Case in point, the feelings that arise when people read that Gary Winogrand's Leica M4 is now in the hands of a family friend who uses it for birthdays, funerals, Christmas and Thanksgivings.
What's wrong with that? Given my newly acquired status, I use both my metered and unmetered bodies for family pics.
Should I call them artistic because of the camera they were made with (which, as you can ascertain, is my M4-2 with Konica lens), or should I dismiss them as family snapshots?
To be quite honest, those who would consider my use of a Leica M4-2 a waste, just because I'm not doing other type of images, should be out in the street, producing images themselves. From where I see, a camera, however legendary, is a photographic tool, and using it for that purpose is far preferable than leaving it to rust, no matter how much we revere the dang object.
Hence, these shots are artistic snapshots... 'cuz they're pretty, not because they were made with "artistic" gear. What's your take?
2 comments:
I really like the work you've got here. From this post, I get the sense that you're struggling with a photographic identity crisis. Do you deserve the Leica, according to all the folks who've come before? Are your pictures art? What's the "proper" use of a fine camera, if not art?
To hell with that. Just shoot pictures.
Well, I was addressing the snapshot vs photograph notion, but if you say this is good work, I'll take it... even if all I've been able to do with it are relatively simple shots of my daily routine. Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment