By now, if you’ve read the two previous posts on this delicate matter, you’ve hopefully come to realize that quality in photography is quite difficult.
Today I’d like to discuss three things which exposes quality in quite different ways. Those three things are; commercial photography, non-commercial photography, and photography true to the photographer.
When looking at photography in general, one could argue that quality is found when certain standards are met. Regardless of what kind of photography, there are always some sort of standard of what is to be considered “good” quality, “good” photography.
In commercial photography, this is extremely important. Not only need the technical standards be perfect; onto that, the photograph needs to meet the standards and wishes from the client who ordered it. This could be a commercial photograph, ads, portraits for a business of some sort, products, or something else completely.
Noone would take any business seriously with photographs that does not meet said standards. And the standards are not only of technical skills and whatever else skill sets the photographer needs. The business who wants to use these photographs also have standards for how to create their own image. These too needs to be understood and photographed accordingly to.
For me personally, who is not at all commercial – I used to work as a portrait-/wedding photographer, who would sometimes also photograph for different businesses. I can tell you it’s much easier said than done. I failed more than once, and had to redo it.
Non-commercial photography, on the other hand, does not need to oblige to other people’s ideas of what a photograph should be. Thus, quality as such is not required to the same degree, or I should perhaps say, in the same way.
Because let’s face it; when we start a new hobby and realize we have potential to be good at it, we ourselves tend to demand a certain level of quality from ourselves.
But that’s not all. I find that there are different kinds of quality within different areas of photography. Not only in commercial photography, but also in the amateur photographic world. Photo clubs, for example, tend to have a certain standard as to what photography is and how it should look. Certain photography educations have other standards. If a group of photographers join and exhibit together, there might be a certain common standard within the group.
Et cetera.
There’s nothing wrong with any of these examples, whether commercial or non-commercial. It’s a good thing that people can find common ground with their work, and hopefully also have the space to grow and expand the way they think about, and practise, photography.
Last, but not least, I’d like to discuss what could be referred to as independent photographers. Much like myself, actually – a non-commercial photographer who choose not to be part of any so called movement within the world of photography.
For various, personal reasons, I’ve had a number of years where I hardly photographed at all. Once I got started again, I decided not to photograph for money = to be non-commercial, independent, to only photograph for myself.
What this has meant for me, is that I have refined my own visual language, I have expanded my entire mindset about photography as a practise, but also the theoretical/philosophical side of it.
It does require a lot of thinking, I’ll admit that. Spending that much time thinking about how and why photography is important to me, have given me some interesting insights that might be of value for other people as well.
Most important to me is to photograph what is true – to me. I don’t necessarily photograph traditionally, as in showing reality “as it is”, to allow a viewer to recognize places, I don’t do street, documentary, landscapes or anything of the like.
I photograph with my view of the world as base. If I can’t do that, I would rather choose not to photograph at all. I went on a photo walk with some people a while back, and they asked me to photograph things I would never choose myself. Trust me when I tell you; it was intensely uncomfortable.
So, how can one ascern quality from an independent photographer?
I would say; by how you as a viewer respond to their photographs. If you have some knowledge about photography, you could probably tell whether there is technical quality to their work, but if you actually feel something looking at it – I would say that’s a level of quality that’s really worth something.
But – from my own point of view, as a photographer, a writer and philosopher, the concept of my own truth in photography is overwhelmingly important. To me, it is necessary to be true to who I am, in what I do. It doesn’t matter if it’s photography, philosophy, how I am with my dog, who I am with my friends, et cetera. I cannot pretend to be something that I’m not, and this is true (!) even in photography.
…
Oh, and if you haven’t already, I can really recommend reading my first book ever. It’s all about Truth vs Reality in photography, and is a large part of how I view the world.
/Malinka
