An Interview with Joachim Schmid

Joachim Schmid, (b.1955) is a prominent German photographer who has based his photographic career on using other people’s pictures.  In a genre  referred to as Found Photography Schmid provides witty and perceptive insights into our collective fascination with using photography to document our existence.  Using vernacular photography he found either in fleamarkets or online Schmid makes collections of repetitive imagery.  He now has 96 books each with a different edit such as FoodHandsHotel Rooms etc.   By curating the pictures into themes he takes a critical look at our relationship with photography throughout the last few generations and how we continually repeat ourselves by taking the same pictures.

After meeting him at the Tate conference on Vernacular Photography he talks with me here about his series Archiv and Other People’s Photographs.

Also published on Photoparley.


archiv547

Archiv 547, 1993 from the series Archiv

Did you start collecting other people’s photographs before you saw the repetitive patterns or is that what made you begin collecting?  Was it a chicken and egg situation?!

It is a chicken and egg situation indeed. I was curious about snapshots, I started looking at them and for them, and looking at many of them is of course more revealing than looking at a few. If you look at many photographs – that’s true not only for snapshots – it’s nearly impossible not to notice recurring patterns.

As opposed to other people roaming the flea markets I never saw myself as a collector. I wasn’t interested in carrying together a selection of fine and outstanding photographs or a complete collection of photographs of vintage cars or everything with a swastika or a naked people or whatever. My emphasis was the average snapshot as a cultural practice, and the basic idea was a visual survey of snapshot photography in 20th century. Later I also included other forms such as postcards, studio photos, etc.

I accumulated a lot of photographs because I needed them as the raw material for this project. So collecting isn’t the accurate term for what I was doing, I prefer to call it gathering. In anthropological terms a gatherer collects stuff for their own consumption.

Can you remember the first time you saw the repetitive patterns?  What struck you?

There was no first time. An artist’s career is not a series of “Eureka!” shouts. Finding things is usually the result of very tedious processes, it’s preceded by wasting quite a bit of time. There’s not much “inspiration” but stamina and sometimes a bit of good luck. Slowly striking things emerge. For this project it was the fact that we all take very similar photographs but we never learned how to do this. Our parents don’t tell us, we don’t learn it at school, and people all over the world do it nevertheless. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because the resulting snapshots do what people expect them to do, and that’s all there is.

Have you read Italo Calvino’s Adventures of a photographer?  Your work reminds me of it in how it uses people’s obsessive relationship with photography to make an interesting story.  Do you resonate with the idea that photography leads to madness?  How do you save yourself from that? (Perhaps you don’t!)

Yes, I did read Calvino’s story. One of my professors at art school gave me a copy, and I loved it immediately. It’s brilliant how Calvino describes the fascination of photography that turns into obsession that turns into insanity. It’s a transformation that seems to be inevitable, at least in literature. However, looking at the practice of many photographers there are clear parallels, both in snapshot photography and among professionals. Calvino didn’t pull this out of the hat, he must have studied the subject for a while.

I assume reading his piece must have left an imprint in my thinking about photography. The last part of the question is difficult to answer. We don’t have such a clear definition of madness any more. To make things more difficult, the answer of a man who is suspected of being mad isn’t a useful diagnosis of the man’s condition. It’s a perfect Catch 22 situation.

archiv321

 

Archiv 321 from the series Archiv

At the Tate conference you talked about how the audience interacted with your work in a very different way when it was presented to them in a book rather than a slideshow.  This tactile and involved presence of the viewer brings with it a pensive quality rather than the numbing / detached quality of a slideshow or internet site where the viewer has no control.  How has this worked to your advantage in what you hope to achieve as an artist?

My first works with images drawn from the web were presented as digital slideshows. A digital presentation seemed to be the obvious way to present digital images. I was happy with the results but I noticed soon that it is difficult to get an attention span of more than a few minutes for digital presentations. Then I tried books. People look at them much longer, page by page, going from book to book. I have seen people who spent two hours looking at books. I never saw anyone looking at a monitor for more than ten minutes. We talk about the same images, the same quantity. So the decision was easy. A project like Other People’s Photographs consists of more than 3,000 photographs, and of course I want them to be seen. You don’t get much out of it if you just look at five percent of it. I don’t know for sure why books seem to be more attractive but I am happy to follow the audience’s preference, in particular if it matches my own preference. Books have a number of advantages, they don’t depend on electricity, they don’t emit error messages, and so on.

With the fleamarket work (Archiv) you felt you were always a generation behind, before Flickr etc.  Now in a very immediate world, do you find yourself looking back at those collections?  Do you see them in a new light now?

