IS ART?

It’s ironic that, in a world of digitized intensity, simple monochromatic black on white continues to hold such massive appeal. Actually, black and white has seldom diminished, aside from the 1970′s, when colour became ubiquitous in television, photographic print and fashion. Then, mono became briefly synonymous with ‘moth-eaten’. But not anymore.

I recently had the privilege to shoot Burj Khalifa – the world’s tallest tower. It’s a spectacularly majestic structure on which colour is a constantly changing characteristic. Yet, for me, the most successful images are those we shot in black and white. Somehow, the image is transformed into something altogether more genuine, contemplative, deliberate. And therein lies a rationale for the appeal of mono images – they force the viewer to see the image with fewer distractions. Maybe we’re able to process the visual information better when the image is unornamented, less complex. Perhaps like choosing colours for our cars (silver, white, grey and black are, according to DuPont, the most popular choices), we are all looking for a little less visual saturation in our lives.

Trained for layout and with an eye for detail, Graphic Designers can be (and should be) very good Photographers. Composition, balance, colour and precision are components of both professions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work the other way. I’ve yet to see a Photographer work InDesign or Illustrator, pagenate a brochure or design an identity scheme. That said, much of branding is about visual metaphor and a Photographer would be a great attribute in a client creative workshop – articulate our Corporation as a picture…..!

Recently, at one of my galleries, I overheard a customer say to his wife in a disparaging tone, “No, let’s not, (buy), it’s probably been photoshop’ed”. Now, whilst I am not a fan of overworked or falsified images, I think Photoshop is a brilliant tool which replicates techniques that have been around for a century. In the darkroom, dodging and burning were (and are) routinely applied. As is cropping and contrast control and a host of other techniques. My point is, Photoshop, used appropriately, is a brilliant tool and in no way does it dilute the integrity of a good image. Get over the guilt and use it to transform everyday images! Gregg

There’s no such thing as a bad image and that makes every one of us a Photographer. Needless to say, some Photographers are better than others but I am adamant that if a person can see than he can create. A camera is the most convenient and instantaneous tool through which to realize our deep-rooted ability to see beauty, banality, emotion, event. It can be a tool of great precision and technical record but it can also be a recorder of blurry emotion in low resolution. Either way, it matters little and a great image is a great image. So what elevates an image to ‘artistic’ status?

For me, it’s about intent. If the intention is to capture an impression, portray an architectural feature, capture a moment, convey a style and, if the image is successful in fulfilling on that intent – then the image may become more than another photograph.

But intention is not the sole domain of the so called professional. And anyway, when does anyone qualify for the terms; ‘professional’, ‘artist’, or ‘fine-art photographer’?

What camera is used, how many lights are employed, the debate about film or digital, all become irrelevant. The image has been designed and is a conscious attempt to fulfill a prescribed objective and the result can be judged against an artistic criteria.

The camera is the most liberating artistic device. From the cheapest digital to a large format Linhoff, all are capable of producing great photographs, commercially viable prints worthy of the ‘fine-art’ tag. Of course, many traditional ‘Photographers’ will resist this suggestion. Theirs is the domain of kit bags and studios, investments and client relationships. But look into history and time and time again, the great photographers care little for the hardware. Henri Cartier Bresson used a Leica and gave up a career in painting when he “suddenly understood that a photograph could fix eternity in an instant.” He described that Leica with its standard 50mm lens as an extension of his eye. Warhol used a compact Minox camera and, I speculate that, tactile qualities aside, it wouldn’t have bothered him one bit had it been a Kodak, Pentax or Olympus. You see, for Bresson, it was all about capturing the moment and for Warhol it was about portraying people as colour and reducing complex personality into simple forms – so, for both photographers, there was intent and the results are extraordinary.

We’re all Photographers and we all have ideas. The hard thing is getting out there and taking the pictures – on a theme, with a purpose. To do it requires focus and determination. But it doesn’t require travel or expensive equipment. Martin Parr photographed everyday life in England, William Egglestone found beauty in everyday objects, such as trucks and tyres.

My message then is this; every great photographer or series of photographs starts with an idea. Don’t be put off by equipment or lack of it. Any camera will do the job. Don’t be intimidated by labels either – there’s no such thing as amateur and professional. And, most importantly pick a theme – any theme – if it’s important or interesting to you then it is worth capturing on film, file or phone!

Gregg Sedgwick is a Photographer. If you want to send him samples of your images, you can do so at contact@g-1.com