There is a very entrenched view that projects should be created conceptually before a picture is ever taken in the academic world. It isn't the fault of art institutions really; they have to justify why they exist, and they exist to teach people a particular way of working. If someone comes along and 'throws it together at the end' then why take an art course? It is an attitude that art institutions can't afford to support.

From Hin's article:
I even suspect many photographers are lying when they say they had it all planned in advance and that they spent ages working on one particular concept, when in fact they just threw it together at the end. It feels like the former approach is regarded as more respectable: smarter and more insightful. – R

The planning-in-advance approach is more respected, but I think that sometimes people who haven't gone through art school are actually much freer than those of us who have been through academic training. I remember at one crit being told that the fact that my 'series' contained both landscape and portrait formats was problematic. Where does this idea that everything must be worked in series and be identical formats come from? This is very popular idea in photo MA world. And for some practitioners its important, but certainly not for everyone. I say, explore.

There is a very entrenched view that projects should be created conceptually before a picture is ever taken in the academic world. It isn't the fault of art institutions really; they have to justify why they exist, and they exist to teach people a particular way of working. If someone comes along and 'throws it together at the end' then why take an art course? It is an attitude that art institutions can't afford to support.

From Hin's article:
I even suspect many photographers are lying when they say they had it all planned in advance and that they spent ages working on one particular concept, when in fact they just threw it together at the end. It feels like the former approach is regarded as more respectable: smarter and more insightful. – R

The planning-in-advance approach is more respected, but I think that sometimes people who haven't gone through art school are actually much freer than those of us who have been through academic training. I remember at one crit being told that the fact that my 'series' contained both landscape and portrait formats was problematic. Where does this idea that everything must be worked in series and be identical formats come from? This is very popular idea in photo MA world. And for some practitioners its important, but certainly not for everyone. I say, explore.

I’ve noticed two opinionated sides when it comes to the need for an artist statement. The supportive side will claim that the artist statement is of importance because it helps guide viewers so that they have a better understanding of the art they are viewing. In the extreme people will go as far as to say that the artist statement is a reflection of how well the artist in question can communicate both verbally and visually– implying that an artist who writes a poor artist statement is at least partially discredited as an artist– as in the validity of his or her art may also be questioned.

The opposing side will claim that the artist statement is not necessary because the artwork should be the statement. People who oppose artist statements generally feel that the statement can become a distraction as far as the artwork is concerned. In the extreme those who oppose artist statements will go as far as to say that the statement is an insult to all visual artists because it cheapens the value of visual language by projecting the idea that visual art fails to communicate openly with viewers.

Your intention can be as simple or loose as 'I'm going out on the streets with my camera and I'm simply going to react to unfolding events and let the street reveal itself to me' but I think you should have one.

http://blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2009/05/observ...

And really, doesn't kind of go back to 'The Democratic Forest'? Or even further? I guess it seems what's brewing here is a discussion about what even constitutes a project. i know from talking to Raoul, that he and I feel that what we consider projects/edits right now might change over time. It seems the web has opened up the possibility of creating multiple interpretations and representations of your work. Look at the way 'After the Fall' has evolved over the last couple of years. And I'm sure it's nowhere near evolving and maturing.

Not sure that calling this (or these) “post-hoc” is the best way to consider it. “Lifestyle” is a swing and a miss, too. Hrrmmm.

Adam Jeppesen's Wake could be a potential candidate, only because much of it was made while Jeppesen was on assignment. It's a line ball call, but the work is so magnificently atmospheric and coherent that I find myself doubting this assertion.