I took my SFAI class to the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts to see a show by Joachim Schmid. All of Schmid’s work is made with found photography. One of the questions raised by this work is how professional photographers – plagued by self-consciousness – can ever match the visceral power of vernacular photography.
Today I became aware of the fabulous Picture Australia archive. Searching on the topic of ‘new south wales police dept,’ I once again wonder why I bother with photography. It seems unfair that an anonymous police photographer can be as good as Avedon and Arbus:
Alec Soth's Archived Blog 
Great pictures, great question and I appreciate that you’re the one asking it…
Comment by matt — August 28, 2007 @ 8:21 am
The increasing number of on-line vernacular collections of photography gives heft to this question, as such collections, with a few exceptions, just were not known before. Australia is an interesting part of this question as they are, for whatever reason, on the forefront of creating digital collections – both the object itself (if you can think of a digital collection as an object, or place, as you would an analog one) as well as the standards and theories that underpin such collections. For me, such excellent vernacular photography points to a need to not create classifications in photography with regards to what is “art” and what is not based upon the original intent of the photograph.
Comment by ondine — August 28, 2007 @ 9:21 am
Why bother?
“No one can advise or help you–no one. There is only one thing you should do. Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write; see whether it has spread its roots into the very depths of you heart; confess to yourself whether you would have to die if you were forbidden to write. This most of all: ask yourself in the most silent hour of your night: MUST I write? Dig into yourself for a deep answer. And if this answer rings out in assent, if you meet the solemn question with a strong, simple ‘I MUST,’ then build your life in accordance with this necessity; your whole life, even into its humblest and most indifferent hour, must become a sign and witness to this impulse. Then come close to nature. THEN, AS IF NO ONE HAD EVER TRIED BEFORE, TRY TO SAY WHAT YOU SEE AND FELL AND LOVE AND LOSE.” – Rilke
Whenever I ask that question, have a melt down, or am losing it for some reason, I read that paragraph. It helps me every time. This trip has been filled with ALL of those things…It’s a frustrating but (maybe) necessary cycle.
Comment by Tim Briner (between Boonvilles) — August 28, 2007 @ 9:24 am
It seems to me that this is a matter of the democratic nature of photography; the beautiful, and sometimes discouraging, aspect of the medium that makes it possible for anyone to take a good picture once. Of course the challenge being to execute and take a meaningful photograph over and over again. Even if some of the amazing photographs featured in these archives are by the same photographer, that photographer was not only blessed with a great eye, but also was present to inherently interesting subject matter. I think it is much more important to be “plagued by self-consciousness” and making great photographs, as opposed to just bearing witness and achieving the same result. Either way, great find!
Comment by Justin — August 28, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Why is it assumed that because this person was a police photographer, he was not an artist? Is an artist always defined as someone who makes it their ‘career’?
Comment by Kay — August 28, 2007 @ 9:40 am
A nice resource for the vernacular mug shot is here on flickr, to bring that conundrum back to comments. The why bother question springs to mind from here as well…
Comment by mark s — August 28, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I suppose the reason we’re all interested in looking at these pictures is because we know there is a sinister story attached. Having been a police photographer (and an artist) i can think of numerous occasions when i could make beautiful, fascinating images, due mainly to the subject matter. Of course legally and morally i will not, although i happy to be influenced by what i have seen.
Most police photographers i know are technically excellent and certainly creative, but not really interested in ‘fine art’ photography.
Comment by rob — August 28, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Is it possible that part (perhaps a large part) of the brilliance in these photographs comes from the strictures inherent in the creation of mugshots and crime-scene images. These photographs are intended to reflect pure, objective descriptions of their subjects. They are, literally, evidence. For me it’s that very lack of artifice, the lack of a “creator’s hand,” and, of course, the lack of context that makes these photos art. Brilliant. Thanks, Alec.
Comment by Robert Schneider — August 28, 2007 @ 10:44 am
It is amazing to me that anonymity is so intriguing.
