'CAT BABY CAT' 2013.

Could this be the ultimate FACEBOOK picture?

A response to Harvey Benge's Question "Documentary Photography- is It DEAD?

Harvey Benge on Sunday posted the question Is Documentary Photography DEAD? It's a question I've heard before floating around the blogs and in magazines, not as much as I've heard the question Is film DEAD? but still a fair few times. Thing is this is a far more interesting and important question than the film V digi thing, so I thought I'd have a bit of a think about it.

Myself I've always had an odd relationship to the documentary tradition even though I consider myself as a documentary photographer. I was lucky enough to have studied on a great course back in the late 90's called DOCUMENTARY & FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY, I loved it. It was a small course run at Stockport college for LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNI. Even then on that course we were steering clear of Salgado and giving Richard Billingham big love.  Tim Page was out, Simon Norfolk's more considered and reflective approach to documenting war was in.

 I've used a picture of Ray's a laugh as my example instead of The Ballard of Sexual Dependency as Harvey did. I can at least relate to working class life even if it is so dysfunctional. New York gay clubbing scene may as well be Mars. Richard became a saint on my course and early photographic education. He was authentic. He shot colour badly with crap throw away camera's the camera phones of their day. The photographs he made had a truthfulness that I think has been central to their appeal. They were originally made as records and sketches for paintings. They were not made to sell as a story or book, that came later. The blurriness harsh flash, and sometimes off kilter framing comes from limitations of equipment and technical ability of the photographer not for reasons of current stylistic fashion or saleability. We believed in "Ray's a laugh" as a truthful document and Billingham as a reliable author in part because of his originality and ability as an artist to make sense and order out of this set of chaotic images.

As Harvey says Nan Golding has recently stated regarding The Ballad of Sexual Dependency. "I am terrified that everything I believe about photography, about this work, is over because of the computer and easy manipulation of images it facilitates. This work was always about reality, the hard truth, and there was never any artifice. I have always believed that my photographs capture a moment that is real, without setting anything up...

Now, it is so distressing: no one any longer believes that a photograph is real. Almost every time I give a talk or teach, I ask this question about truth and photography. If all but four or five in an audience of two hundred artistic people don’t believe that photographs are true, then what does that say about the rest of the world? So this eliminates the larger reason for having done this book — not for me, but if nobody believes it as having happened …what is the point? The belief that a photograph can be True has become obsolete."

I think Nan's worrying unduly and doing the viewing public a dis-service. Viewers ain't thick. We are all increasingly image savvy, fuck knows we see enough of them. We believe a set of photographs from the 80's  like "The Ballard of Sexual Dependency" or a set from the early 90's "Ray's a laugh" because they look like authentic and truthful photographs from the period should look, and that's not looking like imitations of things that had gone before. Nan Golding didn't set out to replicate Diane Arbus and Richard Billingham didn't set out to replicate the look of Paul Graham or Martin Parr.
We don't believe photographs anymore not because of computers or manipulation but because of photographers conservatism and desire for commercial and perceived artistic success.

So to answer the original question is Documentary photography DEAD? my answer would be no. Much current work using traditional documentary styles that constantly rehash and repackage should die, in fact it should be taken outside and shot.
 As long as artists use photographs to document the world using original and authentic means and continue to push the definition of what a document can mean and start new and as yet unimagined documentary traditions of their own  we will continue to use forms of photographs to try and make sense and record.

Now that's the most I've wrote here in a long time I'm going to lie down......

Digital or Film?

"Are current trends of non-payment and free labour perpetuating a new ideal where artists are becoming distinctly bourgeois? Guyan Porter questions purportedly leftist and radical practice that promotes art as being apart from common economics and, consequently, from payment."

Via AXIS HERE.

Question.......

DASH SNOW real deal or bag a of shite? It's been just over a year now since his death. Do you believe the hype?

And now I post a photo of her and I blog about it and add a link?

I'm sorry sweetness.

At What Point Does Journalism Become Propaganda/ Ego & When Do We Stop Listening?

The side has already been decided. Investigation is replaced by atmosphere & aesthetics (& cheesey tunes). The rights and wrongs are a given. The debate becomes secondary to production values. Lets be careful folks....Thin, thin thin HERE.

Is The Photographers Gallery, London Shite?

I know that sounds like something I'd ask here, but this time it's not me but a respected MAGNUM photographer, Chris Steele-Perkins. This is what he has to say on the matter.

"I am delighted my comments, made in passing, have evoked a lively response. I stand by my remarks of course, but for the sake of clarity I outline my position in a bit more detail.
I was around when the Photographers’ Gallery was started by Sue Davies, and it was exciting and showed, mainly, great shows and inspired people. It had a buzz!
A lot has changed. When I talk to people, from photographers to others in the arts I never, really, never find one who has a good thing to say about the Photographers. Gallery. The response is from a disdainful shrug – that’s what we are stuck with, to an explosion of anger that the promise and hope that Sue Davies brought to the place has been so profoundly betrayed.
I care about photography, in its richness and complexity and I am angry at the way the possibility of the Photographers’ Gallery has been strangled over the years leaving a limp corpse requiring vast funding from the public purse to maintain its mediocrity.
I am angry that there are many more exciting, relevant galleries that are starved of funding because the money goes into maintaining this vegetative-state-gallery. Places like Side, Host, Open-Eye to name but a few.
I am angry that Photographers’ Gallery has become a misnomer. It is not about photography or photographers, it is about a narrow thread of photographic curation that is frequently dull, and/or poorly conceived. I also admit they do have a few good shows, but far too few, and across far too narrow a spectrum of the medium
On the web-site it states “we are the place to see photography in all its forms.” This is a grotesque claim and so patently untrue. Why lie? If it indeed was fulfilling that claim, with the caveat – at its best – then it could claim the name Photographers’ Gallery, and it would not be betraying the initial ambitions of the project.
I am angry it makes no attempt to support or promote British photography
Someday I will write more about this, but I am sorry that the quality and relevance of the PG is not publicly debated in forums like the BJP and RPS Journal, and the Guardian Arts Page and the national media. This is a publicly funded institution (40%) and should be a beacon, but is an irrelevance; an expensive one.
People seem to be scared to speak out, I am not sure why. One thing is for sure, more money is going into it, and it will get bigger, and a larger corpse does not stop rotting.
I leave you with this from their web-site “the Gallery has developed a reputation as the UK’s primary venue for contemporary photography.” So sad, so untrue."

