In the previous post, I mentioned that Tom Passin pointed me to a book review on a blog called Slate Star Codex. That blog is written by "Scott Alexander," which the writer describes as "almost but not quite my real name." I just thought it was interesting, in light of the complaints I get about not writing about photography exclusively enough, to hear how "Scott" describes his blog: "I really want to be one of those people with the neat one-subject blogs who can introduce themselves as 'the guy with the blog about X,' but the universe is way too interesting for that to remotely work."
Well, as you know, I'm the guy with the blog about photography...and it "remotely" works. :-)
But probably the reason why it works is that photography is never actually really about photography. Photography is almost always about something else.
As for what kinds of something elses, well, that's a very big tent. It can be about information, ideas, exploration, personal expression; objects, passions, the documenting of activities, style or mannerism, or decoration. And on and on.
This next notion probably puts me on thin ice, but I might even go so far as to say that the least successful photographers are just interested in photography. And what might that look like? Well, imagine someone who reduces photographs to common genres and then tries to "collect" examples of each genre. Such a hobbyist might have his night shots, his macro shots, his landscapes, his travel photos; his portraits, his boudoir pictures, his underwater shots, and so forth. (The amusing thing is, I can actually conceive of that being an interesting project if the photographer could walk the knife's edge between conformity and inventiveness without falling off.) Or imagine a photographer who did the same thing, but with technical categories and types of equipment as the organizing principle.
Doesn't really sound like it would work, does it? It isn't until the photographer's mind migrates to her real interests that she stands a chance of really being a photographer.
The medium is peculiar that way. You can really only be a photographer when your passion for taking pictures somehow transcends photography, and engages or meshes with other concerns, interests, and passions. Being "just" a photographer is a way to keep yourself from being a photographer, you might say.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Thomas Rink: "My favourite sujet are the 'edgelands' (i.e. unkempt places, disused for industrial or urban development) in the area where I live. I feel attracted by the untamed chaos and visual complexity of those places, and started my first project on such a place three years ago. It led to a body of work which I like a lot, and I am currently working on subsequent projects. Now back on topic: This brought up a couple of questions, namely 'How to present this to the viewer?' or, more generally, 'Why would anybody want to look at this?' and, finally, 'What caused me to take these pictures in the first place?' These might be startling questions—you know, someone who takes pictures of Yosemite takes it for granted that everybody finds this beautiful—but a disused coal mining area?? I started to dig into definitions of the Beautiful, into the theory of aesthetics and the arts, looked for analogies in music and poetry—and I find all this highly interesting.
"Now, I don't know if I'm a 'photographer' at all, or if my work is any good—but the journey is exciting for sure."
Jim R: "'Tis true. Photography is one of my great hobbies/passions, but recently I've been a mere gearswapper and snapshooter, not at all a photographer. I've also been a caregiver, so all of my hobbies are paused for a greater cause. My spouse's health is improving, so I'm settling down on gear and anticipating more free resources (time and a bit of cash). Soon I plan to relax, look around, learn the full abilities of the K-3II, and add my own abilities to create images worthy of the passion that comes from what I see."
Mike replies: Sounds exciting!
Matt: "In even fewer words, I believe photography is about sensitivity, awareness, perception, aesthetics, impression (more so than expression, as you can't express what you don't perceive)...."
Hallelujah!
Posted by: Ed Hawco | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 12:30 PM
What a wonderful post.
The title could be also read as: Art isn't about art. Art is almost always aout something else.
Posted by: Pepe | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 12:47 PM
I have to say I am puzzled as to why you seem so concerned about how others see you in this regard, but at the same time I'm pleased you are the standard-bearer for this idea that photography isn't about photography. i.e., when you find your life photography will happily come along with you.
Posted by: Lorenzo C. | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 01:01 PM
I totally agree Mike. Even if you didn't mention cameras at all, I'd still read your blog every day for the other stuff. I do like reading about cameras and photographers though and you do seem to know quite a bit about both, so.....
Posted by: Jim Meeks | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 01:25 PM
Meditations on Moloch by Scott Alexander is the best critique of current western civilization that i have read on Internet.