More on this topic at our blog.
http://youcallthisphotography.blogspot.com
Comment by Farting on Thunder — August 28, 2007 @ 10:53 am
“It seems unfair that an anonymous police photographer can be as good as Avedon and Arbus”
“Unfair” is a nicely ironic choice of word, but don’t forget, anonymous or not, the creators of these images *would* have proudly designated themselves “photographer”, though never “artist”. Highly skilled in the darkroom, too — look at those tones! AND they could write backwards…
On a more apocalyptic note, Alec, beware those theoreticians whose secret plot is to cleanse the world of “authors” and their icky “intentions” and “affects” — artists fascinated by found photos and/or a “snapshot” aesthetic pose are like moths spiralling into a flame (“It’s so beeautifuul…” — A Bug’s Life). Yes, they look great, but Just Say No. Step away from the found photographs.
Comment by Mike C. — August 28, 2007 @ 11:19 am
While I think that these photographs are great, and that they bring many interesting questions about the role of the artist and the art photograph, even ideas of authorship, it does seem strange to question if they are as “good” as Arbus or Avedon. A great photograph is always more then what is on its surface, as a great painting or sculpture is. It frequently revolves around its ability to generate deep and nuanced thought, to give new meaning to successive generations, to in fact stay vital and alive. It seems to me that the question, which is a valid one, and thought provoking, might be answered at least partly by the idea of perfectly recreating somebody elses work. Or perhaps by wondering: if one finds an old Urinal sitting on the street lying on its back would one wonder, it this as good as duchamp?
Comment by stefan abrams — August 28, 2007 @ 11:25 am
these are indeed wonderful pictures. thanks.
Comment by j zorn — August 28, 2007 @ 11:43 am
1. Diane Arbus or Brassai
2. Catherine Wagner
3. Katy Grannan
4. Abe Morell
5. Roger Ballen
6. Laura Letinsky
7. Julie Moos
8. Rineke Dijkstra
9. ?
10. Zeke Berman
11. Joel Peter Witkin
Comment by Brian Ulrich — August 28, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
I think that the fact that Diane Arbus (for example) was deliberating taking pictures (even if they might be at the same level of the fellow policeman photographer up here) and therefore that she was somehow conscious of doing it, it’s the great power of her and of every good photographer. Having the power of controlling it, the ability of doing something in a way instinctive like these pictures but with the willing (or the need) of expressing yourself with them.
but it’s for sure a thin line.
Comment by sirio magnabosco — August 28, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
It’s funny, I had the same feeling when I saw something from “Fashion Magazine” in one of the local weeklies. Personally, I deal with photographic jealousy by imagining burning all the photographs which are too good. Guard your negatives, sir, for I am blazing a torch in my mind.
As to whether or not the police photographer was an artist — they are as soon as someone declares them as such, be it themselves or a third party. Maybe they were bare savants, producing beautiful work in isolation completely independently of outside influence. Maybe they were frustrated artists paying the rent and venting their urge to compose their images with grace and beauty by channeling their creative energies into photography of what would be, to them, banal. Maybe these are all staged to manufacture a world so real that it becomes surreal.
We, as viewers, might be lending them a hand by buying into the nostalgia of the format and the exoticism subject matter. It probably helps that thousands or hundreds of thousands of anonymous photographs have been edited down to dozens or hundreds of images. Could we have the same response to contemporary police photography? Are the thousands or millions of crime scene photos from today available for the same sifting?
Comment by Jesse Mullan — August 28, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I take photos because it gets me out there, paying attention to and engaging with the world in a way I wouldn’t otherwise. When it becomes a competition with other photographers, when my ego gets involved, I find myself constantly asking why I bother photographing. Also, it seems to me that the distinction between “art” photography and “vernacular” photography is a false distinction, something like “naive” or “outsider” art vs. some other (academic) art. It’s deliberately constructed to keep some people in and others out, and whether one is in or out often involves numerous factors outside of the photography or “art” itself. I believe I understand the “why bother” question, but it seems to me that one could ask that about anything in life–about life in general.
