Just one thing...
A casual critical comment made by someone I've never met has had a quite profound effect on me. Given my defence of my right to critique the work of others, those of you who took an opposing stance could be forgiven for a feeling of schadenfreude. I should point out, though, that I defend this anonymous critics right to criticize. What they said didn't wound me, I'm not feeling persecuted, I just don't agree with what he/she said. Perhaps I should start at the beginning...
A participant on one of my recent workshops said that an acquaintance of hers had dismissively remarked that, "David Ward, oh, he only does one thing..."
First of all I'd like to point out that it's simply not true that I only do one thing. A line from The Blues Brothers seems apposite, "Oh, we have both kinds of music here – Country and Western!" I do both kinds of detail shots – doors and windows! To be a little more serious, I want to ask a couple of questions; what exactly is the one thing that the critic thinks that I do, what's wrong with doing only one thing and why has this comment annoyed me so much?
Well, I can't for the life of me think what the one thing is – unless it's what one might loosely term landscape photography? As well as the aforementioned doors and windows I also "do" ferns, rocks with lichen, fences, snow, trees, ice, running water, leaves, reflections, cloudscapes, seascapes, boats, sand dunes... oh, yes, and grand vistas and any other subject that appeals to me at a particular moment. These all fit within a loose genre but are nowhere near as narrow a field as the "one thing" remark would suggest. Unfortunately the critic didn't elaborate so I don't know what she/he was thinking of and can only conjecture what the reasoning behind the remark might have been. Perhaps the critic was lazily expressing the thought that I shot in a particular style, that I had an easily recognised approach to my subjects. Surely that's a possible mark of someone who has found their artistic "voice", something most artists would aspire to. After all we don't wish to be seen merely as plagiarists. Granted, a consistent approach might also be the mark of someone who is making images by rote, by the rigorous application of a formula. Of course I'm bound to say that I don't make images to any predetermined formula but one could argue that any artist who has found their "voice" is working within a set of self-imposed parameters, whether these be conscious or unconscious. Would my critic also have a poke at Rembrandt for only painting moody portraits or JMW Turner for painting sunsets or Pablo Picasso for painting funny faces? It's evident that the original remark is based upon a degree of typecasting. All these artists actually produced other kinds of images yet we know them for a particular type of output. We must remember that an individual piece of an artist's work sits within the wider context of the entire history of their work. Turner didn't always paint impressionistic work, that work appeared as a result of many years of artistic exploration. It's a common human weakness to want to pigeonhole people and their work but this reductive approach doesn't help us to a rounded understanding of an artist and their body of work. Artists are understandably known for their great works but these didn't miraculously spring to life fully formed. These artists worked hard, often for decades, before these masterpieces "appeared". And they often went on to produce different, less well know work after their famous pieces.
The idea of an artist's voice raises an ancillary question; what's wrong with an artist concentrating on a particular field of the visual realm, what's wrong with an artist being a portraitist or working exclusively on landscape? Or, what's wrong with being a specialist and what's great about being a generalist? Apart from in the hands of a few noted geniuses, true Renaissance men such as Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo Buonorotti, the non-specialist approach has tended to the production of work characterised by its mediocrity. True polymaths are very rare individuals and it seems self evident to me that to excel at anything one needs to fully apply oneself to that particular thing. A parallel with Olympic sport springs to mind. Participants in the Decathlon compete in the same prescribed ten events – 100-metre dash, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400-metre dash, 110-metre hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, and 1,500-metre run. These incredibly talented athletes are rarely if ever world record holders in any of these individual events. If they were good enough to be the world record holder in any one of them their time would more fruitfully be spent concentrating on that individual sport. But their specialism is the decathlon not the individual sports, the context of their efforts is the performance of other decathletes not that of specialists. A similar choice might be made by an artist; the choice to explore many different artistic fields with the concomitant risk that one might never achieve the highest level of achievement. There's nothing wrong with this per se but a decision to diversify cannot possibly be a justification to criticise someone who chooses to specialise. Of course the rarified heights of ultimate acheivement are only ever reached by a few talented and committed practitioners so one could argue that it's not worth the effort, why waste years trying to be the best when the chance of getting there is so slim? Well, personally I can't see the point in pursuing an artistic endeavour if one doesn't want to make the effort to do it really well. I might not reach the highest heights but it will be an interesting and eventful journey.
