Biography: Why it doesn't matter

I wouldn't call the working class chip on my shoulder a chip at all, it's more of a bolder. I've not gone all Henry Moore on my rock, the rocks shaped me and continues to do so

Lets pretend for a moment that I make very bad attempts at pseudo documentary art photography( not too much of a stretch). The shots are labored, worthy, cliched & naive. Nothing worth remembering. Then lets say you find out I was a young offender that left school at 14 and can hardly sign my own name. That I've witnessed crime and drug abuse for most of my life, enough to fill the portfolios of a large number of documentary photographers. My story moves and impresses you, so much so that you start to see my work in a new light

Well it shouldn't have. My biography doesn't matter, my pictures matter. It's just as Robert Adam's said. Biography is one of the improper standards of judgment when accessing art. The only thing that distinguishes the photographer from everybody else, is his pictures. Major art can stand independent of its maker.


"be an heir and do it on the side"

Elliot Erwitt's advise on being a successful photographer.

By rights my working class bolder should prevent me from considering the work of trust fund photographers, many of the big names are/were. Why should I line the pockets of that silver spooned fucker by buying their books?


Because I love the work.



Now Ken, go put your Gary Glitter box set back on the mantlepiece next to the Michael Jackson autographed print


Sean