[interview] Jon Cartwright part 1
Last year I mentioned that I intended to interview some of the clever creative people that I know. Here is the second of those interviews, with photographer Jon Cartwright, aka Jonny2005.
I first got to know Jon through mutual drinking buddies a few years ago. We'd occasionally see each other at the same social events, but it wasn't until we discovered we were both avid users of Flickr that we really became friends. Since then, looking at his street photography and painterly compositions has helped to rekindle my interest in parts of London that had previously seemed clichéd and boring.
Although Jon agreed to be interviewed because it sounded "like a laugh", our correspondence became a fascinating discourse on being bitten by the creative bug, as he made some very interesting and intelligent points about the craft of photography. Each point he made inspired further questions and considerations, many of which were in directions I hadn't even considered. In fact, Jon's answers were so detailed and inspired so many supplemental questions that I've had to split the interview into two parts - and stop asking more questions, or the interview would probably never even have made it this far, even though I could happily have continued the conversation for a while. I'm interested to know what you think about it, as well, so please do leave comments if you have anything to say.
How long have you been taking photos? Who (or what) inspired you to pick up camera?
I’ve always taken snap-shots, like everyone else, but I first picked up an SLR in November 2006. A friend of mine had recently taken it up and was making nice pictures. To be honest, I expected it to be a fad…
You mean that you expected your interest was a fad? So I guess you never expected it to lead to doing photoshoots for other people. How does that feel - is it something you're keen to pursue further?
Yes, I've never been a natural hobbyist, and I half-expected my camera would start gathering dust in a drawer somewhere after a few weeks. I certainly didn't imagine that I'd get to the point where people would pay for my pictures.
I'm still a little ambivalent about doing it for money, or at least I think it can be dangerous to imagine that you can make a living only doing things you enjoy. So on one level I always want to remain an amateur photographer (in the sense of doing it for the love of it), but if I could also make a living using a camera, then I can think of many many less appealing ways of paying the rent.
Who inspires you now?
I’m a big fan of Flickr (and had been for quite a long time before I started taking pictures myself), so I can find almost endless inspiration from countless photographers there. I also love ffffound.com.
I don't often find myself feeling uninspired but when I do, just going for a walk is usually enough to get me excited about taking pictures again. Failing that, the Tate Modern and the British Museum are very photographer-friendly and I rarely leave one or the other without a photo or an idea for a photo.
Flickr is such a great visual resource; I can get lost in there for hours and hours. Who do you like on Flickr? How about some recommendations?
There are so many and I discover new ones every day. Singling individuals out feels capricious but if consistency is a virtue (and I'm not sure it is - there are some killer pictures to be found in some unpromising looking photostreams), and excluding friends of mine who I'm naturally going to feel a bias towards, I'd recommend:
Doyle Shafer
Rob Randerson
Tony Day
madeinsheffield
Sannah Kvist
Jeremy Walker
Tommy Ga-Ken Wan
Greg Funnell
Noah Kalina
Jean-François Juteau
Ronya Galka
Sarah Sitkin
I could easily go on, and I'm sure I've missed key people out, but all these guys struggle to take a bad picture. Also, someone who is not on Flickr but is worth a mention because his street photography sets the bar for me, Matt Stuart.
Wow! That's a lot of work, and a lot of other peoples' lives, to look at. Would you describe yourself as a curious person?
Who wouldn't? But, to be honest, I don't think that I'm unusually curious, and when I'm taking pictures I'm curious on quite a superficial level - I'm more interested in how things look than how they are. If I see a nice moment, I almost don't want to know exactly what the story is, because imagining that is part of the pleasure of the picture.
I think that sort of visual experience, where the work speaks for itself in whatever voice the viewer hears, is usually more successful than the kind of conceptual art where you have to know all the reasons behind its creation before you can appreciate it. It's as though there's less ego in it - that the work is the important thing, not its creator. Would you say this is true about your work, or do you think you impose your own ego and personality on it at all?
That's a good question and hard to answer. On the one hand I like pictures that are internally coherent and self-contained, even if they're ambiguous. I think the photographer should arrange the furniture to accommodate an audience, and the viewer shouldn't be required to bring anything to the party. But I know other people disagree with that, and I think there are certain situations (when building a series or collection of pictures, for example) where context is going to be important.
As for ego and the role of the creator, that's tricky too because while I basically agree that the picture is the important thing, not the person who took it, it would be disingenuous to claim that I'm not imposing something on the scene. For me, photography is all about editing. And while a photograph isn't like painting where you start with a blank canvas, it is always extremely selective. As soon as you put a frame around something you're imposing yourself on the scene. And there is a role for ego here - I want to present things that I've seen, that I think are interesting or amusing or beautiful or whatever, and I'll process an image to conjur as closely as possible how I saw it. So in that sense it's all about me me me.
I've read a few interviews with artists who say that their biggest joy is in the creating, not in the finished work. Taking photos is different, isn't it, because the creation of the work often has to happen in a split second to capture a scene before it changes - certainly with street photography, anyway. So, you have to be able to spot events in time to capture them quickly.
Do you think that using a camera has changed the way you look at your surroundings at all? I know that I actively keep an eye out for interesting combinations of shapes and colours since I started to take photos of urban abstracts and focus on small details that often get overlooked. But I don't take many pictures of people in the street, so I feel like I don't have the "eye" yet to find the good shots. Is it just a case of looking from different angles?
You know those actors and directors who say that they never watch their own films once they're finished? Well, I'm nothing like them. I spend more time than I should probably admit looking at my own pictures. So I can't pretend I'm not interested in the finished article. I do enjoy taking photos but I think that's about the promise of getting something good. Although walking around London is a pretty nice way to spend some time.
I don't think using a camera has changed the way I look at my surroundings much, because before I carried a camera everywhere I'd still see things and think, "That'd make a nice photograph". I expect most people do that. I think the difference now is that I think those thoughts more in terms of exposure. I pay less attention to things that will be hard to photograph, and more to scenes that would be photogenic. I never used to loiter around a nice patch of light like I sometimes do now, for example.
As for the photographic "eye", I think quite a lot of guff is talked about it. Taking a photo is like hitting "pause" - I don't think it's a rare instinct. Same with "looking for different angles"; if there's something spoiling your view, you move, don't you?
When you put it like that, it seems obvious! And yet, I still get frustrated when photographs don't come out the way I see them in my head. Many of your photos have a sense of composition that suggests you have quite a considered approach yourself. You also take a lot of candid pictures of strangers, too, so I suppose you must "shoot from the hip" a lot, as well. Which approach do you prefer?
Shooting from the hip is more a matter necessity then preference. If I could freeze time then I’d frame every shot just how I want it, but in reality you have to react quickly when the moments present themselves. I shoot most of my street stuff with a 50mm or 35mm lens and with practice I've got pretty good at aiming and visualising what they're going to see. Sometimes the composition is changed later when cropping, but the arrangement of elements in a scene is often a big part of its initial appeal, so that composition becomes the reason for hitting the shutter. I like actions, faces, gestures and so on, but generally it’s the way they relate to each other that makes the picture.
Thanks Jon!
Tune in later this week for part two….