Time is limited so an artist needs to use it wisely and effectively. In any artistic endeavour a fairly large percentage of the time available first needs to be assigned to understanding the technicalities, mastering one's craft, and only then can one concentrate on any artistic exploration. One could argue that once one has mastered the technicalities of photography the same techniques could be applied to any kind of picture making. This is far too simplistic a view. Photography perhaps has more specialisations than any other art form. These specialisms haven't arisen by chance. Economics obviously plays some part in the diversification but the depth of technical knowledge needed for each specialized field is of greater importance. Apart from a few shared fundamental principals – the aperture / shutter speed relationship being the most obvious – there is very little in common between say a landscape photographer and a sports photographer or a wedding photographer and still life photographer. Each area of specialization has its own canon of arcane knowledge, the little wrinkles in the field of photographic knowledge that need to be fully mapped and understood in order for one to excel in that arena and not trip and fall flat on one's face.
So why has the anonymous critic's comment annoyed me so much? Because it was a lazy comment with no substantiating argument. If one wants to be globally critical of another's work then one must make the effort to learn about what they do in a rounded way, not simply to caricature their work. The point of criticism is not merely to traduce another's work, criticism isn't just a chance to "have a go", not merely an outlet for spite. Properly used it is a way to apply critical thought to the work of others and to learn lessons that one can apply to one's own approach in the process. A global dismissal of a photographer's work is not criticism it's completely pointless. I have been critical of some of the work of a certain Harry Cory Wright but I think that some his seascapes are absolutely incredible. I would never assume that a photographer could only do one thing nor dismiss all their work with such a thoughtless comment. It is incumbent upon any critic to consider what they are saying not merely to say the first thing that comes into their head.
Anyway, time to get back to my one thing...
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews24/08/2008, 15:36
OK David, calm down...
There is always a danger of coming to a decision based on limited evidence. I'm in danger of doing that here but... I assume that the critic had only seen two or three of your pictures, say your windows or ferns, and from that assumed that was all you did. If they had looked at your entire body of work - or at least your books and this website - it would be hard to see how the "one thing" comment could apply, except in the general sense of 5x4 photos (and even that has been laid to rest by your phone camera images!). There are particular motifs that we all look out for and return to - I have a penchant for strong diagonals, and a small sample of my pictures might make people think all I do is diagonals, which is not (quite) true. Suppositions based on very limited evidence are rarely proved to be correct in the long term.
Thoughtful criticism can have a very positive effect, but there is an art to giving criticism and a certain maturity needed to take it. Off the cuff comments are not criticism.
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson24/08/2008, 16:19
David, Now David if you were a painter of the artist type you would not be getting this kind of crap. It is because you are a photographer that you have to suffer insensitive comments like this.
I wonder if the person that made the comment is a camera club member as this is the worst king of camera club mentality and short- sightedness. I have suffered this same crap in the passed, so I understand how you feel. Plough your own furrow and sod them all is what I say.
Highlight this Comment Richard Childs24/08/2008, 20:27
David,
Long may you continue to do just one thing for many of us; continue to surprise and delight us with your vision of the world. Alternatively you could move to a new media altogether, perhaps Dalbeg in turned wood or The Wave in Mime!!
Highlight this Comment Jason24/08/2008, 20:35
Its very commendable that you have been so honest about the way in which the critique has affected you and I take my hat off to you for the open and honest way you have done that…Its always difficult opening oneself up in this way, but it does indeed develop us into stronger more textured people. (That is if defence mechanisms don’t get the better of us…) Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that this physiological ego battering (destructive critique I mean) is indeed positive for us to develop first emotionally then creatively. (I hope I'm making sense because I'm in a Cornish pub on holiday using the wifi quickly as my kids and wife are beginning to get grumpy) anyway…. sorry for the quick response, I will be back…
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin25/08/2008, 13:26
Perhaps she meant portrait orientation pictures ;-)
Highlight this Comment Elizabeth27/08/2008, 10:30
It is very difficult to comment on your blog without it being 'personal'. That said....
Surely it is partly because you care so passionately about your 'work' and your desire to help others to reach a level they are happy with in theirs that you are wounded. As another participant on one of your courses said after reading your first book - 'There's more to you than meets the eye', or words to that effect. Words and their meanings are important to you, as is discussion. I suspect that not being able to ascertain this person's exact meaning is more than a tad niggling!
