Thierry Maindrault’s Monthly Cogitations
By definition, any optical, biological or physical system allows light waves to pass through it and produce an image that can be interpreted by a biological or physical receiving organ. My shortcut is a little simplistic, but this is indeed the case whether the restitution is the work of a brain or of a chemical operation on a particular support. All optical intermediates have the particularity of distorting, to a greater or lesser extent, the waves that pass through them. This specificity is undoubtedly at the origin of our individual and philosophical way of “seeing things”. It is also at the root of the impossibility of materially capturing two identical images. This observation gives rise to incorrigible and practically impossible to correct aberrations. We see all these defects. If they are minor, we enjoy them; if they are critical, we try to correct them. We’re constantly navigating between our space of intellectual consciousness and that of undulatory physics, with mixed with recipes for chemistry. All this is always accepted as an integral part of our small human evolution in the universal immensity. Duly noted!
Today, what seems more serious, for our optical systems as a whole, is their loss of sight due to our progressive abandonment of seeing realities. A veil is being drawn over the camera and its use, and a deliberate invisibility is creeping into our perceptions. Since the emergence of mankind, the world of images has undergone evolutions, transformations and revolutions, but it has always remained a vector of progress. All transfers of imagination remain subject to aberrations, more or less disruptive, though not unconscious. I’d like to leave you with some recent information gleaned since my last column.
In the so-called world capital of photography, one of our European colleagues, whose superb photographic work is well known and recognized, has been exhibited in one of the city’s legendary venues. As befits a vernissage with a well-documented invitation card listing all the officials and patrons involved. The only name missing from the card was that of our colleague, the creator of the works on display.
In Japan’s great cultural capital, a festival of great renown comes to a close this week. A number of great and not-so-great designers and photographers are exhibiting, all hiding behind patrons. Banks, cosmetics, spirits and much more are on display. In less than ten years, this practice has become commonplace, especially at festivals and events that benefit from substantial public subsidies.
In all magazines devoted to photography and its environment, every week there is, at the very least, an article announcing a competition. Sometimes, an entire special issue is devoted to calls for entries. In almost all cases, the various rules imposed are unacceptable, with their prior filtration alien to the theme or scope of the competition. Your age, your gender (or non-gender), your professional activity, your social issue, your ethnic origin are the criteria that allow you, for some or for others, to be recognized as photographers entitled to submit works.
The age of the photographer is also a decisive factor in determining whether or not his or her work is worthy of being shown, or even praised. First and foremost you have to distinguish the chaff from the emerging artist. The latter term is overused by all the civil servants and cultural parasites who claim to represent the arts. Their total incompetence is usually only justified by the strength of their “Donkeyskin”. The birth of a first work has never taken into account the age of the arteries of its progenitor, be he a pimply teenager or a venerable man with a thick beard. Enough of this “reserved for”, let all the ancients confront all the moderns in singular and regular jousts.
The preponderance of money overrides all other criteria, right down to details that become significant. For years, a group of photographers had been reserving a dozen hotel rooms for the “professional” week of a major photography festival. Having failed to receive their reservations for this year, our photographers followed up to learn that the hotel had been reserved by two major luxury brands, declared patrons of the festival.
In a multitude of exhibitions, the selection of works systematically forgets the audiences that will be reached and the works that will be hung (when they are not pinned). Curators, who used to value works with a general coherence, are relegated to the sidelines along with the authors whose works they presented. The new “curators”, from all cultural and especially financial backgrounds, are more concerned with the grandeur of their name on posters and in press articles. Other people’s images become their personal stakes.
In juries whose members’ competence has been in decline for the last fifteen years, we have reached the bottom of the scale. Media personality or subservience to the organization takes precedence over all other parameters. A little more effort and the works will be selected at the end of the exhibitions using multi-criteria software. A little more effort and the works will be directly produced to please the greatest number of people. A little more communication, and the cultural jackpot will be within anyone’s reach.
In a recent, very official article, I was pleased to note that an exhibition, sponsored by a professional organization, was open to all without any particular criteria. I was looking forward to these intense confrontations where only freedom of expression through talent prevails. The young beginner who wins fair and square against an old hand who tips his hat to her. The passionate exchanges on the day of the vernissage, with everyone on an equal footing, playing in the same court. Unluckily, it was stipulated in very small print at the end of the rules that the exhibition was reserved for members of an unknown organization.
In the photograph of the face-to-face meeting between the American and Ukrainian presidents in the Sistine Chapel, the photographer of this historic scene has fallen into the crypt’s oblivion. Was it an image taken from a surveillance camera, extracted from a television report, misplaced in the smartphone of a visiting cardinal, a digital reconstruction? Finally, here’s how the photographers disappeared for the photographs that were broadcast.
In a panegyric published, with 15 images to support it, by the convergence of a photographer and a philanthropist, both in the media spotlight. We learn that they are committed to a prize named after their two names. The first prizewinner is a 21-year-old woman who, with the help of a charity association, has produced a small pictorial documentation of the migrants in Calais. This photographer is described as talented, with a powerful approach to her artistic practice. However, the photographs that illustrate this glowing presentation left me dubious. I guess I just don’t understand these photographs anymore, devoid of technique, design, message, emotion, and respect for the reader. A highly talented photographer honored by two renowned photographers.
All these observations are just a tiny tip of the iceberg, to evoke the blindness of the trappers of light. The laissez-faire attitude of latent laziness, petty personal accommodation and visceral individualism have destroyed the rights, control, remuneration, use and durability of our work. Nature hates a vacuum, so some people take our place to decide, to use and to make various profits from our images, regardless of their quality, origin or impact.
A few years ago, we would apply a little Vaseline, meticulously distributed in front of our lenses, to conceal a few flaws in our subjects. Today, our optics are smeared with soot black, in our authorial indifference.
Thierry Maindrault, May 23, 2025
your comments about this chronicle and its photography are always welcome at
