on 'photographer'
Only a few days ago, I was asked if I was a photographer. I think that several times throughout the afternoon the camera around my neck was addressed (it makes sense, we are in a language office, not an artist studio). I am always stopped by those questions and find myself giving the world's longest explanations because of the general reactions I have encountered in the past.
I hate saying things like 'Yes, I am a photographer,' because that term carries with it different connotations and is subject to individual interpretation.
First I will go over the cameras I own - they are low maintenance, light-weight, and some of them just low quality in general. I have a 127 Brownie (tangent: really, I have two but have only used one I bought from Helena Kvarnstrom who is - I can't emphasize this enough - just one of the most amazing human beings on the face of this planet. Look her up. I love her photography), a Canon Rebel G (film, not digital), a Nikon Coolpix 4300 (oh for a digital Rebel), a pop art camera (read: action sampler knockoff with coloured lenses) & finally, the newest addition is the Holga. As anyone who knows can tell, three of those cameras are mass audience toy cameras, two of which take an older type of film, 120 (medium format for the Holga) & 127. Until recently, 127 film was no longer being produced and had not been since 1995, but I had managed to get my hands on - count it - one roll. Fortunately, it is again being produced in North America.
I got two rolls.
Anyway, for the most part, especially in regard to the toy cameras, these are just not the sort of cameras you bring in for studio shots. I have to emphasize how non-commercial the pictures I take are, & really, for many people there is not much of a difference between what I take and a regular snapshot because of that overall lack of equipment and staging. I don't really care. If a photographer is just floral shots and staged portraits, then no, I am not a photographer. If a studio is required, better lighting than just natural lighting, or a context that is set apart from the everyday and the sudden movement of human beings, again, I'm not a photographer. Of course, realistically 'photographer' means many things. It can mean each of the aforementioned (and with my respect, I know some people who are quite good at it) or maybe we could use photographer in the journalistic sense, & of course there is that notion of art that everyone tries to control and on which we can never come to a sort of agreement.
In addition to my hesitance because of the variety of definitions on 'photographer,' I am hesitant because like with nearly everything, I think of myself as a hack. If you look at the journalistic work done by my good friend, Chris Ammann (one of the human beings I will always respect, admire and adore), or the shots taken by Helena, Kim Winderman, Alaina Burri-Stone, et al, then maybe it becomes obvious why 'hack' is what comes to mind when I think of myself. Can anyone think of another word for the mediocre surrounded by the amazing? Thinking about it makes me turn into some neurotic, insecure mess of Woody Allen proportions. Anyway, I like to think I am at least somewhat honest when I say that anything I take is a rehashed, poorly executed shot. Yes, I've always been that critical of myself. I like myself as a writer, but even then I refer to myself as a hack. I suppose if I read a bunch of garbage novels or Chuck Palahniuk's latest, I'd feel like a goddamn genius. I don't imagine to define myself by my hobby, and I must stress that for me it is a hobby. I think it is more likely to say, with confidence, that I am a blogger than I would say I am a photographer. I blog with a serious passion which is why I have just under several hundred online blogs.
-Monique
I hate saying things like 'Yes, I am a photographer,' because that term carries with it different connotations and is subject to individual interpretation.
First I will go over the cameras I own - they are low maintenance, light-weight, and some of them just low quality in general. I have a 127 Brownie (tangent: really, I have two but have only used one I bought from Helena Kvarnstrom who is - I can't emphasize this enough - just one of the most amazing human beings on the face of this planet. Look her up. I love her photography), a Canon Rebel G (film, not digital), a Nikon Coolpix 4300 (oh for a digital Rebel), a pop art camera (read: action sampler knockoff with coloured lenses) & finally, the newest addition is the Holga. As anyone who knows can tell, three of those cameras are mass audience toy cameras, two of which take an older type of film, 120 (medium format for the Holga) & 127. Until recently, 127 film was no longer being produced and had not been since 1995, but I had managed to get my hands on - count it - one roll. Fortunately, it is again being produced in North America.
I got two rolls.
Anyway, for the most part, especially in regard to the toy cameras, these are just not the sort of cameras you bring in for studio shots. I have to emphasize how non-commercial the pictures I take are, & really, for many people there is not much of a difference between what I take and a regular snapshot because of that overall lack of equipment and staging. I don't really care. If a photographer is just floral shots and staged portraits, then no, I am not a photographer. If a studio is required, better lighting than just natural lighting, or a context that is set apart from the everyday and the sudden movement of human beings, again, I'm not a photographer. Of course, realistically 'photographer' means many things. It can mean each of the aforementioned (and with my respect, I know some people who are quite good at it) or maybe we could use photographer in the journalistic sense, & of course there is that notion of art that everyone tries to control and on which we can never come to a sort of agreement.
I am someone who simply tries to capture on film what is around me or at the very least, what is influencing me; obviously there are certain sets that are staged and are not a part of my environment but do reflect my influences and thoughts.
I am concerned with intimacy, with simplicity, and most of all, with my own enjoyment.
In addition to my hesitance because of the variety of definitions on 'photographer,' I am hesitant because like with nearly everything, I think of myself as a hack. If you look at the journalistic work done by my good friend, Chris Ammann (one of the human beings I will always respect, admire and adore), or the shots taken by Helena, Kim Winderman, Alaina Burri-Stone, et al, then maybe it becomes obvious why 'hack' is what comes to mind when I think of myself. Can anyone think of another word for the mediocre surrounded by the amazing? Thinking about it makes me turn into some neurotic, insecure mess of Woody Allen proportions. Anyway, I like to think I am at least somewhat honest when I say that anything I take is a rehashed, poorly executed shot. Yes, I've always been that critical of myself. I like myself as a writer, but even then I refer to myself as a hack. I suppose if I read a bunch of garbage novels or Chuck Palahniuk's latest, I'd feel like a goddamn genius. I don't imagine to define myself by my hobby, and I must stress that for me it is a hobby. I think it is more likely to say, with confidence, that I am a blogger than I would say I am a photographer. I blog with a serious passion which is why I have just under several hundred online blogs.
-Monique
posted by Monique Mendoza at 2/12/2007 09:08:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home