Ground Glass

Andrew Hetherington has a lovely post up about the struggles to be a photographer, and how one kind word or email from a stranger can suddenly make everything seem better. I think we can all relate to his feelings about existing in today’s world of photography. And with his readers sentiments, Andrew’s work is full of his own particular form of sarcasm and wit. So many editorial photographer’s seem to take the same boring shots, which makes Andrew’s individual voice so much more valuable. And my feel good moment, I came across this one Sarah Sudhoff’s blog today:

Today I was greeted with two wonderful emails. First was from a photo editor at the New York Time Magazine who is planning to run an image of mine for an upcoming issue. I can’t tell you how excited I am about this. It was just last week that I attended a lecture by Mary Virginia Swanson at HCP in Houston in which she discussed artists licensing their images for editorial purposes and the pros and cons of this decision. I had always wondered if my Repository series would find a home editorially since my other main series Sorority Rush had. I’m not sure how the NYT came across my work. Maybe it was from when I sent them my portfolios over a year ago or it might have had something to do with my second email today which was from Women in Photography. My Repository series was selected by WIP for an upcoming on line solo exhibition yet I had no idea it would launch today. Needless to say it was a great surprise to see my work featured on their site. I’m not sure if one email had anything to do with the other one but somehow for one brief moment today the stars aligned for me.

No thank you Sarah. This is why Amy & I are so excited about WIP. While it has also generated a lot of great opportunities for us, it is so gratifying to know that we are actually making an impact with the project. Perhaps the Times found her another way, but there is something to be said for momentum. Amy and I have over 50 talented women on our show waiting list. And many more on our group show list. What I love most about this project is that is both bottom up and top down. There is no real hierarchy. Amy and I are slightly different stages in our careers, and we are showing work from artists at all different levels. So not only do we hope to have stories like Sarah’s, but also to give more established artists a chance to connect with a wider audience and have a stronger web presence. I am so happy to see all of these happening, in the midst of my finding out I am in a group show in the fall in Chelsea and that my proposal to do my UV portraits in October was accepted. AIOP, hosts a wonderful month long celebration of art by bringing artists out to interact with the public. I am very excited to be taking part. So yes, I have been working myself over trying to put my blurb book together, and trying to get WIPNYC on track, and putting my portfolio presentation in better form, to the point where sometimes it can pretty frustrating. But knowing that something is coming out of it, makes all the struggle worthwhile.

Andrew Hetherington

I was incredibly flattered when Laurel picked my work up and posted some of machines shortly after I launched my blog and site. I was aware of her blog when I started, I had read about her gallery show in the NY times. There are a few of the early photo bloggers, pioneers, who have really not only invented the the photo blog, but continue to be influence far outside of cyberspace. While some of the early voices,Alec Soth and Christian Patterson have moved on, the remaining few dominate the world of fine-art photo blogging. Conscientious and I Heart Photograph being the most creative and well known. (of course there are many others launched right after with lots to offer) What both of these blogs offer is a chance to discover the work of an artist you may not know. They are doing all the leg work for you. While as a photographer this is useful and interesting, as a photo professional is is life changing!

When Laurel posted my images, I almost immediately received an email from a photo editor asking if I was the same Cara Phillips that used to work at Redux Pictures. Turns out we had worked there together over 4 years earlier and she was now working at a magazine. So because of Laurel we re-connected and I showed her my work. And in a stranger twist of fate, I am freelancing for her at that magazine this month doing photo research, which by the way is a lot of fun. What I have discovered on the other end side of the photo divide is just how much I Heart Photograph has to offer. It’s easy to navigate, well archived and all the images are linked to source sites. But most importantly it is a veritable treasure trove of undiscovered pictures of every possible kind. And each image leads you on to something, perhaps not what you are looking for but often worthwhile. Then you go to the stock sites where you seem to get 67 pages of the most banal, mediocre photography imaginable. (the exception being news imagery, which is often really good) I mean, really I can’t believe anyone ever uses stock! My guess is the sheer quantity of imagery is the problem.

Buried in there somewhere is probably a lot of good pictures, if you know how to find them, but there are so many dreadful things, you just want to give up. And truthfully, I am sure many corporations cannot always use the kind of innovative and exciting, and let’s face it sometimes weird work showcased on the site. But in a world so full of imagery, we are increasingly dependent on the curator. Those who are willing to shift through the metaphoric garbage to pick out gems are more important then ever. I am much more interested in seeing a site that has one person’s very specific taste I may or may not always agree with, then a generic hodge podge of junk. So hopefully as the blog scene grows, there will start to be more options for buyers, that will actually also give individual photographers a chance to sell some of their images. And for magazines to have an easier and better way to find imagery for their publications.

A random sampling of IHP artists

morten nilsson

Jesper Ulvelius

Cassander Eeftinck Schattenkerk

Roger Ballen, one of my favorite images from the NYPF

I know I have been MIA since the last week’s NYPF, but it took me a little while to recover from photo-overload. There are a lot of great posts about the event, Shane, Andrew, Joerg, Robert, and others all have their take on the events. For me it really was a whirlwind of meeting people, and observing how the NY photo world operates. Relationships are the secret to the art world. For instance, Kathy Ryan was accessible for the whole event. I saw her giving numerous tours of her exhibit and talking to everyone. I never quite got up the nerve to introduce myself, even though I have emailed with her before. It just seemed too desperate, like throwing yourself at the hottest guy at bar at 3:45 am. But it was super interesting to watch everyone and listen to the conversations. There is definitely an inside world that once you are in, gives you a lot more opportunities. But while I may not be in that circle, I saw a lot of friends and made some new ones. I am still blown away that people know my work & blog. It is nice to know people get something out of GG.

That is why I am excited about WIP. At this moment, everything in the world is in flux. The internet is absolutely changing how we relate to each other. There is something great about people reaching out and forming communities. It empowers them to express themselves and to connect. Amy Elkins has been an incredible partner on this project. Not only do we feel like we are doing something that could really be positive, we are having a lot of fun. My hope is that WIP can help create more community among women artists. We are already scheduled through March of next year and still have a bunch of great artists to put on the calendar. Amy and I are really committed to showing quality work and to giving people a place to further their art career. So when we launch, I hope people spread the word about the site to friends and photo/art contacts. There will be a launch party in mid-June, more to come soon…

This project has me thinking a lot about intentions lately and what I want to get out of this experience. I think having a solo show online, can be a way to reach people who for various reasons don’t go to galleries. And perhaps help someone get noticed in the very crowded field of fine-art photographers. But the web is a funny thing, every good intention can come with a price.

Last night Nightline had a story about a stay a home Mom that has created an online blog for women to post their pictures and ask strangers to tell them what to do with their hair. She has a 2 year line up of people waiting to get help to ‘look better.’ While researching the hair site, I came across this blog, which illustrates the type of thinking that leads women to the Plastic Surgeons consult chair. I am sure Hair Thursday is only trying to help, but as soon as you use the internet community for this kind of thing, I think you are on dangerous ground.

