Over the years I've been to plenty of photography exhibitions, from small local artists to the big international names, and something that struck me was that for every artist who brings genuine artistic weight and perspective, there's a flood of unauthentic work, that often feels copy-pasted. You get the same compositions, same edits, same color gradings, same gear, and so on. Maybe beautiful, but, using Roland Barthes's terms, that beauty that only allows the viewer to celebrate the Operator and a little bit of the Studium. But, in my opinion, missing the Punctum.
The main problem is not people that take photos, that's never the problem. The problem is who curates them, and the aesthetic they decide to elevate. Too often I see curators having the "Instagram taste": perfect symmetry, beautiful painted-like skies, reflection so sharp they look AI generated. It's algorithmic pop. Polished and efficient, but completely empty.
Last Saturday I went to see World Press Photo exhibition here in Turin, and I'm afraid it didn't hit me as hard as I hoped. Even though in theory it's closer to the kind of photography I appreciate: documentary, human, narrative-driven. The exhibit felt a bit disconnected, with too many isolated pieces, and no single thread tying them together.
One thing that is true is that I tend to prefer exhibitions where a single author or a clear concept is presented, I like to follow a line of thought, and don't jump between traumas and continents every two frames.
Overall? A solid 6.5 out of 10 from me, and I don't think I will go to see it again in the coming months.
My experience was diametrically opposed to the experience of my friend: she loved the chaos, the abrupt shifts from one tragedy to another.
She also mentioned something that struck me: she was disappointed there wasn't
more information about the technical side of the photos. No mention of cameras
or lenses.
She wanted to know what tools these photographers prefer and why.
This is a point that I don't understand, and we had a long discussion about it.
I think that photography should never be associated to the equipment used to take the picture; you don't ask Picasso what kind of brush he used, or a chef what brand of pan he uses. This is because I think that pushing pictures and gear together passes the message that you need specific gear to create similar work, and I think that's a big trap.
Her counter argument is that removing technical context can also strip the human element, but I think that the human element is in the result, not the medium, and not in the relationship the artist has with the camera, the lens, or any other gear.
This is one of the reasons I cannot get in tune enough with landscape and wildlife photography, or at least with the "pop" part of this genre.
For me, it feels like that the majority of the work produced in this genre of
photography is 80% gear flex and 20% skill.
Considering that a lot of these photos are made remotely, from pre-set camera
rigs, or with traps. The production quality is insane, sure, but where is the
story? Where's the tension?
She wasn't having it.
Go lie in the snow twelve hours a day for two weeks to photograph an animal that appears twice a year, then talk to me about skill.
She's absolutely right, patience is a skill. Maybe I undervalue that because I'm drawn more to narrative and emotion than to natural beauty for its own sake.
Our disagreement boiled down to something simple: I see photography as a language, she sees it as a language and a craft intertwined.
Both approaches are valid. One prioritizes meaning; the other respects the process too.
Maybe, if anything, what photography really teaches is this: we all look at the same frame, but we don't see the same thing.