Curtis and I have worked together on photography shows here in Calgary. I had a chance to display his work through my Perspectives YYC venture and he graciously selected one of my works for his inaugural MRU Exposure - Reconciliation show a few years back.
In our conversation Curtis separates himself from definitions and tropes and asks the basic question of whether we should photograph for our “selves” or for “others”. Spoiler alert - he choses to shoot for himself. Photography should be for the artist outlet and solely there; at least if one is to still derive personal pleasure, happiness, and fulfilment from the process. He won’t hear of my proposition of photography playing any negative effect on our culture; rather he puts any bent on photography’s relationship to culture on the photographers themselves.
This, to me, echoes Stoicism. The Stoics believe rational consideration as a way of life. Philosophy is not meant to be a thought experiment but rather a structural guide to a “good” life. They stress the idea of Good as something broad and greater than individual “passions”. Generally speaking, personal wealth, gain, pleasure, etc are seen as categorically “not good”. Aiming for wealth and pleasure in itself can never lead to true happiness.
What is good or should be aimed at are wisdom, knowledge, courage and moderation.
Happiness then becomes a function of a rational assessment and intention to aim towards natural purpose - virtue. Only in this intentional aim can true happiness be attained. Hence the characterization that stoics do not have fun. But in life this cannot be so black and white. There can be great pleasure in acts that are “virtuous”… for example in exercising, in working, in love and relationships, etc. The measure and moderation of these experiences become important to not swing so far as to lose the ultimate aim of virtue.
A genuinely happy person transcends the trappings of wealth or popularity. The stoic photographer doesn’t need high profile contracts or millions of followers. They derive the value of their art form from the action itself. How it is interpreted or shared is secondary - perhaps even inconsequential.
He ends with a great anecdote of fatefully reconnecting a woman and her lost father through a displayed portrait in a gallery show. A story that reminds us of unintended consequences and also the powerful communicative medium that photography can be.
Here’s a link to Curtis’s work and to the MRU shows he now curates.
Does photography itself have a relationship to culture? Or is it just a practical process? One that is completely separate and benign. Do we have to separate the role of imagery in our media and our cultural norms and the technology and process itself?
For the readers: send me links and comments to your own portrait work that might reflect your opinion on this.
For the sake of argument: my position is that I agree in art and intent Curtis’s focus on photography needing to remain personal is a path will often lead to greater self-fulfilment. However, I don’t believe photography itself to be absolved of its affect on culture. It’s no coincidence that phtogoraphy’s creation and evolution mirror first the industrial and technological evolution of our past society as well as the proliferation and empowering of politics and fear-mongering.
The power of photographic imagery itself, in my opinion, lends itself to misuse and manipulation. No matter the intent of the photographer in actuating a shutter, the use and contextualization of that image can be and often is “weaponized”. I don’t think that means I think Curtis wrong. In fact, I think we agree on most levels. I’m often considered anxious, suspicious, negative, and pessimistic. In this light, I’ll take the “devil’s advocate” position and stay on course to discover what the experts believe on this subject!
On to the next!
