The Photography Tree (Peeling Away the Bark)

imageNorth South East West (Sketch 6), 2006 © Hannah GuyChristian posted a great piece yesterday that discusses the present state and future of photographs by considering the history of photography as a tree:

The seed as invention, the roots as early development, the trunk as a firm foundation, the branch as broad genre or movement, the twig as a more specific area of concern, study or work; and the leaf as an individual. Every leaf is part of the tree, every photographer is a part of this history, this tradition.
Christian answers his question, “So what part of the tree is contemporary American color photography?” by naming it a branch, and most of this photography a twig on that branch. I’d imagine by now, this twig is overflowing with leaves - leaves that represent the plethora of “straight” contemporary color photographers. Most interesting, however, is the point that Christian raises about the recent overflow of this specific type of photography.
Most photographers working in this genre are pursuing aesthetics and concerns that were initiated in the 1970s, and have changed very little over the past thirty years. Different photographers incorporate different approaches, and embrace or abandon concept and/or narrative to varying degrees, but aside from subject matter, there is often little else that distinguishes the work.
I agree with Christian’s initial assessment that most contemporary color photographers are not only working within a medium, but that they are also (aware of this or not) working within a “tradition.” This tradition, as he points out, has changed very little over the last 30 years in regard to American color photography, it has been abandoned by very few. Why? It’s easy to be seduced by history, the nostalgic language of photography, or a number of iconic images by admired photographers. [Insert lots of beautiful and personally influential photographs here.] Unfortunately, falling in love with the past for a new photographer lends itself to the possibility of becoming just another “derivative” of these earlier practitioners and the clichés of images that have rained down on and saturated the photographic landscape. Though this is, in actuality, impossible by virtue of the fact that all photographers should and will bring something untrodden to any old subject, it is still a common concern that the medium, or photographers, will not move on. We, those of us that are fine art photographers thinking about our work, struggle with this. In fact, I would go as far to say that it crosses my mind daily. When I peeled away the bark on The Photography Tree, I discovered photographs that forever changed the way I understood how the world could be presented. I, too, wonder if I would make many of the images I that I do now without such a memorable introduction to influential photographers, the moments where I first discovered (and loved the work of) William Eggleston, Stephen Shore, Martin Parr, Mitch Epstein, Nan Goldin, and a long list of others. I suppose it’s also true that learning the history of an art can, as an artist, become a rather suffocating experience despite what can be attained from it. It’s so bittersweet. imageNorth South East West (Sketch 5), 2006 © Hannah Guy Through the analogy of the Tree, how can one incorporate the artists that extend outside of one style and take on many - artists that are not confined themselves to a single branch or twig? Will coming seasons bring new buds on the leafless branches and twigs or, in other words, will American color photography ever advance? How can new photographers learn from and feel close to but at the same time remove themselves from such a strong tradition of image making? Is it possible to create a work of art that is uncolored by history?