Joerg Colberg had a contest this summer and Bradley Peters was one of the winners. The prize was an interview and it’s really a great read:
Jörg Colberg: In your “Home Theater” statement, you’re describing your work as “allowing a ‘staged’ photograph to break down and […] then [to] spiral into the spontaneous.” I just have to ask – especially given your Yale background: What’s wrong with staged photography? Why have it break down?
Bradley Peters: It’s not an issue of something being “wrong” but rather my interest in something that no one seems to speak of much these days… luck. I’m not interested in coming up with a really well defined idea and then making a picture that illustrates that concept. My photographic foundation was built in small camera, black & white street photography, I mean that’s basically the only way I shot for nearly ten years, and I’m still really interested in letting the world reveal itself in ways that I can’t imagine by myself. Without the breakdown there is very little surprise, which is important to me. I need to feel as though I learned something from the image and if the picture turns out exactly the way I wanted, I probably didn’t learn anything that I didn’t already know. In a way, I probably didn’t even need to make the picture in the first place. There was a really good interview in LA Weekly a couple years ago with John Szarkowski that I think speaks to this point:
“Some photographers think the idea is enough. I told a good story in my Getty talk, a beautiful story, to the point: Ducasse says to his friend Mallarmé — I think this is a true story — he says, ‘You know, I’ve got a lot of good ideas for poems, but the poems are never very good.” Mallarmé says, “Of course, you don’t make poems out of ideas, you make poems out of words.’ Really good, huh? Really true. So, photographers who aren’t so good think that you make photographs out of ideas. And they generally get only about halfway to the photograph and think that they’re done.”
I’m a huge fan of luck and unexpected results in photography, but I think many younger photographers don’t like pictures that they didn’t intend to happen, because it feels like you have no control over the outcome. I’ve also heard the argument that because amateurs get lucky once in awhile it somehow invalidates pictures that you didn’t expect. I can tell you that photographers who take these kinds of pictures have portfolios filled with lucky shots and that’s no accident. I can also tell you that shooting this way can be extremely nerve-racking and of course from the client side of the equation you have to sell everyone on a picture that wasn’t planned for. It’s just as difficult to use luck as it is to nail everything down from beginning to end.
24 Comments
Early in my career, I missed a lot of good images because I went into a shoot with my preconceived ideas and spent most of my energy executing those ideas. I’ve learned that the best shoots are the ones where you have a general idea of what you want to do, then allow the subject to be comfortable enough to be him/herself from that general concept.
The real skill in being a photographer, is not in creating a moment, but recognizing and capturing the defining moment when it happens.
@Tim,
Here here… well said.
I can relate as I would have never had an interest in photography if it wasn’t for the unexpected, the happy accident or the “I’m ready accident, go ahead and I’ll get you” moments. HCB worked similarly when he would choose his location and framing and wait for the happening, the decisive moment. Expecting the unexpected or at least being prepared for it is an important part of my work and obviously others.
Although it may sometimes be just plain luck, I also believe wholey on creating “luck”. For the past few years, I have switched to creating a book based of of instinct and intuition. By using old film cameras w/o a viewfinder, I force myself to rely on melding into the moment, reacting and working out an idea. I have a specific goal in mind, but I never truly know what I have until I develop he film. I am always more satisfied with the results. We get the jobs based upon that work, however on set, clients have us defer back to the safety of instantaneous technology.
Nice post, Rob. And I’m really enjoying all the comments so far — including yours (especially the part about portfolios filled with lucky shots, which is no accident…and that it’s just as difficult to use luck as it is to nail everything down from beginning to end). I think I’ve relied heavily on spontaneity and luck, or happy accidents, or decisive/defining moments in my work; so far I think it has served me well from an artistic standpoint, if not a financial one.
This is one of my favorite Henri Cartier-Bresson quotes, which (I believe) eloquently addresses the topic of discussion here: “To take a photograph means to recognize –simultaneously and within a fraction of a second– both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one’s head, one’s eye and one’s heart on the same axis.”
And this is one of my favorite Henri Cartier-Bresson quotes: ‘Chance favors the prepared mind.’ There is a skill set that develops over years that allows you to be able to capture the ‘moment’ when it presents its self. How relevant this skill set will be in the coming age of video frame grabbing capture is something I am not too sure of. But I suppose that is another topic.
I love concert photography for this reason, the lucky image that you didn’t expect and weren’t entirely positive was going to come out. Rock concerts or small venue shows I especially savor for challenging me to work in difficult, interesting spaces with energy and unpredictable light.
Where would the fun be if you knew what was going to happen?
This is great to read. I agree with what he says about younger photographers not liking unintended pictures. It’s as if spontaneity and serendipity are invalid as contributory factors to the making of a great picture. If you walk out the door with that belief then you’ve just discounted everything someone like Terry Richardson has ever done. To be able to create the conditions for unique and unrepeatable things to happen is probably the one thing I have worked hardest at developing throughout my career.
The future is unwritten.
I concur with the above with the quote in mind, and I quote that man in photgraphy that I look up to the most , ” A successful photograph is the product of a sensitive and receptive mind and a well executed sequence of actions in the field and the darkroom.” – Ansel Adams.
love this post rob,
coming from a journalism background, i’ve managed to build my whole career on serendipity. i’ve always felt that the best work happens when the world is unfolding in front of you. when you approach ad work this way, it’s both exhilarating and terrifying at the same time. if you are really prepared,
put in the time to hone your chops, then the technical stuff falls into line and opens the door for the “luck” to happen. so refreshing to see folks talking about this for a change….