On a positive note reading this has made me realise that where I'm at is still trying to master the technical side of image making – so not being able create awe inspiring images is hardly surprising. I think that one was irony.
Many of us are guilty of glib throw away comments - no this one wasn't mine, phewey!
Take heart David, all your toys are back in the pram now so you can continue doing your inimitable one thing at a level to which most can only aspire.
Highlight this Comment Peter Cook27/08/2008, 15:19
David, perhaps the critic’s comments was pointed at your style of photography. Now to explain a bit more, when I first discovered your work what excited me was the way you looked at the ‘inner landscape’, or to put it another way, the more close up view of the world, picking out details rather than a big wide view. It’s this that has inspired me to look deeper and seek other options, as well as my favoured ‘wide view’ landscapes.
I could not put it in the category of ‘just one thing’ as your work is as varied as any other photographer but it does (in general) posses that looking deeper style. I would say that this is rarer and perhaps it could therefore be confused with ‘doing just one thing’.
Or perhaps the critic just explained his/her views in a poor way, and it is easy for someone who is not particularly interested in something to be more dismissive than if they are, perhaps because they lack that deeper understanding, maybe this was the case with your critic.
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist28/08/2008, 07:37
Hello David,
As noted by a fellow commentator, it was probably a glib comment, but it is scary to think how much has been done in the visual arts and beyond, and also to imagine how much will be done, compared to the very little each one of us is doing. So many combinations. The vastness of the field of possibles is either exhilirating or crippling depending on your take on life. It is hard to say whether the "critique" you mention took such a broad view or not. Whatever, here are a few quote to cheer you up:
"Il faut cultiver notre jardin" (Voltaire)
"L'enfer, c'est les autres" (Sartre)
"Il ne faut pas demander à l'artiste plus qu'il ne peut donner, ni au critique plus qu'il ne peut voir" (Braque).
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks28/08/2008, 10:55
Hi David,
I note that your anonymous critic has said that you only 'do' one thing. She/he hasn't even been generous enough to suggest you are only 'good' at one thing. However, do not despair, save a thought for those of us who can't do anything, good or bad. :-)
Highlight this Comment adamp28/08/2008, 16:22
Now come on David, the stark fact is this: you indeed do do only one thing, this being Photography. But let’s be charitable and analyse a little further, you do only Outdoor Photography (apart from when shooting indoors, or in the studio). Also you do only Landscapes, except when you shoot windows or doors, or perhaps ferns and helmeted boats. Oh yes, and your Landscapes are 4x5 (unless they are 5x4), or as Tim says portrait format (expect when they are errr, ummm landscape format). And invariably shot on a Technika or similar unless you can’t be bothered and use a mobile phone (what????).
However, and this is where the anonymous critic comes a little unstuck, some of your landscapes are more intimate than others, while some are seascapes or more generally aquascapes. So, perhaps a little variety after all. But then you only shoot on Velvia – or is it digital now?
Frankly though, none of this matters. I think that you will have gathered from the general tone of the comments here that most of us appreciate you doing your one thing and have derived pleasure in viewing your images as well as benefitting from working alongside you.
So, don’t let the b*s get you down, carry on using your Box Brownie or whatever and keep on producing your one-track images for our collective enlightenment!
Seriously though, I was a tad surprised at the length of your post on this topic, thinking that perhaps you were being overly sensitive, as anybody who knows even a relatively small selection of your work, will see that there is a lot of variety. But then any thoughtless criticism will hurt if it has no constructive value at all. I was stunned when someone said to me about what I thought was probably my best shot from the Lewis/Harris tour that “any body can take that”. Her reason was that it was a landscape (portrait format of course…) and didn’t have any people in it. You can’t please ‘em all!
I for one look forward to the next opportunity to watch you doing your one thing in some amazing landscape!
Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 10:43
Hi All!
Sorry for the lack of response from me but I've been away in the Hebrides recharging my creative batteries – and flying a kite! One of the great things about where we were staying is that you can't get a connection onto the net, even with mobile dongle...
Thank you all for the kind comments, I really wasn't fishing for compliments! I know that the piece might have come across as a bit of a rant but as I wrote at the top of my blog entry:
_What they said didn't wound me, I'm not feeling persecuted, I just don't agree with what he/she said._
I mean this! I was just annoyed about the glib comment because it gives criticism a bad name!!
