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.

 

[Saganich]

If it doesn't, what does?

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

YES. Because all humans have some definition of meaning or importance and all life ripples outward in ways that aren’t always obvious. One person’s moment of kindness might shape someone else’s path, or the work someone does, no matter how small, contributes to something larger like a family, a community, a tradition, or a moment of beauty. Being forgotten doesn’t necessarily mean a life lacked value. Memory fades, but impact can echo on in subtle, powerful ways.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

Many photographers decline to add a caption, but they always put their name to a photo. Galleries don't put on shows without the artists' names. It's a commercial activity. However, if one can look beyond that, are photographs worth having only if they are by recognised photographers?

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

Deep question, but my question was about photographs that currently exist and can be seen. Presumably there is a purist aesthetic view which says the photo should be judged in and of itself, without the need for any further information. Earlier in my life, I might have applauded that view. But in all honestly, that's not how I behave.

 

[loccdor]

I'm able to appreciate a single song or painting or film by an artist, if it's the only work of theirs that I like, or know of.

But if I find I consistently like their work, I'll seek out all works they've every created.

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

It will matter to someone who appreciates them. But I hope they enjoyed making their work, rather than doing it for the sake of the work itself.

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

If you know quite a bit about a photographer it can help you to more deeply understand the meaning of the photo. This can increase your appreciation of the work.

 

[Milpool]

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

People will argue about what “matter” means, but really, no, it doesn’t matter.

 

[Don_ih]

are photographs worth having only if they are by recognised photographers?

No.

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).

 

[runswithsizzers]

If it doesn't, what does?

Exactly. A more precise question would have to include, "matters to who, and for how long?"

To every man, his own life and work matter a lot. To those that know and love that person, his life matters a lot. A person's work sometimes matters to people who did not know that person, but usually not for long. For anyone to remember anything about you for more than three generations is unusual. Yet, a man's work may survive him if history decides the work is "great".

As you suggest, before an artist can be remembered, they must first be "known" -- and the process of becoming known is not necessarily directly connected to the significance of the work. In the short term, fame may sometimes result more from the skill of the promoter than the skill or ideas of the artist.

...all humans have some definition of meaning or importance and all life ripples outward in ways that aren’t always obvious. One person’s moment of kindness might shape someone else’s path, or the work someone does, no matter how small, contributes to something larger like a family, a community, a tradition, or a moment of beauty. Being forgotten doesn’t necessarily mean a life lacked value. Memory fades, but impact can echo on in subtle, powerful ways.

I'll have to think about that for a while. You do make a good point that there is more to "matter" than just being remembered. And not all great work is tangible.

...my question was about photographs that currently exist and can be seen. Presumably there is a purist aesthetic view which says the photo should be judged in and of itself, without the need for any further information. Earlier in my life, I might have applauded that view. But in all honestly, that's not how I behave.

Apologies for the diversion. I think it is difficult (impossible?) to separate what we see from what we know. How can we view any photograph except from the perspective of our world view? I don't think we can shed our preferences and prejudices long enough to judge a photo "in and of itself" unfiltered by our education and temperament.
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." --William Blake

Thinking mostly of moving film, I can think of a couple of actors and directors whose work I appreciated a lot more before I learned too much about them, so sometimes, ignorance is bliss. ;-)

 

[Horatio]

Soon we'll be flooded with the work of anonymous AI "photographers".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

"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.

You're complicating this too much. Whatever the reason, you look at a piece of art, either it does something for you or it doesn't. Basing your satisfaction on what others say seems rather limiting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

YES. Because all humans have some definition of meaning or importance and all life ripples outward in ways that aren’t always obvious. One person’s moment of kindness might shape someone else’s path, or the work someone does, no matter how small, contributes to something larger like a family, a community, a tradition, or a moment of beauty. Being forgotten doesn’t necessarily mean a life lacked value. Memory fades, but impact can echo on in subtle, powerful ways.

Good points. In fact, you might have changed someone's life for the good and never know it. We all have value. God doesn't make junk. Even our photos can make people happy even if we think it's no good. You never know how people are going to respond. Be proud of your work.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Many photographers decline to add a caption, but they always put their name to a photo. Galleries don't put on shows without the artists' names. It's a commercial activity. However, if one can look beyond that, are photographs worth having only if they are by recognised photographers?

Deep question, but my question was about photographs that currently exist and can be seen. Presumably there is a purist aesthetic view which says the photo should be judged in and of itself, without the need for any further information. Earlier in my life, I might have applauded that view. But in all honestly, that's not how I behave.

So you say, "No. I;m not going to enjoy that photo because I don't like the photographer."?

 

[snusmumriken]

So you say, "No. I;m not going to enjoy that photo because I don't like the photographer."?

Not at all. I say, I like that photograph and want to know more about the photographer - what I wrote in my OP.

 

[grahamp]

[post snuck in before mine]
That's pretty much the ethos of 'cancel culture'. But let's not go down that path!

I see analogies with books. If I like a book, I will try something else by them.

 

[snusmumriken]

No.

Agreed. Sorry, it was a rhetorical question, but not obviously enough.

 

[snusmumriken]

[post snuck in before mine]
That's pretty much the ethos of 'cancel culture'. But let's not go down that path!

Presumably that was a reply to @Alan Edward Klein, not to me?

 

[runswithsizzers]

You're complicating this too much. Whatever the reason, you look at a piece of art, either it does something for you or it doesn't. Basing your satisfaction on what others say seems rather limiting.

But what is the reason? Either by education or osmosis you have developed ideas about what makes a good painting or a good photograph. Whether or not the art "does something for you" is influenced by a number of things, including what you learned in art class, by books you have read, by the opinions of artists who you respect, by critical reviews of art shows in museums and galleries. In other words, isn't your satisfaction is unavoidably influenced by what others have said?

 

[MattKing]

So you say, "No. I;m not going to enjoy that photo because I don't like the photographer."?

I'm not sure that "enjoying" a photo means that it matters.
And I'm definitely sure that whether or not a photo matters has essentially nothing to do with whether I enjoy it.