Hi. How are ya? Please ignore my rosacea, beady eyes, crooked nose, and double chin. This is about the HAIR, people!

Hair Thursday features images of everyday women, who are given advice on their hair. Each person has a celebrity or two selected as their “model” of what they should aim for.

The web is full of places where you are welcome to be rated, the web boards of Teen Vogue include page after page of these rate me posts. As an artist I am fascinated about the human need to feel special. A large part of the Cosmetic Surgery experience is about this drive to be ’seen’ even it is means being judged.

I attended my first portfolio review at Powerhouse Books in Dumbo this past Sunday, and overall I have to say it was a very positive experience. I almost missed the the event altogether, because despite my dedication and days of preparation, I somehow missed the news about the 5 borough bike race that went right through Dumbo. Needless to say my 12 minute car service ride, became an hour and 10 minute ride. But I made it and I am glad I did. I have Amy Stein to thank, she encouraged me to go at the Humble Arts panel.

Portfolio Reviews are funny things, especially un-curated ones, like Fotofest and the Powerhouse Review. There is such a large mix of work, I imagine the reviewers are at a loss sometimes as to what to say to people. But for me, it was just what I needed. To be 100% honest I think I have been avoiding showing my work to people after my very first experience 2 & 1/2 years ago at a gallery. But the assignment method at the powerhouse review was sort of like a blind date. So the stakes were not as high, it was more likely you were not going to be right for each other than to fall in love under those circumstances. So when I got criticism from one reviewer, I took what was useful from it and let the rest slide off my back. A very new experience for me. The rest of my encounters were very positive and I got some really concrete and useful feedback. The reviewers were all very generous with their insight and very engaged in the process. I left feeling really great about my work. Now, this is not to say I left with a scheduled show and a signed book deal, I think that is an unrealistic expectation for a review. I am starting to see that there is no overnight success in this, but rather a culmination of lots of little steps some in the right direction and some not. But getting the confirmation I needed on the quality and message of my project is an incredible gift. I am well aware that my imagery is a challenging sell for a gallery. But so is a lot of other great art. There is a lot of not too interesting fluff on the walls of galleries because they have New York rents too. If they do not show work that sells, they can never take a chance on anyone.

The bottom line is that most fine-art photography gets made for other photographers, museums curators and a select group of collectors. The average person, and I mean smart media savvy New Yorker, does not like most of what is lauded in the art world. I recently had this experience after inviting some friends to come to an opening. They are very intelligent people, but they were totally left cold by the photos. The imagery just did not translate. As a photo person, I loved them. It is not Robert Frank, Walker Evans or Diane Arbus that people buy posters and reprints of, but Weston nudes & flowers or Ansel Adams. The bottom line is that shows that make money are Sante D’Orazio’s Pamela Anderson nudes and Martin Scholler’s George Clooney Head portraits. But if buying those images makes people happy or allows the gallery to show other artists, so what? There reality of life is that a gallery is not a museum, it is a business. And artists will always have to balance their visions with that reality. The best piece of advice I got at the review, was to just keep doing what I am doing, and be patient. And that it is better to have the galleries come to you when all the pieces fall into place.

I have been thinking a lot about all of the hoopla that went on last week at APE. There is definitely something about the blog format that invites that kind of craziness. But there did seem to be a little bit of ’shoot the messenger’ going on. Let’s be honest, Rob has given us all a lot of advice. Advice can be a funny thing, photographers are often seeking it, but at the same time it can be really annoying. Especially if it is unsolicited. But annoying or not, you still need to sort through what is useful and what is not. For instance in the case of the ’stalker’ photographer, I really understood Rob’s point. It seems to me that it is common sense not to behave that way. I find that at this moment in my career, it is important to narrow down what is worthwhile and what is worth leaving. So below is my own list of things, that I have either done, had suggested to me, or have seen other people do with success. I am not an expert and I am still trying to make my own way in this art photo world, but perhaps some of it could be useful to others.

Edit, then edit some more, then get someone to help you edit!

The number one secret to photography is editing. If I had a dollar for the all the times I have heard, “Once you have a better edit.” It is the most frustrating thing in the world. I often wonder why those who have the ability to edit, tell you to do it. My thinking is that when you hear the edit comment, the person probably sees potential in your work, but does not feel it is quite 100%. So you must edit and edit and edit some more, until you get a yes. One thing I have noticed with many of the Women in Photography submissions, is how poorly people edit their work. Often I will think the work is a definite no, only to go to the person’s website and find tons of stronger more cohesive images. One thing this separates your work from the crowd is a great sequence of images.

Keep shooting

While it’s tempting to think you have finished a project, most likely you have only scratched the surface. All of the greatest bodies of work, were shot over several years. Nan Goldin did not take 6 months worth of shooting to make The Ballad of Sexual Dependency, so its unlikely that you have a fully realized body of work. I am currently planning a trip to Miami, for this very reason. And I have been shooting my project for over 3 years.

Look at art other than photography

There is a fine balance between knowing what’s out there and getting completely demoralized. I stay away from photo shows when I am making work. But that does not mean you should avoid all art. There are many ways to get inspired. Go to the Film Forum, look at illustration, painting and sculpture. Take up knitting. Start a blog on another subject. Anything that sparks your creative self. Sometimes it is best to take a ‘photo vacation.’ But you should also know what is happening around you.

Only show your best work

If you only have 5 great images, that can stand alone and make a cohesive & developed statement, only show 5. If you have 20, then show 20. If you mix in ‘filler’ images you only dilute the quality of the overall message. So even if you love them, or worked so hard to make them, ditch the images that are not your best. But keep in mind, everyone has different taste. Some images will appeal to some people, there is no way that you can please everyone. So if you have to tailor you edit a bit for different people, so be it.

Don’t give up when you get silence

Curators, gallery owners, editors, are constantly bombarded with work. And a lot of good work. So if you contact someone and don’t hear back, wait a reasonable time and email again. Then wait and send something in the mail. Then wait and call. Then wait and email again. There is a big difference between a short, polite request and the stalker who harassed APE. While I am certainly guilty of doing it, you should not take silence as a personal rejection. Until you get a message saying they have reviewed your work and are passing, it is fine to keep asking. Even if they say no, you can still send them it again when the work progresses. I have heard many stories about how today’s no, became tomorrow’s yes. But always keep in mind, you are asking someone to do something for you. Following basic manners is expected and necessary.

