I don’t think I would have put this on my radar had it not been for reading a post from a disgruntled photographer on IG this morning. This photographer complained about people posting about Vanity Fair’s use of Christopher Anderson’s much-talked-about series of photographs, which has caused outrage and divided people over how to interpret the work. The photographer’s position was that people using Anderson’s moment to talk about photography were somehow engaging in clout-chasing, and that it upset his breakfast or something. It seemed a bit like trolling rage-bait, tbh. The same post was clearly used to attract attention to his own position and to create dialogue by being provocative. The double standard of it was bemusing.
I am really keen on discussing the fascination with Christopher’s photographs as widely as possible, as they have broken out of our tepid little pool of photography and, in a rare case, brought public attention, which is exceedingly rare for our community. There have been thousands of interviews, posts, and discussions about the work. Those in our community wanting to discuss this on any platform of their choice should remain encouraged to do so. This is a perfect moment for us to discuss why the medium still matters, and to bring back and encourage legitimate public critique concerning how images are made, and to understand and discuss what the motivations might have been. It also teaches us to be careful about what photographs are read and what we project onto the author of the images.
For my own efforts yesterday, I posted a flip-through of Anderson’s book Stump, published by Editorial RM in 2013, to provide context for his previous work, showing that he has used tight-cropped, somewhat garish imagery to create political portraiture for 15 years or more. This is not a new schema for Anderson. I left the post up for free, citing other examples, including one of my own books (from 2014), which also uses a destructive iconoclastic intervention on tight-cropped politicized faces. I also included Daniel Mayrit’s excellent “You Have Not Seen Their Faces” in the video, again posted for free. I also included a brief look at Approximate Joy, one of Anderson’s well-regarded books, in which the tight-cropped faces, albeit much less garish, make an appearance. All of this is to provide some background for the discussion of the photographer who is apparently sick of people piggybacking on the Vanity Fair work.
Yes, I feel a little snarky about this photographer, when I shouldn’t, but it did get up my nose a bit. I spend lots of time covering photography and have even covered his book here, only to have to look at his sky-punching whinge this morning. I recently posted about the embittered nature of many mid-aged and older male photographers who never feel they get their due and exhibit this very behavioural quality. It is something that I am trying to manage in myself, and when I see the pettiness in others, I try to remind myself that they are a shining example of what not to do.
I want to stake a claim that the discussion of Christopher’s photographs is one of the more essential ones to have over the past decade or more. When else have we had such a rounded discussion, however mishandled in some cases, that sheds light on our little dumb corner of the world? I feel that it has the potential, even if only for a short time, to reinvigorate the public arena’s sense of why photography matters at all. This, while we are choking on AI and the loss of interest in the medium due to technical means, should be seen as a net positive. To suggest that anyone with motivations to discuss these matters is a form of toxic clout-chasing is the equivalent of asking people to ignore politics and the vital discussion these photographs represent. If that discussion filters through to a broader public who are scratching their heads, trying to understand the motivations and intentions of a photographer at work on such a scale, then we have won. Photography is not yours, its not mine, it is for everyone, so we should embrace the rare moment, even to the point of fatigue when these discussion leap from our tepid little pool, like a disgruntled tadpole into the more expansive ocean of imagery and we should discuss more with people who might be outside of the medium about what Christoppher has done and why photography continues to inspire us.
Huge Thanks to Christopher for making the work. It’s fantastic, and I really believe it is a moment that has entered a broader cultural context and is emphatically worthy of discussion of image-consciousness.