Meeting Katy Barron
I had a meeting with Katy Barron, an independent art curator. Following my blog post that detailed my meeting with Michael Hoppen, I thought I would also write up my meeting with Katy, and with her kind permission publish to this blog…
The meeting with Katy was again arranged through Juan Curto at Camara Oscura. We met in the café of the Camden Arts Centre (above). I came with a portfolio of prints and my laptop.
The meeting was very in-depth, with Katy spending time to first read my CV and then look over my portfolio and feed back on each image. Her first remark upon looking at my CV was that I did not have a photography/art degree, which she found unusual (in her experience) but refreshing.
She had initially thought, before meeting me, that my self-portraits were ‘of an alter ego’, but was more interested to see that they were actually of ‘me’, ie. more personal. I am a bit unclear myself, on whether my images are of ‘me’ or of an alter ego. I’d agree with her that my work is different from the self-portraits of, for example, Cindy Sherman, whose use of ‘characters’ was explicit in her imitation of film stills and use of costume and make-up.
I made references to my meeting with Michael Hoppen, and she was interested to know what his opinion was on my work. She agreed that my work was ‘commercial’ looking, but she wasn’t so much inclined to suggest how to change it, necessarily. She suggested early on in the meeting that I might be good in advertising, on supplementing my career with doing advertising work. Not being in that field, she didn’t want to specifically advise on a direction, but she did say that many esteemed photographers go into advertising as a side portfolio kept separate from their fine art.
As in my meeting with Hoppen, I wanted to express how my work has evolved and tastes changed, more to the favour of the subtle, natural and less commercial. Learning from my last meeting however, I wanted to make it clearer which of my work was ‘earlier’ work and which was later: so that the person’s comments would not be unnecessary or outdated, and more in tune with what I might be thinking myself already. She agreed, therefore, that my Growing Pains images were different from my earlier stuff, but still had an air of weirdness in having a woman half naked in a derelict room.
Growing (view on Flickr)
She commented that my portfolio seemed very disparate, but I made sure she was aware that I had intentionally put together a wide span of work to show forays into different ‘series’ and what could be seen as different styles. She was positive, however, about what I’ve achieved so far for my age, especially not having a degree. She said she thinks that it’s just the beginning for me and that I’m ‘not quite there yet’ – not quite got my own style where one can recognise an image as mine (I don’t necessary expect to have that, so that comment is ok by me!)
She approved Hoppen’s advice to put myself into an intellectual context by looking at the work of the earliest ‘Photoshopping’ in the work of Henry Peach-Robinson and Lady Clementina Haywarden.
We turned to my image The smothering. She remarked on the similarity to Julia Fullerton-Batten’s images, which was one of my actual inspirations for the piece, I replied. However, I had other inspirations for the piece too, part of which was the symptoms of anxiety. I told her that the image had been selected by curator Natasha Egan for the Art of Photography Show 2010 in San Diego. Regardless, Katy’s opinion was that the use of levitation was somewhat clichéd and too commercial and didn’t find it very interesting. To her, it was just a ‘copy’ of Fullerton-Batten.
The smothering (view on Flickr)
I did remark to her that although I created The smothering with my own artistic intention, the main thing that people are curious about is the technical method to its production, and that question has become quite tedious. It almost makes me feel like I am a magician rather than an artist, and once the question is answered, it is not that my ‘secret’ has been given away (that is not the problem), but the discourse between artist and viewer is then abruptly closed.
Katy is used to doing lots of portfolio reviews in the manner in which she was critiquing my work. She recommended getting out as much as possible to further portfolio reviews: such as the ones in Arles, Houston, and Paris (ParisPhoto). When I got home I looked into how to get into portfolio reviews. It seems that artists pay hundreds of pounds/dollars to go to events where curators/dealers/people in the know spend as little as 15 minutes looking at your work and advising on it.
In all honesty, I really don’t like the sound of that. Just what can someone make of one’s work in that short a time? My meeting with Katy, which was about an hour and a half, was very useful and I feel that the duration of time we spent together was the minimum time to get real and meaningful feedback on one’s work. The person surely needs time to first immerse themselves into your work, look over it properly, read your CV, and crucially, appreciate that the hypothetical person in front of them may well be a successful or at least functioning artist already. Although the artist is putting themselves into the hotseat for critique, and indeed – the whole purpose is to give critique (no real consequence is made of ‘I like your work’), a meeting as short as 15 minutes would surely only draw attention to the contrived and forced nature of trying to say something of use within minutes of seeing someone’s work for the first time. I think for true meaningful commentary, the artist needs to talk back – to engage in a discussion with the portfolio reviewer rather than hear a one-sided commentary. Anyone had experience with portfolio reviews you’d like to share?
I was definitely surprised that The smothering made it through into the AOP Show, especially as I had submitted several other images that I guessed might fit the judge’s taste, and the ‘house style’ more (looking at entries/winners of previous years) and this was one of the most composited and ‘Photoshopped’. I felt that my work would not necessarily fit into the ‘look’ of contemporary art photography especially that of the more photojournalistic ilk. Considering that this image has been accepted, I’m starting to doubt whether I was actually doing anything wrong – whether indeed, it’s possible to do anything wrong in your work. To some extent, I don’t think it is. This is what I think it boils down to:
- what you do with your work (getting it out there)
- chance and circumstance (whether a certain judge or gallery etc likes your work, and decides to select it)
- luck (other factors that determine whether someone picks your work: being in the right place at the right time).
