The Last Days of Vintage

OK, maybe I’m beating a dead horse here, but, hey, this horse is a favorite of mine, and I think it’s a topic that’s always worth another pass around the bend. The other day, I heard (again) that vintage is dead. Apparently classic is the new vintage. Now, I can hear the collective sigh of relief accompanying the resounding cheers of a million wedding photojournalists, but, you know, I find it hard to really get behind that. Not because I’m in love with people sitting on suitcases, mind you, but because there are a lot of wedding photojournalists who can’t shoot worth a damn. Actually, there are plenty of photojournalists, period, who can’t shoot worth a damn. And knocking something down isn’t going to change that a single iota.

Now this isn’t an excoriation of everyone who can’t shoot. Hell, I’ve sucked plenty of times. I do it on a daily basis. And, you know, sometimes, I feel pretty shitty about it, but, hey, everyone sucks sometimes. Well, maybe a few Godlike figures out there don’t, but for us mere mortals, it’s gonna happen. But you get back on the horse, you try harder, you get kicked off again, you get on again, and so it goes. That’s life.

But the hubris isn’t worth it. You don’t get a free ride for endorsing a style. You don’t get bonus points for having better heroes than someone else. Maybe it sounds good on paper, but aspiring to better isn’t worth much if you always deliver worse. The value of having higher aspirations, if there is such a thing, and I’ll go on record and say that I do think there is, isn’t the pride in having it. It’s to use it to recognize when you’ve gotten kicked off the horse, so you can get back on. It’s not just a source of inspiration. It’s a baseline to keep you from deluding yourself and keeping your eyes wide open. It’s to push yourself to be better.

Now maybe it’s fun to take a respite and kick a dog while it’s down, though I really don’t think vintage is down for the count, so much as slowly releasing it’s hold. But at the end of the day, good is good, bad is bad, and that is that. It’s not your style that makes you good. It’s being good that makes you good. It might be easy to take aim at a big, fat target and say “Die, vintage, die!” But I’ve seen many a vintage shooter pull out much more nuanced and delicate a portrait than a lot of wedding photojournalists. If the party line holds true – that photojournalism is all about people – shouldn’t it be the other way around? In fact, it’s really more common that I expect to see some pretty awful portraits among wedding photojournalists than good ones. And that saddens me. Not because I think there’s an obligation to be good at portraits or still lifes. We pick and choose what we care for. But more for the very same reason that I picked on styled shoots last year. Because I see a lot of people who don’t even take the time to see if there’s some value there.

My issue with styled shoots wasn’t that people shot a bunch of pretty but rather uninspiring pictures of static objects with the occasional model stuffed in between. It was that it felt like a lot of people were getting so into it, they were forgetting the value of the human pictures and human creativity in lieu of all the pretty little details. Have some fun. Shoot what turns you on. But don’t forget about the exploration. Make life about inclusion, not exclusion.

Photography is no one thing. Portraits and still lifes are as old an expression of what photography can be as candid images of people. You don’t have to specialize in it, but as my mom used to tell me, at least try it, first. Hey, it worked for Weston. And trying doesn’t just mean snapping some shots, saying “This isn’t for me,” and running back to your comfort zone, because you couldn’t get the result you wanted. It means digging in and getting to know it.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying to take a bunch of shots you abhor. You don’t need to take the same dress shot everyone else does. You don’t have to take the same portrait everyone else does. It’s not about learning to properly duplicate a picture that makes you want to barf. It’s the very opposite. If something makes you want to barf, use that to find a way to change the message behind the picture. Let it help you find your direction. Many a great image rests on nothing more than the fact that someone is proclaiming they simply don’t give a fuck. Make it your own. Find a way to make it work. There is always a way to make it work.

But whatever you do, these are the two things I will say as I finish this up:

1. As much as some people hate pictures of suitcases (or whatever other objects photographers may set their fetishes on) and as many times as I’ve heard this comparison, those images will never be the next spot-toning. Nothing will be the next spot toning. Hell has a special place reserved for this most-wretched of techniques. And even if something is the next spot toning, I’ll give you 10:1 that suitcase shots are not that thing. Spot toning is notoriously awful not just because it was done to death, but because it was overt effect that required no skill. At least a proper suitcase shot requires some comprehension of set design, lighting, composition, and background selection. That might not sound like much, but I’ve seen enough bad shots of objects to say it’s surely something.

2. A human picture doesn’t mean a picture of a human. It means something that resonates with humans. Human perception and memory is incredibly delicate, which is why it is so difficult to appropriate the value a picture produces. It’s not difficult to appropriate the look, but copying the feeling is as much part of what is going on in the outside world as it is our reaction to it, so it’s a moving target that is anything but easy to truly replicate. So the choice to convey humanity in any given fashion can’t be reduced down to any particular style. It is a question of belief, understanding, and comprehension, and that’s the thing we all need to find on our own.