What do I do?
Those who read my articles will know that I often struggle with terminology such as ‘landscape photographer’. For this article I thought I would explain my reasoning behind this, and how it can not only go deeper, but in an ironic twist also breed creativity and freedom.
Labels are all around us. They can describe what we do: doctor, teacher, engineer or photographer. This is very helpful at parties as people generally understand most ordinary jobs. When it comes to photography, this description very rarely fits the bill. Being a landscape photographer differentiates from a portrait photographer, or a sports photographer, or a wedding photographer. In some respects, focussing in on a specific genre stops people asking if you can do some wedding photos if you’ve said you’re a sports photographer. However, unless you have already made a name for yourself, or have chosen a specific genre, for the most part defining your practice could pigeonhole you and restrict creativity.
I experienced this first-hand photographing a tree. I do not consider myself a woodland photographer. If I had to really narrow down precisely what I photograph to tell someone as at a party, then I would probably come up with something esoteric such as an ‘environmental landscape & social documentary photographer (with a heavy dose of psychogeography underpinning it)’ to which people would look blankly at me, and I would follow up with ‘I take photos of spaces that people find boring’ and they would look awkwardly at the sausage rolls and make an excuse to leave. To avoid this, ‘landscape photographer’ is my general go-to, despite not really photographing what people would consider traditional ‘landscape photographs’.
Because of this, it felt odd and strange to photograph this tree. In the wide sphere of photography it’s just another photograph, but it felt like I was cheating on my chosen creative niche. I half wanted a shopping trolley and traffic cone to be somewhere in frame to make it relevant. Landscape photography to a lot of people is a specific kind of photography that plays to their aesthetic ideals, usually based on a cultural hegemony to picturesque pastoral scenes. I’ve written about the picturesque before, I’m not sure I would describe my work as particularly picturesque which is where the disconnect happens.
While I do term my work ‘landscape’ this goes against what people consider landscape photography to look like, which in turn means that ‘landscape photography’ – as far as the public are concerned – I feel doesn’t describe my work accurately. One rebuttal to this (without getting too deep theoretically) is that any photographs that are ultimately concerned with the land, and its subsequent use (or lack of) can be termed landscape photography. It’s just that to many people landscape photography is rolling hills, lone trees and pretty sunsets, not a derelict building or empty carpark.
The second reason why it says landscape photography all over my website is Search Engine Optimisation, or SEO. Anyone whose spent any time around websites will know about SEO. To generalise it just makes your website easier to find on the internet. (I spent 12 years working on websites and SEO, so I picked up a few things). I use landscape photography as my main keywords to help people find my website. We unfortunately live in an algorithm-controlled digital world, and on the Isle of Wight there are a lot of landscape photographers. I consider my work to be just-about-close-enough if you squint to almost be ‘landscape’ (it’s not portraits, weddings or sport photography, so what else is there?) so people searching for ‘landscape photography on the Isle of Wight’ should come across by website. At least that is the theory.
So, does this defining of practice matter? For an ‘unknown/still have the day-job’ photographer like me, I feel yes, it does. Do I like it? No. I’d much rather be just a ‘photographer’ or ‘photographic artist’ (I do quite like this one). Being just a ‘photographer’ doesn’t stop you from doing other things or limit your creativity, but people will ask you at parties if you can photograph their wedding.
There are many ‘photographers’ out there. But the dichotomy is that you need to be specific enough to become well known to then stand out. Nadav Kandar takes beautiful photographs. Some of them are clearly landscapes, others portrait. He can do both but is known enough to do so. I was told at a university interview way back in the mists of time to specialise on one or two genres and not spread myself too thin. Personally, I think this is very good advice, especially to those starting out.
So where does this leave me?
While I don’t particularly like to call myself a ‘landscape photographer’ I do admit that in the loosest of terms I am a photographer that photographs landscape as my main subject, just not the ones that most people think about. I also like to photograph other things, which sometimes end up being closer to what some may consider ‘fine art’ (although if anyone knows what this actually means, do let me know). Often I feel I’m photographing in a more documentry capacity, especially with work such as my Trollied project.
At the end of the day, calling myself an ‘urban photographer’, ‘landscape photographer’, or ‘documentary photographer’ sets the tone for the work that people assume they’ll see when they view my work. Then when they do look at it, there is an odd disconnect between the assumption and the reality. Often, this is positive in the ‘I wasn’t expecting this, but I like it’, but it can still be an occasional curve ball to some people.
At the end of the day, I’d rather just photograph what I want to photograph and to hell with defenitions. Yes, I enjoy photographs of empty car parks, run-down buildings and shopping trolleys, but I also enjoy photographing the sea – on an Island it’s pretty easy to do, and hope to produce more work along those lines. Since photographing that tree, I have wandered into the woods a few times, including a lovely (if cold) jaunt to get the creative juices flowing early last year. Maybe some woodland photography is on the cards after all?
Not defining myself to a specific genre allows me to explore photographically the things that interest me enough to want to record them. It gives me the freedom to try new things and see what works. Woodland, seascapes, landscapes, abstract, documentary, environmental, social, history, urban, architectural – it’s all fair game providing I’m not trying to fit into a pre-conceived notion of what I should be photographing, but rather just going out and photographing enough to let other people decide for themselves what it is they are looking at. I’ve strarted to put up some more abstract work in my gallery, and I’d even love to have a go at some proper portraits (definitely not landscape), but that is probably a bit further in the future.
So, what do I do?
I take photographs.
(Not weddings)