HAS PHOTOGRAPHY TURNED BORING?
Is contemporary photography really as boring and expressionless as I perceive it to be?
The bookfair that sparked the debate
Back in May I went to the International Center of Photography’s Photobook Fest, in New York. I was curious to see what publishers there are that handle photobooks. Roughly 40 photobook publishers, mostly North American, from small independent one-person publisher to the big players in the industry were present.
I found this event totally refreshing. Since it was geared towards displaying photographs in book form it gave me a completely different way to appreciate these art works. Instead of viewing them hanging on walls, I was able to leaf through the books giving the whole a more immersive feeling. Photography is a dynamic medium for me, and this kind of experience let me become more of a participant than just a viewer.
Photograph courtesy of NYC The Official Guide
Short break for a tiny disclaimer
Look, this here blog is just going to be about my weird inner little philosophical discussion. I mean no disrespect to any one and I truly appreciate everyone’s hard work. I have no degree in art so what do I really know? Well, I know my own thoughts, feelings, and reactions to things, and that is what this is.
Let’s get back to it…
Is this all just boring photography?
Looking through the various photobooks I noticed a common theme in the images. Which, in turn, sparked an internal debate as to whether the images I was looking at were really art. Are these, which I would call boring, images really what is now regarded as work of art? Was this really what people look to when they want to see photography exhibits?
Want an example of the type of photos displayed in these books? Check out renowned photographer William Eggleston. Eggleston is a prolific and influential photographer, widely credited with making color photography acceptable and revered as an art form. His work photographing portraits and landscapes “democratically” of the American South reframed the relationship between color photography and art, and he served as inspiration for many younger generation photographers such as Martin Parr and Stephen Shore.
William Eggleston - Pink Stand courtesy of Eggleston Art Foundation
I did not coin the word “democratically” above, Eggleston, himself, used this expression to describe his style of photography, of literally photographing the world around him, as he sees it at that point in time. There is no staging, lighting, or manipulating of the scene or the image in post.
Why am I questioning this art style?
To tell you the truth, these images are so dull and boring.
Once upon a time…ok maybe not that long ago…I spent my time shuffling paper and pushing the proverbial pencil around sitting behind a corporate desk. A few years ago, I made the transition to professional photographer. What had originally drawn me to photography is still some of what I appreciate the most and strive to achieve myself. Landscape photographers such as Ansel Adams and Michael Shainblum, portrait photographers like Douglas Kirkland and Platon, fashion photographers like Peter Lindbergh and Amanda Charcian or travel photographers such as Steve McCurry and Frauke Hameister all inspired me to pick up this medium that ultimately led me to leaving the corporate world and to strike out for myself.
Ansel Adams - Sand Dunes, Sunrise, Death Valley National Monument, California courtesy of The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust
All these greats fall into a more traditional sense of photography.
Everything that had fascinated and inspired me to become a photographer myself, I felt was not represented here in these books. To be fair, it is not only these books but also museums and galleries that are full of this type of “deadpan” photography. The art world is full of photos that are essentially, in my eyes, quite boring. They are often strangely devoid of interest and artistic expression.
A picture should tell a story, take you on a journey, and impart on you a feeling or a message of what the photographer is trying to say. Think of movies for example, these have a story, this story is most often told through the use of a lead character and the help of a supporting character. Take the recent 2022 film “Everything, Everywhere, All at Once” which won the Academy Award for Best Actress (Michelle Yoh) and both the Best Supporting Actor and Actress (Ke Huy Quan and Jamie Lee Curtis). This movie is a brilliant example of a story told through a lead character and supporting character.
I am drawn to that in images too. I look for the main focal point and supporting assets to tell me the story in each image. For me that is what is missing in a lot of these photographs that are now currently recognized as artworks.
Singularity versus normaility
A few decades ago, when you were presented with a photograph expertly framed, hung, and lit, the expectation was that the photograph would speak for itself, that it would be understood on its own terms. I guess back then, it was deemed that ‘professional’ photographs set the captured moment apart from all other moments. These photographs captured the singularity of a moment. You could go back and view the photo repeatedly and it would manage to reward you with a new experience and insight each time. Accompanying the photograph would be a small plaque with some biographical data on the photographer, the title and year the photo was taken.
Photographers were romanticists and expressionists. Their art form was all about emotions and causing emotional reactions.