Most folks commenting on here also seem to be assuming quite a bit about the “anonymous police photographer” whose photos you’ve posted. How do we know he (most likely a he, given the time period) wasn’t interested in photos as art? How do we know that he didn’t have a better grasp on the history of art than many of the “art” photographer on the web now? It seems like everyone is assuming that the photos are accidently great, that photographer didn’t intend anything beyond describing the facts with great technical ability, which seems like a lot to assume considering we know nothing about the photographer.
Comment by mark — August 28, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
#9 Richard Avedon again???
although, those arty white backgrounds get a little old…
Comment by mark s — August 28, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
who said portraits are boring and don’t tell stories??
oh, Leroy did, http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0708/visa_movie02.html
Comment by Tomé — August 28, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Least Wanted mugshot photos online and perhaps the excellent book?
Comment by Joe Reifer — August 28, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Photography has always been seen as the medium that ‘takes’ what is in front of the artist and not as, say, a painter, that ‘makes’ what he sees. That is obviously as incorrect as saying Picasso created “Les Demoiselles D’Avignon” out of sheer love of women. But because photography (and photo only) can freeze that one instant moment, the photographer then have a huge responsibility to the viewer and the subject. When Avedon talks about portraits and says that ‘the issue is a moral one and it is complicated’ maybe he is guarding that heavy responsibility but his statement can also be viewed as if he is talking down to the vernacular artist, sort like a father telling his son ‘not to bother about this grown up stuff’. I would like to think that a portrait is a collaboration between author and subject, but then again, look at the great mavens within portrait photography, Avedon and Arbus, and their subjects, who most likely had no idea of the intention of that white hair little man or that smiling lady behind the camera.
However, I must say that the aspect of photography as a medium of records, police filing and other documents, gives me a great thrill and makes me question what makes a good photograph. Look at the artist Arne Svenson’s work “Prisoners” which is portraits from a prison in California in the beginning of the last century. Just as shocking and beautiful as any portrait by Avedon (hmm). Because looking at those nicely toned black and white prints, I am starting to think that maybe it is the subject who is the deciding factor in a good portrait. And if a good portrait is because of the fact that the subject has her guard down, to display the true person, maybe that is not due to the photographer’s skill but in fact to what the subject wants/ can to show, or rather the context, what situation they are in. And maybe the reason why we look at these images with such awe is because these subjects are in situations where their guard can be anything but down. It is always about context, if that means for the viewer or the subject.
Comment by s. — August 28, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
9. Fiona Tan
Comment by Brian Ulrich — August 28, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Seydou Keita
Comment by Philip — August 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
It’s “just the fact ma’am” – if my memory serves, didn’t Walter Benjamin liken Atget’s work to that of a crime scene investigator
Comment by Mathew Pokoik — August 28, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
John Deakin
Comment by Arne — August 28, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I keep this set of images bookmarked, and it’s good for my soul, to come back to them, from time to time. I never tire of seeing tight face portraits, especially historical images.
http://csac.buffalo.edu/mirrors/mirrorsimages.html
Comment by Mark Tucker — August 28, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’d like to think that looking at Arbus, Avedon, Friedlander et. al has taught us over the past 50 years to find the beauty that is in the pictures you posted by anonymous police photographers. Without this historical visual education we might not recognize what is to be found there.
Comment by David G — August 28, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
For more found images, following is a link to an archive of nearly 18,000 photographs from the Georgia archives:
http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/vanga/html/vanga_homeframe_default.html
Comment by Natalie — August 28, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
I agree with Matt Weber, However?
Alec: do you also ponder Garry Winogrands undeveloped film left behind. What kind of images that could be there as well? Possibly a few good books…
Comment by David Wilson Burnham — August 28, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
Here’s another set of fascinating images, from the LAPD archive, from the 1940’s. Notable images, to me, are 04, 08, 09, 13, 17, 18, 19, 23, 34, 35, 36, 42. There could be obvious comparisons to Weegee, but some of the more pictorial and illustrative ones stand on their own as very worthwhile images.
http://fototeka.com/lapd/gallery.html
Comment by Mark Tucker — August 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
Maybe it’s because we’re more boring now and we used to be more interesting. I kinda believe that. 60 years ago I think a lot more people socialized in a lot more individual and culturally unique ways. I think we’ve become a lot more monocultural.
