Between us duffers, I have to share some thoughts I've had on that
art-thingy this summer. It's going to be a bit long, but I hope it's
worth
your time.
Some of you may have noticed that the PESOs I posted this summer was
from
Northern Norway. I have spent all together five weeks on two trips up
there,
some of the time in company of people who actually make a living from
art. I
was lucky enough to corner two of them for a serious talk about the very
subject.
The first one was Ann Eringstam. Apart from being quite successful
with her
photographic art, she's also lecturing photography at the university in
Gothenburg. She had a lot to say about "photography as art". One
thing she
emphasised was that "real" art photographers stands apart from those who
exhibit their "best-of" photos in a nearby caf? or a local sales
gallery.
Not by the quality of their work, but in the purpose. She also said that
most artists worked in very confined projects, started out with an
idea and
then sought the photos to convey that idea. She has a website, btw:
http://www.anneringstam.com/Ann_Eringstam/Works.html
I had the conversation with Ann in a small town called Svolv?r in
Lofoten.
The Lofoten archipelago is like a magnet on both true and wannabe
artists,
and is crowded by tourists nearly all year. The number of galleries and
caf?s with exhibited "fine art" is downright huge. With Ann's words
still
echoing in my head it was quite a disappointment to look at them. It
reminded me of a signature line someone in this group used ages ago:
"[...]
nice picture. Now show me a thousand words."
The second artist was Norwegian photographer Rune Johansen. His
approach to
photography as art was less deliberate. "It's art if you think it
is," he
said. "But it has to tell the audience something. Preferrably something
about themselves, but it can be any sort of message really. As long
as there
is one."
Rune wasn't always a photographer. He was "a telecom bureaucrat for a
living, but lived for art photography", as he put it. When he took the
plunge, he was enrolled in a government funding arrangement for artists,
ensuring him a minimum income.
For the record, the subjects of his images are the things he finds
around
himself. In his neighbourhood, in local culture. He had a huge
success with
a book called "hiv mannskjiten" in Norwegian, and "All that glitters" in
English: http://turl.no/l7v ). He's portraying people and their
livelihoods
in Northern Norway. He's also been to Dakota and Montana to portray
Americans of Norwegian ancestry, but I don't think that book has been
translated.
My own thoughts after these meetings is that the common denominators for
"photography as art" seems to be these things:
Firstly that you have some message you wish to convey, using
photography as
a tool. Your success as an artist will ultimately depend on your
skill at
communicating that message.
Secondly that you cater to an audience that has the openmindedness to
take
in your message. Displaying your imagery in places that have to market
themselves as exhibiting "fine art" may miss the target audience.
Thirdly, that artists manage to finance their projects up front,
before the
images are even created. Sales are just bonus. This may be a unique
thing
for Scandinavia because of the way governments work up here, but
scholarships could work the same way in the rest of the world I guess.
And last but not least, that "art photographer" as a carreer is a narrow
niche and certainly not for us duffers.
Jostein :-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph McAllister"
<[email protected]>
According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art.
She's a bitch.
Truth is, it is easier for galleries to sell big mark-up sculptures and
paintings than photographs. Photos still elicit a thought "I can do
that!"
unless looking at a master's work. By masters, I mean those willing and
able to travel to where masterful photos can be taken. Frequently
off the
beaten path. They know their equipment so well, the final product can
hold even duffers like me in respect, if not awe.
