November 2008
Bradley Peters
One of the unexpected surprises of these sporadic correspondences I've been having with photographers is how much I've learned about my own projects through writing about the photographs of others. The following correspondent with Bradley Peters is one of the most rewarding I've experienced so far.
Peters' style of street photography is unique and perhaps one of the most transparent I've discovered. His work doesn't claim to be depicting any truths, but is driven by spontaneity and discovery which has always lain in the heart of great street photographs.
The first time I saw your work, it provoked a lot of questions in me. Questions that I thought if answered could diminished the work. I felt like I was reading a great book and don't want to continue reading because the ending could ruin what I had read so far. Do you think the strength of your work will be diminished if we wrote about some of the process or ideas behind the photographs?
I don't think that the work would be diminished by talking about the process or the ideas. Actually, the work has a lot to do with the failure of my ideas (in good way).
So these images are all failed ideas or ideas that haven't been completely formed? That seems to me the most ideal state to be in, when everything is still possible. Are you often taken by unexpected consequences or do you try and eliminate them as much as possible?
I am very interested in unexpected consequences. I am actually a street photographer at heart and went to the University of Nebraska for my undergraduate degree, where the word "project" was a four letter word.
Once I left Nebraska, there seemed to be a lot of pressure to have a project. I have never been very comfortable working this way but thought I should give it a try (while getting my MFA at Yale). I ended up with some good ideas, but with photographs that really didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know. They ended up being well put together illustrations but there was no discovery; I really didn't learn much from them.
This was very frustrating and I shifted my focus onto very loose ideas or fragments of a thought. If I didn't quite know what I wanted, then the people I was photographing didn't quite know how to act and they would end up doing some amazing things. The "idea" now seems to function as a space for spontaneity to be borne and not the "thing" that is trying to be expressed. This way of working also seems to allow for unconscious impulses to manifest themselves in the work. To me, this is the most revealing.
If you didn't know what you wanted in your photographs, what directions did you give to your subjects?
Actually, very little. I think the people I photograph become frustrated by my lack of direction, which makes me more anxious, then in turn makes them more frustrated. There is a cycle that comes from an awkwardness I bring to the situation that ends up being the battery to the event. They end up being frustrated to the point where they almost forget they're being photographed. I end up being more of a distraction than a director.
I rely on a certain degree of faith that something will happen if I wait long enough. To give you an example, the photograph of the lady who is running with the suitcase happened because a bee would not leave her alone. There is a Pasteur quote that says "chance favors the prepared mind" and although I cannot prepare for events like a bee chasing my subject, I have to be ready for it. I expect that "something" will happen and most of the time it does.
I'm usually asking questions to photographers after their projects are completed. With you I think we are examining how projects begin. A stage still filled with hope and potential. That was what I felt when I first saw your images. Is it your plan to maintain these qualities?
An analogy I use to describe my relationship to photography is that it's sort of like a conversation that I am always having with myself. The problem is the conversation is in Spanish and I really don't speak very much Spanish; but sometimes I can pick out some of the words. I guess to answer your question, when these qualities (hope & potential) are no longer present, the conversation will have exhausted itself and it will be time to start different one.
I think spontaneity and discovery are two of the most important ingredients in photography. In your opinion, has digital photography diminished those qualities?
I don't think digital photography has contributed to the demise of spontaneity and discovery. The lack of emphasis on these two characteristics started before the digital boom. It's the result of photographers wanting their images to function more like giant paintings. There is a level of cautiousness in this way of working that doesn't lend itself to spontaneity and although it could be argued that discovery is still possible, I think it's a muted version. It's like trying to get lost but doing so while possessing a map.
Some of the world's greatest discoveries happened by accident, penicillin is an example of this. Sometimes it takes a little sloppiness for luck and fate to reveal themselves. I think the digital revolution is complicated and will result in options for both ways of working. In the end digital technologies are tools that artists use and it's their choice on how they use them. People can still be sloppy with digital technology if they want.
I consider myself a street photographer as well. It has been bothering me that there is so little beneath the surface of street photography. No big ideas. No long searches for answers or revelations. Just these disconnected random moments. Do you feel the same way?
I just think it's a different way of working. Part of what I loved about working in that manner, is the themes that I would always start to notice. I would see similar subject matter start to appear on my contact sheets. I've always felt it was a way to let the camera show me what I was really interested in rather than coming up with it ahead of time. The "big ideas" would start from small observations. The problem is this process reveals at a slower pace than most people desire. I would actually argue that most work today isn't trying to engage in a long search for revelation but instead a quick packaging of an idea, then it's time to move onto the next project. There are a lot of people making work that they are not compelled to do.
I have done lengthy photo projects as well as very spontaneous ones. From those experiences I can not say time plays any factor in determining whether a project will be successful or not. Have you thought about how you will juggle the publics' and galleries' demand to constantly see new work compared to the pace you prefer to work?
I didn't mean to imply that time spent on a project equated to its success. I hope that's not how it came across. I honestly try to do my best not to think about the public's demand for new work. I try to keep the perspective of, I have to make the work that I need to make and if I am lucky someone else might be interested in what I am doing.
I was at a conference last night with a bunch of photo journalist. They mentioned the moral code of photo journalist which is to never fake or purposely and consciously manipulate a scene to make a photograph more interesting. Street photographers such as Cartier Bresson, Elliot Erwitt and many others seem to have made it a part of the street photographers' oath to follow this code. Do you feel your work sit outside the traditional codes of street photography?
I do think my work sits outside of this "code" but uses part of it's language to create a tension between spontaneity and theatricality (my work actually has very little manipulation involved).
My generation grew up believing that photographs carried a type of truth and for the most part could be trusted. I was just talking with some friends the other day about how my children are going to grow up with a different understanding. I think it's really interesting that a future generation may be predisposed to question the authenticity of a Garry Winogrand photograph.
I think the ease in which an image can be manipulated today further reveals that photography shares the same deficiencies of truth as any other form of representation. I am most interested in what I can learn from a photograph and I think discovery isn't only reserved for images that have little or no manipulation. All photographs, even straight photo-journalist ones, contain a certain degree of fiction but I can understand the continued need for this "code" for journalism. People still believe or need to believe that the images associated with the "news" are "truthful". I am fortunate that I do not have the restrictive forces of an audience always judging my credibility as a reporter.
What's paying the bills at the moment?
I work full time at a cell phone store. I have actually worked since I was about 9 years old and I even continued to work full time while in grad school. Fortunately, I don't have to depend on selling my work to pay the bills which sort of frees me from what other people want.
What are your thoughts on artists having separate careers/jobs to support their art practice? Do you have any plans on finding work that is closer to what you do artistically?
I think that having a job outside of art has helped keep me grounded. Sometimes being stuck in an art bubble can be stifling. I am currently working on winning the lottery.