I think it might be partly that, anyway.
I think looking at older mugshots is interesting because it’s hard to be afraid of dead people. We can forgive them and not be afraid of them and wonder a bit about how they got to be where they are. I don’t always get that feeling from seeing contemporary mugshots. People that at a baseline level I may fear and have to challenge myself to try to understand.
Most of those portraits pretty well done exposures in a northern light studio? The guy nailed them. It really isn’t far from there to Irving Penn. They remind me of Albert Watson.
Or put another way, there’s a huge chasm between that and a point and shoot digicam, which is most of the vernacular photography we see these days. These pictures, for whatever purpose they were made for, took a lot of effort. For many of us, ours don’t.
Paul
Comment by Paul McEvoy — August 28, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
this is exactly why i took photographs for exactly one year and stopped. Now all o do is take about a roll of 35mm photos per month with one of these:
(i wonder if i coded this properly)
i don’t even wind the film properly anymore. and sometimes I wind it and then wind it backwards. and overlap photos.
it’s not because i’m trying to create something new and artistic. It really is a just a lack of concern for what happens. i have yet to even develop any of the rolls.
Comment by Johnny — August 28, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
^^^well, i didn’t code it properly:
Comment by Johnny — August 28, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
I keep this set of images bookmarked, and it’s good for my soul, to come back to them, from time to time. I never tire of seeing tight face portraits, especially historical images.
http://csac.buffalo.edu/mirrors/mirrorsimages.html
amazing I can see the connection to your work there to, are you still using your homemade camera?
Comment by doug mcgoldrick — August 28, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Great pictures! Thank you.
Here in Switzerland, there is a policeman photographer. His work is now exhibited in museums and galleries.
His pictures are however made mainly in the sixties.
some pictures here:
http://www.artnet.de/artist/12769/arnold-odermatt.html
and information (bio) here (in German… sorry):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Odermatt
Comment by corinne — August 29, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Visceral images for sure, but to me these are more precisely vernacular in their historical context – but now you’ve gone and done it and presented a transformation – you’ve made an interesting selection and a comparison.
Is it with sincere diffidence that you ask “why bother” ? It seems on the surface that vernacular photography and fine art photography benefit each other along with a healthy dose of dumb luck and attention. Maybe only in the nerdy world of photography is this really a question. And I mean nerdy with the utmost respect. Does it matter how or from where the photographs come if you can find beauty in them?
Comment by Matt Niebuhr — August 29, 2007 @ 2:29 am
It makes me think about Angelo Rizzuto’s photographs and the question of his intent. There’s a disturbing beauty there too…….
Comment by mark page — August 29, 2007 @ 3:17 am
[…] alec soth – blog » Blog Archive » Why bother? ‘…the fabulous Picture Australia archive. Searching on the topic of ‘new south wales police dept,’ I once again wonder why I bother with photography. It seems unfair that an anonymous police photographer can be as good as Avedon and Arbus’ (tags: Australia photography) […]
Pingback by Heraclitean Fire – Links — August 29, 2007 @ 4:23 am
i wonder if there are any modern crime scene photographers that are producing as interesting work?
Comment by j zorn — August 29, 2007 @ 8:24 am
[…] alec soth – blog » Blog Archive » Why bother? I took my SFAI class to the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts to see a show by Joachim Schmid. All of Schmid’s work is made with found photography. (tags: photography) […]
Pingback by links for 2007-08-29 | TrentHead.Com — August 29, 2007 @ 9:26 am
My ladies and gents,
I often ask myself, as many of you do, what is art and why to take photos. I think that in the end, being these non-scientific questions, we will probably never arrive to a conclusion to be true for everybody, and people will continue to judge images in accordance to their tastes and education. My mother for example loves family photos for their subjects and the memory they bring with, and dislikes completely all the “art photography” I tried to show her. Other friends of mine took some books out of my little collection and started to say “I like this one, I don’t like that one, I don’t care at all of the photographer’s intentions”.
