Signals, Tropes, and Art Photography

Photography still hasn't completely solidified its position as a legitimate medium within art. I think this is because it has an identity crisis. Photography is used for things like advertising and documentation far more than art itself. The multivaried application of the medium creates a problem in how we are supposed to look at what we see. The genre isn't clear. Painting doesn't suffer from this. When we look at a painting we feel it's art even if it's not good. Photography doesn't have this luxury.

With this problem, certain characteristics have evolved within photography to help signal that it's art. One of these is the primacy of black and white photos. When people see greyscale images there is an immediate trigger to look at it with a particular view. One that tells our minds to see art. The signal helps us as a result, because it directs us.

Another similar signal is the use of analog film. And even though many would talk about the superior intrinsic nature that film has over digital, the preference doesn't have anything to do with the magical story of the medium we like to tell ourselves. This doesn't mean that analog and digital are indistinguishable in their approach. There is little doubt in my mind that a trained individual could make photos for a double-blind test to prove that people can't tell the difference though. Since there is no real qualia in the final product, the use of analog then is often another kind of signal. It says to take the image and image maker more seriously, because of the means more than the ends. An artist uses this story, again, to make us see in a certain way.

These kind of simplified mental contextualization's even expand to how models are "supposed" to pose. YouTube, unsurprisingly, has plenty of videos of people trying to teach others how to achieve a fine art look vs a fashion one. A classic example within nude work is if a model has their arms over their head. It tells everyone, "don't worry, it's art and not porn". I'd assume this works because of how obviously unnatural it is for someone to be suspended in that state. A clear signal for a subject matter that creates so much anxiety. We can then feel better about looking, because people know we’re not trying to be inappropriate.

Though it may sound like my deconstructionism here is cynical, I don’t bring up these points to say that utilizing any of these triggers is wrong. In fact, I think they're necessary to a large extent. It's in understanding the tropes that an artist can create something worth looking at though. Operating within boundaries and playing with the lines is what helps us to see the world differently. Following the tried and true may make pleasant results, but there’s a good chance it won’t be all that interesting.

Also, I'm no exception to having made boring and bad art, because learning the subtle signs, to not get trapped by them, is hard. And since art is always evolving, the language does too. If art is about saying something worth saying, as opposed to mere entertainment, then it always has to deal with the conversations that have come before it. Figuring out how to add something meaningful to the dialog takes time and knowledge. As a result, it takes a lot of motivation and commitment. And at the end of all of it, there's no guarantee that anything we add will be worth anything. The input and outputs are not connected. We are then only left to make bad art on our way to make "good art" as Neil Gaiman has said.

So, if we want the CliffsNotes to making an artsy nude photo, all we need to do is take a black and white image, preferably on film, of a model with their hands over their head. It will be recognized as art, which is not a bad beginning. I can't help but think this isn't enough though… because, what does it contribute in the end?