I used to call myself a fine art photographer because the non-commercial pictures that I take are a personal expression of the way that I see the world. I want to communicate emotion, beauty, the importance of certain things - my vision. Using every bit of knowledge, technique, light, form, shape, understanding of aesthetics, I strive to craft an image that has power and integrity.
So why do I say I used to call myself a fine art photographer? Because I think that the label fine art photographer has become devalued by the rubbish that it is now used to describe. Images with no aesthetic value, poorly composed, technically pathetic and worst of all singularly lacking any semblance of communicating anything other than the complete lack of skill by the 'artist' in anything photographic are now published in books, hung on gallery walls and bowed down to by the same public that praised the emperor's new clothes.
In the days of Man Ray fine art photography meant something. It was an authentic artistic expression. Photographers were pushing the boundaries, expressing ideas in new ways, looking at the world with fresh eyes. Since then the label has steadily devalued and fine art photography has been in decline. Now any image can be fine art, no matter how poorly conceived and executed.
Don't get me wrong. I am certainly NOT saying that every photograph that is labelled fine art is rubbish but rather that far too many images given this title are not worthy of it. There is more craftsmanship in a well lit, beautifully composed food shot for an advert, and more meaning in an emotive editorial or documentary photograph than in an ever increasing number of images on the walls of galleries.
So I now prefer to be seen as just a photographer, an image maker, who takes pride in the aesthetics of his craft, rather than as a fine art photographer.
I always thought that fine art was something that should reveal a strong idea, a central concept or that it should be product of the highest craftsmanship, be beautiful even if the subject was something shocking. An art photograph should raise questions in the viewer, move them, produce a feeling, communicate on a deeper level, have an element of wonder about it. Without naming names there are several hip, well regarded fine art photographers who manage to do nothing more than produce trite, boring images supported by flimsey 'artistic statements' to which the only reasonable reaction would be to yawn.
If you have an opinion on this I'd like to hear it. Email me.
Paul Indigo
So why do I say I used to call myself a fine art photographer? Because I think that the label fine art photographer has become devalued by the rubbish that it is now used to describe. Images with no aesthetic value, poorly composed, technically pathetic and worst of all singularly lacking any semblance of communicating anything other than the complete lack of skill by the 'artist' in anything photographic are now published in books, hung on gallery walls and bowed down to by the same public that praised the emperor's new clothes.
In the days of Man Ray fine art photography meant something. It was an authentic artistic expression. Photographers were pushing the boundaries, expressing ideas in new ways, looking at the world with fresh eyes. Since then the label has steadily devalued and fine art photography has been in decline. Now any image can be fine art, no matter how poorly conceived and executed.
Don't get me wrong. I am certainly NOT saying that every photograph that is labelled fine art is rubbish but rather that far too many images given this title are not worthy of it. There is more craftsmanship in a well lit, beautifully composed food shot for an advert, and more meaning in an emotive editorial or documentary photograph than in an ever increasing number of images on the walls of galleries.
So I now prefer to be seen as just a photographer, an image maker, who takes pride in the aesthetics of his craft, rather than as a fine art photographer.
I always thought that fine art was something that should reveal a strong idea, a central concept or that it should be product of the highest craftsmanship, be beautiful even if the subject was something shocking. An art photograph should raise questions in the viewer, move them, produce a feeling, communicate on a deeper level, have an element of wonder about it. Without naming names there are several hip, well regarded fine art photographers who manage to do nothing more than produce trite, boring images supported by flimsey 'artistic statements' to which the only reasonable reaction would be to yawn.
If you have an opinion on this I'd like to hear it. Email me.
Paul Indigo
Comments
There are many professions devalued by charlatans nowadays, real fine art photographers amongst them. People are using smoke and mirrors everywhere. The artistic statement by the side of a picture is just one example of many.
The thing that actually upsets me most with abuse of this in creative professions is the schoolyard game that's played.
If you dare to say 'I don't like...' or 'I just don't see it..'. Or even the ultimate heresey of 'This is just rubbish!'
The instantly the fault is yours. The art is not poor. How dare you! YOU are simply too ignorant or culturaly stunted to understand it. At least that is what we are lead to believe. You are actualy told to deny your own creative instincts and be handed a placebo of accepted creativity. A creative dictatorship exists in which an elite clique with little to no talent, except obfuscation, dictate what is and what is not art.
I had to laugh at the esteemed Mr Sewell stating on Radio 4 that the entire North of England did not have the cultural sophistication to understand an art exhibition in Newcastle. Funny that. I've met some very switched on people up there. I hope they had the cultural sophistication to see he was 'metophoricaly' wearing no clothes.
D
Well - I still kind of hate it -- as it now seems that major museums are presenting large-scale photography as a replacement for large scale figurative-narrative oil painting.
But lately - I've been discovering some photo blogs -- daily pictures combined with personal commentary or poetry --and I'm fascinated with how wonderful and beautiful it can be.
I guess I'll always consider photographs as primarily memento mori -- and a brutal attack on the human imagination -- so I'll never want to see one up on a wall -- but flashing quickly by on the computer screen -- or in a movie frame -- especially in a movie frame ! -- I can certainly be enthralled.
Is there any place where you show your photographs in a daily journal format ?
(I apologize for being such an opinionated visitor to your blog - but I have the sense that you're not adverse to controversy)
I do not have a daily journal of images but you can find a regular update of my work on the following websites:
www.indigo2photography.co.uk
www.flickr.com/photos/paulindigo/
www.photopoints.com/main/photos/photographer.aspx?ID=14076
www.ephotozine.com/user.cfm?user=13587
If you google me you'll find references and work all over the place but the above are the places I'm most active at the moment.
All the best,
Paul