In these days of internet fame and exposure, we forget that in previous generations, people typically worked in isolation, rarely if ever sharing their work with anyone, yet they seemed to enjoy the hobby. Certainly they went to great efforts, building darkrooms, developing prints in less than ideal circumstances and living with the limitations of the wet darkroom, all apparently for nothing.
Let's look at that nothing, because I think it can teach us some things about our photography which might have become lost in the age of sharing our work.
So what could possibly entice someone to put all that effort into images which no one will ever see?
For some it is the satisfaction of solving a problem - whether it's to make clean negatives or large prints or a richly toned image. For others it's the need to create - the value lies in the prints made, even if in the end they sit in paper boxes, rarely if ever to see the light of day. Others did share their work with family, occasionally with friends and more often within camera clubs but with meetings once a month and limited exposure of your work, it typically could not be thought of as fame.
It's more than possible to be proud of the work you do without needing to receive affirmation from others. Many the serious amateur photographer worked away in isolation, producing bodies of work of significance and depth, knowing only that it was worth doing for itself.
Perhaps we need to remind ourselves now and again that while fame is nice, it's quite possible to feel good about your work without involving anyone else.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi George -
I agree with your sentiment that photographers (or more generally: artists) shouldn't rely on others and their validation to prop up their art, and that we as artists should be more self-sufficient with personal visions and art.
I'm not sure that your premise that "people typically worked in isolation" and "rarely if ever shared their work" is totally correct, though. I think you'd probably be hard-pressed to find a photographer -- even in the dagguerrotype days -- who didn't share his or her work. They certainly didn't have the advantage (disadvantage?) of the Flickrs of our age, but I very much doubt that they didn't also go through pains to have their work shown - even if only with family, friends, or small local salons/etc. They may have worked for longer periods of time before sharing - that's almost definitely the case - but my suspicion is that ultimately the goal of most photographers and artists is to share their work.
Still, I agree that we'd probably all benefit as artists from removing ourselves -- at least occasionally -- from the rat race of online forums and photo sharing sites, and it's certainly possible to admire one's own work by oneself. It can be equally beneficial by surrounding ourselves with other artists and their critique, too.
Thanks, George.
Your words put in perspective my recently acquired Flickr frenzy.
Fortunately, I've avoided any addiction to forums.
Matt
Post a Comment