It took me a few passes through the book, and a comparison with Edgar Martins' Topologies (which I happened to have on my shelves because Foyles many years ago) to realise what my eye was baulking at.
There are often too many subjects in the photographs.
By the conventions of art photography and my dumb eyes.
Let me explain.
Ever noticed how dogs are really, really interested in other dogs to the exclusion of all other animals? People are the same. Put a person anywhere in a picture and they will become the centre of our attention. People are interested in people to the exclusion of everything except "cute" - people love "cute". Put one person in a picture, and we want to know who they are and what they are doing there. Put in two, three or four and we want to know what their relationship is - even if we decide they are strangers sitting on a wall. Five or more starts to be a crowd, which is a subject in itself. What is it a crowd of? Going where? To do what? It's for this reason one has to be careful about putting people in the shot. I do not want to remember how long I have stood waiting for the people to finish walking past so I can get a people-free shot of whatever it is I was looking at.
The single person in an otherwise people-free image, especially against buildings, is a feature of a certain kind of Internet photography. Here's my take on it, just to prove I can do it...
There's a classic of the genre on page 108 (of Human Nature) of a scene in Blackpool. A woman in an orange hooded coat walks from left to right, and since she's a person, my instincts assume she's the focus of attention. I missed the weird curved, multi-pronged streetlights at first glance. Now my attention oscillates between the streetlights and the person. Then I put my finger over the person, and instantly the image became an "art photo" about the streetlights. Who designed them? Who approved them? What do the locals think? Would I want streetlights like that where I live? Do I like them?
On page 126 is a photograph of a bridge at Kylesku in Scotland. It's over a narrow inlet and is tightly curved. Not your average bridge at all. And then there's a damn boat in the water, closer to the centre of the image and because it's a human thing, it draws my attention, and once again I'm oscillating between subjects. Put my finger over that damn boat, and it becomes a satisfying "art photo" of a bridge.
When James does have a picture without a person, as of the pylons at Ghabat al Ghuzlan on page 63, it's a well-composed art photograph. That abandoned car hidden behind the shed (also on the website home page), or the container trailer in the car park (also on the home page), are neat little classics that would grace any art portfolio. He knows what he's doing - it's the You Tube genre rules that lead him astray.
The idea behind the Human Nature book is the presence of people, literally or figuratively, in nature. Bridges and weird lamp-posts are exactly such presences on their own. We don't need a warm body to represent "human".
But like I said: "by the conventions of art photography and my dumb eyes". They are his photographs and his choices, and he's making a living out of them, which is more than you or I are doing. A lot of people share his judgements.
In the light of all this, I looked again at my own favourites that I printed a few years ago now. Yep, one subject, usually in the middle-ish of the frame, or spread all the way across the frame. Keep-it-simple art photography rules. Maybe I'm too old and slow multiple-subject images?
James Popsys' website is here The home page has some images from the book. I enjoy his YT channel, of which the latest episode is here
and features him talking about his photography in an honest and non-babble-y way (he never once refers to "my practice as a photographer").
No comments:
Post a Comment