
I
thought some years ago that I could share that vision of photography but I have
decided that in spite of my passion, I can’t. Maybe I am not smart enough.
Maybe I am not persuasive enough. Maybe I just don’t know the right words. I
don’t know what, but it never seems to be effective. So I shifted gears. It’s
not that I no longer care. I am just not going to fight that battle regardless of
how beneficial it might be. I still intend to write about my way of seeing. If
it interests the reader fine; if it doesn’t that is also fine. And if it irritates
the crap out of the reader, so be it.


Many years
ago I saw his Pleasures and Terrors of
Levitation at the Dallas Museum of Fine Art. I did not understand the
photographs. I did not particularly like the photographs. As many do when they
see photographs that they do not understand in a museum or gallery, I wondered,
“Why?” I bought the catalogue of the
show in spite of my distaste.

Not understanding
Siskind’s ‘Levitation’ was due to my own
inadequacies. Understanding did not require anything from Siskind or from
Siskind’s work—it required that I grow to the point where I could understand. I
could easily have walked away thinking, “What crap.” Fortunately I didn’t and
today I am richer visually because I didn’t.

For the
most part, amateur photographers find the history of photography boring. All
they want to do is with as little effort as possible on their part to make pretty pictures like those that Joe Blow makes and
gets published or gets awarded a ribbon. It bothers me when I see photographers
giving up or ignoring their personal vision. It saddens me to learn that there
are people taking photographs that don’t seem to even know that they have, or
are allowed to have, a personal vision or know the value of their unique personal
vision. It makes me want to grab a copy of Ian Robert’s Creative Authenticity and crawl under the covers. Anyway, back to
Siskind, the brief bio…
In Gloucester, Mass, in the
summer of 1944, Aaron Siskind experienced what can only be described as a
change of vision. He had been producing still lifes—“a discarded glove, two
fish heads and other commonplace objects which I found kicking around on the
wharves.” He recalls. But now he looked at these items in a completely new way.
“For the first time in my life.” He said, “subject matter as such had ceased to
be of primary importance.” It was a total about face for Siskind. Since the
1930s he had been photographing such documentary themes as Harlem tenements and
Bowery bums. Subject matter had been the whole point. Now the subject was all
but unrecognizable. His close ups of stone walls and peeling posters are all
surface and design, like canvases by a nonrepresentational painter. The picture
itself, not the scene it shows, has become Siskind’s vehicle for conveying impact
and emotion.
Indeed Siskind’s new found vision
is the inevitable step after the ‘equivalents’ of Alfred Stieglitz and the ‘sequences’
of Minor White, in which forms found in nature, rendered precisely and directly
with the camera, are offered as expressions of the photographer’s own state of
mind. “I’m not interested in nature,” Siskind contends “I’m interested in my
own nature.”

I know I
could repeat this a thousand times a day and no one would pay attention. But in
that last sentence, “I’m interested in my own nature” is the whole distinction
between being an artist, read photographer, and a picture taker. And no one
ever gets there by simply scratching their surface or imitating another.
No comments:
Post a Comment