Mein Kampf (with photography) cont.

I got a subscription to Master Class for Xmas. The Chomsky class on propaganda was the first thing I tried to watch but, sadly, he’s just too old and I’m too familiar with his younger self, plus I’m already well aware of his thoughts on media and propaganda. So I searched to see what kind of photography stuff was available and came upon Annie Leibovitz. She was responsible for most of the iconic Rolling Stone covers from my youth and went on to create many incredible images for the likes of Vanity Fair and other big time magazines.

Her “class” was fascinating in many ways, but in relationship to my struggle with photography I was interested in her description of herself as a portrait photographer because, coincidentally, I have been planning to do more portrait photography and it turns out we have similar views and approach to the challenges.

When making portraits, Annie and I both struggle to capture something of the essence of a person. For example, when I took the above photo, Erin Mitsdarffer was suffering from endometriosis, truly horrible condition. She told me she felt like she was floating underwater and some days she felt like she was slowly sinking to the bottom while other days she felt like she was rising to the surface.

This is a more standard portrait of Jerry King, a former high school history teacher who built a pioneer village using the tools and construction methods of the time. This, unlike the photo of Erin, was unplanned. I was just driving by, saw him working on one of the buildings, and stopped by to chat. But it still adheres to the basic principles of what I consider good portrait photography. We see something of his village and his background, both of which suggest a love for history. It’s nowhere near as creative as the pic of Erin, and Annie Leibovitz would have come up with something much better, but it is meaningful, so it clears the first hurdle.

The second hurdle, however, is creativity and that is much more difficult to get over.

I got a lot of positive feedback on this photo from a café in New Orleans, and I always appreciate the spirit behind kind words, but this photo represents much of what I don’t want to be as a photographer. It’s technically pretty good with the color and composition (the table in the bottom right not withstanding) but there’s not much meaning or creativity. Photos very much like that have been taken many times before, some by iconic photographers. That’s one of the things I thought when I saw the composition. And I suppose you could argue that it’s a portrait of New Orleans, a scene that shows a little bit of its essence, but I don’t really buy that. Basically, it’s derivative and meaningless.

Which brings me back to this photo, which is even more derivative and meaningless:

When I see a composition like this, my first thought is that it’s like a Rothko. Conceptually, of course, it is nothing whatsoever like a Rothko. It shares a general visual style, but unlike a Rothko, there’s nothing conceptual behind it. And it’s definitely derivative.

The counter argument is that beauty and the feelings an abstract image can invoke are conceptual elements in their own right. And there’s nothing really wrong with being influenced by other artists, as long as one brings something a bit different to the work. Perhaps there’s such a thing as Rothko adjacent as opposed to Rothko derivative? Same thing for the café pic. Is it not enough to produce a pleasant, visually compelling image?

Thanks for being here. The reason I’m doing this is to get away from Instagram and the small photos you see on your phone (if you are seeing this on a phone, look again on a computer). So please Subscribe to do your part in putting a fork in social media! It’s free..