By John Camp
[Originally submitted as a comment —Ed.]
The photograph of René Burri Mike posted on Friday reminded me of a conjecture of mine which I think generally holds true, but which some people may find spurious and possibly even absurd.
That is, the more a person looks like an "artist," the less likely he is to do work of genuine merit. This idea first occurred to me when I was hanging around with a lot of art students in college, and it seemed to me that the more a guy looked like an artist, the weaker his actual artistic efforts were.
The question then, was, why would this be? I concluded that really serious artists tended to heavily focus on art, and not so much on dress or grooming or their social life. Guys who ostentatiously looked like "artists" were actually less interested in art than in other things—status, fashion, attracting desirable partners, etc. There's nothing terribly wrong or unusual with all of that, but it takes time, thought and effort to pull off, and that's time, thought and effort not put into the actual making of art. The really serious guys tended to look like nothing in particular—jeans, ordinary shirts, and so on.
I've found this is also true in other fields. There's a magazine called Modern Farmer aimed, I don't know, I suppose at some species of yuppie, and the people in it look like they just got their farm clothes at the Working Man counter at Barneys/New York. And don't even get me started about young white blues musicians who wear those narrow-brimmed hats on the backs of their heads....
A further question would be, does this idea really apply to photographers, whose whole aesthetic involves the capture of appearances, and who might then be extremely and legitimately interested in appearance in all of its forms, including their own? If you look at the Burri photo—the dramatic turquoise shirt vibrating against the orange-ish face, the whole surrounded by the dramatic blacks of jacket and hat—you see a man who is deeply interested in the image he projects. Is it possible that this interest subtracted that few percentage points of quality that would make (in your eyes) his photos compelling?
John
©2014 by John Camp, all rights reserved
Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Gabe Bandy: "Seriously? While your thesis is funny and cynical (two things I greatly admire), to judge a man, a French man, who fancied a fedora and scarf by his mode of dress? From one picture? The more you dress like the 'popular conception' of an artist the less talent you 'may' have? The Jackie Gleason theory of relativity? So you're collaborating with Ctein—a man I consider one of the most intelligent and literate people I've had the pleasure of learning from. He's certanly of unique appearance—he may look like the popular conception of a somewhat mad scientist, or an aging hippie, or???
"I believe none of those stereotypes fit or define the man, just as a narrow, momentary glance at Burri would throw him in your pretentious artist category."
Michael Perini: "A very interesting point. I think we have all known people who might be so described. Poseurs to a degree. I believe that there is something to your thesis. However, most of us have also known people for whom style is effortless. I would stipulate that such people are rare, but I know I have known some. Poor or well off, some folks have a grace and style that seems innate. So while I also believe your conjecture to sometimes be true, it might be dangerous to assume who is which. Thanks for an interesting thought."
Richard Tugwell: "Worth mentioning that René Burri was Swiss, and thus part of a heritage that includes Robert Frank and Werner Bischof among many others. [And René Burri married Werner Bischof's widow, I believe. —Ed.] Photographers whose strength doesn't depend on one-trick-pony iconic images, but on the cumulative effect of a body of work. I met Burri briefly at a retrospective in Zürich some years ago. Charming and self-effacing. I'm not sure he would have considered himself the artist stereotype that JC wants to fit his amusing and, I'm assuming, tongue-in-cheek hypothesis."
Andrew C E: "A thief with a guilty conscience (or an unsecured bag) recently left me a John Sandford novel under my bike, after making off with my bike lights. So, after reading this post, I unexpectedly looked up to a picture of John Camp staring at me from across the room. I'll admit that he fits all of my preconceptions of what a modern masculine author should look like. The 'Cormac McCarthy' look. Will this have any bearing on the quality of the novel? I doubt it, but I'll find out when I read it."
I always thought Bresson NEVER looked like a photographer. Maybe a salesman out for a stroll but not a photographer.
Posted by: John Krill | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 12:03 PM
By extension one could argue that the less someone 'looks like a cop' – wears faded rock-band shirts, drives a Porsche – the more effective they are. It's certainly an appealing premise.
Posted by: Matthew | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 12:05 PM
Baloney.
Posted by: Michael Matthews | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 12:06 PM
Did Salvador Dali look like an artist?
