[Leica] The story vs. the individual masterpiece

[chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com (Chris Crawford)]

Nathan, Tina, and Sue brought up an interesting point about my work in
yesterday's discussion of the photos I have been posting of the abandoned
farmhouse whose land is littered with derelict trailers. For those who
haven't seen the photos, here is the page for them:
http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/chris-results.php?category=57

Nathan said:

> "I cannot help thinking that the images you show us are not the kind that 
> most
> people would like to hang on their wall. I certainly would not; however, I
> would love a big, coffee-table book. I think your images work much 
> stronger as
> a set than individually?"
> 
That got me thinking of how my work has changed over the years. I've been
doing photography since I was about 8 years old,when my father taught me how
to use his 35mm SLR, an Olympus OM-G. When I was 11, he bought one just like
it for me, because I used his so much that he had basically lost use of it!
I got more serious about photography in high school and while studying art
at Indiana University's Fort Wayne campus, I began to be invited to exhibit
my work in local galleries. The Fort Wayne Museum of Art even included 10 of
my photos in a 4 person exhibit in 1998, when I was still a student!

All that time, I was obsessed with creating photos that were individually
stunning, that stood alone. In college, I began to develop a body of work
that went together as a body of work with a recognizable style, but the body
of work?my portfolio as a whole?did not tell a story. It didn't even really
tell a number of individual stories.

My other great interest is in history. I have studied history, both in
school and on my own, for much of my life. Historians did not, until very
recently, pay much attention to the lives of the common man.

In the years after I graduated from art school, I began to look at the
places and things that I photographed for something deeper than what can be
accomplished with a single image, no matter how visually stunning that image
is. I began returning to the same places over a period of years,
photographing them as they changed, and looking for stories and details.

This became especially true after I moved to Santa Fe in 2006. New Mexico is
a place that photographers flock to. It has interesting landscapes and
architecture, but I noticed that everyone photographed the same things. Taos
Pueblo, old mission churches, ancient 'cliff dweller' ruins. I saw a
different Santa Fe and a different New Mexico. Many of the photographers who
work out there are either rich trustfunders living in Santa Fe off their
ancestors' money, or people who travel there to photograph. Problem is,
neither of those groups see the REAL New Mexico.

The state is not a museum, it is still inhabited by the descendants of the
Spanish colonists who arrived there around 1600, and by the same Native
American nations and tribes who were there when the Spanish came. Santa Fe
looks, to the tourist, like a city of great wealth. It is, in a way, but
there is also a LOT of poverty in New Mexico. That is especially true
outside of Santa Fe and Albuquerque?the only two places with any wealthy
people or much of a middle class. I went out looking to photograph the
things that photographers never look at. The real New Mexico, which is the
second poorest state in the USA. The standard of living there is FAR lower
than in even the poorest parts of Indiana. That says a lot, considering how
I talk about Indiana's poor economy! I wish I could have stayed longer; I
feel that I barely scratched the surface.

I came back to Fort Wayne, my hometown, for a good reason, for my son, and I
don't regret it despite the extreme hardships we have faced since I came
back here. I've taken the opportunity to do in northeast Indiana as I did in
New Mexico; digging deeper and telling a story. I feel like I am just
getting started, despite doing this for so many years?there is so much to
uncover, so much to share and so much that should not be forgotten.