So unless I have a complete meltdown between now and the 17th of September, there will be nothing to see here. I will likely be doing the majority of my procrastination over at twitter, if you find you’re suffering from separation anxiety.

In the meantime, look, some pictures!

all © catherine buca 2007-2010

It isn’t amateur photography, and amateur photographers, in general that I’m bitter about disillusioned with, but the ‘look at me I’m an artist don’t you know’ bollocks that accompanies much of it. Like the endless re-tweeting of quotations from photography’s great and good.

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. – Ansel Adams

Ugh. What are you trying to prove when you quote that? That you share Adams’ insight? That you’re super creative? “Wow man, that’s like, just, like, so profound man.” And of course, some names inspire blind faith.

A photograph is not an accident – it is a concept. – Ansel Adams

What utter bollocks. A photograph is a photograph. You can attach concepts to it, it can be representative of something depending on the context, but it, the photograph, is just a photograph. Of course, it’s heresy to say that, because Adams wasn’t just a man, he was a genius, a higher species, a god.

I’d much rather someone quote, if they must, this:

It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. – Ansel Adams

But how rarely do people with such awesome depth of artistic vision </bitter sarcasm> comment on something that is of real importance.

Part of my strong reaction against this (and I mean, they’re only quotations, innocuous and harmless) comes from a wider hatred of the ‘quotation culture’ of Twitter, something I’m happy to admit is likely irrational and probably ridiculous. Nevertheless, it’s a hatred I have, and one that’s exacerbated by a more general dislike for the pretensions of the Flickr/amateur scene. Everyone’s a creative genius, producing their ‘art’, their artist statements, crafting a paragraph or two on their ‘vision’ in obscure, flowery language that, quite frankly, does more to make me think they’re a dullard nobhead pseud than if they were to quote Ansel Adams every day.

I make no claims to be an authority on what art is, or on what makes a good photograph, not least because I simply don’t care. I used to. I was an idiot. I understand that people attach a narrative to what they do, either to justify it, or to position themselves as this type of person or that. It’s impossible to be objective about why you do anything creative, in fact about why you do anything at all, and I’m no different. I’ll tell you I take photos because I like carrying a camera, framing a shot, and pressing the button. I’ll say I take photos because I can’t draw or paint, and at least if I take a photo I’ve got a decent chance of it turning out looking reasonably pleasant. I’ll explain my photos aren’t about anything, that I just like making something that looks pretty, that I take photos because I can, and because it’s something to do, because everyone needs a hobby. And I’ve already told you I think artistic posturing is bollocks, and that those who do it are just trying to make themselves feel like they’re worth something, and are a part of something. But of course, when I tell you that I’m posturing myself, claiming I’m better than them because I don’t need to pretend I’m an artist. The only real difference I can see is that I’m honest about being full of shit (<-- that is posturing as well).

Here's a pretty picture that means jack shit (<-- more posturing):

© catherine buca 2010

both © catherine buca 2010

all © catherine buca 2010

I downloaded the Plastic Bullet iPhone app from Red Giant Software yesterday. It provides a less controllable experience than a lot of other apps I use: you either take a photo in-app, or choose one from your photo roll, and the app produces 4 random variations, all ‘retro’ or ‘lomo’ in style. You can choose to save any or all of them, and/or reload for another 4 random styles. I spent ages reloading this image and although the images share characteristics, out of the maybe 100 created, none were exactly the same. This app is going to be loads of fun.

I also downloaded Photo FX from Tiffen. Coming from Tiffen, as you might expect it’s based on a series of filters. I say ‘series’, I mean shed-load. There are so many to choose from I haven’t actually saved any of the images I was playing around with last night. You can layer filters as well, and have a degree of control over each one’s application. Well worth the price.

all © catherine buca 2007-2010

both © catherine buca 2010

The top one was a mistake, because the camera wouldn’t wind; the second was intentional (I think), only partially winding on.

all © catherine buca 2010

I had my first 2 rolls taken with the Diana Mini developed today. I’m pleasantly surprised. I very, very, very much like this camera. In lots and lots of ways.

What I did find quite interesting was the discussion about the art market’s view of street photography. The article quotes Paul Graham, who said: “…there remains a sizeable part of the art world that simply does not get photography. They get artists who use photography to illustrate their ideas, installations, performances and concepts, who deploy the medium as one of a range of artistic strategies to complete their work. But photography for and of itself – photographs taken from the world as it is – are misunderstood as a collection of random observations and lucky moments, or muddled up with photojournalism, or tarred with a semi-derogatory ‘documentary’ tag.”

It was perhaps no surprise that the article talks about flickr, more specifically the Hardcore Street Photography group. There may be little point here having the debate about what the increased access to photography means for its status, whether it devalues it as an artistic medium or has democratised it for the better, but it seems that few discussions about photography these days can leave flickr out – even if it’s there as an implied presence only. And going back to Graham’s comment above, there is no lack of “photography for and of itself – photographs taken from the world as it is” on flickr, and elsewhere. The discussion about value is one worth having, however. I would argue that far from there being a semi-utopian community where everyone is an artist, this increased access to photography (and its dissemination) helps highlight the gate-keeping function of the economic and cultural art (sub-)fields. I may come back to this in a later post, since I’d like to flex my Bourdieusian muscles in this area.

As a side note, perhaps, the discussion, towards the end – where 3 photographers describe what street photography is – shows how it’s pretty pointless, and self-serving, to try to define what it is or what it should be.

And it made me wish, again, I could do that stuff. I’ve tried but I’m shit at it. See …

© catherine buca 2006-2010

both © catherine buca 2010