This blog is inspired by a recent column by Financial Times columnist Anthony Haden-Guest. As my mark of respect for him, I have adopted the same headline for my entry. First thing first, read him regularly at www.ft.com/arts/columnists/hadenguest. He knows his stuff.
In this Oct 5 article, Haden-Guest, whose specialty is in collecting art, wrote about the late British photographer Terence Donovan but I feel that what happened to him could happen to anyone.
Donovan is not a name likely to pop up instantly when we talk about British photographer, but he was contemporary of David Bailey and was, in his own ways, a great success.
Donovan’s problem was probably common. Caught up with his busy commercial shoots and commission, he had no time to think about his place in art and history. He left behind a lot of works which were uncatalogued. And we all know this – if they are not indexed in some ways, they don’t exist. And if they don’t exist, it means nobody know about them.
I think we can agree that an acceptable measure of a photographer’s success should contain some of the following elements – his wealth, the volume of his life work, his influence, his place in history. But can we assume that the most “successful” ones are the ones who have everything?
Moving out of photography, football fans will probably remember some late English star died broke, and before his death, a precious medal he won had to be sold to pay for his debt. He had no wealth so to speak, but no one could deny his place in footballing history.
I had to go to the dictionaries to check out the definition of ‘posterity’. The word ‘future’ appeared a few times in my searches. But we all know the true meaning of the word, implied or otherwise, carries a much heavier weight.
Posterity would probably mean, in this case, the responsibility to leave behind a meaningful trace of existence, so that the future generation would be able to refer back in time and say that half a century ago, a certain Terence Donovan was making some of the best glamor images of his time.
It doesn’t stop here. Many would argue that photographers are, in their current pursuits, writing history for the generations to come.
However, in reality, the issue is much more complex. For a start, who, other than the most confident of the lots, would dare to think about his place in history, without fear of being called egoistical?
Posterity, unlike fame and wealth is also a more ambiguous concept. I think, for a start, stripped of all the grandeur, posterity is just a proof that one exists/existed.
But starting from this standpoint has its problems. Does it mean every photographer has the obligation to carefully archive all his works, providing ample documentation so that future researchers will be able to get the who-what-where-when-why-how answers?
Or should one start thinking of posterity when he is certain that he already earned a place in history and that he better provides accurate documentation of his life and work?
When I went to the Jacques Henri Lartique retrospective in Pompidou some years back, I was struck by how Lartique himself was a compulsive chronicler of his own life. The volume after volume of his sketch books, visual diaries, shed so much light about what he was thinking. But more importantly, they also provide useful insights to the time he was living in.