David R Munson
写真のオタク
As I see it, if your work does not say anything about you, does not reflect you in some way, then you are simply not putting enough of yourself into your work. If one truly puts effort into his work, is willing to work at raising the level of his photography to something higher, and is genuinely pursuing images as an expressive form, it is inevitable that the work reflect the creator in some manner.
Every decision that a photographer makes along the creative path that ends in the creation of an image acts as a partial mirror of the photographer himself. Whether it be a technical or aesthetic decision, every choice made is based on something subjective, and that subjectivity is based in the nature of the photographer. The fingerprint of the photographer and an image is inevitable, at least if the images are the result of a genuine effort.
Of course, it is entirely possible to create images which are totally generic in the sense that they do not bear the mark of the maker, but in my opinion such images are largely limited to two groups of photographers.The first group are those who simply do not have the base of experience in terms of creating images that would allow them to put more of themselves into their images. It's something that comes in time and through practice. The second group of photographers are those who choose simply to pursue photography in a very casual manner, opting to keep things relaxed and not worry about it. Which is completely fine. In fact, one of the great things about photography is that you can pursue it in about a million different ways, each one of them completely valid.
I digress. I believe quite firmly that, past a certain point, a photographer cannot help but insert himself into his images in some way. I don't mean that literally, but rather in the sense that nothing that he creates can be without the mark of who he is, his experience, and the decisions he made that led up to the making of that image.
As an example of this, here is something from my own work. This link points to a body of work that I created over the span of about five years, and which I am presently working on self-publishing under the title, "A Temporary Home." It was made in the context of multiple moves between several states, a rather difficult relationship, a highly-varied string of jobs, while climbing out of a total creative burnout, and (perhaps most importantly) during a long struggle with severe depression.
The photography itself isn't *about* any of those things, but they are all reflected in the work because they were parts of my life when I was making these images, and the images are fundamentally a reflection of me. Most of the images were made while out on long walks by myself, often while listening to music, and always while looking for something beautiful or at very least stimulating. Making photographs was often an exercise in trying to find something beautiful despite the overwhelming sense that my life had gone to hell. I made these photographs by going out and searching for something.
On any number of occasions, people have viewed these images and have read into them the basic nature of the circumstances out of which these images grew, with zero preexisting knowledge of those circumstances specifically. They were able to clearly read something about the person who created these images and the circumstances in which he created them. I found that absolutely fascinating. These are things like pictures of shadows or leaves on the ground, or patterns in the snow, interesting clouds, ordinary things in beautiful lights, etc. etc. etc. There is nothing about the subject matter itself that would necessarily be predisposed to being interpreted in the way that it was interpreted. However, that meaning managed to come through no problem.
When I look at the work of other photographers, I often find myself contemplating the person who made the images, as well as the circumstances in which the images were made. If we are open to the meaning that can be contained in images beyond the literal content of the image (subject, composition, etc.), the medium becomes a far more rich and fascinating art form.
Every decision that a photographer makes along the creative path that ends in the creation of an image acts as a partial mirror of the photographer himself. Whether it be a technical or aesthetic decision, every choice made is based on something subjective, and that subjectivity is based in the nature of the photographer. The fingerprint of the photographer and an image is inevitable, at least if the images are the result of a genuine effort.
Of course, it is entirely possible to create images which are totally generic in the sense that they do not bear the mark of the maker, but in my opinion such images are largely limited to two groups of photographers.The first group are those who simply do not have the base of experience in terms of creating images that would allow them to put more of themselves into their images. It's something that comes in time and through practice. The second group of photographers are those who choose simply to pursue photography in a very casual manner, opting to keep things relaxed and not worry about it. Which is completely fine. In fact, one of the great things about photography is that you can pursue it in about a million different ways, each one of them completely valid.
I digress. I believe quite firmly that, past a certain point, a photographer cannot help but insert himself into his images in some way. I don't mean that literally, but rather in the sense that nothing that he creates can be without the mark of who he is, his experience, and the decisions he made that led up to the making of that image.
As an example of this, here is something from my own work. This link points to a body of work that I created over the span of about five years, and which I am presently working on self-publishing under the title, "A Temporary Home." It was made in the context of multiple moves between several states, a rather difficult relationship, a highly-varied string of jobs, while climbing out of a total creative burnout, and (perhaps most importantly) during a long struggle with severe depression.
The photography itself isn't *about* any of those things, but they are all reflected in the work because they were parts of my life when I was making these images, and the images are fundamentally a reflection of me. Most of the images were made while out on long walks by myself, often while listening to music, and always while looking for something beautiful or at very least stimulating. Making photographs was often an exercise in trying to find something beautiful despite the overwhelming sense that my life had gone to hell. I made these photographs by going out and searching for something.
On any number of occasions, people have viewed these images and have read into them the basic nature of the circumstances out of which these images grew, with zero preexisting knowledge of those circumstances specifically. They were able to clearly read something about the person who created these images and the circumstances in which he created them. I found that absolutely fascinating. These are things like pictures of shadows or leaves on the ground, or patterns in the snow, interesting clouds, ordinary things in beautiful lights, etc. etc. etc. There is nothing about the subject matter itself that would necessarily be predisposed to being interpreted in the way that it was interpreted. However, that meaning managed to come through no problem.
When I look at the work of other photographers, I often find myself contemplating the person who made the images, as well as the circumstances in which the images were made. If we are open to the meaning that can be contained in images beyond the literal content of the image (subject, composition, etc.), the medium becomes a far more rich and fascinating art form.