Show your work everywhere that makes sense

A great piece of advice I have received about having success with contacting potential clients is doing your homework. If you shoot great still-lifes, don’t send your work to an editor who specializes in celebrity portraits. The same goes for galleries. If your work is super-conceptual, don’t pick a gallery that show straight photo journalism. I don’t know how many times I have received offers in the mail to get a gas card. I live in New York, have no car and rarely drive. It makes me nuts that they waste so much paper soliciting me. So think about who you are contacting. Does Newsweek’s world editor really need to see your lifestyle photography? Look at galleries artist’s lists, and check out their work. Go to Barnes & Noble and look at all of the magazines. Look at Communication Arts annual, pick Art Directors doing ads they fit your style. If your work makes sense for them, call them up and tell them why.  Oh and it may sound obvious, but make sure you dot your i’s and cross your t’s.  I once stopped a photog at my old job from sending his work out addressed to “Cathy Ryan.” Nuff said.

Find a job that lets you do what you need

Let’s be honest, getting started in photography is incredibly time consuming, expensive and tough. If you don’t have income you can’t try to get a job. If you can’t get a photo job, you can’t make money. So this means you need another source of funding while you work towards a photo career. This is perhaps the most difficult part of being an artist. There are few well paying jobs that allow you to take off long stretches, leave to go meet an editor or gallery owner, or who want an employee who is actively trying to have another career. New York is a tough place, most jobs demand a lot from their employees. There are way more photo MFA’s than there are teaching jobs. So you are left with a low-paying job or a job which makes you choose between it and your photography. Then there are those who get jobs printing or working for other artists. While right out of school assisting or working for another artist can be a great way to learn, eventually you are in danger of becoming a “printer,” ‘retoucher,” or ‘assistant” for good. This is my current quandary. The only thing I want to do is make images. I recently left my part-time job to take some time to try to get my photo career on track. However, I will not make it long without income. I often have sleepless nights on this subject. Someone recently told me I should be more open to “whoring” myself out, I.E. go the commercial photo route. But that is just as challenging as getting into the fine-art world. There is nothing wrong with getting paying jobs, I’m all for it. You are not a “whore” for shooting for a magazine. This is an out of date notion I think. But no matter genre of photography I pursue, I still have to pay for it - let’s look at the costs.

Website: Anywhere from $150-3000+ depending on if you get a designer, site capacity etc.

Travel: Most projects require some travel. Whether it is renting car (or taking a cab or car service) to drive to and from a location or airline tickets and hotel costs, it adds up. There is a reason we are all dreaming of a Guggenheim. Which to be honest, still would have us camping out, driving or eating trailmix, depending on the length and scope of your project. Check out Timothy Briner’s Boonville blog for an idea of what a project takes.

Photo Supplies: I shoot 4×5, so right away its close to $5 per sheet of film. Then we have printing costs. Leather portfolios run about $350- 500. 11×14 portfolio images can end up being $30 - $70 per, times 40 to 70 images in a book. Oh then there are gallery portfolios, 16×20 prints, presentation boxes, shipping. Oh yes, equipment rental. While I own my own 4×5 camera, which so far I have sunk almost 3 grand into, I can’t begin to afford lens and lights. My average 1 day rental is about $150.

Contests: Where do I begin. I am still appalled by the cost of everything Santa Fe. Most of these contests are used to pay for the organization costs of the people sponsoring them. Wow, I am so glad the artists, who are often desperate, and not making ANY money are paying to support all of these non-profits. The Critical Mass Award I heard, as you moved up in the contest, you had to pay more money. Shouldn’t these places be getting grant money and contributions from collectors, and companies, which they could then use to subsidise art making and help artists in their careers. There has been a lot of chatter on the blogs recently about this subject, and although we all feel the same, I still keep sending $35, spend hours filling out forms and get nothing back. I am going to my first portfolio review next week, I am interested to see what comes of my investment.

Last but not least, Living: Let’s see I live in Metro NYC. Do you really need to hear the numbers. Let’s be honest. Forever 21, Old Navy, and Urban Outfitters are sometimes too pricey for me.

Be a part of the community

To me the #1 best thing about blogging is the amazing relationships I have formed as a result of GG. I get really encouraged every time someone drops a line to say how much they like the blog or my work. And considering how much negativity I have to deal with in my pursuits, it is great to have the support. There are a lot of really talented people blogging. I have really enjoyed going to an opening and seeing a friendly face. Because of GG, I have been lucky enough to meet some great people or be helped out with my career. Andrew Hetherington, Joerg Colberg, Brian Ulrich, Andy Adams, Shane Lavalette, Mrs. Deane, Ofer Wolberger, I heart photograph, Dawn Roscoe, Elizabeth Fleming, Amy Elkins, Jen Bekman, Page 291, Susana Raab, Martin Fuchs, Rachel Hulin, Liz Kuball, Richard Wright, Rob Haggart and many others.

Make great work!

I don’t know how much work I have seen, which was visually stunning or well crafted which had no substance. Or how many statements I have read with a great concept, but then the work is either not quite good enough, or does not communicate the ideas expressed in the statement. Or work that is so derivative it is totally boring. Sometimes it is poorly edited, or sometimes I just feel nothing about it. There are a few basic ingredients in great photography. You must make great images, you must have a reason for making them, and that reason must be communicated to the viewer. And an individual eye is imperative. If your work looks like everyone else’s what reason does anyone have for looking at it.

So these are my 2 cents. I write this as much to remind and push myself as to provide advice. Of course we all struggle to take our own advice, to make it in the extraordinarily competitive world of photography you must be willing to give up a lot.

A very interesting (as usual) post from Joerg Colberg on Gregory Crewdson’s new work. I went to the opening, my friend scanned the show and I was excited to see how the raw images came together. I was torn about them, while they are certainly very accomplished, I felt disappointed at their lack of new ground. In some ways they were less produced than his last show. I could see that he was trying to capture the feeling of a rust-belt town, which has a very different look than his usual middle class suburb. I appreciate Joerg’s sentiments about our culture’s voracious appetite for newness. We do seem to focus on always wanting the next thing even when there is nothing wrong with what we have. But in the case of Crewdson, I would have liked to see a new visual or conceptual idea. This is an artist who helped to transform the look and process of contemporary photo practice. So I would hope that he would continue to innovate. His images seem to be more about meeting the demands of the current art market, then about anything else. I really can only remember one image from the show. I don’t think artists have to constantly be doing the ‘next’ thing or re-inventing themselves, but they should not rest on their laurels either. And yes some artists work in the same mode for years to create a long term body of work with great meaning. It is something to consider. You have to give Robert Frank credit for moving on to experimental film and art rather than repeating himself. His later work may not be as good as his masterwork “The Americans,” but it takes risks and is unafraid of failure.

