Photographer unknown - does it matter?

[snusmumriken]

I saw a notice online today for a gallery show featuring “work by some of the great names of photography in the last hundred years”. Shortly after, I was looking through some other photos online - just out of curiosity, no intention to buy anything. I realised that when one of these photos caught my eye, my immediate thought was to wonder who the photographer was and what else they had taken. That thought could only mean two things. Either the photo was somewhat mysterious and I was looking for clues as to what it meant to the artist. Alternatively, I wanted to know whether the artist consistently made photos of equal interest, or whether it was a fluke. And then I wondered whether it mattered to me (or anyone else) whether the artist was unknown, or the photo a fluke?

I know some folk like to rummage through old photos in thrift stores, without much interest in who took the photos. But then they tend to collect them into categories, so that a common theme emerges that isn’t the artist. One might collect individual anonymous photos of the Himalayas in the 1940s; or of families holidaying with dogs; or of office wear through the decades. But a thrift store find of many fine images attributable to one photographer would probably start a hunt for their identity, as in the case of Vivian Maier.

Your thoughts? How much does the identity and consistency of the photographer affect a viewer’s appreciation of an individual photo?

 

[Don_ih]

How much does the identity and consistency of the photographer affect a viewer’s appreciation of an individual photo?

Drastically. There's the Cartier-Bresson thread you started that proves it. Few people would give that photo a second glance if it had been taken buy "Unknown Photographer". However, knowing who took it and then knowing where it was and what that place meant to him seemingly made the photo more worthwhile. The takeaway is that knowing the identity of the photographer (same with any artist) can make you more readily accept there is value or refuse to look for value. Some people hate Newton, for instance, so won't consider anything he did worthwhile. Some people think every frame shot by Eggleston is a masterpiece.

Unknown photographer photos can only be valued based on the individual photo itself and maybe how well it ticks technical or artistic boxes (or how much you like the content or how old it is). Maier was an unknown but so many of her photos ticked so many of those boxes, it turned her into a known photographer.

I have a collection of individual unknown photographer photos -- some would tick some boxes but none are particularly special. I also have a huge batch of negatives from some guy - it was in an ebay purchase and the seller didn't know who took the photos (I didn't even know the negatives were in with what I was purchasing). Some of those photos are quite good but I haven't really tried to find out who took them. (It's actually not that fun looking through a hundred rolls of negatives.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I saw a notice online today for a gallery show featuring “work by some of the great names of photography in the last hundred years”. Shortly after, I was looking through some other photos online - just out of curiosity, no intention to buy anything. I realised that when one of these photos caught my eye, my immediate thought was to wonder who the photographer was and what else they had taken. That thought could only mean two things. Either the photo was somewhat mysterious and I was looking for clues as to what it meant to the artist. Alternatively, I wanted to know whether the artist consistently made photos of equal interest, or whether it was a fluke. And then I wondered whether it mattered to me (or anyone else) whether the artist was unknown, or the photo a fluke?

I know some folk like to rummage through old photos in thrift stores, without much interest in who took the photos. But then they tend to collect them into categories, so that a common theme emerges that isn’t the artist. One might collect individual anonymous photos of the Himalayas in the 1940s; or of families holidaying with dogs; or of office wear through the decades. But a thrift store find of many fine images attributable to one photographer would probably start a hunt for their identity, as in the case of Vivian Maier.

Your thoughts? How much does the identity and consistency of the photographer affect a viewer’s appreciation of an individual photo?

Most people don't care unless you're an art historian, student, etc. I don't. If a picture, painting, sculpture, or song for that matter is nice and I enjoy it, I really don't pay attention to who created it. Names and facts have to do with the intellect. Art with the spirit.

 

[AERO]

Most people don't care unless you're an art historian, student, etc. I don't. If a picture, painting, sculpture, or song for that matter is nice and I enjoy it, I really don't pay attention to who created it. Names and facts have to do with the intellect. Art with the spirit.

Quite.

 

[Don_ih]

Names and facts have to do with the intellect. Art with the spirit.

That's all swell and ideal, but the reality of the situation is art gets promoted at least as much or more on who the artist is. You may not know who made what you're looking at, but it didn't get in front of you by accident.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Does it matter if a human being lives a life, works, dies, and is soon forgotten?

 

[Don_ih]

Does it matter if a human being lives a life, works, dies, and is soon forgotten?

If it doesn't, what does?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's all swell and ideal, but the reality of the situation is art gets promoted at least as much or more on who the artist is. You may not know who made what you're looking at, but it didn't get in front of you by accident.

That's a separate point. The main point is that if a piece of art doesn't inspire, then who cares who made it. You can always study art history or read a book if you want to know facts and figures. But they don't inspire.

 

[Don_ih]

The main point is that if a piece of art doesn't inspire, then who cares who made it.

"Inspire" is also nicely vague and becomes intellectualized as soon as you try to talk about it.

My point is you likely won't get a chance to be "inspired" by anything that wasn't already picked out by someone else - presented to you for your inspiration - but picked out on the basis of a successful history, a known commodity, or perhaps promotion of a particular concept.