|
|
An interview with Brooks Jensen |
|
|
|
Ecrit par Patrick Jan Van Hove
|
|
28-06-2005 |
 Letter to the editor,
An interview with Brooks Jensen, Editor of LensWork Magazine
LensWork
Magazine is a
rare exception in the photography publication world. It's
an advertisement-free bimonthly magazine devoted to the creative
process, to photographers and the images they make, rather than
equipment reviews and discussion about the latest digital camera.
Brooks Jensen is the co-founder of the magazine and he publishes a quasi-daily blog on the lenswork website
, devoted to various issues of creative photography. We spoke to him about his vision of photography.
Mamut : Hi Brooks, thanks for speaking with us,
let's start at the beginning: how did the Lenswork adventure start ?
Brooks: Actually, it started because I wanted to learn desktop publishing software! To that end, I
volunteered to produce a newsletter for our local photo group in Portland, Oregon, USA. I thought
this would give me a deadline and incentive to learn layout software and to improve my computer skills.
Little did I know the path I was starting on! After producing this newsletter for about 5 years, Maureen
and I realized this humble volunteer project contained the seeds of a potentially larger project. We published
the first issue of LensWork in Sept of 1993 and have been at it ever since. The full story is recapped in our
issue #50 as we looked back over the first 10 years. It is available online on the LensWork website.
Mamut : Your magazine is swimming firmly against the general current in
photography towards technical-oriented magazines, where advertisement takes
up most of the space in the magazine. What do your think your role in the
photography marketplace is today ?
Brooks:
We have absolutely no role whatsoever in the photography marketplace
today -- at least as far as equipment is concerned. Quite honestly, the
equipment we need to use in photography has always been, to me, the
least interesting part of photography. I owned only one camera (an old
Arca Swiss 6x9 monorail) for over 25 years and never gave it much
thought. I used it and a limited set of films, developers and papers to
make the best photographs I could with this equipment. With my creative
time, I've always known I would rather explore the world and the images
I can make rather than spend the time fussing with gear and techniques.
I have always felt that photography is about photographs, not tools or
techniques. Of course, it can be about tools and techniques and that is
just fine for those who choose to make that their focus of attention;
it it perfectly valid. But, for a lot of photographers I know, the
image is their interest and the equipment is only a tool to get there.
LensWork is produced for these photographers. I think our publication
makes a nice addition to the field of gear-oriented magazines and fills
out the spectrum a bit.
Having said that, of course all of us photographers do have to spend some time fussing with equipment.
But I see it as the necessary part of the craft that we can control -- that is to say, we can control
how much of our creative time is spent on equipment issues and how much of it we dedicated to making
images and being involved in the creative process. Our role as a publisher, I guess, is to provide ideas and
inspiration, motivation and a sense of community, even a visual and tangible sense of the creative side of photography.
The other magazines and the Internet do a splendid job of showing us the tools and the means. LensWork tries to show the
results and the soul of photography as a creatively expressive medium.
Mamut : I agree with the importance of the image, but why do you
think you're pretty much alone to represent that point of view among
photography magazines ? Could that be that it's easier to discuss
lenses and film resolution than the creative process ?
Brooks :
Follow the money. The traditional magazine publishing paradigm is that the cash flow that supports a publication is
almost entirely derived from advertising revenue. The income received from subscribers is gravy. Look at the array
of publications on your local newsstand, any magazine, any topic. All devoted a significant percentage of their square
inches to advertising. With this in mind, who is willing to pay for advertising in a photography magazine? Camera
manufacturers and other equipment businesses. Hence, the focus of all photography magazines leans toward equipment,
equipment reviews, articles on how to use equipment, etc.
And
your point is also correct -- it is a lot easier to discuss equipment
and techniques than it is to discuss the internal, human, creative
process.
But, I think there is even something more here than that. Equipment
discussions are factual and lend themselves to verifiable details.
Discussions about motivations, influences, the creative muse, and that
boogey-man ART are often couched in opinions and feelings instead of
facts and details. It is more difficult to offer up an opinion based on
feeling -- and then present what one hopes is a convincing discussion
of the issue. This requires that one has thought about the issue, is in
touch with their own feelings about it, and arrives at a point where
one is willing to take a stand with a proposition and publish it so
one's peers can read it. This risks disagreement and even conflict. A
lot of people are uncomfortable with this idea. How many times have you
had someone show you a photograph with the disclaimer that it is "still
a work in process; I'm not finished with it yet." Why is this so
common? I think it is because to call a work finished means that one
has made a definitive statement with it. And that means it is a target
for criticism, disagreement, and conflict. It is much easier to leave
work unfinished so any criticism of it can be deflected. I've said
before that one of the hardest things about making art is that one must
learn to commit without reservation. Most people don't like to be boxed
in this way. This is a natural human reservation.
Additionally, I have always felt that once a photographer has acquired
basic equipment and the skill to use it, that is when the process of
being a photographer/artist just begins. Discussions of equipment are,
to me, the beginning steps -- sort of Photography 101. Once all that is
mastered, then the graduate course begins. Just as in any other
endeavor, there are always a lot more beginners than there are
accomplished practitioners. If you want to sell a lot of magazines,
market to the biggest audience -- the large audience of beginners. We
take the opposite approach and aim LensWork's content and editorial
focus to those folks who are comfortable with equipment issues and are
working on their personal expression.
