When you think of your favorite painters, what do they paint? Beautiful women? Photo-realistic landscapes? Cute babies dressed up in costumes? Sunsets? Do they strictly use say water color or oil? If they are still alive, do they sell their work in calendar form? Posters that you can purchase at Target? Would you consider them normal and well adjusted?
I am guessing that if you are an intelligent person with decent taste in art, then you answered no to most of these questions(the yes or no questions). Why is that? It is because when you think of painters you actually are thinking of artists. You don't do that with photographers, though. You don't pay enough attention to artists who use photography as their medium. You also tend to confuse photographers who make art and photographers who take photographs. Now, that delves into the realm of "my fucking opinion", but this is MY blog.
Ansel Adams, I am sorry, is not an artist. If he is your favorite photographer and you are a photographer then let me hurt your tender bits, you are not an artist. Landscapes are for postcards, calendars and your Grandma's living room (the one you are not allowed to sit in). Of course, there are plenty of exceptions but most, as in 99%, landscapes are not art. To clarify further, for this essay when I refer to "art" I am referring to "fine art" for why call something art if you are not speaking of fine art. I hate the term fine art. To me it "is" or "is not" art. Art is saying something deeper. It uses the same devices one would use in literature. It has an emotional impact. Art builds tension. Art does not have to be pretty. Much like a poem does not have to rhyme. Art also tells you something about the man/woman who made it. It should tell a lot. Commercial work can be art, or rather one can use art commercially. The opposite would be that just because it is hanging in a gallery does not mean it is art. Street work should be art, and documentary work should be too, but photojournalism is not. That is why I never refer to myself as a photojournalist, because what I do is deeper than what some dude pumping out weak compositions for a daily paper is doing. Oh, and yes, there are exceptions, but pick up a paper, any paper, and you will see the same mundane, photo 101, rule of thirds, "photojournalistic", style of shooting over and over. It really is odd that so many photographers have the same exact look. Same goes for commercial photographers, wedding photographers, on on onononononononononon. Unless you are really an artist then chances are you have pigeon-holed yourself into some lovely genre of photography and you have adopted the "look" of whatever unoriginal bunch of craftsmen you bump heals with. Hey, that's fine. That is what most clients expect. If your website states that you shoot weddings and a client asks, "what style do you shoot weddings?", and you reply "photojournalistic" then you better give her that "look" because everyone else does. You will be more successful this way, and chances are you are A-okay with that. In fact, you probably have no fucking idea why I view this as a negative. You say, "but Danny, your job is to please the client, right?", Wrong! That is your job because you are a photographer who takes photographs. I am an artist. I am a photographer who makes photographs. I don't take. I make.
Now, will I do the mundane work of the "take" photographer? Of course, I will. I want to, and I need to in order to survive. Is it my goal to be a badass millionaire wedding guy? Fuck no. I must add also that I don't shoot weddings and any other work that is not my own differently than I shoot my work. I am giving the people who hire me my way of viewing their particular event or whatever. I don't pull punches, but I do aim to please in the same way I do with my work. I want the work to be great, to fulfill its purpose, but to also stand out as an original piece of work. When people hire me(a rare happening), they know what they are getting, and most likely they are hiring me because they want MY work. That is fucking awesome, and you don't get that when you are a businessman, money machine, pick your style and package, cookie cutter TAKER.
Well, what was the point of all that? Do I think I am better than the Takers? No, but I am sick of being confused as one, and I am sick of those photographers trying to compare themselves to me, sympathize with me, or throw themselves into the same hiearchy as me. The Takers do not work as hard as I do, take the hits that I do, suffer like I do, and for fucks sake, they are not talented like I am. Being a successful Taker does mean that you studied hard, you put in the hours, you have skills/brains, you are great at your craft. That is something to be proud of and that is wonderful. Most likely, you don't care about me, think about me, and you don't know who I am, but when I hear you all use the word artist you are putting yourself in my category. You don't belong. You are using a term you don't understand.