2001

2004

2006

One thing I hear from men a lot (including my own boyfriend) is that women complain too damn much. Most men’s number one complaint about their wives and girlfriends is that they just want to talk endlessly about their problems, and they don’t see what that solves? I think it is perhaps too much of a generalization to say that all women like to discuss, mull over and talk through their issues and difficulties, but from my experience most women do find comfort in being listened to. We don’t like to just take action, without time to reflect and hear the thoughts of others. I personally think in some ways this makes us able to deal with more complex issues. When something does not have a clear cut solution men often get angry or frustrated. They want to ‘fix it’ and move on. Of course all of this is varies from person to person, but in my experience there is some truth to it. So when Joerg first emailed me about the Times article, I could see that he wanted to find a way to fix things right away. But he was frustrated because as a man there was only so much he could do about it. I am saddened by the responses to my post that directed their anger to Joerg. If you look at his blog, he clearly features just as many male and female photographers in both interviews and image selection. What more can we ask of men, then to be sensitive to our struggle and to give us the same opportunities as they give men.

The most important thing is that now, several amazing and talented women are using their considerable gifts to try and come up with ideas to make things better. Many of these issues are actually between women and about how we view ourselves and the world. So it seems to me, that we should be the ones to work to solve them. Hence the creation of Women in Contemporary Photography which is still in the development stage, that be a showcase for the work of women photographers. And the Ask me logo, when you see the logo, you know you are welcome to reach out to the person for advice, questions, or just to say hi. While we are all super busy and probably feel like we don’t have enough time already, a quick email or addressing a question on our blogs or directing the person to someone who can help seems like a reasonable goal. I invite anyone who has other ideas to bring them on. We have nothing to lose by trying all these things out. I also encourage women editors, gallery staff or any women interested to participate. I doubt women photographers are the only ones who would like to get some support.

I am excited to see where we go…

Joerg Colberg sent me a link to the NY Times article on Gallerina’s the other day. He was interested to know if I shared his anger at the rather condescending and sexist attitude of the piece. We had a lively email debate, in which he basically called me out:

It’s one thing to see reality as it is, but then it’s quite another thing to
make an effort to change it. If all women merely shrug off this
article and think “Well, this is just the way it is” things are
obviously not going to change. But if just two or three female
bloggers got together and published an “enough is enough” post on
their blogs about how this is ridiculous and offensive, that would be
quite interesting.
I mean it’s nice to have discussions about women in art (just like
the one you participated in the other day), but it seems they don’t
really translate into much outside of the debating halls. I don’t mean
to argue there should be no such debates, but there also has to be a
debate about stuff like that posted in the NYT.

I wanted to take a few days to think about Joerg’s point, do we as women make it worse by accepting this type of portrayal? The Times article seemed to attempt to defend the behavior of these women. The writer went out of their way to mention how educated these women were, and that they are often harassed by drunk men at openings. But there was definitely a underlying condescension in the tone. “She really is so very busy — e-mailing jpegs of artwork to collectors, writing news releases, updating a gallery’s inventory or simply ordering lunch for the staff.” In reality there is no excuse for their attitudes, but the article presented them as just another decorative object in the galleries. I have had my share of bad experiences with so called Gallerinas. A few years ago I attempted to purchase Peter Hujar’s monograph at his show at Matthew Marks. It was a Saturday and pretty slow, but the girl behind the desk was so dismissive, so clearly annoyed and so downright rude, that I finally had to ask “You do SELL books here, correct?” It was quite traumatizing to hand over money to someone who made me feel like the person who can only afford the book, not a print. From that moment on I have avoided them like the plaque. I see no reason to subject myself to their disdain.

But as an artist who hopes to show work in a gallery in Chelsea, how do I feel about people coming to see my work and being treated like that? It is very dismaying. If my work were shown, I would hope that they would be happy to answer questions and offer information, because they become an extension of you when they sit out there. But let’s be honest, how warm and fuzzy is most of the art world. Do curators, gallery owners or editors treat artists much better, not until you make them a lot of money. And if they are that rude to you, my guess is that they treat the $8 to $10 dollar an hour desk workers pretty badly, male or female. And so we get to the heart of the issue for women. Often, because women are in a position that make them feel devalued, they turn their rage on others. When you are in a position of dependence, you feel powerless to defend yourself. If you need a paycheck or the patronage of your employer how do you tell them to treat you fairly? But, as Joerg pointed out as long as we keep taking it, we will keep getting it. One thing we can do is to band together. If women had the same kind of strong networking skills as men, perhaps we would not always feel so desperate. I have noticed that my boyfriend and his male friends and co-workers often help each other get jobs, pass on information and do gratis design work for each other. I have never known a women to do this. We may offer information, but how often to we pick up the phone for someone and say, “hey, you should check out my friends work.” However, several men have done that for me.

So what’s wrong here? Why do women continue to keep each other down, or allow themselves to be objectified like the Gallerina’s? I think that from a very young age, women learn that their looks are their number one asset. They become so used to focusing on their external as the means to success, that they lose sight of the importance of their other assets. Most of us are unconscious of this, we probably never think of ourselves like that. But I know that I worry more about what I am going to wear to things, then anything else. Because even if I want to fight it, part of me knows that I will be judged first on that. Especially if I am meeting with a women. One of the most disappointing examples of this from my own life, was when a certain female photographer came to guest crit my photo class from one of the top MFA programs. She immediately started ripping my work to shreds, primarily the technique aspects. In my attempt to defend the work, I started to take about the nature of the glossy print, when she interrupted me to say in front of the class, “The glossy prints are not the problem, and besides they match your lip gloss.” That was the single most disheartening moment for me, because in one sentence she pretty much told me I was just a ‘face.’ Meaning that I should use my looks or would succeed because of them. Now as someone who spent most of their life feeling like an object, because of my past, she was trying to take away the first thing I had found that I could do that was not about what I looked like. Being behind the camera is the only place where what I look like does not matter. But in reality, it is very hard to escape these cultural assumptions. To me the worst part of the Times article was hearing Yancy Richardson, say that there was nothing wrong with looking for a pretty face to put out front.

Yancey Richardson, the owner of an eponymous Chelsea art gallery, notes that she employs front desk assistants who can answer questions from the public and clients, and also attack a rigorous list of tasks. “You can’t just hire people who are decorative,” she said, “but you can find someone with all those necessary skills and who is beautiful.”

Ms Richardson is one of the few female gallery owners, and who also prominently showcases female artists. Of all people I would hope that she would know better. What is a young woman who hopes to break into the gallery world supposed to think when she reads that. That no matter how hard she studies or no matter how capable she is, if she’s not attractive she will not have a chance. People wonder why breast implants are now one of the number one high school graduation gifts? Instead of burning our bras, we now fill them with silicone fantasies. Are we not telling young women, that not only do they need Master degrees, top grades, they also need to be sexually and physically attractive if they hope to make it in our society. And the fact that powerful women are re-enforcing these ideas is to me the most appalling.

So yes, Joerg’s call to fight against these ideas is necessary. How to do it, is another matter. We as women have to decide how we can change things. But I think most of us feel so much anxiety about our own talent, looks, bodies, personalities, it is difficult to find the energy to do it. I feel that I can only be different in my own life. I can decide to help my fellow female artist, I can work to be free of the self-hating brought on by our beauty culture, and most importantly I can make art that forces people to confront these issues. I will perhaps leave it to Joerg, to write more on this subject. I think we need more people like him, who are not afraid to get angry, and who are not too jaded to think nothing will ever change.

