Does your photography reflect your passions or the world you live in or both?

Last Friday, I set up my photography exhibition as part of the NEOS 2011 exhibition alongside fellow photographers from Deeside Camera Club. There was a real eclectic mix of styles and range of subjects - a healthy, interesting selection.
I've heard it say that the pictures you take of subjects that interest you are nearly always better than trying to make interesting pictures. Abandoned communities in the area where I live interests me. These images are becoming my most viewed, most talked about and most lucrative aspect of my work.

Exhibiting alongside some of your peers can also let you see how your images come across to the viewer. I was emotionally taken by the work of Lucy Telford who uses old cameras, 'toy' cameras, homemade cameras or no camera at all. I loved them. It got me thinking. What do my and my fellow photographer's pictures say about the world today? Should they say anything about the world we live in? What if your interest say nothing about the world you live in? Does it matter?
Today is the 10th anniversary of 9/11. There is much reflection and consideration of the actions taken since then. Have photographers represented, recorded, reacted and reflected the last 10 years?

To help me answer that question, I listened to Jeff Curto's class on 'The Atomic Age and New Frontiers' which looked at the work of photographers and artists who worked in the changing world after the dropping of the atomic bomb and the post war world. This was a world of abstract expressionism, be-bop jazz, anti-communism, rock 'n' roll, beat generation poets, civil rights, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War and growing mass media.
Having looked at some of the photographers in Jeff's talk, I personally think the images reflect the photographer's passions and interests that have been used, if that's the correct word, to reflect the times by others. Some photographers have documented their world, some have picked up on the mood of the times and others have used the technology and media of the time. It all adds up to a great and exciting body of work.

Take a look at this selection and ask - 'do they reflect those post WW2 changing times?'

Aaron Siskind:

Frederick Sommer:

Bill Brandt:

Wallace Berman:

Richard Hamilton:

Robert Frank:

Gary Winogrand:

Bruce Davidson:

Danny Lyon:

William Klein:

Roy DeCarava:

Duane Michals:

Ralph Eugene Meatyard:

Jerry Uelsmann:

The female POV

My experience of female photographers on the internet on sites like Flickr, is that they can be the most inspiring, creative and exciting exponents of the craft of photography seen today, but they can also be the most predictable, boring and self indulgent of all photographers. Self portrait after self portrait, flower after flower, shoes after shoes, pet after pet, baby after baby.  That said, it was seeing the work of a female photographer (Diane Arbus) that slapped me across the face and woke me up to the power of photography again.

To get to the point of this post - can (and should) forms of expression be discussed in 'men's' or 'women's' art? Does gender affect output? (Not many female landscape photographers is there?) Does gender of the photographer affect the viewer's response to the image?

Well, having listened to Jeff Curto's Class # 11, Spring 2011 podcast, the answer seems to be, no. Time and place determine style, not gender. The so called golden era of photography (1880-1920s) coincided of course with social, cultural and political change, especially for women. Historically, photography has been a male dominated field, due partly to the technical and scientific nature of the art form, but also due to the fact that men were involved in photography as a commercial, money making venture. Women's place remained in the home, as wife and mother, until quite recent times. Women were often stuck at home and not until there was a series of technological advances which could 'release' them from the home, could they grab the new Kodak and shoot the flowers, pets, babies and friends that surrounded their world, i.e not too far from the hearth. Working class women of course remained in a life of poverty and toil, in the factory or working in the 'big house'. Interestingly, many started late in life to help deal with 'empty nest syndrome'. Women moved from the hearth to groups like the photo secessionists, FSA and f64. They were soon making social and political comment and embracing all technical aspects of their craft.

As their world changed and more opportunities opened up for women photographers, they have produced some of the most creative, original and powerful pieces of work. They have moved far from the hearth and are often at the forefront of photography. A great excuse to show some examples of the development of women photographers (mostly American):

Julia Margaret Cameron:

Lady Clementina Hawarden:

Frances Benjamin Johnston

Gertrude Kasebier

Anne Brigman

Chansonetta Stanley Emmons

Imogen Cunningham

Dorothea Lange

Marion Post-Wolcott

Margaret Bourke-White

Barbara Morgan

Diane Arbus

Marie Cosindas

Olivia Parker

Joyce Tenneson

Sally Mann

Annie Leibovitz

Connie Imboden

Cindy Sherman

Mary Ellen Mark

Susan kae Grant

Thanks again to Jeff Curto's History of Photography.

Alfred Stieglitz and the Photo Secessionists

There can't be many photographers who haven't heard of Alfred Stieglitz nor be unfamiliar with his classic Steerage:

What I wanted to learn more about was the curiously named group of photographers called the Photo Secessionists. I listened to Jeff Curto's History of Photography Class 9 Spring 2011 to find out more.

In its early life, photography wasn't sure what it was to do with itself. Was it art or commerce? It tried to be art by mimicking styles, look, subject and composition of painters.
Pictorialism was the name given to an attempt to make photography an art and be taken seriously. The subject matter came second to the finished product. Manipulation was common to try to achieve the look of a painting and to produce something that didn't actually exist. Fictional stories were reproduced in images and multiple negatives were used to create fantasies, or recreations from mythology or the Bible.

Peter Henry Emerson, an iconoclastic photographer in a way, wanted honest depictions of real people and spoke out against 'art' photography. He even used processes and slightly out of focus techniques to simulate what he considered a more realistic view a normal person's vision. His beautiful images from the Norfolk Broads in England:

 Emerson eventually convinced himself in the 1890s that photography was not art but just a copying device.

If I have understood the thinking behind the Photo Secessionists correctly, Alfred Stieglitz wanted to combine the realism Emerson spoke about but produce pictures that were not only realistic, of the moment and often technically superb, but had a deeper meaning and were also beautiful prints. What was in front of the camera was less important. What was important was to break away from the narrow rules and customs of the day.
He was also one of the first to just print part of the negative and he often used small cameras, relatively speaking of course. He also managed to produce stunning night time shots when taking the basic technology at his disposal into consideration:

Some more examples of his work:

Not only was Stieglitz an influential photographer, he was also a promoter of American photographers. He set up a yearly salon and the group, Photo Secessionists. The idea behind the secessionists was to break away from photography of the past and make photography its own thing, to change thinking about what constituted a photograph. He wanted to advance photography to a higher artistic form and make an active protest against the old thoughts on photography and, perhaps more controversially, the dictatorship of the entrenched institutions, galleries, art schools and professional art organizations that enforced or at very least sanctioned copying or imitation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-Secession)

 Some examples of work by Photo secessionists:
Gertrude Kasebier:

Edward Steichen:

Clarence White:

Alvin L Coburn:

Anne Brigman;

Robert Demachay:

So there you have it, a short introduction to the Photo Secession movement which I hope may stimulate you to find out more.

Thanks again to Jeff Curto's History of Photography.