I know there is not a single person who fits into the category of Taker who will read this. So, it's pointless, right? No. You need to hear this, too. If you are not an artist, or even if you are but are not a photographer, you think of me the same way. It is just what people think. I say, photographer, you assume a certain set of traits. You don't think of Bruce Davidson, Robert Frank, HCB, Klien, blah on and on because you don't know who they are. You might think, "oh, like a National Geographic photographer?", and I would reply, "NOOOOO. Okay, sometimes NG uses work that would fall into my category, but most of the time NO. "
Are the images pretty? Yes. Pretty does not mean ART. Are the images technically amazing? Yes, but neat gadgets and technology do not make ART. It can, but normally it does not. Anything can make art but most of the time those things do other things.
So what is the problem, do I think I am better than? No, I am different. There is no better because there is no comparing the two. That is the problem. Throwing me in with people who, while they work hard, do not sacrifice, suffer, sweat, hurt, live and breath for their art (they do not have art). They follow the rules and do what they are supposed to for the goal is to make money and be successful, and most likely so they can enjoy some other thing they enjoy doing. For me, this is it. Photography is all I am. Okay, I write fiction and poetry and shit like this and would like to eventually move the writing forward, but the photography is ME. The writing is like cooking. It is something I have always done, I am not horrible at it but I know I will never be great for I don't want to be a great writer. Photography is how I get out the stuff I can't get out even with my bad poems or time travel fiction. It is my redemption. That is why I chose to shoot what I do, it is difficult to take not just the mundane but the ugly normal and find that micro-nano-second when it makes sense and is beautiful. I can do that. I can make people see that everything, one, moment, has in it great, astonishing, beauty. Hopefully, they will think, "hey, if that can be beautiful, maybe I need to think about (insert that which he/she prejudged or blah), maybe I need to be more open-minded?", and wouldn't that be wonderful? Would that not make the world a better place? Do you see how what I do is not the same as what your common photographer does? Just nod "yes".
Maybe you are wondering if that is what I mean when I make reference to saving the world? The changing of minds? Kind of, but to the saving of the world there is much more. Basically, I state that if I am able to make a living as a photographer then I will save the world, or at least make an honest effort. The reason for that is that right now I am not making a living as a photographer or anything else. I am not making a living. Every day is a struggle, I am deep in debt, I have negative money, negative stuff, the credit score of a savage zapped out of another demention, my health is horrid, my mental illness goes basically untreated (danger Will Robinson), and yeah, I am a galaxy far away from okay. If I could be OKay, if I could "make it", I could do amazing shit. I am so used to suffering that when I am not(normally a week out of the year) I achieve incredible shit. When I am given a chance at anything I achieve. So, if my goal is to save the world, and I am given the opportunity and the tools-- which for me would be free time, an outlet for my message, and the means to give my message in whatever form I please--then I will. Trust me, yesterday, with pen and paper only, I solve our nation's debt while taking a shit(it was not even a long shit). Saving the world, making photographs, writing, those are the things I do! That is all I need. I always daydream about "what if" scenarios, and the other day I determined that if I could make $35,000 I could do anything I want, and have anything I want. Do you know how that is possible? It is because I don't want much, I don't need much, and that is the truth. Not much is my "AnyThing". What is yours? What would you do with a million dollars, a billion? Here is where you shouldn't feel bad, but you will think that you should so you probably will, but don't. You are normal. You are fine. You would probably buy a bunch of stuff that you really want and that would make you happy. You would live in a house that is way too big on a beach somewhere with a golf course and a butler. Most people would and those who say they would not are lying. The shit is that I am not lying. Do you know how much that sucks? Trust me, you don't. Being a person who really would use the vast majority(if it was 1 million a year then I would use at least 96.5% to help others and I have done a shit ton of research on the ways I would help others and it would save the world) of any riches to help others makes everyone assume that you are full of shit. Nobody believes a word you say, and that is why I now write down all of the ways I will, if given the chance, save this planet (notice I did not say country). There are hundreds of pages, but the more recent ones actually have figures, citations, links, references, and bibliographies. Saving the world, I believe, would be easier than bringing art into the mainstream. Especially now with the itsy-bitsy attention spans and inability to empathize that the current generation possesses. I know every generation says this about the next but really, these kids are going to bring about the end of the world. One word, Trump, and you can not argue with that shit.
So, what did we learn today? Go ahead, answer in the "comments".