Posted by: Crnigjuro | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 01:27 PM
Epiphany time!
My problem exactly.
Posted by: Peter Ziegler | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 01:39 PM
I would distinguish between the use or purpose of photography, about which you are correct, and the technique ('art'?) of photography which is about photography.
Posted by: Richard Newmsn | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 01:56 PM
Too many photoBlogs are dedicated to my Nikon is BIGGER than your Canon.
Many blogs also like to talk about [b]mastering]/b]. If you've mastered walking and chewing gum photography should be a no-brainer.
Then there are the gear blogs. Some of the worlds worst photos have been shot with pro Canon and pro Nikon cameras. Ansel Adams said something about "sharp photos of fuzzy ideas," but no-one seems to be listening. #cameradoesntmatter
The nice thing about TOP, is that Mr Johnston is not a paint-by-the-numbers writer.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 02:39 PM
I guess I could not be successful commercially as a photographer. Apart from girls maybe, no subject interests me enough. I like the lines and tones (and the cameras), not the landscape or subject.
In high school I was an interne for some days for an ad photographer. He had no claims his work was exciting, and it really wasn't, photographing cans of soup and such. He let me go home earlier and earlier each day.
The problem is there is virtually no way of combining the Art of it with any work enough people will pay for.
Posted by: Eolake | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 03:05 PM
“If you want to make more interesting pictures, become a more interesting person.” – Jay Maisel
Posted by: Mark Bridgers | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 03:06 PM
same thing happens in movies -- by and large a movie about a movie tells me the filmmakers need to get out a little more
Posted by: Eric Peterson | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 03:16 PM
Long ago when I was in my early teens, I liked photography because it gave me something to master involving technology. As I came to understand how it complimented my interests in other aspects of life, my pictures got better. I now know my interests (and myself) much better – in no particular order: science, technology and machines, religion and worship in all it's forms, big city life, family, etc. I realize I have no interest in sport – didn't bother watching the olympics – and only a passing interest in nature and wildlife.
Having worked this out, which in hindsight seems blindingly obvious, but took a while, I can now make better equipment choices – no need for super long lenses, high frame rates or a lot of other stuff. In fact some very simple cameras can do what I need. I notice that many of my acquaintances are locked into the 'mastering the technology' phase, and I wish them luck.
Obviously the more deep interests you have the more 'subjects' will appear automatically in front of you, but to photograph anything and everything, saying that you'r interested in everything as some claim, is delusional.
Posted by: Peter Wright | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 04:10 PM
Good photographs usually come from the heart and not the mind and so are never about photography.
Posted by: Bob Johnston | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 04:26 PM
I think this is true for all arts. Photographs need to express something and referring to your example, just copying others' ideas doesn't lead to any meaningful personal expression. In contrast, weaving in the aesthetics and meaning of a subject into a photograph requires a certain idea of the subject along with an understanding of photography.
Posted by: Oskar Ojala | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 05:30 PM
This ties in well with the projects post you did Mike. Subjects that are interesting to me engender projects because I want to explore them in more depth. Single images have a limited story associated with them whereas for projects to be workable they need more passion involved, which is another way of saying you have to be interested in the subject not the photography.
Posted by: Kefyn Moss | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 09:19 PM
The only time I am reminded 'the talk' is about photography is when it is about cameras. Don't get me wrong, I have experienced the joy of cameras, but the [...] camera articles bore me to tears [...] (what is the big deal? a light tight box + a lens WILL work as a camera -- try using a shoe box + jelly jar -- that would be more interesting IMO). The whole is greater than the parts, etc.
Posted by: Darlene | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 09:31 PM
"The key is to not let the camera, which depicts nature in so much detail, reveal just what the eye picks up, but what the heart picks up as well."
- Paul Caponigro
Posted by: dennis | Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 11:32 PM
Dear Mike,
Here's a quote by Anders Petersen which I think fits pretty well.
You have to focus on what you're doing, not just as a photographer, but as a human being.
