“Boobies at the museum” – The constant elevation of amateurs.
I read a story on the PDN blog about an “artist” who takes photographs “(capturing) unaware New Yorkers during very private, very intimate times in their day, all played out in front of their apartment windows…” I see this coverage as a trend that is not going away. The press prefers to acknowledge the low-shock valued offerings on an attention starved individual as if it were something for discussion. This work is an amateur idea, executed and presented in an amateur manner. I’m not singling out PDN, this story can be found in many outlets. Another recent example that comes to mind is that of the photographer who shoots spontaneous public nudes and was recently brought to court for his impromptu nude shoot at the Met. This story was covered by the New York Post, NBC and CNN among others.
It all amounts to a version of pay-for-play, a business relationship where the media at large, through their past actions say, “You do something mildly shocking that we can run as ‘content’ and we’ll give you your fifteen minutes.” I guess I find it obnoxious because it’s the state of Now. No news agency or media outlet, high or low seems to be able to resist, fearful that they’ll be left behind. None have the courage to call what is obvious: It’s not interesting. It’s not a story. It’s done for the media’s benefit and they are aware of that. It’s cyclical and they complete it.
And that is the heart of it. It’s demeaning to everyone involved, from the producer airing the story down to the viewer at home, eating his plate of spaghetti after a long day of work. As a society we’ve come so far, do we really all agree that “boobies at the museum” is still shocking and worthy of taking up a time slot that could be devoted to the presentation or exploration of anything else new? Say that description out loud. “Boobies at the museum.” That lets you know where we’re all at.
It’s time to say enough.
And to those who work in this type of “artistry” I say… go work really hard at something, come back and blow my mind.
[...] There is a very fine line between the repetition in finding some consistency through a narrowed field of exploration… and a gimmick. It’s something most photographers have to deal with at some point when making work. “How much of my style is a way of making work that’s comfortable for me, and how much of it is an old standby or fall-back?” Too much consistency equals not enough exploration. The bait is all around – it’s much easier to have work accepted if it falls into a series. A great deal of current photography books are shot in the style of the series; “I shoot flight attendants, here is a book full of photos of flight attendants.” When one evaluates the work however, maybe two of the photos are memorable and the rest are there as filler to support the idea of the series. The modern day handling of shooting serially can lack the time and effort needed for proper exploration. And the reward given for the effort is won too easily. (See previous post.) [...]
Pingback by Tim Soter… blog. » The process … fences and gates — August 4, 2010 @ 7:31 pm