I’ve been busy shooting annual reports, some advertising and a whole
bunch of editorial but can’t post any of those shots because they haven’t
been released yet into the wild. My clients would kill me.
And, even though I’m still working on post production from the Jersey
trip I figure you must be sick to death of those shots and stories.
So I was wondering what the subject matter would be for drool this
week. Then it struck me……subject matter. Funny how things can
be right under your nose sometimes.
Now, I’m not too sure what I really have to say about this matter,
subject matter. Except that, as usual, I’m pretty much going to
make it up as I go along.
And perhaps that’s the point. Many photographers make it up as
they go along. But there are certain bits of life that always seem
to attract idividuals:
friends and family
architecture
the way light strikes things
street life
details
overviews/landscapes
and so on.
And, in amongst these bits that interest them, there are all kinds of
subsets that they gravitate towards; certain ways they frame the
time and space that they are interested in.
For instance…..a photographer may be interested in portraiture, but
only of people that they don’t know. And these people must be in a
specific kind of location and light. Once those parameters are met
the photographer likes to kind of arrange the subjects on the spot
to create a certain (but not pinned down) kind of feeling. (Hey,
I’ve just described me, or at least a bit of me.)
Another photographer may like to wander the streets, shooting humanity.
He really likes it when his photographs are moments of peak action, the
decisive moment. (Henri Cartier-Bresson)
Or…..well, you get the point.
I find it interesting that (in most cases, I assume) a photographers’
subject matter is just a natural attraction to certain aspects of life.
But I believe that it’s the thought, perseverance, aesthetic, talent
and just plain understanding and awareness that the photographer
brings to his/her subject matter (no matter what that matter is)
that informs the resulting photographs.
Of course, some photographers put a lot of time and energy into
analysis of what and how they are shooting. Their subject matter
might be what interests them but the whole process becomes rarefied
and honed to the point of, almost, narcissism. And there are other
photographers who make a life from studying what’s in and kool
right now. Then copy it.
And so on. And so forth.
There are also, amongst what I’ll call (for lack of a better word) serious
photographers, photographers who spend their life shooting one thing.
Think Bernd and Hilla Becher or Lynne Cohen.
Then there are the types who flit from thing to thing, subject to subject,
who’s interests change and evolve as they change and evolve. Think Araki
(NSFW) or, maybe, Robert Frank (known for The Americans but I love his
later Polaroids. He made movies, too).
The best of these photographers, the ones that move from one subject
to another, always bring a lot of themselves to what they do. You can
see Araki in his flowers, just as you can see him in his bound women.
Anyway. All this to say that the camera is unique in that it allows you
to just push a button and you get a record of what interests you.
And that’s subject matter.
Pay attention.
For what it’s worth, and in order to get some images up here on drool:
My subject matter (discounting my commercial work) loosely falls
into 2 categories:
Pre 1990 I worked at home and on the street with miniature (35 mm)
cameras recording just about everything. The subject matter being my
life.
By way of example:

There are hundreds more where these came from:

Then I took a break from personal projects until 1995 when I became
interested in portraiture, uniform and the individuals’ place in the
environment.


Of course there have been lots of side trips, wrong paths and so
on throughout. Just to keep things interesting.
________________________________________________________________________
This post was thrown together just after a Saturday afternoon nap.
My head’s damn foggy….just the way I like it sometimes. I hardly
even re-read the thing. (What did I say?) Anyway…..since this was
pretty off-the-cuff I’m sure that there are lots of oversights and just
plain wrong assumptions here. Get back at me in the comment section
with your thoughts. Lets see if we can work this out. (Or not.)