Mamut : You keep publishing in black and white in very high quality, even
though there certainly is high quality printing processes and high quality
work done in color. How do you see color photography ?
Brooks: Well, every magazine ever published is the creative result of
the editor's biases and limitations. You have correctly identified
mine. I have never been a color photographer and on the (very) rare
occasion when I have tried to make color photographs I have failed
miserably. Frankly, I just don't see in color. My eyes work just fine
(I am not color-blind), but my mind's eye works in black-and-white. I
am, therefore, frankly, woefully unqualified to produce a magazine that
shows color photography. I often wish I could, but we decided long ago
to leave this to someone who is more qualified both to assume the role
of editor for a color photography magazine and to work on the exacting
task of reproducing color photography to the high standards we try to
achieve with black and white.
Also, I struggle with the literal aspect of color photography. For some
reason I cannot quite put my finger on, I tend to see color photographs
as two-dimensional copies of the world. Color photographs show me what
the world looks like. That's fine as far as it goes, but b/w tends to
show me what the world means, how it feels to be in the world, why we
should care about all of this. Black and white is more of an abstract
of the world and as such is a distillation. It boils down the visual
components to the essences of the visual scene. For me, this is the
most powerful way of seeing the world because it condenses and
intensifies the visual and the meaningful. I have nothing against color
photography at all, it is just that looking at a b/w image seems to ask
me to pay closer attention and to look for meaning. Color photography
is a description where b/w feels like poetry. This is a blatant,
sweeping generalization, and you can probably point out plenty of
examples that disprove my statement, but, as I started, this is the
bias that I bring to LensWork as its editor. Now I just wish someone
would do a magazine of color photography so I could subscribe to it!
Mamut : LensWork seems to me as somewhat at odds with the art "milieu",
you profess the importance of art distribution, of accesibility at
reasonable costs to high-quality portfolios, in short, you tend to
distance yourself from an elitist art community. In many of the issues
of the magazine, unknown newcomers share space with internationnally
recognized photographers, is this also part of your editorial bias ?
Brooks :
Elitism:
Throughout photography's history it has been referred to as the one truly democratic art medium -- anybody can make a picture.
It has been a nice marketing slogan for Kodak and the industry that sells snapshot cameras. And it is true! Anybody can make a
picture and a lot of people can make very interesting photographic artwork, too. It is the most democratic of all visual media.
(Can you think of a more accessible one?) Then why does the Art World work so hard to make it the opposite? Galleries, museums,
agents, marketers of all kinds (and even artists) pour incredible amounts of energy, time, and money into the unsupportable
proposition that a photograph is rare commodity and commercially valuable. Why? Follow the money. The elitists in photography
are highly motivated to keep it elitist. This keeps out the riffraff photographers, keeps the prices up, keeps the investment
aspect of images appreciating, and keeps them in control of the game.
I simply disagree with those who are working to pedestalize photography and certain photographers for the advantage of market
positioning. I think photography as a market for images would be a much healthier entity if those who sell photographs would
recognize the advantages of a broader base of both producers and consumers. Simply said, the larger the base of a pyramid,
the higher the pinnacle. Photography needs to broaden its base of both image makers and market consumers. Doing so will make
the master's work even more valuable! Today we can buy a photograph from almost any of the recognized masters of the medium
for $5,000 -- the very best masters in the entire history of photography. The most expensive photographs in the world can be
purchase for $100,000. Contrast this to the world of painting where any neighborhood hack painter will sell their paintings
for $5,000 and the masters sell for tens of millions. Is this about painting versus photography or is it about the huge base
of people who appreciate painting compared to the small number of people who appreciate fine art photography? As base and
commercial as it might sound, it is all about supply and demand.
Why is it that the market for baseball cards is larger than the market for fine art photographs? Could it be that there are
more people who like baseball than there are people who like fine art photographs?
Fact: Photography is a democratic art; lots and lots of people can make wonderful fine art photographs.
Fact: Photography is not rare; the world consists of millions of wonderful images and more are being made
every day by hard working photographers.
Fact: Any given photograph is not even rare; the photographic process by definition is one that
is infinitely reproducible and multiple copies of a great fine art image are common.
This economy of scale has the potential to bring the price of any given photograph to within every consumer's budget.
Why should we fight these basic facts? Why not create a market -- an industry -- that brings fine art photographs to
the whole world? Why not create a marketplace that supports as many creative photographers as possible? Why not make
photographs as accessible as other art forms -- for example, music, books, or movies? Think how many people
are making a living as creative individuals in worlds of music, books, or the movies. How many photographers
can you think of who are making a living selling their fine art photographs? Doesn't this tell you that the
elitist approach to photography is broken?
Breathe! I shouldn't get so wound up in all of this, but I see such potential for photography and photographers!
It frustrates me that the elitist approach to the photographic market should be so in control and so smothering.
