WHAT IS A PHOTOGRAPHER?
By Ken Tapley ARPS
(From the Jan. 2000 issue of The Chilterns Association of Camera Clubs' Bulletin.
With thanks to the Editor, John Credland for the use of this aricle).
Do photographers want to be thought of as artists or not? Perhaps they are more interested in simply recording what is in front of their lens. I submit that this is not the case and that most serious photographers consider themselves to be 'artists' producing images with the use of tools other than brushes and canvas. If I am correct then why do we get paranoid about the technicalities of producing the image.
I have contact with many artists and confess that I have never heard them discussing things like "lack of detail in the highlights" or "you should have gone two paces to the right". What the devil does all this mean or matter? I believe it emanates from proliferation of so-called judges who on one hand couldn't tell a good image from a sack of potatoes, and, on the other, are incapable of recognising "art" but feel they have to be critical (not always negatively so but usually unnecessarily so). Why can't judges speak more from the heart than the Ilford Manual of Photography? It is because the majority doesn't have feelings for emotions stimulated by the image.
My intention in creating an image is to begin a resonance with the viewer through the structure of the image, its lighting, its juxtaposition of elements within the frame - in fact its impact, its impression. Whether or not the image might have been improved by taking a step to the right (and falling over a cliff) is totally irrelevant.The image should be a visual be a visual delight and not an exercise in the merits of Fuji Sensia against Kodak Elite or the ability of the judge to discern that half a grade harder might have made a difference to the resulting image.
If we want to be thought of as artists let's start being concerned with the image rather than how it was produced. Let's start getting judges who are more concerned with the visual impression of an image. The intellectual content of an image is generally perceived to be more important than its visual delight, but I maintain that this is not the way to view an image. An image whether painting or photograph has greater value in its sensual content than its intellectual meaning or technique. An image to be worthy of the artist has to appeal to the senses or it is not a work of art.
Having written the above for our club newsletter (Chilterns Association Bulletin), the committee agreed to my suggestion to have an artist to act as judge instead of a photographer. It was a coincidence that my article appeared only a couple of weeks before the evening when our artist judge paid us a visit. The artist in question was a lecturer in fine art with a degree in Art History. I felt that this was a man who would either knock my views into touch or uphold them.
He approached each photograph as an image, highlighting how different elements of an image impact upon the emotions and how that could be compared with those of the great masters. He used many expressions that I had used, such as "emotional resonance" and "visual delight". I did find that I was on the same wavelength and couldn't help feeling how refreshing it was to hear a judge referring to the emotional side of image making, rather than the photographic technicalities. For surely to enable any of us to live with an image it must appeal to the senses and
techniques and medium are only a means to an end.
I enjoyed the experience of listening to an artist's views and felt that most of the audience gained more knowledge with regard to control of an image than listening to someone telling you that you should have used a grade harder paper. It was also a comfort to find that my views had been upheld. I hope to see more of this and then maybe we will see more emotional images on club nights than exercises in camera or darkroom techniques (or lack of it).