ah yes the two of you being the first to attack, claiming my being a racist and now you are both above it all, how hypocritical.....yawn.
ah yes the two of you being the first to attack, claiming my being a racist and now you are both above it all, how hypocritical.....yawn.
Wow.
I wanted to ask a similar question, with respect to Black fine art photographers...amazing how this has caused such a row (3 years ag0!), and apparently hasn't been resurrected as a topic since. Interesting.
There are folks more influenced by their heritage and gender than others. I would submit that each of us is on our own individual journey. If one's ethnicincty or gender plays a significant role in one's work as an artist then that is a fair criterium in the criticism of their work. If it is not, then it isn't. If I were to say "I really like the way that Japanese photographers work with color" then am I racist? I tend to think not. I think that I just like the way that Japanese photographers, as a generalization, work with color. Not that I'm dissing Japanese blank and white work. Heaven fucking forbid. ;=) But if I were to ask "who are the Japanese photographers who's color work blows you away, would this same dialog ensue? I don't pretend to have the answers, but I'm pretty sure that dismissing the question doesn't lead to a solution.
Agreed.
My curiousity, however, is piqued by the fact that I rarely see anyone who looks like me making fine art with film. Actually, I have yet to meet another Black person interested in photography purely as an art form. After a while, one begins to wonder if he is the only one.I supposed it has to do with a lack of interest among American Blacks in photography as an art form. The question that begs attenion, of course, is why?
And yes, I do have a problem with my ethnicity being tied to the work I do. I might not be so averse to this, had I been born in a less racially volatile and sensitive environment (i.e. soemwhere outside of the U.S.).
Percy - I'm not completely clear on what you mean by "purely as an art form". But, among the photographic Web acquaintenances whom I consider "friends", three happen to be African American. One is located in the SF Bay area, one in Ohio, and one in the deep South. The fellow in Ohio shoots fashion, mostly as a hobby, and the fellow in the deep South ran a commercial studio, while the SF Bay area fellow shoots mostly rangefinders with general topics. I'd consider all three as "art" photographers, and photographers who just happen to be Black. I see no particular influence of their ethnicity in their work - not that any such influence would be "bad". But, I have no clue as to why African Americans seem to be under-represented within the photographic populace. I've often lamented the same situation among models around the SF Bay area. Sociologists (assuming they were really neutral) might provide better answers to that question.
My personal feelings on the larger issue closely parallel Jim's comment above. We all tend to have our individual motivations toward photography, and sometimes those motivations create a "focus" to our work. If part of that motivation is based on heritage, then it becomes a factor in how the work is viewed - that is, whether the work succeeds at its intended purpose. But, I also feel there is a risk in considering the work of individual photographers outside their historical context. The time in which Gordon Parks grew up, for example, is considerably different than the atmosphere that exists now. (His book, "Choice of Weapons", provides an interesting insight into his development as a photographer, I think.)
It's unfortunate, I think, that we have so much trouble discussing race in the U.S., even when the nature of the work makes it a legitimate issue. Perhaps that's because so many people still have racial "hot buttons", and don't take the time to understand where the other person is coming from. It takes some time verbally "dancing" with another person to figure out what not to say, so as to avoid offending them.
Thank you, Ralph, for confirming my high opinion of the intellectual acuity that prevails in this forum.
By the way, interesting points.
Percy, While we're here (and as far as I can tell, amongst ourselves ((hey Ralph)) ) I would be interested in knowing whether you feel significantly influenced by your ethnicity. I'm just trying to crawl into as many artistic insights as possible.
Actually, I have yet to meet another Black person interested in photography purely as an art form.
Gordon Parks. Earlie Hudnall, Junior . Lou Jones.
Those are three I've met. Actually I'm not sure I've ever met anyone of any skin color who was interested in photography purely as an art form --but I guess I just don't know people who inherited enough money to do that.
Ellis: interesting observation.
Jim: Interesting question...
my ethnicity infuences my work insofar as my work is influenced by who I am. We citizens of the U.S. are ethnically obsessive, to say the least. I once talked with a black photographer now living in Europe, who said something I thought was very profound. He said (I am paraphrasing a bit) that as Black men in the U.S., we are profiled all of the time, even by other Black people. I think that reasoning had a lot to do with his moving to the Netherlands. I am sure there is prejudice of one kind or another there--I have never visited--but his conversation indicated that he felt much more at ease; he was seen, according to his view, as just another man. If I accept is position as truth, then I am invariably influenced artistically by my ethnicity.
In terms of subject matter, I don't think I am influenced by being Black...unless you count my particular interest in drawing, painting, and photographing Black women. But I also have a deep appreciation for beauty I find in Native American women and men, especially those of advanced age. I would gladly spend the rest of my days in a Brazilian city, town or village making images of Brazilian women; I find their beauty unsurpassed by anything in nature. Given these interests, I do not think it is reasonable to attribute my appreciation for beauty, nor the drive to base derivative works on the same, as ethnically motivated.
Finally, I am one of those throw-backs who feel that art is simply "pretty stuff" that exists for the sake of being pretty. That is to say, I have no interest in investing my political and or social views into my art work. I am not sure if that is what you were meant.
So...I guess I'd have to say no, my work is not influenced by my ethnicity.
I hope this makes sense. If not, let us continue our discussion.
Ellis, I seem to remember Tom Meyer saying that Atlanta has a black photographer's group, Zone III or something?
I hate it when people assume things about me because of my name, my clothes or my accent. I don't know how I would react to the persistent unthinking pidgeonholing that happens to dark-skinned friends of mine, but I'm sure it would piss me off. One friend I had as a doctoral student was very black and very tall. He was also very, very bright, and specialised in a hard sub-branch of theorectical physics. Within our group he was a physicist first and black second, but at conferences and meetings people would always want to talk about sports, not his work. He had to continually fight to be taken seriously as a scientist. Had I been him, I would find it very hard to keep that sort of experience out of my photography.
That said, I think it should be for individuals to decide for themselves how much their background and genetic inheritance should inform their work. There are Cindy Shermans and Francesca Woodmans who challenge and question how women are viewed and treated, and there are Anne Geddes types who conform wholly to society's expectations. I don't see why ethnicity can't admit a similar spectrum, and I don't see how it's my business to decide the issue for other people.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks