Last week I heard a talk in which someone was describing the need to photograph work "properly," and how it reflected on how "seriously" we took our practice. I was reminded of my foundation interview at UCA Epsom (which was my second choice due to the limited number of foundation courses near London), where the interviewer sighed a lot and berated me for the use of staples in my sketchbooks. I liked stapling in snippets and small experiments, and the way each spread was an experience, and there were layers of notes and pictures and drawings that I felt reflected the journey that the course was taking me through. The interviewer was complaining about presentation. To me a sketchbook was the physical object representing my thinking and experimentation; to her it was the method of presenting to teachers (but actually my teachers at the time were happy about the way I presented my thoughts) and interviewers such as herself.
I feel like while I can see where these people are coming from, from what we've been taught about the roles of contemporary art, I think that when an aesthetic decision has to be made that is not relevant to the ideas behind the work, there should be no "shoulds." (Some may argue that it is all relevant, but the idea that it's all relevant is subjective, and I think that pretending that I feel that all aspects are relevant when I don't would be pretentious.)
Naturally I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that in a lot of situations there are benefits to photographing work clearly - I feel that the person suggesting that was making a different point to the UCA Epsom interviewer. But it made me think - we have a right to choose what we do and don't take "seriously."
