Picture what?
Monday, January 21st, 2008
Picture what?
Three weeks ago I sat down to watch the first installment of a programme called Channel 4’s ‘Picture This’, slightly disappointed that I hadn’t heard about the competition in time to enter, as digital photography and photo-sharing are a big part of my life.
By the end of the programme, instead, I was confused, angry and wanted to complain.
The fundamental flaw of the programme, established from the outset, was its lack of clarity. What kind of photographer are these judges looking for? An all-rounder, apparently - one who can do casual portraits, studio portraits, and documentary - and more areas, I gathered, in the two more episodes to come. I found this unrealistic, as most photographers find their niche and their style in one area and become renowned for that. It at least sounds more like the criteria of a bread-and-butter photographer, and yet, the competition rewards the final winner with an exhibition and a book, which alludes more to the fine-art photographer. Very confusingly, the judges seemed to want someone who can both be conventional and original, or at least, be conventional when they require it, and original at other times. As they judged the contestants’ final images, one person’s image was praised for being fitting nicely into what’s required for a left-spread in a magazine, whilst another contestant was criticised for their picture being the kind that is too often seen in magazines. Then another was mocked for looking like a shoot for a band’s new CD cover. What are they looking for, a photographer of commercial or fine-art value? It was absurdly unclear.
I cringed as I watched the programme precariously touch upon ‘retouching’. The contestant ‘has retouched the picture’, the voiceover trembled. The competition is apparently looking for ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’, and yet, the traditional stance on photography demonstrated by the judges in the programme couldn’t be clearer. Is digital processing going to be treated like the plague in a programme that is supposed to be celebrating the digital age and the proliferation of photo-sharing - a programme sponsored by Flickr?
I have always upheld the notion that the ease and inexpense of digital photography has democratised photography, in that it has opened up the art to a whole world of people who might not have discovered it otherwise. To me, digital photography goes hand in hand with the proliferation of the use of digital post-processing in programs like Photoshop. In this programme, digital post-processing was represented as nothing more than ‘trickery’ and, referred to by Joy Gregory, as an ‘artifice’. The participant Tarlyn, who dared to manipulate her images, was rejected, and shown stating that she now wants to create ‘purer’ images. How much I wanted to get my point to her, that the judges are snobs of traditional photography and were in the wrong place judging a competition to find ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’.
I personally hold strong the view that Photoshop is a tool like any other artistic instrument. I do not agree that it carries any less status than those techniques used traditionally, from filters fixed to cameras, to chemicals in the darkroom. All art involves having an artistic vision, and today, one’s vision has the opportunity to use computer-based tools, and that is a technological progression which we cannot ignore and should not be considered wrong. I find it absurd that some people think of Photoshop-based post-processing as ‘cheating’, as it can only add to a picture that has been composed well to begin with. Moreover, if the artist can create something magical from an initially poor picture, that is down to their skill on Photoshop. Photoshop is a challenging tool to use, and even the ‘Auto-correcting’ tools cannot necessarily be an instant answer to creating a successful image. It is when both production and post-production are intertwined skillfully that the results can be breathtaking.
As an exhibiting artist myself, in the judges’ eyes, I certainly can’t be a real photographer, but an artist of trickery and artifice. I was glad I didn’t bother trying to enter, only to have my hopes dashed by a set of sour ponces.
Picture shit
Little did I know that the third episode would rile me even further beyond belief.
I was personally unimpressed with most of candidates chosen by the producers to start with. But as I watched the final, and saw the stunning work of Lucinda Chua alongside her opponent’s, I was sure Lucinda would win. She clearly demonstrated herself to be the better photographer, if her professional use of lighting, setting, models and final selection of images was anything to go by. I was absolutely appalled by the ‘work’ of Elizabeth Gordon. She chose to document her history of alcoholism. In the judges’ eyes, she had a story, unlike Lucinda. Trouble is, she had no photographic skill to do anything with it. Was I the only viewer looking at a set of wonky outtakes akin to those that an amateur snapper would get developed at the local Max Spielmann’s? Hideously ‘composed’, poorly lit, and with absolutely no technical positives whatsoever, I could not believe this woman was in the final at all. That confused me enough, and yet, Elizabeth Gordon went on to win the competition and have a book and exhibition. I was speechless.
The first episode rejected Jay Mawson for having too ‘raw’ a talent; in the second episode, Ed Thompson was ejected for sticking too much to his usual professional documentary style and Aron Brown for not sticking to his style.
The final rejects Lucinda for having a look they apparently deemed too commercial and polished, and prized Elizabeth for having a ‘raw’ story.
Is it only me that sees massive and confused contradictions running throughout?
I can only come to the conclusion that this is a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Whatever the judges’ and the overall institution’s motives are for producing this show are evident in their choice of winner. At first, the privileges given to the arts-educated was clear. At the final hurdle, the tables are turned and the thumbsucking ex-alcoholic - whose deficient technical skills and generally blind habit of taking absolutely shit photos means she really should have gone at the first round - comes to represent democracy, ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’. ‘I can’t believe I’m here!’ said Elizabeth at the launch of her book at The Photographer’s Gallery. Nah, neither can we.
Let’s face it, television as a medium is rubbish. The over-simplification, and condensation of matters it tries to ‘inform’ us about, might be invisible too much of the time, but becomes strikingly clear to the viewer who watches a programme themed on a topic close to their heart. TV is hardly the fairest and most democratic medium, but it will exploit illusions of democracy and meritocracy wherever it can.
I enjoyed watching the programme, not just because it led me to writing a heated response in which I can vent my energy, but because it taught me a valuable lesson. Not just that alcoholics apparently spit beer out into the air (perhaps that would solve the problem?) but that as long as you have a story, you can be an art photographer. All you have to do is take shitter pictures. (It makes me think of that massive crap amateur picture of a seagull on the weekend print stall by Brighton beach. Doesn’t matter if the photography’s crap, all you need is a stage.)
I’m off to ‘document’ my depression right now!
Blog