Can we say if they are right or wrong?
I honestly don’t think they are, and this makes me reflecting again and again on what is art and why to take pictures, bringing me closer and closer to the conclusion that it’s probably time to stop naming the words art and artist (especially in the same sentence where we say photography) and even photographer. I propose to start talking of millions of men with cameras that for necessity or free choice decide to show us some things of the real world. Men that are not identified with their jobs or social status, but just free men that are in search of food, love, happiness and some answers to the questions on the meaning of life, and to do that have a job, interests and relationships.
Then, we will probably continue to be astonished by some big names’ photos, but what if we could forget the authors’ names and look at the pictures with new eyes, with no preconceptions and a virgin brain? What if we accept that today millions of people are aware enough of what they do with their cameras, also if are not good or lucky enough to get a worldwide fame?
Comment by Nicola Principato — August 29, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Incredible images. Why photograph? Every few weeks I experience a crush of doubt over working in photography. It has all been done before – what can I add? Seeing this work gives me hope rather than feeds my doubt. If an anonymous photographer can create such captivating images from his/her particular environment, then surely I have my own unique voice to be found within my own environment. Finding it is the trick. Now, how do I do that Mr. Wizard?
Comment by Glenn — August 29, 2007 @ 10:03 am
These are indeed beautiful pictures and the darkroom skill terrific. I believe “art” doesn’t always have to have a “deep” meaning. I look at these photos and I feel compelled to look at them because they are pleasing and aesthetically beautiful. Isn’t that enough?
Remember Charles Jone’s photographs? He was a gardener and lovingly photographed his efforts. They are beautiful compositions.
Let’s all keep “bothering” and keep our passions alive and be inspired by all talented people.
Comment by Christine — August 29, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Photography is all about editing. I don’t get the “why bother” at all. Most of us who are “good at it” are seeing the world through a view finder with full knowledge of the transformation that will hopefully take place, rendering the original experience quite different from the resulting work of art. So we might be able to edit almost any batch of pictures, done by street kids, done by ANONYMOUS, done by your 4 year old daughter with a disposable camera….whatever. It’s all raw material until it’s not.
Comment by peggy nolan — August 29, 2007 @ 11:52 am
this is why i think it comes down to photojournalism.
Comment by Johnny — August 29, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
are there any equivalences to this sort of thing in landscape photography?
Comment by j zorn — August 29, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Has anyone mentioned these have been published in a book:
Author: Doyle, Peter (Author) Williams, Caleb (With)
Title: City of Shadows: Sydney Police Photographs 1912-19
Comment by Philip — August 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Because you are documenting the present for the future. Because you can change the world with a photograph. Because of course you don’t really mean it when you say “Why Bother?”
Comment by Jens Lekman — August 29, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
You can assume there’s no artistic intention or knowledge in these pictures, but we don’t know that for sure.
I think “vernacular” photography is appealing, especially for photographers, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, it’s unencumbered with the banal background details that accompany most contemporary photographers and leads one to traces influences, ideas, styles. No artist statement. No curriculum vitae. No biography. No related anecdotal story. This perhaps allows for a purer kind of appreciation.
Also, the idea of untutored photographers making unexpectedly powerful pictures offers the possibility that somewhere in the process between light bouncing off objects at one end and a photograph arriving at the other, some sort of mystical magic does indeed occur. Something that many photogs suspect but can’t quantify.
Re: self-consciousness – didn’t Picasso say it took him “a lifetime to paint like a child”?
Comment by iain — August 29, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
thx iain… you’ve reminded me that even swimming well below the surface of mediocrity, there’s a chance for grace to be imparted through the process of pure, simple photographic documentation… at least it keeps me going.
Comment by mannydiller — August 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
I think the point Mike C. makes above needs repeating i.e. these guys were Photographers, and consciously so, not nobodies without skills. I wonder how many people commenting on this blog have made accurate exposures without a lightmeter on slow film with little latitude, developed that film themselves, then printed the negatives in a darkroom? None of those skills is trivial or acquired casually. They may be anonymous now, but these images are NOT the equivalent of 6×4 glossies in a wallet!
