it possible to consider them intuitive? Should we value what someone else sees as beautiful? Or does the fact that most photographers may have been exposed to what a photograph should look like, ruin any chance of self expression or creativity?
I'm not quite sure what I think yet. I know it's definitely possible to take photographs without being trained to see what you're taking a picture of, especially now in the age of digital where 'everyone is a photographer' (though I dislike that idea). And I suppose so many vernacular artistshave been so innovative that it wouldn't be hard for a self-taught photographer to figure out how to do some of the technichal stuff. So I guess that means my answer is yes they should be considered just the same as every other vernacular artist.
ReplyDeleteOf course we should value what someone else sees as beautiful. It shows us a different point of view, a little view into the mind of another. I don't think it really would matter much what a photograph 'should' look like, because there are so many different photographs existing in the world that I know I would have a hard time differentiating if I had no training. Everywhere you look there's a photograph, and each one has a different style, especially contemporary work. Does a self-taught artist have to be completely isolated from 'art' to freely create? Look at Bob Watt's Picasso paintings. Do they take away from the rest of his artwork?
Could you argue that all photography is intuitive? Besides the technical issues, which are easily mastered, is there a formula for a "good photograph"? The magic thing about photos is the split between what you actually see and then what the photo turns out to be and to mean. A photo mimics sight but doesn't approximate it exactly. The little things that creep into a frame lend meaning you can't understand until you're looking at the object of the photograph.
ReplyDeleteWe should all take a look at the work of Miroslav Tichy, he was a self taught photographer we built these incredible cameras for himself out of found materials. He even built his own enlarger with no training at all. His images are incredible.
*who, not we in the second paragraph, woops
ReplyDeleteIt seems like, in my experience anyway, the untrained photo makers are way more emotive and expressive than trained photographers. I think more magic happy accidents can occur when you barely understand what your doing artistically. Theres a difference between seeing photos in a museum or gallery, and seeing really old vernacular or familial photos. No one in my family knew that my great grandfather was a WWII veteran until he died and we found binders and binders full of old photographs and medals. There were beautiful images of him smoking cigars with comrades, portraiture, and even concentration camp images. It was so emotionally charged it was unbelievable. so yes, I personally prefer the vernacular.
ReplyDelete