Nowadays there is no way to understand what an image is about without a lengthy written or verbal account. Contemporary photography no longer follows the same principles as in the past. Photographs, that now adorn museums and exhibitions, seem to do the opposite; they capture moments that are just the same as all other moments. They now depict the normality of the moment.
For now, I will argue that without capturing the singularity of the moment, regardless of whether that is landscape, portrait, architectural, or an object, a photograph blends away into normality and the boring.
Pablo Picasso - Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler courtesy of Estate of Pablo Picasso / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York
Could art history can shed some light here
Maybe! History has a way of repeating itself, and it would not surprise me, in the least bit, if the same did not happen in the history of art. Maybe we can find something there to help us understand a little better what is happening.
I will keep this very short, I am no subject matter expert, and thus have a limited knowledge on this matter.
Before the advent of photography, painters were your go to people to capture and convey visual moments. Regardless of the subject, if you wanted to visually convey something, it had to be painted. As photography grew, it, naturally, started to emulate paintings. A logical process if you ask me. When you want to establish yourself in a field, you start by imitating that which already is highly regarded. And so, photography started to replace paintings as the primary form to convey realistic depictions of moments, which is known as pictorialism. What better way to capture a realistic reproduction of a moment in 2D that with photography.
Begs to ask now, what did painters do after the rise of photography. And this is where it gets interesting if you ask me.
Following the notion of ‘form follows function’ painters realized that they no longer were needed for realistic images and thus were free to explore other avenues of art. Suddenly painters were able to explore visual representations of conceptual abstractions. Time, space, and form could now be combined in different ways in paintings. Think of Georges Braque’s Man with a Guitar or Pablo Picasso’s Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, both are completely different perspectives on how to depict objects and people.
As you can see the introduction of one thing led to another. We are, in the past few decades, experiencing similar moment within photography as an art form.
Georges Braque - Man with a Guitar courtesy of MOMA New York
What is happening now?
In art there is always evolution and the need to try new approaches. Through the dominance of modernism, the faithful reproduction of reality, in the world of photography, artists needed a new venue. We can see where this led them by looking at the works of such photographers as the aforementioned William Eggleston. Artists rebelled and adopted a more normalistic approach, forgoing eye-catching composition and other technics that are so prevalent in modernism.
Enter what is known as ‘deadpan’ photography. The art of capturing subjects in the most honest, direct, and objective way. Basically, moodless photographs. Well sort of. Of course, it is way more complicated.
The word ‘deadpan’, whether used as an adjective or an adverb refers to the deliberate and precise action used to become expressionless. Sort of like a ‘poker face’ if you will. As you can see this word quite aptly describes this type of photography. Aka what many photographers, and non-photographers, would describe as ‘boring’.
Gone are the romantic emotional depictions, enter objective moodless art.
But I think the crux here is that it is deliberate. As the definition of the word ‘deadpan’ suggests.
William Eggleston - New Generation courtesy of Eggleston Art Foundation
Is it boring? Is it art?
Somewhere, in here, I may seem to be inferring that this ‘deadpan’ photography is expressionless. Saying that it is devoid of artistic expression might be a little harsh. Any expression is artistic! It is more a question of whether we like it or understand it.
When I started my little inner debate while leafing through the photobooks, I was inclined to think that this style of photography was not for me. That I would indeed categorize it as boring. But, having given this some more thought, having done a little research to understand this movement more, I must admit I am no longer sure. No longer certain that my initial reactions were appropriate, nor that I still agree with them.
It is safe to say that I am a modernist photographer at heart. I work to tell a story, to find pleasing compositions, to highlight a singular moment, to capture and share the emotion of that moment. Because of that I tend to think ‘deadpan’ photos lack photographic effort and emotional expression. I think I am wrong! While this is not my preferred style of photography, I must give credit to this movement and recognize it for the art it actually is. ‘Deadpan’ is done deliberately and requires skill to achieve.
There is expression in these photos, just not the type that I usually strive for or react to. That does not discredit them. Probably discredits me more than anything else, for not being open-minded enough to accept this different approach to a medium that I love.
Time to open my mind more
Well, this was a moment of growth, lol!
Time for me to go out there again, revisit this style of photography, use my newfound understanding, and see how I feel about it now. I am sure I will have a different experience now and maybe also a new appreciation for it.
Time to open my mind more…and maybe I should try some ‘deadpan’ myself…stay tuned to see if I manage that. 😊
Thank you for reading my blog and visiting my website.
