Week 10: Critical Theory
This week offered up some really interesting conflicts and arguments. The thought of Photography as an elitist art and past time is something I don’t buy in to at all. There are many theorists and practitioners who look at photography as an enigma which cannot stand alone on its own merits. I think it is fine for creatives to believe their work to be of a higher moral value and importance than perhaps the observer can discern from entertainment or enlightenment. But personal self indulgence in your own work should only be a reflection of ones ambition, and not a directive or statement of universal acceptance.
The whole issue of ‘critical theory’ is very subjective. I believe some photographs warrant intense scrutiny, and others don’t. I don’t think however you can prescribe a formula which interrogates an image, and through that analysis find the meaning and greater illumination of the subject matter. What a photo means to one person, means something totally differant to another. In my own professional practice of music photography, the image I produce may be assessed on its technical merit, but the subject be meaningful for some, and meaningless for others.
In my own personal practice I take photographs for two reasons. The first is to feel that I have been creative and contributed or documented a scene that people will take an interest in. The second is to capture a moment that resonates with me personally and immortalises a time and place in my existence.
For the purpose of this course both those elements are valid, but a third also surfaces. My work in progress needs to challenge me as a person beyond the ability to just take a photograph. There is a need to open my mind to ideas and practices that I would not normally have experienced, be that interacting with other students or tutors, or find expression through myself by adopting new styles and subject matter. Photography is about recognising your surroundings in a visual format to understand yourself or others better.
The example of Eric Kessels installation ‘24 hours in Photos’ is a project which I find very valid and educational. I have seen the concept in person in another situation with a more commercial aspect. I took the photo below of the Fuji Instax stand at The Photography Show a few years ago when I was a presenter. Visitors to the stand were encouraged to take a polaroid of themselves (or get someone to do it for them) and then leave the image in the pile with everyone elses.
Figure 1: TIPPING, 2016, Fuji Instax Stand
Hodgson’s approach to Photography is not one I can agree with. His moralistic approach to the quality of an image being subject to a ‘quality control’ in order to justify its artistic tag is just not something I subscribe to. How can we possibly discern between a good photograph and a bad one, unless we have taken it ourselves. Photography is a democratic art, and should have no rules other than to ensure that all formats and abilities are valid. Otherwise we are censoring the audience to a form of critical perception which is not what art is about.
I see many photographs which people think are exquisite and groundbreaking, and yet which I can form no emotive or constructive connection. An example of this would be the images taken by Ori Gersht’s Ukranian landscapes. For me there is no punctum in these images, and I cannot dwell on their aesthetic or deeper context. they simply do not appeal to me in the same way Gregory Crewdson’s work does. But that doesn’t make them bad pictures, or subject to a rating on the ‘matters’ scale which Hodgson would have us employ. They are as valid as the smartphone image the teenager takes in their bathroom mirror, because there are both photographs, irrespective of visual meaning or complexity.
I think Barthes sums up my feelings when he says:
‘It exists only for me. For you it would be nothing but an indifferent picture, one of the thousand manifestations of the ordinary… in it, for you no wound”
This in relation to the impact the photograph of Lewis Payne had on him. If that picture had been subject to Hodgson’s ‘matter’ qualification, who knows if its validity as a ‘good photo’ could be forced upon an audience.
The family images taken by Sally Mann and Tierney Gearon, and ensuing debate about taste and morality, are quite easy for me to comment on. Firstly, I am not offended by either photographers images, either the sexualised context of Mann’s daughter, or Gearson’s masked juveniles. However, should they be in the public domain or part of a private collection ? Personally I cannot understand why a photographer would show pictures of their young children naked. I wouldn’t for my own and although consent is seemingly given (we trust) those children may one day resent the action and I believe exploitation of their bodies for art. As photos in a thematic or artistic nature, I can see some elements of beauty and innocence, but I am not sure they are suitable for entertainment.