The longer I worked on Archiv the more I became aware of the project’s limitations. One was the limited number of photos I had at hand. Now there’s unlimited supply, more photos are uploaded every minute than I can look at in a day. The other problem was the fact that I was behind my own time, often more than one generation. This aspect got more dominant with the passing of time, and it facilitates a nostalgic look at the photographs. That’s not intended but is hard if not impossible to avoid.

There is something romantic and flaneur-like about wandering around to discover these fragments of other people’s lives rather than ‘sitting like a monkey on a computer’ as you put it elsewhere!  Does this process make a difference to the work at all?  Does it make you see differently?

Digital photography changed a lot, and online photo hosting even more. Looking at photos in a site like Flickr has little to do with looking at a box of snapshots in a thrift store. Despite all the obvious losses the new situation has a number of obvious advantages. It’s much more efficient because I have access to a continuously increasing number of photos, and there’s the search engine. The search engine is probably the new thing that changed our behaviour and our attitudes more than anything else. Sure, there are awful moments sitting in front of a computer, and I try to escape the situation regularly. But then when I go out and find something I may want to work with, the first thing I do back home is putting it in the scanner. For my type of work the new technology is clearly more suitable, more efficient.

Do you wish people would stop photographing in the same way and be more original or do you find some comfort in this behaviour? 

It’s not my job to tell people what to do and what not to do. I am curious about popular uses of photography. If the photographs I find are repetitive I work about this aspect and if they are not I work with their particularities.

What hole do you think it would leave in us if we all stopped photographing our cliches?

I guess this is not going to happen. If millions of people are happy taking the same pictures again and again they won’t stop. The photos seem to do the trick they are supposed to do. A few academics see a problem or two but that doesn’t matter for the people who take the pictures. So I don’t wish to waste time thinking about that hypothetical hole. I prefer to spend my time with problems that exist.

archiv317

 

Archiv 317, 1993 from the series Archiv

Can you offer any answers to the question you raise in your work: Why do we all take the same pictures?

They work. We know that raising kids is not a bed of roses but if you look at the photos people take of their kids the world is just fine. Not much crying, no diapers, no throwing up, no measles. That’s what people want. A happy marriage but no divorce. One of three marriages does end in a divorce in modern society but this is not reflected in popular photography. People will rather try a second marriage than a new approach to photography. I guess it’s more comfortable to base your life on the assumption that things will be all right. Living with the idea that things may well go wrong is closer to reality but not very popular.

As photography is winning the battle of being accepted as an art form I imagine it is easier for you now than it may have been in the past to be accepted as an artist and as a photographer.  What do you think is a problem today that photographers might need to fight for over the next 20 years?

I think we have to face some facts hardly anyone talks about. One of them is overproduction, not the overproduction of photographs but the overproduction of photographers. There are hundreds of art schools in Europe, each of them churns out another bunch of young artists every year, and most of them don’t stand a chance on the art market. A limited number of galleries, a limited number of collections, shrinking budgets of public collections, and a constantly increasing number of artists. There’s obviously a problem with the art business. The editorial business doesn’t look any better, the number of magazines that commission photographers decreases with the advertising budgets going online.  The education business is booming.

Photographers have to reinvent their trade, self-publishing, artist run galleries etc. are signs of a new economy. That’s fine but not enough, photographers have to start fighting for their rights. One of them is getting money for exhibitions. There are more exhibitions than ever, and everybody working in this business is being paid, the people who paint the walls, the people who put up the lights, the frame makers, the printers, the security guys, the cleaning crew, not to forget the curators and directors, the person writing the press release and everybody else, except the person providing the artwork.

What’s more mad? Working for free or ignoring the facts of modern society?

archiv670

Archiv 670, 1996 from the series Archiv

 

Similar Articles...

11 comments for “An Interview with Joachim Schmid

  1. 11 December 2013 at 10:07 am

    These are interesting points. I was thinking about what you were talking about when Jo Whiley was on the wireless last night on her radio show [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03kpb4h] talking about “researchers in America” and how they’d like, actually – discovered – that people are not remembering things because they are filtering everything through their personal cameras. Because, believe it or not, the camera and the human eye see things differently. I was quite pleased to hear this being discussed ‘in the open’, as it were. I was thinking about referring her to Roland Barthes’s Camera Lucida – first published in 1980 – p.91. But I thought better of it. Whiley asked listeners to send in their ‘memories’ of their best bits of 2013 – NOT their photographs. Which I thought was nice, actually.

