London Portraits

David Gibson

Jesse Marlow

George Kelly

Nick Turpin

Joni Karanka and Matt Stuart

Sarah Ewing

Richard Bram

Adrian Fisk

David Solomons

From Now Off

I think B is getting slightly offtrack, so I have a new proposal which will effect all future posts. From now on, anything not directly about photography, for example a phrase like

"No, I've decided to change my mind. When the quotation marks end, please skip directly to the end of this post, disregarding any other words you encounter."

or

"On second thought, let's go with the original plan. Please ignore that first quotation."

should be completely ignored as if it were never written. Agreed?

Pleasures (and Terrors) of Good Photographs

I've been enjoying Gerry Badger's The Pleasures of Good Photographs lately. It's a beautiful book, written with personal conviction in clear, lucid prose, and without a lot of academic mumbo-jumbo. I have to agree with Jörg Colberg's recent assessment, "it is a must-have for anyone interested in photography," and within 20 or 30 years I expect it will take its place on every shelf alongside Why People Photograph, Looking At Photographs, The Nature of Photographs and other classics of the genre.

One reason I like this book so much is that Badger describes a clear division within photography between the so-called art movement and the straight movement (for lack of better terms). Although his perspective becomes clear through the course of the book, it's only in the last chapter, It's Art, But is it Photography? Some Thoughts on Photoshop that Badger really comes out swinging. "When is photography not photography?" he asks. "When it's art." Them's fight'n words, but Badger puts them out there as calmly as if he's saying "The sky is blue." And he's right.

The art/straight argument flared up last spring in the aftermath of an essay by Paul Graham. Although Graham's essay received some accolades, he was also criticized by some, including Colberg. So I was mildly surprised to read Colberg's glowing review of Badger, since Graham's essay dovetails perfectly with Badger's opinions. Although Colberg cites many chapters by name in his review, he fails to mention the last one, the chapter which in some ways serves as Badger's straight photography manifesto.

Badger:

"This the crucial difference, the gulf that still divides "photographer" from "artist". The kind of prices asked for a Gursky as opposed to say, a Robert Adams or a Lee Freidlander, are enough to suggest that. The gap is not as wide as it was, and narrows daily, but it is still there. I would suggest that it represents the residue...of a prejudice pertaining in favor of the artist as opposed to the photographer, a notion that there is something not quite right about photography...

"We are rightly suspicious of documentary photography, but then again, we always should have been. All photography is an interpretation of the world....There is no such thing as an absolutely transparent photographic document, yet at its best, at its simplest, the contact with actuality is as direct as it could possibly be....

Yet for so many this marvelous faculty is not enough. For deep down, they do not believe that photography... is an art. For many... to be art, photography must be seen to be art. And that, to put it crudely, means tricking it up —making a print the size of a room, or controlling everything from first to last."

While I agree with Badger 100%, I think many in the art world would find his sentiments terrifying. If I cite Colberg as an example it's only because I think he represents a common view, that the differences between, e.g., Wall or Friedlander are only shades of grey in the great spectrum that is Photography. In which case, why can't we forget our differences and just get along?

And maybe in one sense it is all one spectrum. Yet, as Badger notes, there are fundamental differences between the two approaches, between photography as post-conceptual illustrative tool and photography as its own self-contained creative route.

The art world acknowledges this difference by treating straight photography as a second tier endeavor. Some people —I'd even venture to say most people, whether in or out of the art world— just don't get it. The idea that someone like Atget or Evans, or even an amateur snapshooter, can express something powerful by merely recording without need for more conscious intervention, strikes some as dull or, worse, meaningless.

I would agree with Badger: "If you don't get Atget, or Evans, you don't get photography." I'm not sure you could say the same about Crewdson or Wall.

I apologize if all this seems a rehash of my defense of Graham last Spring. I suppose this issue will never die completely. I just thought the recently published opinions of Gerry Badger on this topic were worth noting, and celebrating. I may have to revise my bumper sticker from Thank You, Garry to Thank You, Gerry.

This is your Diana

This is your Diana...


This is your Diana on drugs.


This is your Diana on photography...


This is your Diana on lithography.


This is your Diana on Pop Art...


This is your Diana on the Pop charts.


This is your Diana being thought about...


And this is your Diana being toted about.




This is your Diana hanging out in a biker bar,


Flashing chinzy bling,


Chain smoking,


Face drawn and lined,


Feeling totally strung out,


and high as a friggin kite,


Before crashing hard.




This is your Diana waking up the next morning someplace in Iowa,


With no possessions but the shirt on your Diana's back,


Trying to piece together what happened,


Reminding itself, "Think outside the box, Dammit!"




This your Diana having an existential crisis because this is not your Diana. Instead, this is a representational image of your Diana depicted on your computer screen.

Ford Zeiss Bum Burst Ticker

The next round of bumper stickers is ready. "I BRAKE FOR DECISIVE MOMENTS" is now available in two versions, original...


...and new improved phonetic Dada version:


If you meet anyone who can decipher this second sticker, I give you my money-back guarantee that that person will be worth getting to know. It's a Dada-sticker-slash-friend-filter all rolled into one.

You can order each one below, along with the original Photography is not a crime sticker. Please allow up to 3 weeks for delivery.

(PLEASE NOTE: As of January 2013 All Bumper Stickers have sold out 
except for Photography Is Not A Crime. Please order accordingly.)

Bumper Sticker

Not a crime, U.S. $3.00 Not a crime, International $7.00 Decisive Moment, U.S. $3.00 Decisive Moment, International $7.00 Ford Zeiss Mow, U.S. $3.00 Ford Zeiss Mow, International $7.00