|
Mark Daniel Lacy: On Photography Interview by Janni Chowdhuri How Important is photography? Of course it's important to me, but I think most people underestimate the influence of images in their lives. For Americans, (photography) is as common as sleeping and eating. It's unfortunate for those who don't understand the best aspects of it and (it is) potentially dangerous for those who are highly susceptible to (its influence). The Disposable Heroes' statement, "television, the drug of the nation" is not all that preposterous when you understand the power of it. I include videography and cinematography within the realm of photography. And you could also count scanned items or light projections captured and contained within a frame. The invention of photography has led to an extraordinary level of participation in media, and I don't only mean the information news media. Whether you are involved in the predominant entertainment aspects of TV and magazines, and now the Internet, or something with real value, photography will certainly, or almost certainly, influence your way of thinking. The visual image has built or increased the influence of nearly all communication mediums, (except) radio. It is debated in court, explored in psychology, and as an industry it competes for a good portion of your money, and as a marketing tool, it competes for the rest of your money. The recording is the invention that propelled radio, and its common link in history is film. The fact is that, while you don't see images on radio, images of artists (play) a major role in determining commercial radio programming. The entertainment industry is the greatest beneficiary of visual images and people all over the world, from India to the United States, are disciples of those popular images. When you get into the good and bad, or positive and negative effects of marketing music, news, porn, vacation travel, or fast food, you get into one of the most important issues in photography. What are the other important issues in photography? Different people would have different concerns. I think that evolving technology, the legitimacy of images as legal and historical documents, (and) the exploitative or misleading uses for still photography and motion photography -- those things would likely be at the top of the list. I might see things very differently than someone else. I have different values and a different purpose for photography. How important is photography to you? Well, other than being much of my income and my means to travel, it's the way I record things I'm interested in and the best way I have to communicate ideas. Let me rephrase that. It's the best means I have in many situations to communicate ideas. I also write and use other artists' music for educational presentations, for example, on radio. I think everyone needs some form of creative expression and (photography is) mine. What made you become a photographer? Can I pass? That's complicated. Even looking back, my reasons change from day to day. I think it lured me the way it lures most people, but I worked to gain control over it and learned to produce it in different ways. I learned that images, like words, have connotation. When did you become a photographer? I never worked on the high school newspaper or yearbook. I didn't so much as value a single photograph the way most do, a prom picture or a family portrait, so far as I can remember. I don't even remember a lot of images that usually attract teenagers. I wasn't impressed by the posters in the music store. I remembered concepts and storylines to films and experiences I had as a child. There were images in my mind, burned in my memory, so they say. My favorite printed image was probably the London Calling cover with a member of the Clash smashing a guitar. I think I was looking for something new and certainly more exciting. My little town didn't even have MTV on cable, probably a good thing. So when did you start taking photos? Oh, that was when I was a college student. I barrowed my uncle's camera to try to take pictures of a Sweet Gum tree that had turned red in the fall. I ended up photographing the Ku Klux Klan. I joined a non-profit organization that protested the Klan in Texas. They asked me what I could do as a volunteer and I said I could take pictures. I didn't realize that they needed surveillance photography. My ideas about the world were transformed. It was coming, of course. I was pretty sure that the easily pacified mind of small-town America wasn't aware of all the problems. Living in a big city, coming face to face with the Klan, attending a big, diverse and international university, seeing political bands, all confirmed the ideas in my head. I had lived in Dallas, where the neighborhood was typical Black and White, and there were immigrants from Europe. As out-of-the-ordinary goes, some people practiced voodoo and black magic in the alleys at night. I was witness to some pretty unusual things. I threw the Dallas Morning News and stayed out all night as a 7th grader. The Europeans considered themselves to be (in) gangs, Polish, Irish, Italian, etceteras. So, I wasn't naive. I thought deeply and idealistically. That made high school hell. What's worse, I was psychic and powerless [Ed: An inside joke, like several other references to music found in the interview.] until I got a car. Then I went to Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Denver and Los Angeles. Oh, yeah, when did I start taking pictures? I got in my car and drove 600 miles to Houston for college. I discovered the impact of photography through my professors. I was a terrible student because the big