the narrowness of
I just want to share a personal discovery inspired by two photography exhibits I saw last weekend in San Francisco. Both Annie Liebovitz (at the Legion of Honor Museum) and Lee Friedlander (at the S.F. Museum of Modern Art) had extensive, life-work retrospectives on display.
It was the disappointments that were most helpful (for me).
Liebovitz definately has a talent for capturing the essence of a person in a portrait. But as she herself said: photographing famous celebrities is easy - they already know how to express themselves to a camera - all the photographer must do is observe and shoot. Of course, she is relly good at observing people. Also, her technical skill with the camera is top-notch. But I found her non-portrait images (landscapes, photo-journal and such) to be very ordinary.
Friedlander's talent is seeing the unusual situations in common, daily life that will translate into an uncommon (and often humorous) two-dimensional image. His outdoor and street scene shots are spontaneous and clever. But his attempts at portraits and nudes are unsatisfying - like someone making pictures just because it is expected for a photographer to try those things.
It was helpful for me to realize that talent is a fickle, specific and uncontrollable thing. Neither of these famous artists is infallible with a camera. (Let's remember that the Beatles wrote some bad songs, too). But they both found their niche and explored it, bringing back the treasures that developed when talent and skill happened to intersect. Skill can be learned; I will keep learning. Talent either exists or doesn't exist; I will keep hoping to find mine (if it is there at all) - but no more trying to force "art" to happen on schedule. I hope each of us finds what he or she is looking for in photography, but meanwhile, just enjoy the search.
Post Edited (21:49h)
It was the disappointments that were most helpful (for me).
Liebovitz definately has a talent for capturing the essence of a person in a portrait. But as she herself said: photographing famous celebrities is easy - they already know how to express themselves to a camera - all the photographer must do is observe and shoot. Of course, she is relly good at observing people. Also, her technical skill with the camera is top-notch. But I found her non-portrait images (landscapes, photo-journal and such) to be very ordinary.
Friedlander's talent is seeing the unusual situations in common, daily life that will translate into an uncommon (and often humorous) two-dimensional image. His outdoor and street scene shots are spontaneous and clever. But his attempts at portraits and nudes are unsatisfying - like someone making pictures just because it is expected for a photographer to try those things.
It was helpful for me to realize that talent is a fickle, specific and uncontrollable thing. Neither of these famous artists is infallible with a camera. (Let's remember that the Beatles wrote some bad songs, too). But they both found their niche and explored it, bringing back the treasures that developed when talent and skill happened to intersect. Skill can be learned; I will keep learning. Talent either exists or doesn't exist; I will keep hoping to find mine (if it is there at all) - but no more trying to force "art" to happen on schedule. I hope each of us finds what he or she is looking for in photography, but meanwhile, just enjoy the search.
Post Edited (21:49h)
11.03.08, 02:09
Post 2 of 4
Post Edited (19:45)
Interesting topic Mark, I really wasn’t aware of Lee Friedlander's work so I went on Master of Photography and had a look around. I sometime wonder how the people we now consider masters would fare if they were to post some of there work here, how it would be received? Some of it looks quite ordinary. I recently watched a special on Anne Liebovitz and thought that many photographers that could have had access to Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones could have taken the same candid shots, but when you see her work for the cover of the Rolling Stones magazine not many people could have her creative vision to set up those shots. I guess you need to make your name on the extraordinary shots and what really interest you, of course being at the right place at the right time doesn’t hurt either.
Nice posting Mark. At some point in our development we will produce a lot of good works. But we will only know that they are good if we know what bad really is. It's a bit like life. We learn from our mistakes. Even Cartier-Bresson was not infallible!
So console yourself with the thought that you will produce more good work than bad, because you will learn from your errors very quickly.!
So console yourself with the thought that you will produce more good work than bad, because you will learn from your errors very quickly.!