In this sense, contrary to what Michael Hoppen said, there isn’t so much you can do wrong in the world of photographic art. It’s just convincing people, or having people already convinced, that your work is ‘fine art’ and is worth paying for. Discussing the intricacies of whether one’s lighting is a tad too ‘commercial’ in certain spots of an image seems completely off the point in this context.
In my meeting with Katy Barron I gained a curatorial perspective on my work whereas Michael Hoppen’s was one of an art dealer. Barron was more interested in the concepts behind images whereas Hoppen was more concerned with how the images look. Barron’s advice was to keep doing what I’m doing. Her comments were focused on what I could do with my existing work, how I can strength and tighten the conceptual framework. In a simplistic nutshell, Michael was suggesting ways to change how my images look, whereas Katy was advising on how to clarify what they mean. Both very interesting viewpoints. Of course, whether any artist has to do either is up for debate…
A few days after my meeting I was informed that I’d been chosen to solo-exhibit at Photo-Space in London…
The launch is on Thurs 5th August and it runs throughout the month. Check out my blog post here and RSVP on Facebook here. I’m also looking for people to help out through the month so please email if you would like to know more.
I welcome your thoughts on this blog post…
Credits: Image of Camden Arts Centre at the top of this post is from this web source
Posted in Essays, musings on July 29th, 2010 | 4 Comments | Tweet This!
4:07 pm on July 29th, 2010
I must say, as usual, this was a fascinating blog post. I especially like your assertion about portfolio reviews. After your last post with Michael Hoppen I looked into portoflio reviews myself, as I have never had a proper one. The most extensive review that I had came from last August where a gallery that I ended up showing with went through my portfolio. They said absolutely nothing negative (except that I should mount my photos on white paper and not black…) and simply said “We like this one best”. Not very helpful, but at least they exhibited me
So in my research I noticed that all of these reviews cost so much money, and I am not about to pay $100 to have someone critique me when everyone seems to have a completely different opinion about what is art, let alone what is good and bad. I can’t imagine my style changing drastically either, if that one person who I paid my $100 to said to change this and that. Your work is unique and I think that your past and continued success is a testament to that.
4:24 pm on July 29th, 2010
One of the first works that I saw of you were some photos of you in your garden and with your dog etc. What I actually liked is that these were photos of you and not of an alter ego with role playing, makeup so on. At least they have this feeling of showing the real you, not that I know you. Most inspiring, I find in doing self portraits, is when one is showing different, not always obvious aspects of ones personality.
Maybe sometimes there is role playing, like in the image where you are smoking (you said you do not smoke) but this is still not an alter ego.
In your images you are showing your character, your aesthetics, your inspirations and as a result it feels like a person knows you better after looking at them.
10:25 pm on July 29th, 2010
Natalie,
Fascinating reading for couple of reasons … 1) I’ve followed your progress for many years /months and great to see the direction you are taking 2) Great to hear your inner most thoughts about how someone else viewed your work, through knowing more about you, I know more about your art.
I’m thinking of submitting a portfolio to the Royal Photographic Society so very timely, thank you
2:38 am on July 30th, 2010
I found this post interesting for a few reasons but first I want to say a little about me and where I’m coming from. I have followed your work for at least three years. Some of it I really like and some I don’t like at all. I am not a sycophant (or should that be flickrphant?)
I read both posts about reviews. The gallery owner and the museum curator are two utterly different types and I would therefore expect some differences as a result of that alone.
The art dealer presumably risks his own money or that of investors who trust him when he gives space to work that may or may not sell. The Camden Arts Centre gets “less than 60%” which probably means at least 50% of it’s money out of the pockets of taxpayers. The art dealer has to find stuff that will sell to the people who visit his gallery. His position depends on his judgement of what might sell to his particular market. The arts centre has a page where you can donate to them. At the top of the page it says “Help keep Camden Arts Centre adventurous and free”. Totally different purposes.
My main question to you is what do you want to gain from a port review? Is it sales? A place to exhibit? Someone to act as a sales agent? Commissions? Direction for future work? I was not sure from your posts which if any you wanted. On that basis I wouldn’t recommend paying for a review.
I’d love to have a definition of “commercial”. It often seems to be a slur and I’ve seen it used against people like Jack Vittriano by people who are probably envious of his success in providing pictures that people like so much they are willing to pay lots of money for.
I have had some limited experience with port reviews from a few other togs and a couple of art directors in ad agencies. I would be amazed if an art director spent as much as 15 minutes looking over a book. My approach was to put appropriate work into the book. The kind of work I wanted to shoot that was also something I thought fit the agency. I handed the book over and pretty much shut up after that. The pictures either communicate or they don’t. In an advertising context no real member of a target market is going to give me a chance to give any more information let alone spill my whole philosophy.
But there are other people who might review your work who might be worth going to if you are interested in advertising work. People such as photographer agents who work in advertising and who have contacts in the business. Look up Selina Maitreya based in the States. She has quite a lot to say about ports and putting them together.
Another thing worth trying might be to find another artist you admire and see if you can do an exchange of reviews or something like that. I’ve never done this myself but it could be interesting. I’d be interested in what the other peroson sees and understands about my work without any other clues than the pictures themselves. I wouldn’t have any interest in what they thought I should do about anything unless I specifically ask a question.
This is begining to ramble a bit but I think it comes down to the question I asked up front. What do you want from a review?
And there are two other questions I find myself asking myself and other artists quite a lot: How do I find my artistic direction/vision/purpose? And, How do I remain true to it and still eat?