166: Ian Weldon – The Experimental Interview

I feel like your describing my part in the scene of a dirty movie 😉

Thanks Patrick! Noted and understood.

Thats so much Andrew – really appreciate your feedback and comments. Haha, who doesn’t love a bit of geekiness. 🙂

I do have Andy on my list of photographers to contact – thanks for the reminder!

Thank you very much, Talina.

Without honesty and frankness where would we be?
I’m not sure, but I probably wouldn’t be happy 🙂

Be well 🙂

Hi Nigel, thanks for your input man.

You know, healthy debate is a good thing, not that the photography community is ever agreeable on that sort of thing. There is a general consensus that because we are all photographers we should all agree on everything, all of the time. It’s simply not the case. I think that a lot of the issues I talk about – boring photography, copy cats, a lack of individualism, etc…. are born from this idea that we should all be supporting each other, no matter what. It’s as nonsensical as, ‘blood is thicker than water’.

When I talk of studying the history of photography, it has nothing to do with composition, or technical ability. People get so hung on the fact that photography is a visual endeavour that they can dismiss, easily so, the ideology that surrounds the craft. The same as any art form, the medium/technique is somewhat inconsequential. Photography in itself isn’t art, the artist makes it so.
I come to the act of photography through ideas, ideas of what, and why photography is. Not a technical or aesthetic endeavour. We will all become proficient given time, and technical proficiency and composition can be learned by anyone. A philosophy is developed through understanding, not just photography, but also ourselves. So when I talk about studying early photographers I’m not talking about their pictures, I’m talking about their philosophy, and what they did to craft this relatively new medium. My reference to the Daguerreotype was more a reference to the practitioners, Sowthworth & Hawes and their idea of what they were doing.
In the 1880’s this statement by Albert Sands Southworth, ”quality is, allowing the inner man to be pictured through careful study of the inner man’s outer features” is the epitome of portrait, and I believe documentary, photography. It’s this kind of sentiment that drives me, the ideas behind photography, and photography itself as a carrier of all of it’s meanings.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and certainly don’t expect everyone to be a meticulous historian. But please, have an interest in your craft if you call yourself a photographer. The idea of being a photographer, for most, is far more important than actually being a photographer.

You are right, photography today is the future history of photography. But likewise, the future history of music is the Justin Bieber of today. Where do we want be? I’m not a proponent of pop. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t look at Instagram or Facebook, what I’m saying is, to stand out, we must transcend the commonplace garbage that’s forced in front of out eyes every minute of every day, and make up our own minds. To be a product of photography rather than a product of a diluted, and shallow aesthetic based culture. We shouldn’t use it as inspiration as it’s so middle of the road that you will have a pretty poor view of quality, and will possibly just become a poor imitation of very mediocre photography. Ideas are paramount, a want to be popular is a product of mediocrity and give a false sense of security to people who don’t have the motivation to be better.
We need to promote the idea that photography, just like any other art form, requires dedication and time. Not all of us were destined to be artists, like not everyone who buys a guitar will become a musician. Unfortunately for photography, there is a make it look good setting. You don’t get that on a paint brush, and people can easily be fooled into thinking that they’re good. It’s bull shit. A well composed and sharp image isn’t necessarily good, and a blurred image with seemingly no composition isn’t necessarily bad.

A much longer and more detailed conversation about what makes a good photograph could be added here.

And when it comes down to it, do it think it’s more valid? No I don’t. In the same way I see the validity in, McDonalds or anything on TV or formulaic pop music. There’s a market for it all. But, depth and artistry and thought provoking material that is created through ideology, understanding and commitment (rather than formulaic for effect) rings truer for me, and how could I promote anything else.
Study, and practice have been paramount in my learning as a photographer, and understanding (at least some of) the history of your craft will better help you to contextualise the now, and the future of your own work.

I see a lot of copy cat photography, and as art, it holds no weight. Individuality, purpose, intent born from understanding is much deeper. Fuck middle of the road. I like passion, and art, and that can really only be created from a deeper understanding of what we do and why we do it. The more questions we ask the more we understand, and the more we are questioned the the more questions we ask.
When I look at a lot of photography there isn’t anything that really separates one photographer from another, it’s style all based. My photography looks the way that it does not because of a trend of a fad, it’s looks the way it does through the implementation of my ideology, and the form, as they say, must follow the function.
If that’s a profound mistake, I’m happy to be wrong 🙂

Be well.

Thanks, Mike!

Glad you enjoyed the interview mate. Andrew is definitely onto a winner here 🙂

Be well