David
Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 11:03
Hi Richard,
I'm particularly taken with your notion of "expressing" the landscape in different forms – another might be cloudscapes in pottery...
In fact I have already begun experimenting using sand. My early experiments at rendering moving grasses were unsuccessful – it's such a fag making all those individual blades! – but I quite like this dragon that my daughter Izzi and I made on a beach on Great Bernera.
Or should I stick to just one thing?
David
Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 11:13
Hi Charles,
Well sadly, though being British is really no excuse, one of the "one things" that I do is only speak or read English. A poor show I know! Would you be so kind as to translate the quotes for me and my other reader...
Kind regards
David
Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 15:03
Hi Chris,
It's OK, I've immersed myself in cold water now and feel much calmer (Jenny slapped me just for good measure!)
David
Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 15:07
Hi Tim,
I do shoot landscape shape as well... but only with written permission!
David
Highlight this Comment David O31/08/2008, 17:15
Thank goodness for that - he's safe and sound with batteries recharged. You had me worried there for a minute. Seeing your passing penchant for reference to impressionist painters I feared David Lynch may have inspired you to a Van Gogh-ian end! Ear, ear, now.
Francis Bacon once said that the job of an artist is to deepen the mystery. In my mind, mystery is but one of the many good things in your photography as the response it engenders in the viewer is always different - We're all Individuals! - as Brian once said......... If I was as good at this "one thing" alone, I would be a happy man but one can but aspire!
Please do keep doing your "one thing" because it has more interesting ramifications than your critic would surely realise.
Very cool dragon by the way - you reminded me of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day with his ice sculptures. No physical resemblance though!
Did you take your phone to Norway?
Cheers
David
Highlight this Comment David31/08/2008, 19:18
Hi David,
No chance of me cutting off an ear, or worse – too much of a coward – oh, and (reasonably) sane...
I'm glad you like the dragon, Izzi and I were pleased with our efforts. Perhaps a new career as a sand sculting team beckons...
I didn't take my phone to Norway, not because I wanted to invoke an atmosphere of calm and help recharge my batteries but because I was in the Outer Hebrides off northwest Scotland so taking my phone to Norway would have been a bit of a detour! ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist01/09/2008, 07:35
Hello David,
Sorry about that: I thought the original retained some of the flavour better, but you're right: subtitles are due. With my apologies for inserting my own interpretations, here be the English versions:
"Il faut cultiver notre jardin" means that one must tend one's own garden, ie do your own thing and do it well.
"L'enfer, c'est les autres" meaning hell is the others is overquoted, but apposite here. In a confined space (the Huis clos of the play's title, which in our case would the world of photography), it is inevitable we will tread on each other's toes. As an aside, it would be worth discussing, whether this also applies to individual photographs: does each photograph in a collection impinge on another's meaning?
"Il ne faut pas demander à l'artiste plus qu'il ne peut donner, ni au critique plus qu'il ne peut voir" is a plea for tolerance from one of France's few great 20th c. painters: "One shouldn't ask more of the artist than he can give, nor more of the critique than he can see". Something I find very appealing.
Hope that helps.
All the best, Charles
Highlight this Comment David O01/09/2008, 08:29
Hi,
Perhaps I was looking for some delayed gratification... I could have sworn you led a L&L trip to Norway in July... and thought you might use the blog to show us your next mobile batch!
Yours, in eager anticipation...
David O
Highlight this Comment David01/09/2008, 08:47
Hi David,
Ooops, my mistake... I didn't realise that my phone-o-graphs were so interesting!
Sadly the Norway trip was last year and I didn't take any phone images that time. I do have some images from my holiday in the Hebrides that I made on my new G9 which I will post when I get the chance.
All the best
David
Highlight this Comment David01/09/2008, 09:14
Hi Charles,
Thank you very much for the translations – all very apposite quotes indeed!
David
Highlight this Comment Richard Childs02/09/2008, 18:20
I hope your dongle wasn't too mobile, what would the locals on Harris say!
Highlight this Comment David03/09/2008, 06:25
Aaaah, smut... it just wouldn't be the Web (would it?) without some smut...
Thanks for lowering the tone Richard! ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment adamp03/09/2008, 12:20
Smut? Made me laugh out loud which rather gave the game away seeing as I was at work.... Surely Richard's comment should take the prize for this thread!
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!