If she hung that "prose" next to her images in the gallery, I'd completely agree with you. If an image needs an explanation to be appreciated, well, ... that's a very, very bad sign. For really good images, even titles are often extraneous.
But there is nothing wrong with explaining to fellow photographers the process that went into making the image, be it composition, timing, or post-processing. Almost everything in that process is IMHO quantifiable. I'd probably go as far as saying that if one cannot explain why an image is good, or why one image is better than other, then it probably isn't.
In other words, nothing is ruined for me. In fact, I find her thought process spot on; that's something I'd try to do myself -- except that most probably won't be able to execute nearly as well as she did it.
That said, I believe that the text of the article could be shortened/simplified 2x and still remain as [if not more] informative and entertaining. So if by "prose" you meant Sharon's flowery style, then yeah, I'd have to agree.
No, not at all: prose was simply another word for 'text' in this case.
In my view, personal as ever, I don't care a fig for how a photographer achieves what the photographer achieves in his/her photographs. I spend a lot of my time looking through the ether for articles/websites that include photographs by people I have long admired and respected; it's a treasure trove out there if you look carefully. Many of the images are already very well known to me - after a long time in the business that's natural; it would be strange
not having either the interest of knowledge - but the thing that interests me about these people is
their mentality; it's in how they think about life. I really do like to understand where they grew up and why the medium drew them to it; it's illuminating finding out about their early years, the local/international politics that moulded them as well as the effect that their peers had upon them. For instance, many, if not almost all of my favourite photographers are or were Jewish. They had problems of actual, physical survival, that today's photographers in the so-called free world never face. Yet, they overcame all of that shit and went on to become stars. I don't know if it is part of Jewish heritage or not, or whether it is just luck, but it has always struck me, from the moment I realised where most of them had/have their spiritual roots, that the Jewish world owns on helluva lot of talent!
Now, writing style is what the writer does when he puts pen to paper; it comes naturally and the writer can't help himself, it's what he is. Indeed, anyone can try to write in the manner of another, but it doesn't often come off. It's a similar trap with photography, and best avoided. I've sometimes claimed not to have been influenced by anyone else in my own work, and I think I'm being honest there. But, that doesn't mean that I have closed my eyes to the work of others: on the contrary, I have consumed it with both glee and greed! Where it has best served me is in showing me fields with which I feel empathy; in other words, from seeing wonderful work, I have discovered directions that exist, paths that I might walk along in my own manner, not attempting to copy in a literal sense (impossible, anyway, because I
am myself), the stars I enjoy, but the aesthetic that make me feel happy.
As an example, take the famous Pirelli calendars. The most memorable one, for me, has always been the Sarah Moon one. Why? Well, because she is a woman: she understands instinctively the gulf that separates sophistication, elegance and femininity from soft porn. I once met Derek Forsyth, AD of many Pirelli calendars, in his London office - must have been circa '80 when I was musing about leaving for a life in the Mediterranean. I mentioned the Moon calendar to him, and he told me that it had been one of the less successful ones... I think that demonstrates the difference between a male and female take on the matter of what the French call
charme. Yet, to me, and I don't doubt my sexuality - such as it remains at this age! - her approach is the one I would most happily own as mine. I respect her soul, her mind, and that comes from years before she shot any calendars. In the end, her talent is not stolen by me, it isn't even borrowed: what it does is serve as a filter, keeping my own work in fashion and calendars, when it was happening, out of the gutter into which so much of that genre of photography inevitably falls.
All of which returns me to this: I would be far more interested in hearing from Sharon about what makes
Sharon tick than in how she puts together any photographs. Indeed, that holds for any photographer worth bothering about.
I realise there are photographers out there who will always firmly believe that if they study somebody else long enough they will be able to do what the studied person can: it's not gonna happen; get over it and be yourself; find your own life. Don't waste your own in vain pursuit.
Rob C