This debate has been going on over on duckrabbit. For what it's worth my view is that The Photographers Gallery is probably no better or worse than most Arts institutes in this land. A lack of imagination, too many self serving individuals connected to said places, too many conditions applied by the funding bodies, community this, and community that, galleries these days are spending more time doing social work and functioning as community centres/creches and not enough exploring new ideas/artists. The same safe bet photographers who the establishment have deemed worthy doing the circuit of galleries. What's the answer? Fuck knows........ there probably isn't one.

Lets Get Ready To Rumble........

Is it me or has British politics taken a funny turn?

As The Graffiti From My Childhood Asked,

Who killed Blair Peach?

Stuffed.

Ever wondered where all them photographers of stuffed animals get their props from? I think I have the answer. HERE.

Kennardphillipps

I do like the collaboration of KENNARDPHILLIPPS . Although the Irony of them charging £3600 for a light box of one of their works is not lost on me.

Fair Cop?

"A photographer who snapped Banksy-style images has been given an ASBO after he was deemed a nuisance.
But an impressive selection of art lovers – including a curator from the Tate Gallery in London and the authors of a heavyweight New York art book" CONTINUED HERE

I'm not sure about this one. My first reaction was fucking fascists! but having read the entire article now I'm thinking fair cop. I'm also thinking he's a daft c##t for getting caught. Of course I would say that in certain circumstances it would be a photographers morale responsibility and duty to break the laws of this or any other country if genuine issues of public interest, corruption etc were at stake. But documenting tagging in Reading? Now I like a bit of Banksy, as much as the next man but this sort of graffiti is no better than a dog pissing up a wall and I'm not sure we should worry if some photographer wants to risk 'getting his collar felt' just to snap his mates doing it......

Cheers to Brenda for the link.

Question?

I like this shot. I like the patterns, the colour the shapes, but as a piece of Art does it show me anything more than the original idea that was on the sketch pad of the architect/designer? Unlike a lot of other Aeriel shots it seems to show me nothing more than what the original creator intended, so as anything more than an illustration of park design what's it's point? Discuss.......

P.S I have not credited the photographer who took this as knowing how google works I do not want this post to link to his name as it could be construed as a negative comment on his/her work and I don't want to do that, even though I am mearly using this shot to raise what I think is a valid quetion. Should you want to know more about the work you can find details here.

Banksy Wanksy?

Is Banksy now just a "Tosspot" pandering to the middle classes? One group seem to think so. Here:

Photographing Tattoo's

Image Carl De Keyzer/Magnum

So the last post has got me asking myself (and you) has any one photographer ever made a substantial body of work about tattoos? There's these over at Magnum. Or shite like this but is there one piece of work of significance out there. I don't know of one. Let me know if you can think of any and I'll post it here.

Should Magnum Do Fashion Photography?

Is a question being asked by Alec Soth www.alecsoth.com over on the Magnum blog.

By Alec Soth

"Lise Sarfati just released the latest edition of Magnum's Fashion Magazine. All of these pictures were made in Austin, an area Lise previously mined in her book The New Life. She also chose to photograph many of the same people; none of whom are professional models." ... http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2008/10/should_magnum_do_fashion.html

Could This Be The Reason?

I once heard a joke that went like this. " 1st Person says to 2nd person could I take your picture? 2nd person says of course you can, but why? 1st person says so that I can put it on the mantle piece to keep the kids away from the fire........" could this be the reason for this: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/specials/edinburgh/article4513065.ece

Yeah But who Took The Picture?

This has to be one of the most iconic images ever made of any Olympic moment. It is of course Tommy Smith & John Carlos Giving the Black Power Salute, at the 1968 Mexican Olympics. Peter Norman was the white Australian also on the podium and he wore a human rights badge, and also got moaned at, READ MORE:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/40675-iconic-olympic-moments-the-black-power-salute
But who took the photograph? I have tried to find out. Some crappy poster company seem to have copyright, (no doubt I'll get moaned at for posting it, or maybe that's just that dick Charles Arthur from The Guardian, don't worry it's a long story....) So the first person who gets in touch with me with the correct answer gets a prize. I'm not sure what yet but it will be a cool one. So leave me your answers at markedpage2005@yahoo.co.uk GOOD LUCK! remember with sport it's all about the winning....... no sorry, that's the wrong way round.........

Which Famous Photographer Are You?

Apparently, according to this link I'm Ansel Adams! A bit of fun found on Jonathan Gitelson's blog which can be found here: http://gitelson.blogspot.com/ And here's the quiz..............................http://www.youthink.com/quiz.cfm?action=go_detail&sub_action=take&obj_id=164.