    So – perhaps some Christmas homework for us all: once or twice, when you see something and feel the urge to reach for the camera, DON’T. In that moment, try to hold on to what your other senses and faculties register, which your vision might “sweep away”.

  2. Sharon
    11 December 2013 at 11:28 am

    Perhaps “photography killed the radio star” 🙂

    I was also reading something along the same lines about memories actually being remembered better when we don’t snap them. Actually the memories induced by photographs are probably false memories because as time goes on we remember the photograph and not the moment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/is-facebook-making-us-forget-study-shows-that-taking-pictures-ruin-memories-8994917.html

    I like Jo Whiley’s phone in idea…

  3. 11 December 2013 at 11:52 am

    I’ve found this fascinating as I’ve been looking at archives for a while now and I wonder about what Calvino’s hero would think about today’s state of the archive. I’ve written about it here. Reading this piece I wonder whether the physical presence of the photograph has a different potency than the Flickr variant and whether the scanned version of the found photograph achieves the same as it’s Flickr counterpart? Do these personal memories of other people become our own once installed into an album whether virtual or physical. Lots to think about…

  4. Gareth
    11 December 2013 at 8:42 pm

    I am not sure I agree with Joachim’s analysis of why we take the same photos.

    It is true that if you search flickr for ‘divorce’ you find very few images, but I think it is down to the difference between events and processes. A wedding is an event. Very easy to photograph (even if it is difficult to escape cliche). A divorce is a process, an unravelling. Arguably far more difficult to capture.

  5. CliveW
    11 December 2013 at 10:11 pm

    I think one aspect is that we’ve been educated into ‘photograph appropriate moments’ since the earliest times of photography becoming available to the general populace; dressing in your Sunday best and theatrically propped above your station for your carte-de-visite session. Even I can still remember having to have my hair combed by my mother every time the camera came out.

    The visual lexicon of what’s accepted as a moment for photography has expanded from there and people learn by seeing what others are doing in their culture and fit in by doing likewise. Saturated as we are by celebrity culture it makes ‘sense’ for example to pap oneself to project one’s own identity on a par, or, with our obsession with TV cooks and cooking, photograph our own meals. Subjects that might once have been the province of the ‘art’ photographer in the 70s have now been subsumed into common photographic culture and are not looked at askance.

    But even today in the various photographic cultures one can see classes of subject that are considered acceptable and ones that are not considered worthy, according to the value that’s placed upon them by a particular strand of culture, perhaps divorce being one of them. Although perhaps the practice of divorcees expunging ex-partners from family photographs with scissors has inspired more than a few ‘art’ photographers to get busy!

    As tutors we frequently have to address broadening new students ideas of what can be classified as meaningful worthwhile imagery, compared to the valuation of the community they have come from and in answer to that community’s question, ‘why would you want to photograph that?’

  6. Andrea
    12 December 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Some really interesting points being made here. My academic work was about formation of memories (autobiographical and collective) and the place of photographs within the process.

    Personally I take a photograph every day on my phone. I find that this image is a far better trigger for what I did that day then anything else. For some people (myself included) I think the act of photographing in embedded with the memory.

    Jesse – as a by note – sometimes I get asked by family why I am NOT taking an image – maybe it is a particularly stunning sunset or a family moment and my answer is that I want to remember it just the way it is. Quite telling really.

  7. Sharon
    12 December 2013 at 2:49 pm

    Yes Clive – people being cut out of pictures doesn’t say much for happy memories! Joachim did a series on this very thing by collecting discarded photographs that he found on the street. It makes me wonder about the story behind each of those little destructions. http://schmid.wordpress.com/works/1982-bilder-von-der-strase/

    Gareth, I agree that a wedding is an event and divorce is less so but I do have to agree with Joachim that we use photography to present a happy exterior… just look at Facebook to see how it makes people so miserable by comparing their own achievements with everyone else’s wonderful life. Not many people put pictures up of those less ecstatic moments or the ones when you want to rip each others heads off!

    Jorge Miguel photographed rooms where people got married and divorced. The plastic flowers say it all! http://encontrosdaimagem.com/en/2013/exhibits/casamento-divorcio-diversos/

  8. CliveW
    12 December 2013 at 2:52 pm

    That’s the other question, “Why would you not want to photograph that?”

    On some occasions my reasoning is similar, because I want to be there in the moment with everyone else, not on the periphery recording it to live later.

    • CliveW
      12 December 2013 at 3:01 pm

      Cross posted with Sharon, was supposed to be a reply to Andrea but for some reason didn’t link.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *