Photography And Painting

While I have no desire to carry on a philosophical discussion which doesn't lead to better photographing, I do think that taking some time to consider the world of painting can be useful.

The world of painting goes through phases, styles and techniques. Typically the first few who introduce a style become famous while those who follow don't. At the same time there are literally millions of hobbyist painters, some of them extremely talented, who pain in the styles of those who went before, typically the more conservative styles, usually literal or at most semi abstract paintings of an identifiable subject.

It is these painting which are affordable enough for the general public to be able to buy and attractive enough to use as decoration in a home.

Andy Warhol may be famous for his Campbell's Soup Can painting, but the number of people who want to display that artwork on their walls for months or years is pretty minimal.

Often there are huge public outcries when a local museum spends (sometimes millions) on a painting which looks like it could have been done by a six year old or just about anyone for that matter.

This is analogous to the rude comments I have repeatedly made about Camera Arts magazine. Truth is, it's the role of pioneers to shock us, to rock our foundations, change our understandings, redefine what is art or photography. Nowhere does it say that their role is to be appreciated by the masses, even the semi educated masses like myself, and certainly no one suggested it should be pretty or suitable for hanging over your newly recovered sofa.

On the other hand, every time I go to Swiss Chalet for chicken soup, I admire the Group Of Seven paintings they have throughout the restaurant. These paintings have meaning for me - firstly they are Canadian painters, second, they painted the Canadian Landscape that I can relate to. that they are very skillfully done and have a very definite style to them throughout is part of what I like about them. They aren't your simple Sunday afternoon dauber kind of paintings. These paintings are not the equivalent of calendar photographs - pretty scenes captured in standard ways and presented realistically. Instead they equate to photographs which interpret rather than illustrate the landscape.

Reproductions of these famous paintings are found decorating many the office and home across the land. Some are no doubt attracted more by the reputation of the painters than the actual quality of the painting but that's o.k. How many photographers have an Ansel Adams poster hanging somewhere, or a print purchased while at a workshop? These are usually pretty normal photographs, ones that the spouse would approve of for decoration.

So what does this mean for our photography? Well, if it is your goal to be cutting edge, leader of the pack, an instigator rather than a follower then either you are incredibly talented and you will pull it off, or you aren't, and you will fall flat on your face, to be forgotten in the dusts of time, remembered, if at all, as odd, weird, gimicky or quirky. They risk their motives being challenged - is it about money or artistic expression. Time will sort it all out. The number of people who will be successful in this arena are probably only a few in every generation so don't count on being one of them.

Picasso may have been the first cubist painter, actually I don't know. Certainly he was the most famous and if he built cubism on the shoulders of those who went before, well that's only natural. Should we discount all other cubist painters because they weren't first?

If we go back to impressionism, do we reject all but the first to use this style? What does that say about someone who paints in the impressionist style these days?

Georgia O'Keefe was famous for her exotic and erotic paintings of flowers. Many have since painted in the same style. Would I purchase a really gorgeous painting done in her style - darn right - I know I can't afford any of hers and if I found one I liked as much by a modern painter, for a fraction of the price, I'd hang it happily and wouldn't feel hard done by that I couldn't get the 'real' painting by O'Keefe.

If you could purchase a gorgeous black and white grand landscape image, with tones deep enough to dive into and highlight subtlety to make you weep, but it isn't an Ansel, would you refuse to hang it - I think not.

If you purchase a large and fairly comprehensive book on the history of art, you will find that for any period in painting, there are dozens if not hundreds of painters remembered for the quality of their work, and only a handful who are know for their innovation. It is interesting to look back from more than 100 years and to realize that fame for innovation is largely fleeting, that what people are remembered for is the quality of their work, not the uniqueness or the 'I was here first' status of their work.

Think of it this way, would you rather have the first painting of a particular style, or the best, Hmmm? So, should photography and photographers be any different?