And I hope that Julie Saul, Yancy Richardson, Marianne Boesky, Bonni Benrubi, Elizabeth Dee, Rivington Arms, Becky Smith, Andrea Meislin, Deborah Bell, Paula Cooper, Margaret Murry, Janice Guy, Roxanna Marcoci, Robin Rice, Jen Bekman, and all the other women who have power and authority in the art world take heed, we need to be on the same team. That does not mean giving special treatment to female artists and employee’s, but being willing to examine your own culpability in this debate. Ask yourself if you are treating women the same sexist attitude of your male counterparts, and if so, why? I am sure it is not easy to be a female gallery owner, I have heard many times, “So in so only has a gallery because her rich daddy gave her the money.” Have you ever heard that said about a male gallery owner?

And as for us female artists and people in general, I will borrow the advice of the Gureilla Girls:

Boston, Mass.: Now that we’ve heard what you have to say, how can we help? What’s the best way to stop our national museums from being so racist and sexist? Write letters? It seems so … banal.

Guerrilla Girl Frida Kahlo: Complain, complain, complain! But do it creatively. Shame and ridicule are powerful weapons in the art world. And don’t forget to have fun in the process. Your laughter disarms the powers-that-be.

And ladies, start buying art? Because once you are a force in the world of collectors, galleries will take note!

I recently received a form email from the Center, Santa Fe rejecting my entry to their upcoming portfolio review. My first thought was surprise. While I was certainly not expecting to win the Santa Fe Project Competition, which has one winner out of 800 or so entries, I felt pretty confident I would get into the review. So it shook me for a moment to get, “the thanks but no thanks” response. The email included a link to the juror’s statements, just in case you were interested to hear why they did not select you.

A project or series which is early in development will not hold up to one that is more fully developed or complete. Technique in and of itself does not constitute a good idea. Conversely poor technique will detract from a good idea. And for me technique must support your idea. I will draw upon what [previous juror] Rixon Reed said “There were portfolios that contained wonderfully exquisite prints but were too derivative of works by other well-known photographers”. These were eliminated quickly, as they were measured against the established works. There are very few new ideas, however, there is, your personal, fresh vision and point of view.”
–Donald Woodman, photographic artist

Hmmm, so which of the above did I fall into? Racking my brain with self-doubt, I started to consider the strangeness of the entire “competition” process. How exactly do you shift through hundreds of portfolios in one day, which include a mere 10 to 12 digital images and decide what is better? I suppose there are some projects which perhaps fit more easily into the winning slots than others, almost like the photo project prom queens. While other work might have just as much value, but not present as well in the constraints that these contests impose. ( And yes many that have no hope at all.) And who exactly are these people judging you? I have been applying to many of these things this year, and so far not one has wanted the same size jpegs, the same number of images, the same length of artist statement or the same supporting materials. Oh yes, and all of them have a fee. It is sort of like filling out college applications. Not something anyone looks forward to. But as much as part of me wants to chuck the whole process, I continue to solider on. Mostly because I continue to see people careers get launched by these emerging artist lists, shows, contests and events. Look at the CV of most art photographers who have a certain level of success, and you will see that most of them have been in the same contests or on the same emerging artists lists.

But of course there are plenty of people who are successful who have never entered or won anything. What my little rejection taught me more than anything is the importance of editing. You have to willing to throw away images you love if they are not adding anything to your work. So I put every one of my images on the wall and started from scratch and made my edit tighter and stronger. So thank you Donald Woodman, photographic artist and Nancy Sutor, Interim Director of the Marion Center for Photographic Arts, Educator, Photographer, your rejection was the best thing to happen to my work in a while.

At least when it comes to press coverage of attractiveness. I was not at all surprised when Joerg forwarded me a Cosmetic Surgery blog featuring my interview on Conscientious. As I replied to him, “there is no irony in plastic surgery.” I went to the link and was fascinated by the banner ads on the site. The headline “Age Catches up with Demi Moore Despite Fortune Spent on Cosmetic Surgery,” really encapsulates many of the issues I am exploring in my work. When I went to the Daily Mail to look at the entry, I saw another link to a George Clooney article. As you can see below, the two actors looks are portrayed quite differently.

Hmmm…. Is it just me, or are they inferring that 40 something sexist man alive George, really doesn’t need the ‘photo retouch job’ but poor 40ish Demi really looks like shit despite all the surgery. It is pretty amazing how men continue to get ‘distinguished’ and remain sexy well into middle age in Hollywood, while women never seem to be never good enough. One day these actresses are held up as beauty icons and the next they are being shredded. In reality, most actors now seem to get “work done” male and female. My mother recently mentioned to me that she saw Jessica Lange on television, and that her first thought was how old she looked. But then she realized that she just looked like a 50 something year-old woman, not like a 50 something year-old woman who has had a ton of surgery. She, like most of us, is now judging these women against a different standard. Something to consider.

With last week’s announcement of the end of Polaroid, covered on pretty much every blog and must discussed in every corner of the photo world, I have to worry that film cannot be too far behind. While Kodak is promising to make film for at least another 5 years, with Polaroid gone, it seems that many film holdouts will have no choice but to go at least partly digital. The question I am asking myself, is digital like color film? When Eggelston, Shore, Sternfeld and the other early color art photographers switched, I’m sure the B&W purists feared that their form would also disappear. B&W survived but it became a ‘niche’ instead of the dominant force in fine art photography(sorry B&W shooters out there, don’t shoot the messenger.) I know there was quite a fight over color film in the early days, and I imagine artists felt much like I do about the current debate. But perhaps it would make more sense to embrace the technology and try to make to work, rather than hold on to my love of film. Personally, I find digital too perfect and lacking the sense of emotionality that film can capture. I have yet to see work shot digitally that can compare to large format film.

Yet the argument could be made that this is the moment to rethink my aesthetic choices? Maybe the too perfect, too harsh, and too sharp look created by these camera’s computer chips, better reflects the content of our current culture. Is there any sensitivity or nuance to the national obsession with the mental and physical breakdown of Britney Spears? Do reality shows use soft lighting or turn the camera away to protect people from being seen at that worst? Part of me feels that I should be shooting to reflect that reality, but another part of me feels that I should hold out, and stay true to my vision and hope for the world. If we all give up, and give in, is there any chance for us to rise out of our culture of exploitation and celebrity obsession - I will admit to having VH1’s Celebrity Rehab DVR’d. There is something entertaining about all of this, maybe Western Culture has never really left the Colosseum?

Which is better…

B&W or Color?

Eggelston

Walker Evans

Film or Digital?

