Week 1: Photography The Shapeshifter and Human Choices
Images are for consumption, either privately, commercially, for education or exploitation. That’s what in my head makes photography so fascinating and diverse. The audience possibilities are many fold, and images will be interpreted by different people in different ways. Perhaps only the originator of the image at that moment the shutter clicks, truly knows why that shot has been taken, and who it is for. But once taken it will sometimes assume a life of its own, maybe beyond the control of the author, maybe not. It may have a fleeting lifespan, or become immortal.
I think this comment by John Berger quantifies nicely how I see the life and purpose of an image.
“An image is a sight that has been recreated or reproduced. It is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its appearance and preserved - for a few moments or a few centuries”.
Berger, John (1972)
The use of images by United Colors Of Benneton is both controversial and a prime example of how a moment in time captured on camera, can go on to have a life of multiple existences. Most notorious to date was perhaps the photograph of a dying David Kirby from AIDS, taken by Therese Frare. This incredibly poignant and personal image was perhaps surprisingly re-touched, recoloured, and represented out of the context of its original purpose. However with the consent of the photographer and parents of the dying subject, it gained a more extended life which found it underpinning other causes, and wider audiences. Although I personally see some benefit in the reuse of the image for purposes aligned to the beliefs and wishes of the family, e.g. AIDS charities, the use for Benneton where the image has no context or indeed reference to the original purpose, confounds me. Benneton seemed to have a great track record of exploitative imagery to simply associate their name. However, where consent has been given it does not become a legal or ethical conundrum, just a clever publicity stunt underpinned by the power of photography.
My practice has quite a limited circulation of consumer. The photographs I take of musicians will feature on social media, in publications, and perhaps on commercial products. Beyond that association with the artist there is little or no scope for the images to be used out of context, or indeed manipulated. very rarely there may be some weight to a shot which has political or social commentary, deliberately endorsed by the protagonist. This is quite rare but one example I have is an image I took of the singer Debbie Harry a few years back, which did actually gain perhaps a wider audience due to its message. The quality of the image is quite poor, and the artist has turned their back on me so the message on their outfit takes centre stage as it were. This image without knowledge of its origin could have been taken on a catwalk, or at a political rally, thus taking it away from the actual event and performance. The background and lack of stage equipment in the photo manages to disassociate the message from its circumstance and location.
Figure 1: Tipping, 2017, Debbie Harry
The nature of my practice is to capture performance art, as well as the back story, the behind the scenes activity and the actual locations themselves. The use of my imagery is for commercial advertising, for social media consumption, and for historical reference - be that the performance or the venue. When people see my images I am hoping it sparks an emotion or an interest in the subject matter - for me personally I am hoping to offer a moment in time, which when archived will perform its duty as a historical document. I also have an experimental side which I like to explore, and that’s for personal and artistic gratification. If it generates critical feedback (good or bad) that is a bonus.
Stephen Shore’s ‘The Nature Of Photographs’ poses some interesting ideas on photography and how we should interpret, evaluate, and ultimately accept imagery for what it is. The idea of a constructed image and why photos take on a certain aesthetic recalls themes and discussions by other commentators like SONTAG. I particularly like this quote, which actually inspired me to try and take a photograph based upon this very principal.
“…but to see something ordinary, something you see everyday, and recognise it as a photographic possibility - that’s what I’m interested in.”
Shore, Stephen (2015)
Figure: 2 TIPPING, (2021), Plastic & Fish Don’t Mix
This image does not meet all of Shore’s 3 criteria/levels but it’s something I would never had considered a photographic possibility until I took the shot. And as much as I hate the object, it looks quite fun in the photo. And i suspect it does fulfil that brief of ‘still time’ where the content is at rest, and time is still. Quite unique for a mobile.
I was introduced this week to the work of Hiroshi Sugimoto, which really has struck a chord with me and how I would like to see elements of my work evolve. Two elements of his portfolio tie in with my practice at the moment, or indeed where I see it moving towards. Firstly his stunning interior architectural shots in B/W are so subtle in tone with no highlights. The locations feel not only abandoned (quite apt in the current climate) but also lost in time, but ultimately they are quite beautiful.
Figure 3-5: SUGIMOTO, Opera Houses
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SHORE, Stephen. 2015, available at https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jul/09/stephen-shore-america-colour-photography-1970s (online)
BERGER, John. 1972, Understanding A Photograph, London: Penguin
Figure 1: Tipping, 2017, Debbie Harry
Figure 2: Tipping, 2021, Plastic & Fish Don’t Mix
Figure 3-5: Sugimoto, 2015/16, Opera Houses, available at https://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/gate-of-paradise-1/