I am writing a great deal about this and will publish a book later this year on the topic. Maybe in my own small way
I can get some people thinking about alternatives. We'll see.
Unknown photographers:
Before I started LensWork, I used to think that there were a hundred or so good photographers in the history of
the medium. At least that was what I was led to believe by scanning the bookstore shelves and gallery announcements.
I would see the same "usual suspects" over and over. But I found this was at odds with the world I started to see as
I attended workshops and expanded my circle of friends. There were lots and lots of very accomplished photographers
with lots and lots of interesting work. They just had no vehicle to show their work! Galleries want to exhibit only
the masters who will draw in the crowds. Publishers want to publish only those masters who will sell books. The rest
of us just don't count!
When we started LensWork, we had no images in the first 11 issues -- only articles on photography and the creative process.
We didn't want to publish the same old images from the same old masters. We also didn't want to publish the three
"greatest hits" from an unknown photographer -- this just didn't seem to do their work justice. Then I thought
about every workshop I'd ever attended where there was always someone who showed up with a finished portfolio of
work, usually 10-15 pieces that held together as a body of work. If these photographers did manage to get an exhibition,
galleries wouldn't exhibit this work because they want the greatest hits for sales purposes. Publishers wouldn't publish
these portfolios because there wasn't enough work for a book. We decided this was the publishing role that
LensWork could fulfill. We look for portfolios of work that can find no outlet any other way -- regardless of the photographer.
The result is an anthology approach to selection -- typically three portfolios in each issue of LensWork, often selected
to compliment each other. That this often ends up being a "famous" photographer right next to an unknown photographer is
just plain fun. We don't really plan it this way. The dirty, little secret is that we never read the curriculum vitae the
photographers send in. Never. We simple don't care what your credential are (or are not). We look at the work. That's
all we ever care about. It makes no difference if you are famous or not, no difference if you are published or not, no
difference if you work large format or digital, no difference if you started photography last month or fifty years ago.
We look at the work. If we have an editorial bias, this is it.
Mamut : How did you get started on the idea of the audio blog ?
Brooks:
There were two reasons to do the blog: I have all kinds of tidbits of
ideas and items that come across mydesk that are interesting, but not
important enough to become an articleor essay for the magazine. I
thought the blog might give me a way toshare some of these with our
readers. Lots of people have pushed and prodded us to change to a
morefrequent publishing schedule. To paraphrase the old joke, we do it,
butwe'd have to kill ourselves! The blog gives me a way to have a
morefrequent schedule of sharing ideas without the difficulties of
publishingin print. The audio aspect of the blog came about simply
because I am such a bad typist. Also, I've been involved with audio
recording since I bought a 3" reel to reel recorder in 1967 when I was
in the 7th grade. I love the aliveness of spoken word! It was only
natural for me to do the blog that way rather than the grunt through
the tortuous process of typing.
By the way, we had no thought whatsoever of doing anything with the
blogs other than a web post. We were quite surprised when folks started
asking for them on CD and for transcriptions. It's funny, but it is
amazing how often in life when you volunteer to offer something to
people (like the original newsletter I mentioned above) that it strikes
a chord and might just turn into something bigger than you intended.
There's probably a lesson here somewhere for all of us regarding our
artwork. I'll have to give this some more thought.
Mamut : The "Lenswork philosophy" has changed my own way of looking and
thinking my images, and I'm sure many photographers have had the same
experience. How do you feel about this "education" role ?
Brooks:
We are all in this together. It's a cliche, but it's true. I am absolutely convinced,
especially after having been involved in photography for so many years, that every photographer
throughout history is no different from us -- that is, they are all just people trying to make
compelling images and using a camera to explore the world. My role as an "educator" is to simply be
the best conduit I can. I am not the source; I'm just the guy with the soapbox. The photographers who
have preceded us have learned things, explored ideas, discovered doors and deadends. These are the
true educators. LensWork is just the megaphone that transmits their wisdom to photographers who are
also on the path of creative photography. It is a role we are truly honored to occupy. And besides,
it is a license to knock on the doors of photographers all over the world and ask them a lot of prodding
questions! In the process, I get to learn, too!
By the way, what is the "LensWork philosophy"? It is fascinating to me that you use this term.
I really wasn't aware that we had one! Again, I'll have to think more about this. I guess maybe
we do, but I am probably too close to it to see it as clearly as it might appear from a more distant position --
like constellations. But maybe, like constellations, the patterns are entirely determined by the place one stands
and from where one makes the observations. Hmmm.
Mamut : I'm not quite sure, It's just that in my experience there is nothing else like LensWork,
it stands seemingly alone in a void between techno-oriented photography magazine and snobby art magazines,
and I guess that what I understand in that position is that the way images are presented, the way you or
Bill Jay do your editorial notes, all of this stands as an approach to photography that is simple and that
is about images. I think it can be called a philosophy, don't you think ?
Brooks : I guess so. If I had my choice, however, I'd rather be known
as a passionate photographer rather than a philosophical publisher. |
|
Dernière mise à jour : ( 16-11-2005 )
|
|
|