Posted by: Alex P. Schorsch | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 12:13 PM
I'm an engineer by trade - my bunch isn't reputed for fashion sense. And yet a few of us dress very well. Are we to dismiss them outright as clowns and impostors?
Well, of those I know very well, I cannot think of a single one who hasn't a wife seeing to his image... so much for your theory. ;-p
Posted by: Phil | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 02:38 PM
Although there is something definitely to be said for this generalization, it is just that; and like all stereotypes, true only to an extent. By percentages alone, there are far more bad and mediocre photographers with no style sense whatsoever, than there are those with.
Avedon had a great, although understated sense of style, which served him well in his profession. Scavullo supposedly stopped a shoot cold until one of his assistants, who donned a similar neckerchief to his, removed it.
I can appreciate a good sense of personal style, it is indeed quite rare- as opposed to just being fashionable, or worse, a poseur. Many aspire to it, most fail spectacularly; photographers (of all people) should be able to, at the very least, recognize it. True, good fashion sense certainly doesn't mean someone is any deeper than anyone else, they're just more visually attuned to a certain aspect of how things look and work. Trivial, yes- but something any so called artist should be able to appreciate.
I look at that photo of Rene Burri, and I see a photographer, an artist comfortable in his own skin...
Posted by: Stan B. | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 03:12 PM
Personal style may be natural or contrived, genuine or artificial, but unless all of one's photography is staged or doesn't include any humans at all, I think it is very helpful not to attract too much attention by the way you look. You don't have to look like a grey mouse, but the outrageously, 'artistically' dressed (would-be) photographer is definitely frustrating his or her own efforts to a certain extent.
Posted by: Hans Muus | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 03:16 PM
below can also apply to appearances or a "look".
a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Emerson
Posted by: john rasmussen | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 04:12 PM
There was a young girl I met in art school that came from a wealthy and influential family. She attended the school partially for one semester, and during that time I befriended her. She confessed to me she was there because her rich parents did not know what else to do with her. Some of the students called her a Poser, meaning it in a derogatory way because she did not exhibit any art or add to class discussions. She dressed and acted through a style all her own; eccentric and engaging and what some folks might define as the persona of an artist. The last time I saw her, I asked if she’d like to model in an upcoming shoot about mime artists. She responded with delight and stated she had lots to contribute in regards to wardrobe, makeup and mime posing. I gave her the date and location and she said she’d be there. The shoot went on as planned, but sadly she never showed up, nor did she return to school, and no one knew what became of her. I accepted the idea she was a Poser, and hoped she had found her next script.
Posted by: darr | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 04:28 PM
I think there is some validity in what John is saying, but I think it goes only so far as I can think of many exceptions. Some people are their art. Duchamp from the pictures I've seen of him preferred a suit, Dali well his appearance and his persona were all part of his art.
There are a lot of preconceptions as to what an artist should look like and I know people who tend to have an outfit for every occasions - travel photography the eponymous Domke vest and army surplus trousers. If they moved into the studio it would be designer black. Sure a little theatrical but I would never question their artistic credentials for what they looked like.
I think overall judging a man's photographic output based on his taste in shirts is a little shallow.
Posted by: Paul Amyes | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 06:24 PM
Thinking back on all the professional photographers I've known and worked with, none would be recognizable as photographers if you met them on the street or even in the studio.
Stereotypes can be efficient shortcuts and sense-making tools. They can, however, keep people from processing new or unexpected information about each individual, thus biasing the impression formation process. Early researchers believed that stereotypes were inaccurate representations of reality. A series of pioneering studies which appeared in the 1930s found no empirical support for widely held racial stereotypes. By the mid-1950s, Gordon Allport wrote that "it is possible for a stereotype to grow in defiance of all evidence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Formation
Posted by: Speed | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 07:54 PM
I hope JC has chosen a good cover for his book.
"you see a man who is deeply interested in the image he projects"
A somewhat ironic put-down for a photographer, don't you think? As a movie director, one could certainly say of Burri...
"you see a man who is deeply interested in the images he projects"
Posted by: Steve Jacob | Saturday, 25 October 2014 at 09:01 PM
Here's how a photographer should look, suit and silk tie. Although your suggestion of a cape could have worked too.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lazyaussie/8228853618/
I guess it's part of our own prejudice.. We see what we want and ignore evidence to the contrary. Photographers are different people. They dress differently.
