Graffiti. I love to photograph graffiti because it’s such a transitory artform, but it’s often said that it’s “photographing someone elses art” and that’s a complete valid criticism. I feel the same way about it, and to a lesser extent to architectural photography.
The only response I really have relates to the aforementioned transitory nature of street art. It feels less about, to all intents and purposes, “photocopying” someone else work and passing it off as something creative on your part, but documenting a changing scene.
What do you think?
You put any subject in a context and it can be valid reason to photograph it, not only that a photograph might be the only visual proof that something existed as subjects come and go. Graffiti is a classic example, here today and gone tomorrow once the council or whoever have pulled their finger out.
I was asked if I wanted to photograph a photograph the other day and politely said no. It did not feel right for a start and could only come up with one valid reason to photograph that particular photograph, to keep a copy of it just in case the original or its copies are lost. I do not think that is a game I want to get into, I do not want to become an archive, there are bigger and better people doing that already. I would happily photograph a photograph if it was put in some kind of context that had a story relating to it, I story I wanted to tell. Yes walk into an art gallery and take a photograph of a painting if you want to keep a record of it but to me that is all it will be a record.
That is what I think.
Si