“Whatever else a photograph may be about, it is inevitably about photography, the container and vehicle of all its meanings.” ~ John Szarkowski
IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE THAT “…. most, if not every, hardcore / driven-to-make-pictures photographer considers their bodies of work to be their “greatest” hit….”. Pursuant to that idea I set about making triptych assemblages––15 displayed above––of my various bodies of work which I thought could used to illustrate some ideas about bodies of work, so…..
….. re: the medium of photography and its apparatus wise, a body of work is most often organized around and incited by a particular referent-subject matter, a specific genre, a personal vision (both literal and figurative), or, most likely, a combination of all 3. An example of a combination-of-all-3 body of work, consider Sally Mann; her literal referent(s) was her children, her genre was candid environmental portraiture, and her expressed vision seemed to be, kids do the darnedest things (even if picturing it makes adults uneasy).
Of course, the medium is chock full of way too many to mention other splendid examples of combination-of-all-3 picture makers. That written, most of those practitioners have traditionally plied their trade and made their chops in a specific, single picture making genre. Unlike, say, as an example, Joel Meyerowitz who transitioned from 35mm-format, handheld camera work–street photography–to large-format, view camera man-made landscape work. To be clear, there is no criticism implied in either approach cuz, iMo, either way, it’s nice work if you can get it.
RE: my bodies of work - with 15 separate bodies of work, one might wonder, how the hell is that possible? Well, the first hint is that only 5–art reflects / decay / picture windows / poles / single women– were started from scratch as an intent to create separate bodies of work. With the exception of picture windows,and single women, the other 3 were concentrated upon objects of my picture making for a relatively short period of time (although I still add to all of them from time to time). The life without the APA work was assembled––literally assembled from hundreds of pieces extracted from existing pictures––over 2 months of intense computer / PS time. The remaining 10 bodies of work were created by culling out, from my large photo library, referent-related photos and organizing them into separate bodies of work–it is worth noting that the kitchen sink and the Adirondack survey bodies of work have taken on a life of their own.
However, all of that written, the fact is that I consideration all of the above work, taken all together, as my true, single body of work. A body of work that could be labeled / titled, discursive promiscuity ~ quotidian ubiquity. With that being the case, the question is, why bother creating separate bodies of work?
Simple answer: inasmuch as I pursue solo exhibition opportunities, it is a well-established tradition that Fine Art galleries, institutions, and the Fine Art World itself place a very high value / premium on unified––by referent, genre, vision––bodies of work. I believe that standard is due, primarily, to the idea that a unified body of work implies and displays a concerted effort and discipline by an artist; a seriousness of intent, if you will. So, if that’s they game they want to play, I can play that game too.
re: my all-inclusive discursive promiscuity ~ quotidian ubiquity body of work is, referent-wise––according to the “unified” standard––a rather messy affair. However, to my eye and sensibilities, it is all held together by the fact that all of the pictures were/are; a. made under the operational M.O. of straight photography, b. seen and presented within the constraints of the square format, c. independent of referent, all of the photos exhibit a very consistent attention to the “arrangement” of line, space, shape, color, form, all of which, taken together, create a sense of visual energy across the 2D plane of a print. d. there is nothing special about the literally depicted referents in the photographs––they are just the stuff of everyday life.
Setting aside a->d, I believe that the ultimate, single, unifying construct to the discursive promiscuity ~ quotidian ubiquity body of work is the fact that all of the photographs were created under the banner of a single premise of what I call the Winogrand M.O.–i.e. the photographs are all created to see what the world looks like when photographed. Or, to be an even finer point on it, to see what the world looks like when photographed by me. And, it is worth pointing out that all of the photographs are actually about photography.
Ok, enough about me …. why should you create a body of work?––emphasis on drawing photos from your existing cache of work. iMo, it is a way of discovering, if you do not already know, if there is an unrecognized yet relatively constant referent that pricks your eye and sensibilities, one that reappears in a number of photographs, or, if your work has a unifying look to it––in that there are a number of photographs that have a similar look, independent of referent, that seem to be somehow related or work together.
The point of the exercise is not to identify “greatest hits”. Rather, it is identify photographs that represent simple, honest, seeing. Photographs that capture the world in a manner of your own seeing, not ones made by the rules or expectations of what is conventionally considered to be a good photograph cuz what you are doing with this exercise is to find your own picture making self. Hint: consider looking at all of your outtakes rather than just your “finals”.
An operational tip: take Ricky’s (Nelson) Garden Party advice:
“You see, you can’t please everyone so you got to please yourself …. but if memories were all I sang I’d rather drive a truck ”
Or, in my words:
“… if making great hits were all I did I’d rather drive a truck ”