Annie Leibovitz

I came across this post from Christian Patterson on Speak See Remember, and felt kind of turned off. While I understand it must be strange for those select few who started the whole fine-art blogging community to see it grow to such size (see the Jackanory’s blogroll) But both his sign off from blogging and Alec Soth’s to me seemed very much about something the art world is very good at, creating elite and exclusionary institutions. Gallery’s, Museum’s, and publications are difficult if not impossible to penetrate. Of course once you are there, I hear the MOMA dinner’s are like the middle school lunch room, in terms of who sits where, and who is the popular kid. But there is definitely an “inside” and “outside” in the art world. Once you have made it, you are invited in, whether you can stay is another matter. What bothered me about Patterson’s blog, was that it seems to miss the whole point of the internet and blogging. It is by its nature the most open and democratic of forums. It allows people who would otherwise probably never be in contact, because of geography or where they in the pursuit to trade information and ideas. I think it is great to read what art students think, commercial photographers and fine-artists who are both established and on their way. So can there ever be too many blogs? If you answer that question, I feel that you create a hierarchy of information. That is to say, you imply that one person’s thoughts or opinions are more valuable than another’s. But this is incorrect, because the expression of them is equally valuable, whether you find them valuable is up to you. The internet is a free forum, we can choose to read or not read any blog or site we chose. I personally like getting inside the heads of others and feeling like I am part of a community. There are enough curators in the world, I think this is one place that anyone and everyone should have a voice. We can decide to listen or not.

I get many art related email’s, announcing shows and art world events, etc. Sometimes there is a wonderful nugget to discover, or in the case of Humble Arts Group shows, usually just nice to see your peers work. But sometimes I actually read the gallery write-ups for shows and just wonder, huh? I often think if I were better at writing art-speak, I would be able to package my project as a super-conceptual take on painting, which seems to be the most popular thing right now. But I am just not that kind of person or artist. My photogrpahy is actually very much influenced by other artist’s and has great deal of conceptual thinking, but frankly I don’t think it is necessary to include all of that in my artist’s statement. I could be wrong, but I don’t think your work becomes complicated if you try to make it complicated with fancy words. If it’s in the images, its there, you should not have to add it after the fact. But of course the art world is very much about this sometimes. But for me, I want to go into a gallery and experience the art by LOOKING at it, not reading the little piece of paper at the door. If I like work, of course I am always interested to read the artist’s statement, but if I need to read it in order to understand what’s I am seeing, than it is a problem. There are shows, where after reading the statement, your experience or understanding is taken to a new level, but the best work often gets it’s conceptual punch from things that happen after it’s made. Every time I see August Sander’s portraits, I am taken in. On their own, you are drawn in to the way he captures the personality of each person, and they are so simple and beautiful. Then I start to think that these are the people, who some 30 years later, either stood by and did nothing, were killed, or participated in the Holocaust. How could any group of portraits ever say as much.

Nan Goldin’s Ballad of Sexual Dependency is another example of work which operates like this . Those images are one of the most searing portraits of the dark side of human impulse and emotion ever made. They reflect her courage to reveal what was ugly inside of her and her friends. But the frailty and emotion in the images, which exists in all of us, even if our lives are very different, means that even if we know nothing about those images, we react. Of course most people, myself included, hate them on their first viewing, and gradually grow to see their beauty. And one only needs to turn on VH-1 to see the legacy of her work. Most young people probably have no idea, that exposing your body, sex life, drug, mommy/daddy problems or self hatred used to be a big no-no in American society. I am too young to know, but I imagine Nan’s pictures were incredibly shocking to mainstream America of her time. Now they are more tame than American Apparel ads.

Then there is Sally Mann. Her work is deeply process driven, and has been for a long time. But it’s the personal subject matter that people react to and that has made her famous.

But when I read stuff like this and then look at the images I am left feeling slightly sad about art photography.

Caroline Pagès Gallery
Lisbon
Manuela Marques :
Still Nox
17 Jan - 1 Mar 2008
Still Nox is the first gallery exhibition in Portugal for Paris-based Portuguese artist Manuela Marques. The large-scale photographs on show are part of a study process on contemporary reality and the clear proliferation of states of fragmentation. The captured images are ones of expectation and encourage a questioning from the viewer, an active and reflexive posture, because there is no clear revelation of objectives, but rather the apprehension of yet-to-be disclosed moments, of intervals. These are images that are based on their own ambiguity that suspend them in less perceptible time and space, where the difficulty in finding affinities and relationships beyond that moment in focus becomes evident. At the same time, these photographs possess the recognition of images and the interaction between them within a field of imagination common to the observer, which leaves the discursive possibilities about these images wide open. These are not photographs within the ambit of the instant, although they may reveal, by chance, certain casual condiments; they are, however, something that springs from a pretension and foresight that the artist defines for her work and that the considered overall static nature of the movements consolidates.
There is a distinct perceptive individuality in relation to what is photographed in the works of Manuela Marques. There is a sensation of a voluntary isolation in the choice of images that distinguishes the work and gives it a specific approach, extracting the maximum expression from a simple gesture. As such, the intimate nature of the images enters in full consonance, from capture to reception, while not avoiding the intrinsic tensions demonstrated to be an object of encouragement. What is more important than the material itself is examining how things and bodies of energy thrive on emotions and feelings and how they are dependent on them. The continuous exploitation of conciliatory elements as the permanence of a surrounding silence and the question of the light almost always applied in one register, one moment shadow the next naked brilliance, have also been an important mark that has distinguished her work.

Maybe it’s me, but when I looked at the images, I saw nothing from this statement. I do not mean to diminish her work, she has some very good images, but as a body of work about the above, huh?

I went to a show last night at Roebling Hall, which features a group of photographs by Rebecca Horne, which is a nice meditation on still-life painting but using items associated with the feminine. The show also included some amazing painting by Ray Smith. I can’t remember that last time I went into a gallery and thought wow, if I had some money I would buy one of these. Smith’s large scale painting’s on old door’s and plywood, mix drawing, stains, and house paint to fantastic results. The work had a really smart combination of art history, pop culture and exploration of materials, but all of that was secondary to how really appealing the paintings were. I find that a lot more exciting than looking at something that is trying too hard.

Ray Smith

I passed another weekend in front of my computer obsessing over my work while trying to update my website. I sometimes find it kind of disturbing that while I engaged with photography I can go without food, water, the bathroom, sitting down, standing up, sleep, conversation, money and just about anything else. It is as if nothing else exists and I get so involved that the world seems to fall away. I worry that I should be better at time management. But once I start I become so obsessed with getting it right that I just keep going. I literally had to force myself yesterday to get up from my computer at 4:30 pm to address the sink full of dishes and an apartment that needed cleaning. Of course, I was right back to photoshop as soon as the rubber gloves came off.