Posted by: The Lazy Aussie | Sunday, 26 October 2014 at 03:15 AM
Everybody decides how they are going to present themselves, from Salvador Dali to the nerdy kid next door. To conclude that difference of appearance is inversely related to the size of artistic talent is just silly in my opinion. To base it on students who are just setting out and experimenting with life and self expression is even sillier. In this case one immediately wonders, when artistic judgment is so subjective, which came first, the disapproval of the art or the disapproval of the student's appearance.
One also wonders about the irony of someone who copyrights a comment and is concerned about the pretentiousness in art students.
Posted by: Winsor | Sunday, 26 October 2014 at 12:26 PM
I think very good and valid observation. I have seen the same thing many times in office environment. 'Managers' who overdress in suits, ties, white long sleeve shirts when others wear short sleeves with top button open always seem to compensate for their lack of skills. They cannot get respect from their professional expertise so they try to look respectable instead. I am not talking about dressing up to meet a client or governemnt official but every day outfit in a semi-relaxed office environment.
Posted by: Ilkka | Monday, 27 October 2014 at 12:17 AM
TOP is not the place for this discussion, but it is the most intimate blog I know of that will at least skirt the discussion of artists and their mental illnesses.
John Camp -
When an artist "looks" like an artist, and has not been discovered, they probably end up in jail or are hidden/homeless their entire lives until they die. If you are lucky enough to encounter one of these people, give them $5 so that they can go to the liquor store and keep the voices down for another night.
Please do not lump all artists into one group. Sometimes artists only have control of their own appearances because of their psychosis; this is why they gauge their ears, wear funny (by general society standards) hats, refuse to shower, wear the same clothes for days on end, choose to wrap themselves in toilet paper or even duct tape themselves to hide their shame.
Most of the best artists I have ever known (but will never be discovered) talk to individuals that other people will never see, murder their closest friends and family, have legitimately attempted suicide multiple times or have just decided to never move or talk for the rest of their lives.
Psychosis is not a black and white issue. Levels exist, for sure. If a kiddo says that he wants to be an artist, dons a fedora and pierces his nipple and then takes two years to photograph absolute bullshit, who are we to judge his psychotic breakdown? He may dress the part, seem fake to every person who sees his portfolio; but in his mind, he is trying to show society what he sees through his brain.
I am not immune to the "holy shit- black turtleneck, ugly glasses, you arrived in a Tesla to an unknown photography exhibit" I hate you attitude. I understand your beef.
I just wish this attitude didn't exist amongst artists as much as it does amongst the white collar folk I talk to on a daily basis
I wish that most artists could look in the mirror and say, "but for the grace of a shifted DNA component amongst billions, I am able to think straight, make rent, and not have to talk to unseen folks while I paint/sculpt/draw/create/photograph for a living"
John Camp - I love your stuff. I wish you would know how lucky you are to be so creative, yet sane.
Posted by: Kosch | Monday, 27 October 2014 at 02:51 AM
I don't care what someone looks like - it's the work I'm interested in. My wife continually says I dress like a farmer, whatever that means. My nine to five takes place in an office, and believe it or not, I fit right in, farmer look not withstanding. Of course, I work with the poor, and not not some boss I have to impress.
Posted by: paul richardson | Monday, 27 October 2014 at 11:09 AM
I dress like an idiot therefore I must be a great photographer. I've finally found the wellspring of my talent. Thanks. The perfect excuse to never set foot in a shopping mall again.
Posted by: Dave | Monday, 27 October 2014 at 11:26 AM
I got a scholarship to study filmmaking in NYC in 1999, but it didn't pay for anything but tuition. It was cold in NYC, so I took my friend's offer of a bright yellow oversize Tommy Hilfiger knockoff jacket to add to my usual baggy cargo pants (can fit lenses in the pockets), and a cheap black rimless winter hat.
After gathering enough money for a plane ticket to NYC from Taipei, I found myself living on the floor of the sewing room of the only Chinese family in a Puerto Rican neighborhood in Brooklyn. And somehow, purely by chance, I was dressed exactly like every Puerto Rican dude there at the time.
Posted by: TC | Monday, 27 October 2014 at 11:42 PM