outside world offered me more education than my classes. Even the photography professors that inspired me showed me the wonders and tragedies to be discovered in the outside world. Fred Baldwin showed a documentary he made of the Klan in Georgia -- grandparents dressing children in white hoods, the mayor transforming into a Klan leader, Black citizens filling Klan vehicles with gasoline before the parade. I was quickly struck by the idea that culture can hand down both good and bad traditions and it can rightfully or wrongfully be judged right or wrong. The whole idea of culture was new to me. I wasn't aware that I was part of something. (That was) probably the result of network television. It seemed necessary to me to be part of the counter culture and to have a creative means of supporting myself. So, I explored journalism, fine arts, practical/informational photo-documentary, surveillance, and eventually scientific and commercial photography. Tell me more about surveillance photography. Authorities and radical organizations with dire objectives use surveillance and espionage as they face each other in public demonstrations or in their subversive activities. They want to know who is present in a confrontational situation. The pictures can later be valuable in getting warrants and in court. The growing presence of surveillance cameras and the growing number of people with compact video and digital cameras makes this an issue for everyone. Whether on Bourbon Street, spring break or robbing a bank, photography is the ultimate evidence of people and their activities. I was once asked to work for private investigators who wanted me to make photos and video of people they were investigating for fraud, for an unbelievable amount of money. I declined because I couldn't stand either side, those looking for easy money by defrauding insurance companies or the thought of spying on them. Oddly enough, there is a much bigger issue -- that is, who controls who brings cameras into the arena, meaning the concert halls, political events, public demonstrations contained by police lines and crime scenes, because the image is fast becoming more valuable than ever as it is more exclusive. The result is that fewer promoters and agencies are diceminating tightly-controlled and expensive visual information. As we saw with the Ilean Gonzales situation, a picture with a contrary message can be distributed, displayed and published rapidly. Or, look at the tabloid media, and that's a term I should try to avoid because powerful media like to use it to try to discredit smaller media, though (small media outlets) sometimes bring discredit on themselves, but look at the outrageous rates and efforts to get celebrity photos. That speaks more to the condition of the consumer public, but it is also relevant to the drive toward sensationalism by the media. I really have no interest in this area of photography, other than that I believe people have to be educated because it is very critical. How does someone get good at photography? Just don't ask me to give tips to take better pictures. People often want to think that the photographer is not the explanation for good photography and that there are just some secrets or special equipment that makes good photographs. You have to practice at it, know the technology behind the equipment and think about lighting conditions. When I teach, I talk about four approaches. You have to know what approach will work for the photos you want to create. They range from naively pointing the camera to measuring, seeing and creating light. Sometimes good conditions exist where a great photo can made and sometimes you have to take a much more calculated approach. Preparation and readiness can be an important factor in making photos of live action, using a principle called 'decisive moment', anticipating the most optimum moment to make the exposure. Sometimes it happens by luck and other times by talent. When it works routinely for a journalist, it's talent. Even in a controlled environment, there is such a thing as a 'decisive moment'. Most fields of photography require technical ability and creativity beyond most other fields. It's physically demanding and you have to work under pressure. People who take pictures with no real responsibiltiy to achieve very high quality standards really wouldn't get that. When the results have to be very good and there are a variety of difficult variables, and there's no chance to do it a second time, and you're being paid well to competently produce something great... well, you can imagine the level of expectation. Most people develop a better appreciation for photography when they have to hire a commercial photographer to produce a product catalogue or when sales depend on it. So back to the question, why did you chose photography over all the other things you could have done? What else did you consider? I worked on many of my father's engineering projects, but I wasn't interested in engineering. I was interested in the implications of engineering. I designed houses, and when I thought about architecture, my dad gave me a book titled 'Simplified Engineering for Architects'. I worked for the (University of Houston) College of Engineering where I documented various scientific experiments, sometimes using processes that baffled the engineering faculty. I haven't found anything as challenging as photography. There were many things that I did not consider, but as I've learned more about those fields, I'm very thankful that I am not a part of some dishonorable profession, however highly respected it may be for its executive image or big sales accounts. |