Comment by Vinegar Tom — August 30, 2007 @ 4:39 am
The fact that a photograph of a person was taken in a perfunctory manner by a technician simply recording data, as in a mug shot, or by someone who was trained in art school and is self-consciously trying to create a certain look or mood, is irrelevant. As humans we are intrinsically drawn in by photos of the human face. Why bother? I bother because I am surrounded, as most people are, by other people with interesting, wonderful faces. The human face can express such a wide variety of emotion it has a language all of its own. Faces say things. We can’t not be interested in a face, no matter who takes the picture. I’d love to photograph faces all day long if I could.
The interaction of the taker and the taken can add another interesting layer because of the meaning of the communication between them. I have always loved doing portraits, and I always find myself holding off on pressing the shutter until I see an expression that at least looks like an unguarded one, a moment in-between the posed, self conscious, intended expression. But, sometimes I am fooled anyway, and will never know if my capture was truly unguarded or posed. Doesn’t matter in the end.
Comment by Steve Murray — August 30, 2007 @ 9:18 am
I draw because I can, and I aspire to the standard set by those who do it better than I do. I don’t try to come up with my own version of anything that I’ve seen done to what I consider to be perfection, but it doesn’t stop me from drawing, (and trying to get to that point in my own head) simply because I’m afraid of what life would be like without a pencil in my hand.
I like the idea of unquantifiable magic that iain puts forward, and mannydiller’s lovely thought of a chance for grace.
Comment by zand2ohs — August 30, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Susan Sontag’s “On Photography” writes something like “time finally raises almost all the photographs, even the clumsiests, to art levels”.
I think art is anything that you -we- really believe is art. The police photographer may not intent to make art but since somebody consider his work as art, then it becomes art.
Comment by Pep — August 30, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
J Zorn said: “are there any equivalences to this sort of thing in landscape photography?”
I am not sure if you would consider old picture postcards to be equivalent – I suppose these were taken to be regarded as beautiful. I look at many supposedly bad photographs on old postcards, or even chocolate boxes and jigsaws and find that they seem to have transcended the original intentions over time, at least to my eyes. Perhaps this is as much to do with the printing processes and wonderful colour separations of old presses as the actual photos themselves ?
I was in Strand books in NY the other day and came across a book [they had three copies for $7.50@]called “The Travellers’ Guide to Color Photography” by Phillips and Thomas from the 60s. The pictures were mostly pretty bad, but enough of them were so striking in their colours and the strange way they had been composed that I was tempted to buy the book. It was extremely cheap, but very very large and very very heavy and so it didn’t make it back to the UK with me.
Vive le jigsaw !
[by the way, is “J Zorn” your real name or are you just a fan ? If the former are you the “real” John Zorn, I’ve been wondering for a while]
R
Comment by Robert Phillips — August 31, 2007 @ 6:16 am
That first image is a pearl.
The juxtapostion of the dress? and the curtains which are slightly open (there is my punctum right there Alex) oh my gosh if only he was leaping on a bed with a cucumber sandwich.
As an aside what was Belloq’s occupation and also (although I can’t pledge that I have not dreamt this) was meatyard not a butcher or is that just too perfect?
I worked as green keeper while in receipt of arts funding for a while . I was a pretty good green keeper – do you think that there is a parallel greenkeepers blog where they discussing the unfairness of the fact that an ‘artist’ could produce such a fine delicate 18th green.
Comment by dan banda lee — August 31, 2007 @ 8:22 am
j zorn not john zorn. i get that a lot.
Comment by j zorn — August 31, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
[…] Over at Alec Soth’s blog there is a thought provoking post with some unbelievable old police photographs. See it here. […]
Pingback by Graeme Mitchell Photography | Blog — September 1, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
[…] 1) Why Bother? […]
Pingback by Man In The White Suit » Blog Archive » Stuff — September 4, 2007 @ 5:09 pm