I have noticed that in the documentaries I have ever seen about photographers, most of them seem way more hardcore than I am. And I been lucky enough to be witness to some of the greatest photographers re-print a mural over and over again for their show adding one point of magenta or subtracting one point of yellow. Or send a print back to Laumont or elsewhere for multiple rounds until is is right. The first b&W darkroom class I took was at SVA. The teacher was a National Enquirer photographer who was obsessed with Gary Winogrand. As a young man, he had taught himself photography by shooting all weekend and staying up all night during the week developing and printing because he had a day job. At the time I thought he was a crusty maniac, but now I understand. I am not sure if the nature of the photographic process pushes you to be like this, or if photography attracts OCD types. But I don’t think you can truly become the artist you want without this level of sacrifice.

Diane Arbus was a single Mom and at some points was completely broke during her later career. At least then the Westbeth artist residences in NY, were still a viable living option. In the Met Revelations exhibit book, there are several letters in which she appeals for help to her various supporters and friends. And yet she made some incredible work despite this struggle. There are always outside pressures and the reality of real life needs at the edges of any artistic endeavour. Finding a balance is always difficult. But in order to make art that seems a part of the world or relevant you must be of it. So, bring on the cable bill and pile of dirty dishes. Maybe there is a photo project in them some where. And so what if I lose 7 or 10 hours on a weekend day, I just have to make sure I make it to swim a couple times a week so my legs don’t atrophy.

Once again I am home for my yearly Christmas visit. Back to my childhood home and everything that comes with it, including my stuffed animal collection. I do not have a chance to come back more than twice a year, so it always seems like I have to cram in seeing everyone in a short space of time. Today’s excitement was the dentist, thank god for the rents in Michigan vs. New York, so I could afford the visit. My dream is always to come home and hang it out in my pajamas and do nothing for a change, but some how that never happens. Lately I feel like so many things are keeping me from what I want to do. With move, and trying to earn a living, exercise, and just do day-to-day chores, I don’t seem to ever have enough time. That to me is the one of the greatest challenges to being an artist. How do you find and justify the space to make work. I think that is why the Guggenheim and the other major grants are so important. While they are certainly not enough money to live on for too long without other income, they do give you a certain mandate to devote yourself exclusively to making work. You are being given money that says, “Go out and realize your artistic vision, you have no other priorities for the length of your stipend” For me, there is something about that kind of support that takes away my guilt of worrying about all the other things I feel like should be doing. I guess my mid-western work ethic never quite goes away. That is why I am so impressed with photographers like Timothy Briner, who are out in Booneville, literally, doing nothing but making their project happen. (he has a great post on Christmas) I would love more than anything to take a year and just make pictures. I think it would make me a better artist. For now, my reality is to juggle the making, post-production, and marketing of my work with paying bills. But I suppose in truth even successful artists must also balance family, work, money. That is the trick, to find a way to make a living from what fulfills you and still have a life. But I appreciate all the things I have learned from the jobs along the way to get by. But hopefully I won’t need them forever.

Proof that the Guggenheim is an artist’s good luck charm:

Diane Arbus

Walker Evans

Sally Mann

Robert Frank

Stephen Shore

And most favorite of all for me… Joel Sternfeld

Not to mention other artists & intellects like Richard Serra, Thelonious Monk, John Baldessari, Russell Banks, Tina Barney, Roland Barth, Eugene Richards, Judith Joy Ross, etc, etc etc!

So Santa if you are reading this, some Christmas keep me in mind.

I had to take a break from blogging to clear my head a bit. I have been trying not to get disheartened with the whole trying to get my work out there process. All of the support I have gotten online has helped - so thank you to everyone who has sent a kind word my way. I think it is more difficult when your work is very personal. When I began my project, I started with spas, hair salons and places that represented ‘beauty seeking.’ But as it progressed, it became clear that the plastic surgery offices best represented the level of pain at the source of female self-hatred that I was interested in finding. This self-hatred can manifest in many forms, it can be mild to severe. It is reflected in the sheer number of women with eating disorders and who have accrued terrible debt to get the clothes, shoes, beauty products, that might help them feel less inadequate. There is instant online financing for plastic surgery, you just click on a button on The American Society of Plastic Surgeon’s website and you can borrow perfection. For me, the machines and chairs represent the enormous pain I have inflicted on myself and the endless pursuit to be “good enough.” Much of my life has revolved around these pursuits and they left their mark. By making these photographs, I have an outlet to fight the thoughts and beliefs that hinder me. And more importantly to find value in myself for more than what I look like. Models & actresses are held up to women as the cultural ideal of female beauty. They have to struggle to achieve the perfection expected of them. But I am sure they many of these beautiful women, would like to be appreciated for more than their looks. It does not surprise me that many former models have stepped behind the lens: Lee Miller, Tierney Gearon, Helena Christensen, & Ellen Von Unwerth.

So in the midst of my own dark thoughts, yesterday I had a conversation with another photographer about galleries and success and I realized that the ‘why’ of my work is what is most important. If I focus on the other stuff, I lose sight of why photography has changed my life. Taking pictures and exploring the places & things that scare me is where I find freedom. If one person gains a better understanding of what it’s like inside the mind of a women struggling with body issues, then it is worth it. This is why I am somewhat disappointed by the current trend towards ‘process’ driven art. Work that uses process to stand in for something else can be very powerful, but to me a lot of stuff seems empty and more about style. The same way much of the big color typology trend does. Or the work is so personal to the artist that it is inaccessible to the viewer. Perhaps my work is not formally groundbreaking, but I don’t believe that work that is psychological and a reflection of its time should ever be dismissed. There should be room for different types of expression. Yes, the large repetitive print model has been overused. But in a world where women are being given the same large circular breasts, and equally plumped lips, straight and narrow hips and thighs, is it a surprise that the artists have also employed this form. So, I am going to embark on making more work, and try not to feel so negative about the state of photography. Like anything else, what is one day scorned is someday praised.

I came across a trailer for a new documentary about the American corn industry, King Corn. I am not sure how I missed it at Cinema Village in October, but I am hoping it will come back to NYC, or I will have to rent it. I have been telling people for years about the American corn conspiracy only to receive blank stares. I am glad to see that someone it finally addressing this issue. Plus the movie looks irreverent and well shot. I will keep an eye out for it. Go here to see the trailer.

I also stumbled on to an even more disturbing trend in American marketing. The NY Times has a wedding marketplace section. There I found the new ‘wedding video’ ideas. They had choices of super 8, 16mm & 35mm. What is astounding is how adept they are at capturing and creating the female wedding fantasy. There is something so storybook about them, that even if you are jaded about the wedding thing you find yourself getting sucked in. It is truly frightening. I worked a bit in the wedding industry before I came to photography and I never saw anything at weddings remotely like these videos. I understand why people are spending so much money these days. After seeing this propaganda, they must feel enormous pressure to have this perfect, life changing, romantic dream wedding. I photographed one of NYC’s most popular wedding dress stores, and the amount of money that goes in to creating these fantasies is pretty incredible. This store really does create a Disney princess experience. Unfortunately my polaroid back malfunctioned and I only had a few images make it. There are so many parts of our modern day life that are now being dictated by these giant marketplaces. The thing that is most depressing to me, is that this level of production leaves no room for actual emotion or record of genuine experience. Things that are in increasing short supply in our culture.

