Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom Zimberoff's avatar

Who wrote this?

I adore the work of Marc Riboud. I owned a signed, 16 x 20 print of "Peintre de la tour Eiffel, Paris, 1953." It spent ten years on my living room wall before, regrettably, I sold it.

But I have a bone to pick with the comments posted here about what that photograph represents.

A career does not—indeed cannot—turn on a single frame or be defined by it. Not even for Marc Riboud. A career in photography and the intentionality it represents can only accrue through practice over time, revealing itself ultimately in what is called a body of work.

A body of work is the cumulative expression of an artist’s way of seeing, assembled less by design or forethought than by consistency of execution and values—over time. One photograph just doesn’t do it.

This is not taxonomical nitpicking. It makes a consequential difference in the understanding of photography—all art. Any kind of flattening is problematic because each term describes a different scale of artistic intention.

Confusion begins when four terms are so often used interchangeably in photographic circles:

• Series

• Project

• Portfolio

• Body of work

A series is bound by recurring formal or conceptual constraints. A project is broader, defined by a sustained subject or organizing principle. A portfolio is logistical, not conceptual. An then, of course, there is an artist’s body of work.

A body of work accrues across decades of encounters with myriad subjects, through recurrence, judgment, risk, failure, revision, and sustained attention. A body of work is not the announcement. It is the residue: what remains after enough individual photographs have accumulated to reveal an ethos rather than a method.

Yet a single photograph can certainly achieve iconic status—powerful enough to remain in the public’s consciousness as a definitive example of one photographers entire opus, such as "Peintre" certainly does, even though it captures merely one aspect of Riboud’s career at a passing moment.

The example of Yousuf Karsh’s portrait of a glowering Winston Churchill also comes to mind. Its power is often taken as proof that a powerful photograph can capture a person’s essence. But Churchill was glowering only because Karsh, without warning, stepped in front of his camera and plucked a cigar from Churchill’s mouth, then snapped the shutter.

One portrait like that can kick-start a photographer’s career, as it did for Karsh. But even though I’ve just compared one kind of photograph—oh, hell, let’s call it a towering example of “street photography” to another kind, a portrait, I can’t think of a single photograph that has defined a photographer’s career. Riboud’s career was not exacly bupkis at the time he made "Peintre."

It takes a lifelong body of work to define a photographer’s career, not just one iconic photograph.

No posts

Ready for more?