Skip to main content

Reflections on Well Street

You may have seen this: 


The story is partly outlined by clickbaiter Jonathan Jones in the Guardian here. The photographer is Joel Goodman, and more of his work can be seen here. He's a very talented photographer, although he's described getting the above shot as simply being "in the right place at the right time". What's really interesting though is not whether the shot took skill and talent - of course it did - but whether, having been taken, it merits the plaudits it has earned, and in particular whether it is comparable to a Renaissance painting or other pieces of Serious Art. Seems spurious and a waste of time? Hmm.

Some thoughts:

1. It has caused outrage - from moral condemnation of the scene and characters depicted (decline of England, destruction of the West, fall of civilisation blah blah blah), to condemnation of the photographer for supposedly celebrating rowdiness and inebriation. But didn't this picture cause outrage once?


What''s more, "further understanding of Caravaggio's empirical understanding of the signs of grief is found in the candid imagery of modern photojournalism." ('Caravaggio: The Art of Realism' by John Varriano). 

2. No one cares how hard you worked. R. Mutt put an end to that didn't he, an end to the idea that you had to be a master craftsman in order to have something important to say? I happen, in fact, to think the opposite, that art does take work, a lot of work, and that the photo is but another illustration. But the Art World thinks otherwise and Jonathan Jones is nothing if not part of that world - Art doesn't have to be hard work, allegedly. So, logically, to be of art historical value, the ease of use of a camera has nothing to do with artistic merit, nothing to do with the categorisation of a photograph as important or beautiful or meaningful.

3. The photo is simply the result of "spray and pray" and therefore devalued? No. The photographer has been out on the streets before, many times. He knows his equipment, he knows his cultural context, is brave and willing to put himself in positions of relative danger in order to get the shot. Plus he's prepared to show his work, have his work appraised by the public - hey, he even earns his living at it, a difficult feat today. Yes, photographers can, and do, edit heavily and have many more misses than hits - but all artists have misses, they burn and destroy work that they think doesn't make the grade. Ain't nuthin' new. Photographers have a different editing process is all - a composer edits as they go along, scratching out, overwriting, changing; photographers do the same thing with the delete button.

4. In the end, isn't it the picture that counts? Its merits don't reside in how long it took to get the shot, how clever the artist is, when in their career they made it, in some ways even who made it - what counts is the content. A perfect copy of a Klimt is a thing of beauty to behold, even on a screen (though admittedly it is way better in the flesh). To the collector and the art snob, provenance is King. To anyone else, does it really matter? You respond to the picture no matter what. If the photo at the top of the page had been taken by Ansel Adams, would it be any better?

5. Do you like it? Do you find it interesting? Does it make you feel something?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My trouble is

when I'm confronted with a request for headshots, say, I can't just stop there I have to start experimenting. I mean, you wouldn't put this on Spotlight or the IMDb now would you? Ah well, I wouldn't do it if I couldn't, if you see what I mean. Above is the ever-beautiful Claire-Monique Martin taken on Friday. Other photographs were procured.

The Opening of Quango's Exhibition at Cuts, Soho

Panasonic GX7 vs. the Fuji X100 - some unscientific observations.

All the above taken in Shrewsbury today with the Panasonic GX7 and 20mm f1.7 (version 2 of the lens). They were taken in RAW and converted via Photoshop; minimal pp applied. The 1:1 in-camera ratio was used and a couple of them have been cropped a tad afterwards. No colour correction applied in Photoshop.
So, I've had the camera a couple of weeks and what do I think? Well, first off, the rationale for buying this was to have a small, carry everywhere camera that replaced my X100 from Fuji. Why a replacement? Because try as I might, I couldn't overlook the focus problems of the Fuji. Yes, it has updated firmware and yes, I know all about the need for a high-contrast area on which to focus etc, but it was still just too darn frustrating to use and there even remained situations, mostly in low light, when it simply couldn't focus; in such situations you might think that manual focus would be the way to go but anyone who owns an X100 will soon put you right on that. In additi…