NY Times Wedding Video - The Book of Love

The Princess Bride

I attended the Blind Spot’s Collapsing Images lecture this weekend, and to be honest hearing so much talk about photography, sort of killed my enthusiasm to write about it. I think at the moment, I am trying to sort out my own definition of what photography means to me, and sometimes hearing so much from other, albeit very talented & intelligent people, is not helpful. While I have enormous respect for many of the panelists, it was disappointing to hear so much bad-mouthing and dismissal of other artists and genres of work. Perhaps it is the nature of an open-ended panel, to fill the silence by being entertaining. Nothing gets a laugh like an outrageous and negative comment. But in the end, the whole thing made me a little sad and bitter about the art world. These were all people with so much success, and they seemed to be angry and unhappy with what it currently means to be a artist. In a way, the panel seemed to reflect the current state of society. We never seem to have enough, and we are always worried that what we do have will taken away from us. That is an environment that breeds hostility, contempt and competition. Katy Grannan, mentioned during the lecture that she decided to be a photographer after seeing Robert Frank’s The Americans. Frank seems to be the one for many of the artists before and after her, myself included. His dark, grainy photographs, that captured everything that was rotten and vainglorious about our culture are just as relevant today and when he set out on the road in the 1950’s. I guess it is difficult to operate as a artist concerned with documenting or reflecting culture in a world so dismayed.

While the panels focused on more traditional forms of image making, the current issue of Blind Spot, curated by Marco Breuer focuses on art that examines process. Breuer says:

In the first place, its not the technology I am interested in so much as the idea of true investigations into photography, as opposed to illustration. I was looking for alternatives to the default of contemporary photography, which is now a 4×5 color negative, whether portrait or typology, blown up to 30×40 inches or larger and mounted behind plexi.

In some ways, I very much agree with Breuer. Chelsea is full of work that is interchangeable and without interest other than its formal or aesthetic qualities. But I think to dismiss one form of picture making as less valid can be dangerous. It is interesting to see work that breaks from this convention, but I am not convinced that breaking free from form alone can move photography into a new direction. Certainly John Baldessari, Cindy Sherman, and the rest of the seventies post-modern generation already went through this territory, and at that time, it was a image making revolution. Now, no one questions the validity of Liz Deschenes Moires, because of those pioneering artists. It seems that it would be better look at Deschenes, and Michelle Kloehn’s ambrotypes as reflections and reactions to our cultures obsession with technology. Their work becomes infinitely more relevant when it is taken out of the ‘conceptual photo’ context. If artists have become obsessed with process, whether it’s digital manipulation, new forms of making photographs, or using obsolete processes, maybe it is because we are all bombarded with so much process in our everyday lives. My boyfriend and I recently switched to DVR cable, and had to replace our box & remote. The new remote, even with a 10 page instruction book is almost incomprehensible to operate. Every moment we are confronted with new technologies to master and comprehend. This is the reality of modern live, so should art not also be challenging? Artists can choose how they wish to reflect the world. I personally am not as interested in work that is exclusively reliant on form, and at this moment, photography should concern itself more with how it can capture the enormous changes in world, and not focus so much on itself. However, being so quick to dismiss a typology of larger color prints which may indeed have something new to say, is just as wrong as those who dismissing Thomas Demand & Jeff Wall for “making” their images.

Well, today I realized that perhaps I have been working too hard. The last few months have been a whirlwind of trying to get my photo career off the ground and trying to figure out how to make money in the interim. Today I was supposed to leave for my first vacation in 2 years. A short break in Miami to hopefully get some much needed R&R. When we arrived at the airport this morning at 8:30, we discovered that our reservation was for YESTERDAY. Spirit Airlines informed us they had cancelled the whole ticket, and we would have to pay another $600 if we wanted to go to Miami today. Now, if you were the person who made your reservation on the wrong date - imagine how you would feel. Plus, I just dropped a considerable amount of money shooting last week in DC. Rather than screaming, I managed to appeal to the ticket agent and thanks to the help of a kind JetBlue employee, we will be on our way - 5+ hours later….

Spending my entire day at an airport made me think about space. I believe spaces have personalities and that they have an emotional effect on us. The airport is a 3rd space. It is not a destination, or a place anyone wants to spend time. It is temporal glitch, a waiting station as you move to & from other places. How strange it must be to work at an airport. To spend your days stationary, while everyone else is on their way to places that must seem more exciting, when you are standing under fluorescent lights. But the longer I have been here, the more I realize that the airport is a thriving community. It does have people who populate it every day. Normally we just pass by them on our way somewhere else, oblivious to their world.

LGA

Some airports have art exhibitions. I came across the work of PA based photographer currently having an exhibit at Philadelphia International. I like this image from her website, and considering the array of food available here, this seems like something all airports should display, next to Cinnabon & Dunkin Donuts.

At least I am heading to Miami with a new Body Shop lip balm, and a pair of Brookstone travel socks.

I am not very interested in people using blogs to settle scores or complain. I can understand where the impulse comes from, the photo industry can be very challenging. But when I saw today’s post on Andrew Hetherington’s blog, whatsthejackanory I felt I had to respond (Andrew, by the way has a blog that has a nice balance of the positive & critical.) There seem to be a rash of anonymous blogs popping up, and while it makes sense if you work for a company that forbids blogging, I think it can be a dangerous idea. I immediately think of all the evil activities of seventh grade girls, who love these sorts of anonymous forums. As I remember they usually end up creating broken friendships, tears and the formation of lifelong complexes. The latest Bitter Photographer really seems headed for this territory. Yes, perhaps a lot of blogs take themselves way too seriously, and I am all for parody or humor, but BP’s attack on Alec Soth was more like schadenfreude. I can say from personal experience Alec is a genuine and open person. I do not know him, but before I launched my blog I sent him an email asking for his advice. He respond right away with a thoughtful, detailed and friendly email. Now, I will not name them, but many of the other established bloggers I have sent hello emails to, never even responded. Yes, he has lots of opinions, and yes he posts his poetry, but his advice to me was that blogs that are just a front for self-promotion are not very interesting, and that it is best to write things that you really care about. To me, it is clear that that is exactly what he does.

I much prefer people who show what matters to them, to people who stand in judgment of others. If I were to focus on all the artists who were better or more successful than me, why would I bother every doing anything. And of course some days that is exactly how I feel. We do things because we enjoy them or because we need to do them. We can only hope that other people are interested. So, Alec Soth has 200,000 people enthralled with his blog, doesn’t that more make room for us.