The only person to care about the photography of you and me, was us. In order for the rest of the world to care, your photography has to be about something that’s relevant.
–Stewart Harvey
Listening to another podcast, I heard the above quote by the person that Brooks Jensen was interviewing. I found myself totally disagreeing with the artist’s statement.
I believe that we can only make our own art, period. Also, that art is always relevant to us and, if it happens to be relevant to someone else, well that’s just fine. Part of the statement is quite true, I think, in that we are the only ones who care about our photography.
To put it bluntly, should I die tomorrow, the 30,000 images or so that I have, perhaps more, would not matter to anyone else. They have great meaning to me, but are of little value to anyone else. They are, however, my expression of life. My vision. They are relevant to me and, quite frankly, that’s enough.
I think that when you attempt to make art that is relevant to others, you cease to make your own art, plainly and simply.
Related posts:
4 Responses to “Making art that matters”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You’re absolutely right, Paul, and it’s a good remember that so we don’t ever sell out. Aren’t the azaleas so beautiful this spring?!
Call me nuts, and maybe you got a different impression based on the larger context of the quote, but aren’t you and Harvey saying the same thing?
@Ron: You’re nuts!
I read it again and I don’t think that we are saying the same things. I think that he is saying that in order for your art to have meaning to someone else you have to photograph things that are relevant to others, not just yourself. I’m saying that, perhaps, the best art is a by product of producing that which is meaningful to one’s own self, and that external relevancy is secondary, a side effect not a goal.
Ron, you’re not nuts (and neither are you, Paul).
But you are, I think, both saying the same thing. You’re just coming to it from a different perspective. Obviously, there’s no point in creating an image (that you believe is “art”) if it’s not relevant to you. And if you have no interest in sharing that image with anyone else, then that’s the only relevance that matters.
But if you do share it with others, then something other than your own perception of “relevance” (i.e., your ego) has to be included. It doesn’t mean that you’ve sold out your creative integrity – it just means that there is some intent to project some message or meaning or vision of the world we live in that can be understood or perceived by others.
Heck, forget about photography. If everything we do in life is determined solely by what we consider to be relevant to ourselves, to our own self-interests, then what are we? What words would describe us? Selfish? Self-centered? Egocentric? Why should we view our artistic pursuits any differently?
Personally, I’m really kind of tired of all the self-proclaimed “artists” of the world that are constantly thumping their own chests and saying that their art is “ART” because they say it is and because it has “MEANING” to them. The rest of the world be damned. Horse-Puckey. That’s just a cheap defense mechanism. If the rest of the world suddenly discovered these folks and proclaimed their work to be great art, would they reject that recognition? I think not.
“Relevance” is ultimately an external – not an internal – judgement.