-->
Bands and their critics have detailed ways to describe
musical styles. R&B with
tinges of soul. Hard rock with
just a hint of speed metal mixed with acid rock. It can get as intricate as wine tasting pretty quickly.
Why don’t photographers and their audiences discuss
photographic works of art with a similar level of detail, born out of passion
for the history of the art?
Looking at the vast variety of photography styles, it would certainly seem
possible. But instead, we're more likely to get accusations of copying and fraud when talking about influences. Photography critics—internet ones at
least—jump at the chance to snidely point out that so-and-so did that twenty
years ago, and should maybe sue for copyright infringement. No praise for homages and
reinterpretations here.
But at least the critics know and can name some contemporary
photographers. Most people can
probably cite only one or two photographers they like, and that’s because
they’ve been taught somewhere along the line that they should.
Everyone today sees as many images as they hear musical
notes, so less exposure can’t be the reason for the difference.
Maybe it’s because photography is seen either in a
commercial context or in an ultra casual one, rendering both rather
superficial?
Or maybe it’s that music digs deeper into the soul, and
fires a part of the brain that simply remembers it more. Mothers don’t’ show babies pictures to
lull them to sleep, they sing to them.
And as art patrons quietly take in a new photography exhibit on a
Saturday night, people pack bars and coliseums to go crazy listening to their
favorite bands play live.
So maybe music just has more and deeper passion. But that’s no reason not to try to
bring the same energy to photography.
And part of that involves making and reinterpreting it for today, not
yesterday. By jamming and riffing and seeing what happens.
