johnvanr
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Does a [street] photographers background matter? > Phil Penman | |
1bwana1 wrote:
patotts wrote:
As users and enthusiasts of Leica, it is hard to miss the brand's prominent featuring of Phil Penman as a thought-leader, teacher, and S-tier street photographer. While I have a great deal of respect for anyone reaching success at that level, I wonder why no one seems to factor in his background.
If I understand his trajectory correctly, Phil spent the first 15–20 years of his career as a paparazzi, aggressively chasing celebrities by bicycle and car, "hunting" celebs with long zoom-lenses. I know this industry is driven by societal supply and demand, but I still find it difficult to condone that line of work as a legitimate foundation for artistic humanism.
For the last 7–8 years, Phil has been recast as a Leica black-and-white storyteller and philosopher, heavily backed by Wetzlar’s marketing engine. I recently watched a Leica interview where he pontificated on the pseudo-spiritual service he provides to the public. A particularly stark moment was when he related a story about a stranger approaching him after being photographed to say, 'Thank you for noticing me.' Personally, I found that hard to believe.
While I don't want to derail this into a generic debate on the definition of street photography, it feels rich that someone with a long background as a commercial celebrity-hunter is now a leading corporate voice and educator on the ethics and soul of the street.
I don't know. It just doesn't sit right with me.
Thoughts? Comments?
Well, you asked for comments so here you go. I really don't get this compulsion some people seem to have to judge people. Penman is a professional photographer. I say let his work speak for itself. In Penman's case I find the work interesting, compelling and of a high quality.
He is a formally trained photographer from a respected UK College. He worked for the tradition press with prestigious organizations and publishers covering traditional news and events. He also worked for a celebrity press (I guess what you call paparazzi). All are legitimate photographic endeavors driven by market demand for the product. It seems that he has pivoted with the market and is now doing street photography content, publishing his work, teaching, holding workshops. Again all legitimate ways to make an honest living as a photographer.
So where is the beef? Judge his work, judge his books, judge his art, judge his teaching and speaking abilities. To negate those things based on some dislike for a particular genre of photography he participated in the past, or his association with industry companies that see value in his talent seem a bit petty and full of hubris to me. In the end his books, his prints, his workshops, his sponsorships, his speaking engagements grow from, and are all recognition of resect for his work by a large enough audience to have value. Really, it is that simple.
Overall, I agree with you, though I do think there would be some kind of behavior that would to too far for me to appreciate a person's work again in the future. If we stick with paparazzi, the people indirectly involved in Princess Diana's fatal accident in my mind went too far. The guys staking out a restaurant waiting for Taylor Swift to emerge, fine by me.
To me, it's more in music where these things come up, like when Cat Stevens turned muslim and joined the fatwa against Salman Rushdie (which he later retracted).
|