Posted by: Paul | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 01:58 AM
I've found the same thing to be true with language study, which is a lifelong pursuit of mine. At first you just try to wrap your mind and your tongue around a new language, but after a while you begin to wonder what you're going to do with it. Just as with photography, the rewards only really come once you start to use it to open doors and see what's inside.
Posted by: JK | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 02:07 AM
So all those beat photographers who worked for newspapers for all those decades taking everything from murder scenes to apple pie eating contests to the arrival of some new thing like a building or large ship to fireworks to portraits of happy and sad people, etc etc.. what were they doing all that time?
[I'm missing your point. --Mike]
Posted by: Steve D | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 09:27 AM
I agree, photography is really about the subject you're photographing. In that sense, photography takes a second place, it becomes a medium.
I have only two photo interests really: landscapes/travel in particular mountaineering, and family/friends. Even though I've done several other assignments, I enjoy and excel in these two genres. Because they interest me.
Interest creates vision. I'm not at all interested in shooting strangers or sports or wildlife or whatever and that's why it's hard for me to delve into these subjects.
On another note, I could categorise alongside 'spheres' or 'moods'. For instance, I'm drawn towards gloomy/moody/cryptic photography, or towards warm/airy/bright. I can be drawn towards b&w where shapes/forms/shadows are the focus of the image. Or towards rich & colorful. In all of these, the subject takes a second place.
Posted by: Matt | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 09:36 AM
@Thomas Rink: "you know, someone who takes pictures of Yosemite takes it for granted that everybody finds this beautiful—but a disused coal mining area??"
How about this: http://www.carlweese.com/coal.html
Lots more not-so-pretty subject matter on my site, been fascinated by this sort of subject for 50+ years of shooting.
Posted by: Carl | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 11:52 AM
I'm a photographer because I take photos, but I do not have any "grand project" in mind. Even less am I trying to make a great artistic statement. I personally think that most great artistic statements are destined to fail anyway because other people will not understand them. The upshot is I would completely dispute the idea that I am not a photographer - I chronicle things I like when I encounter them, and I am not overly obsessed with gear either. I think this is what most photographers do. Professional photographers may not do this as many find taking personal photos no longer appeals as they prefer to rest from their day job.
Just because someone has a plan: "I take flowers", "I am a Landscape Photographer" (hold the capitals) does not make them necessarily a superior photographer than someone like me who takes shots of whatever takes their fancy.
Posted by: Chris | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 12:02 PM
"...I might even go so far as to say that the least successful photographers are just interested in photography."
For people who don't count on photography for their livelihood, being "successful" can take on all shapes and sizes. For me, as long as I'm having fun taking my travel, landscape, portrait, etc. photos, I'm very successful.
Posted by: Russ | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 12:44 PM
Thomas Rink: You write this intriguing comment about your work, but don't give a link to where we can see your photos? Don't tease like that.
Posted by: Ed G. | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 01:01 PM
Reminds me of thoughts from David Hurn - good company Mike
Mike
Posted by: Mike Shimwell | Friday, 26 August 2016 at 01:23 PM
I think my photography has improved since I stopped being interested in "photography".
I have a modest little blog that to my surprise gets a couple of thousand visitors a month ( http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/ ). It deals with mostly my hikes in the Italian Apennines and my visits to Italian Historic monuments.
I have realised that I am more interested in getting out into the depths of the countryside, walking along precarious narrow mountain paths as well as the Italian cultural heritage than I am in lens resolution and sensor size.
Photography coupled with my blog can also lead to a lot of eye opening. My latest blog is about walk I took on the site of a tremendous Second World War massacre in the Italian Apennines.
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2016/08/monte-sole-ghosts-in-mountains.html
A minimum of research for the text and a little joining of the dots starting from the release from prison of the Austrian SS Major responsible. It opened by eyes to what is going in the current Austrian Presidential elections where a party that I thought was was just populist right wing seems to have some nasty Neo Nazi sympathies as well. Things in Europe are not looking good.
So yes, my photography is at the service and is about my interests in the world around me.
Posted by: Nigel | Saturday, 27 August 2016 at 11:04 AM