That is exactly how I feel. The “luck” factor is huge. I teach darkroom and a student of mine got back her first contact sheet this week. She took this lovely picture of leaves on the ground. She was playing with DOF while on a morning walk. She took this picture of leaves with dew on them that was good. She started playing in the darkroom and produced a beautiful image, first time in the dark, ever. She is hooked and will probably love photography all year, if not longer.
I kept thinking that if she had been in my digital class and had scanned in her image, she would have never played for an hour. She would have found the contrast she liked, no dodging or burning, no two seconds here or there. She would have liekd it but it wouldn’t be the same. She would not have learned about light and time. She will be a better photographer next time she shoots and better in the darkroom next time she prints. luck, is good.
Recently, I met a very interesting gentleman who came into FOVEA gallery and had questions about compact digital cameras.
He asked if I would view his images and offer some thoughts.
Many of the images were very nice and he showed a fine eye for street photography, putting his subjects at ease.
Several strong images with a moody self-portrait that that could hang in any gallery in the country.
Turns out he is a successful business man with a passion for photography and jazz guitar.
Long story longer is we were talking about business management and perfection and he made the comment
“As for my job, I actually work to push for some imperfection so we can have fresh ideas. I’m afraid that at times constant perfection could “institutionalize” us, putting innovation in the back seat.”
I like the idea of introducing “imperfection” to make the viewer uneasy.
I often wonder if photographers try too hard to direct their passion?
There is a famous quote from Gary Player, when someone told him he had had a lucky round of golf. He replied: “The more I practice, the luckier I get.”
RDP
@Robert P,
Very apt, especially as it relates here. This actually ties in nicely with the Terry discussion last week – creating spontaneity and authenticity in a deliberate shooting environment is really hard, but really rewarding. Most of this interview reflects what think about 99% of the time when shooting or preparing to shoot.
The picture turns out exactly like you wanted and you don’t learn anything you didn’t already know?
Based on what metric of evaluation?
So, we have to learn from the aesthetic or the image is a failure ?
Does that entity of “learning” have to be an isolated bolt of enlightenment?
So, if you know the picture didn’t need to be taken, then who pushed the shutter release?
Portfolios filled with lucky shots and that’s no accident? Then are they really “lucky”?
The idea that you have to just be there and let the magic happen and then say that that isn’t a really well defined idea is skipping a lot of details.
Especially the ones about how deep you might be into a subject matter and how the aesthetic is consistently tailored to that subject matter, Precisely because of the idea driving the shoot.
I think some people might be misrepresenting their well crafted serendipity as “Luck”
It’s his process so he defines the metrics and determines what is a failure. Some people see luck others see cause and effect. Just depends on how un-lucky you are.
This notion of “Luck” has really got me thinking.
I don’t think showing up anywhere with a camera would be considered an opportunity for luck.
The acts of showing up and having a loaded camera to use are both within that individual’s responsibility.
If an artist/photographer shows up some place without a camera and finds a loaded camera laying on the ground and then uses it to create something then THAT would be luck. Even then it would still be within the photographer’s responsibility to point and shoot.
If someone produces images, even during the “breakdown” of a semi-staged theater of opportunity, the consistency of the final images’ aesthetic will have negated any real essence of luck.
Quote:”I’m not interested in coming up with a really well defined idea and then making a picture that illustrates that concept.”
Au contraire, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Scott, if you want to stay with his sports analogy I guess there has never been an actual case of luck in any sporting event then. Having the players show up at a pre-determined location, time, AND having them bring their equipment with them. I guess if you had two teams who just happen to run into each other at a random field, where there was enough equipment for everyone to use just lying around, then maybe something lucky might happen, but otherwise it’s impossible right? Those sneaky players have been fooling us all this time, trying to pass their well crafted serendipity off as luck.
@J.Bailey, the main point here is the word “accident”.
The sports analogy for my idea is closer to fishing than football.
The domain of personal responsibility for football is very prescribed, where as fishing and photography are both flexible in their degrees of participation and scope of engagement. First thing someone asks you when you come back with a trophy, “Whad ya use for bait?” The next questions would be related to where you went and how deep. At that point it’s really up to the fisherman or the photographer to retell the experience in a manner of their own choosing. The photos stand for themselves, but how he described their provenance seems a little fishy. How’s that? Thanks for your reply.
I re-read the whole interview and he did not use the word “accident” once. I also don’t know what would be fishy about the process. He seems pretty upfront and mentions more than once how important staging the event is part of the process. He never once claims that things are happening without some kind of intervention, in fact he attributes the chance happens as a direct result of the existence of his staged idea. Also, as far as the analogies go, he never says football either. He may allude to it but we don’t know that for sure and he also alludes to a couple other as well. I understand the argument that you’re trying to make but I don’t know if it actually applies to his work. You might disagree with his style, but it seems just as valid as any other way of working. One final thing about luck, in your previous post you infer that since the photographer is making choices that somehow this means luck isn’t involved (i.e showing up with a loaded camera and then pointing and shooting). If someone decides to buy a lottery ticket and drives to the gas station and chooses the numbers personally, then wins the powerball, isn’t that luck?
what I dont get though is Colbergs statement that the pictures are “effortless”. I don’t see that at all.
[…] was a fun exercise in chance and in creating my own luck. (Something that was recently discussed here.) I firmly believe that in photography, and in life, you make your own luck by knowing what you […]
[…] over at APE touched on luck and unexpected results in photography in a post here and I have to say that it stuck in my mind when writing this post. I was commissioned by Details to […]
Comments are closed for this article!