Party Photography

After studying enough personal web sites and Flickrs the past 3 years
I've developed an understanding of what types of party photography
exist. I also have some opinions about the successes and failures of
these mini-genres.



Usually I don't think that classifications help things but in this case
I think some horrible work is being lauded and some great work might be
going overlooked. By separating them, these drastically different types
of work might be better understood for what they really are. There are
a few large differences between the few types of party photography that
exist, and to make things easier I'm going to use broad
generalizations and easily recognizable names. So if you're one of those "but what about this Norwegian guy from the early 70's!?!" types go spend this time jacking off instead. I know there are people who bend these definitions and I'll get to them at the end so just hold your horses. I know there are more people than the ones I talk about. A LOT more. I'm just making the examples brief because I'm more interested in hearing responses and ideas from people than creating some sort of archive of every person who has ever taken a picture of a bro with a brew. Everyone is
their own DJ and I've seen people mix these genres intentionally (what
is often the best work of all). When I hear Girl Talk mix shoegaze and
80's booty bounce I love it because I know just how dissimilar these
types of music are and how awesome it is that he can combine the two
fluidly. Or oppositely, by being aware of the lengthy history of punk
rock one is able to appreciate the ingenuity of the Exploding Heart's
music by furthering an already exhaustive genre creatively. Either way,
it is only by commonly accepted contemporary definitions and historical
awareness we are able to appreciate and criticize art.

When I look at this genre of photography I tend to ask about these
things:



a. What are the conscious aesthetic decisions made by this photographer
and how do they relate to their..

b. ..Intended purpose or audience

c. Who is the person being photographed and what are they doing that
makes this photograph worth looking at?



The answers create a few different types of photo sub-genres..



1. Socio-documentary, ethnographic

Such as: Lauren Greenfield, Larry Clark's Tulsa, David LaChappelle's Rize

a. Straight photography of the situation at hand. As little manipulation as possible to the photo (no set ups or post-editing) unless the subject's reaction to the photographer is symptomatic of the culture being pictured. The subject is often not aware of the photographer and is engaged with a person, location or object who is either incapable or also unaware of the photographer.

b. This type of work is usually a visual aid to a cultural theory and is sellable as a print. The audience are people who are aware of the issues the photographer is bringing up and are interested in how the artist framed the situation to show their opinion on it.

c. The photographer and the subject may or may not be from the same social circle. The goal of the photographer is to take pictures demonstrative of that culture's participants. It is the action, reaction or situation of the subject- not the individual's
identity- that validates the photograph.











2. Visually propelled

Such as: Ryan McGinley, Nan Goldin



a. Intentionally obscuring the identities in favor of portraying a mood or emphasizing the beauty of the composition. It is more likely that the shot be set up in this genre than in ethnographic photography.

b. This is for the art world.

c. The action of the person is more often identifiable than the identity. These photos generate interest because of the emotional effect of the colors used and the energy of the abstracted actions of the subject. The number of people photographed is more limited than ethnographic photography. Recurring subjects or muses are used as physical canvases for the photographer to emphasize the intended spirit of the photographs.









3. In da club

Such as: Cobrasnake, Everyoneisfamous, LastNightsParty

a. Straight photography of the person with a digital camera and a flash with an emphasis on capturing the identity and fashion choices of the subject. All subjects are aware they are being photographed and react accordingly with a heightened sense of self-consciousness, playing up their actions for the camera.

b. The aesthetic used functionally compliments the purpose of this photography in that it is entirely identity based. It is a necessity that a flash be used and that people's faces are perfectly viewable because the purpose is a shared one between the photographer and the subject. It is the goal of the hipster to be photographed at this club or party to reaffirm social status amongst their peers on the web site and the photographer must be able to clearly show these identities to show their own awareness of the scene's popular members. This power of social taste making inserts the photographer himself into the scene as a popular member. For hipsters by hipsters.

c. The person photographed is a club or partygoer. The photograph's interest is generated in the web site viewer's ability to identify who the subjects are; be it from their re-occurrence on the web site (Cory Kennedy) or from celebrity achieved outside of the web site (Chloe Sevigny).








---------------------------------------------------------------------


I would like this to be a dialogue with everyone who reads it. I'm really interested to see what other people think. Here are a few ideas of mine, I'll add more and publish responses from people who comment on this post.


1. In da Club photography is a boring, talentless genre. Licenses serve a purpose- to identify the person. This identification is the extent of the success of In Da Club photography. Photography is interesting because of the photographer's choices, not the fashion choice of the subject to choose Jeremy Scott over Marc Jacobs at the latest Misshapes party. Why do these people exist when they don't have to? Because of the photographer's desire to insert themselves as a socially important member of the scene. By choosing who goes or doesn't go on their web site they are in control of an element of the party goers collective memory. The photographer is able to give infinite exposure to party goers even after the party is over. They are also in control of all the non-party going on looking underagers and suburbanites who will soon be able to join them. If clubs wanted to cut out the middle man they could just set up a mandatory photo booth at the entrance of the club. Don't be fooled by the naively different visual effects of these photographers (slrs vs. digital point and shoots, on camera vs. hand
held flashes). You can paint a turd neon pink if you want to but it isn't going to make me want to eat it. If the photograph is void of any information or beauty other than telling the web site goers who this person is, it bores me. Plain and simple. What was actually fun or rememberable about the party? Yes, it was the people there. But what where they doing? What happened? How can that be displayed in an interesting way? I don't think that any picture with a digital camera at a party makes it bad, but photographers have to work a little harder than just walking up and taking pictures of the bros and hos attending. The dude who took my portrait at the DMV isn't getting props and these people shouldn't either.




2. The failure of Visually Propelled work comes from the photographer using aspects of In Da Club photography. Because this type of photography will often rely on muses eventually web site goers are able to recognize your most commonly photographed people. It becomes tempting to use this now collective knowledge of this person's identity in lieu of abstraction, action and use of color. Don't. It is nowhere near as interesting to look at. ID cards aren't interesting, even if
they're of a muse.



This failure of this genre also arises out of the photographer's knowledge of how interesting a person is but not showing it through the photograph. What makes this person a muse? What about them is so interesting? How can that be caught on film? Why are they emblematic? Many people around you may recognize this person to be the kookiest motherfucker alive but the MAJORITY of us don't. The majority of us aren't part of your smaller-than-you-think scene and have no clue who this person is or what makes them so cool. So show us WHY not who

3. The most talented party photographers are the visually-interesting-while-making-a-cultural-comment multi-taskers. The highest art of this genre has been able to use the moods created by Visually Propelled work to simulataneously accompany their ethnographic social commentary. In order to make this type of work, the photographer must be aware that objectivity is an impossibility in the hands of a human. The photographer must embrace the possibilities of injecting opinion into what is traditionally considered a documentary practice. The Ballad of Sexual Dependency is not an objective work, though it does have documentary and narrative elements. It is the line-blurring confusion that makes this such a wonderful book. It is a story, a social document and a moody, visually abstracted collection of emotionally charged images. It is a multi-tasking masterpiece.