TO FLICK OR NOT TO FLICK

After the furor over APE's choice of to use Flickr as his tool for his showcase, I came up against some of the same Flickr discrimination myself last week. After meeting a very nice photographer at the Blindspot auction, I emailed him some images based on a conversation we had on regards to alternative process. I sent him a number of images of mine using Flickr. Private, only he could see them, but he emailed me back and from the tenor of his comment was shocked and quite perturbed, that I would take the time to shoot 8x10 but then put them on Fkickr. We joked back and forth about it, but the underlying feeling was that this tool was so beneath me, I should be ashamed to be seen in its company. I was a little dismayed at this but it made me read over the Jackanory's comments about the resentment in some quarters to Rob using this program. What are people thinking? Its reminds me of the hue and cry on Photoshop's arrival."No way, I shoot everything in camera" Wonder if those guys are still saying that today. ITS A TOOL PEOPLE. Use it accordingly. Use your noggins. Nobody has to know you have stuff up on it. There are plenty of times when I need to put something together fast, other than my website for a potential client. You have another tool to show them work, that may tip the scales in your favor, great, thanks. Personally I think clients couldn't care less, they have a lot more shit to think about than Flickr. Use it for what it is and move on. Lets get pass this to more pressing and interesting subjects, like ......Polidori in Versailles. Now where's Soth when you need him?

THE SWIMMING VISIONARY?

Nice piece in PDN this month about Gregory Crewdson. Go here for an equally compelling Q&A on NPR . Very candid in his answers about his process. This guy is another one, who like Gursky, elicits a lot of chatter. Of course I feel camaraderie for the paysan because of his affinity for 8x10, but I have had some people ask me " how is he a photographer anymore". I suppose I could have told them to go listen to the NPR piece but then we wouldn't have any thing to write about. Anyway, I'm sure most people ask the above question in the true sense of the word, - see the image - shoot the scene - print the picture. Of course our business is ever changing and that model seems quite quaint in comparison to what in fact is the reality of most peoples photography today, no matter what their process is. Instead of is he a photographer?, maybe the question really is, what is a photographer today? With the advent of digital, Flickr etc just about everyone can be and seems to be a photographer. Martin Parr's story about Bruce Davidson losing out on a rather large job to a Flickrite, being an example. If you can point it, shoot it and you get some work then where does that place someone like Crewdson, in photographic terms. You really can't say he just takes a photograph. The production alone would make Walker Evans, one of his original inspirations, turn in his grave. Imagining the Mis-en-scene is so complex, putting a six figure photo shoot is immense, that work alone could kill ya. But.... in reality he doesn't light the scene himself, doesn't do any of the digital work himself, which seems like a monumental part of the job, doesn't proof his prints, doesn't print the finished product. These are all things we loved about being photographers right? I would have my minions do all that kind of drudgery also. So what exactly does he do? "Acctionn" Click.He has a crew of 70 people to run the whole schebang. I know that's pretty simplistic, in view of the huge production but... photographically? How much of the work do you have to do yourself to be still considered a photographer, in the old sense of the word. For all intense and purposes he is a director but he doesn't have to illicit the range of emotions all directors have to get from their actors. I think the cobbling together of the images and director of photography he uses, seem to be the sticking points for a lot of people also. So is there another newer, more modern name for Mr Crewdson and his ilk, image director, photo imager, image creator, or just Visionary. I know other photographers have left some of less glamorous photographic work behind them along time ago, advertising and Fine Art guys in particular but I wonder if Crewdson did much more of the process in camera, would that quell some of the questions?. He says he has never used strobe but considering he doesn't do it himself anyway, why not. I'm sure someone out there would be willing to take on the challenge of one of his lighting scenarios. Find some old Stacked Ascors, they will give you F32 in hurry. Before the advent of the new technology this was one of the great challenges posed to many an advertising photographer, "I want all that in the frame and I will pay you to do it". No Photoshop, figure it out. And how is that different from the galleries funding Crewdson's work so they can all make profit from the final image. Is that really a fine art or a pure money making venture for Crewdson and the galleries?, not unlike making a film for a studio. Certainly artistic with great vision but there is a bottom line, somebody will want a return on their money. Nothing wrong with any of this, we are all looking for funding in some way or other.
Now lets get this straight the finished product is terrific. What he creates in one image can sometimes be mesmerising but these are many of the questions being raised with the advent of digital and how one implements it in ones work. The other is whether Mr Crewdson could give a rats ass what he is called. And will that word photographer, as we once knew it, be obsolete sometime soon?