Modern Greek photography is flourishing, bound by postgraduate degrees, cultural managers, and the commodification of simplicity.
Photography in Greece lacks a recognized artistic past, with only sporadic exceptions that were insufficient to form a notable sample of artistic photographic production. The significant boom of photography abroad during the interwar period and later seemed of little interest to our compatriots, especially our photographer compatriots, as they were unaware of the most significant names among famous photographers.
I have been teaching photography, particularly its artistic aspect, for 22 years. When I began, what was termed modern Greek photography was in its infancy, and the few old and good Greek photographers were barely known. Over the years, I taught artistic photography to thousands of people aged 15 to 65, including many of the later well-known and talented new Greek photographers. Thus, I can claim to have contributed to the development of Greek photography by helping to create an educated photographic audience and fostering several of its fine representatives.
Comparing past years with today, it's undoubtedly clear that photography in our country is now in its best period, with a plethora of new photographers, known or not, who possess knowledge and skills, and an increasing number of people interested in artistic photography, familiar with its history and representatives. However, this rosy picture does not fully satisfy me, even if I partly contributed to its formation.
The rise of Greek photography coincided with its embrace by the Fine Arts, interpreted as an upgrade and recognition, but essentially a denial of the unique elements of this new medium. It aligned with the prevailing international artistic direction termed "postmodern" and "conceptual" and the universal acceptance of "professional artistic career," which was not only previously uncommon but also seen as a contradiction. It coincided with the emergence of "cultural managers," symbolically linking major enterprises with artistic creation, and the combined omnipotence of various art-related figures like teachers, curators, gallery owners, and art theorists. Being part of these categories doesn't make me more lenient in my judgments.
Greek imitation of Western artistic products is common and somewhat logical. Thus, modern Greek photography has a full portfolio matching that produced by foreign photographers and showcased in exhibitions and publications. However, the West has a rich and secure intellectual and artistic past capable of withstanding seasonal excesses and closing any commercial gap when necessary. In contrast, driven by obvious provincialism following our well-known and largely justified "misery," we invest with uncritical fanaticism in anything that gives the illusion of being at the forefront, even if true pioneering requires a foundation we lack.
Our new photographers know much more than the old ones and may have greater talent (though this is unclear and unstable, so better left unmentioned), but unfortunately, most are motivated by non-artistic reasons. The passion for photography and the need to create, present in some pioneers of Greek photography, have been replaced by a passion for career and the need for recognition and exposure. It's notable that many new photographers prioritize professional establishment, earnings, fame, and social visibility over personal artistic engagement and improvement. However, if someone initially chose the artistic field, they shouldn't have done so with these goals in mind, as these goals are better served by other professional activities and are perhaps necessary but secondary in art.
Today, we often see new photographers abandoning photography after their first or second promising appearance or pursuing academic degrees. They thus spend a productive life phase chasing degrees, like corporate executives. This pursuit has led to a phenomenon that could be termed "university art" and "academic teachers' art" (another contradiction), involving many negative aspects. It implies association with teachers whom students-photographers don't necessarily respect, needing them only for the degree. It's illogical for an artist to be taught by someone they don't admire or appreciate. It involves "university-level" theoretical support for their works, which would rather need honest and strict artistic (not "scientific") critique. It involves prolonged, often years-long, engagement in overly specialized theoretical studies, which should concern only art theorists, although theoretical training is beneficial in practicing art. It reflects a competitive mindset focused on grades, exhibitions, and exposure. If all this were solely for finding a teaching position, as many claim, it would be understandable. But there's suspicion that title-chasing relates more to presence and existence in the field, fearing (perhaps rightly) that without these titles, they won't be socially and commercially accepted as artists. Recently, a renowned artistic organization required contest participants to be Fine Arts School graduates, and with the growing number of graduates, we may soon see contests only for those with postgraduate degrees.
These new, talented individuals, our young photographers, presumably start with enthusiasm and quality, but are crushed by new values. They're no longer allowed to fulfill their artistic ideals, those they admired before embarking on their photographic journey, nor express their instinct and spontaneity. To gain desired exposure, they must seek the new and impressive, which isn't always as novel or striking as their youth suggests. They worry more about their resumes than the essence of their work (often spending more time on the former than the latter). They need to enhance their resumes with degrees and new annual activities, supported by at least one technocratic curator and one journalist (reflecting common reality). They must satisfy all these specialists and laypersons who uncomplainingly accept every Western commercial product, like the creations of Gilbert and George and Andrès Serrano recently seen in our country, without anyone daring to question them, even out of ignorance or innocence.
These young photographers, of course, have their rights. Theorists, university teachers, international galleries, and prevailing fashions have convinced them that this is the only correct path. And in all this, their photography occupies the least space and time. Concept development, theoretical support, search for suitable exhibition spaces, promotion, and related activities take up significantly more time than the actual creation of artistic work.
Some of these young photographers had the strength to turn away from these fashions and silently continue their work, often at the cost of anonymity. A few might become somewhat wealthy and known, but the time will come (I hope) when they'll look with contempt and despair at the hours sacrificed for market satisfaction. They'll realize that their seemingly profound thoughts were mere simplistic philosophies meant to satisfy the half-educated and emptiness of a few buyers, even fewer merchants, and either naive or cunning critics, forgetting the reasons that initially led them to their artistic journey. It will be too late to become brokers, notaries, or traders, but not too late to finally create the good photography they are capable of and which their youth hinted they would do.
The current leveling of artistic values won't last forever. Not every new artist will always invent new codes to avoid comparison and conflict with the past. The commercial artistic market will saturate and shift direction. Then each photographer will remember Picasso's personal confession:
"Since art is not food for the elite, an artist can express his talent with any eccentricity, with any invention of spiritual charlatanism. But the sophisticated, the wealthy, the idle, the essence-refiners, search for the new, the bizarre, the unprecedented, the scandalous. And I, since Cubism, have satisfied these gentlemen and critics with many strange things that crossed my mind, and the less they understood them, the more they admired them. By constantly entertaining myself with all these games, insults, puzzles, and arabesques, I became famous and indeed quickly. And fame for a painter means sales, profit, wealth. As you know, today I am famous and wealthy, but when I am alone with myself, I do not have the courage to consider myself an artist in the ancient sense of the word. There were great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya. I am only a public entertainer, who understood his time, who appeased as much as he could the stupidity, vanity, and greed of his contemporaries. My confession is bitter, more painful than it may seem, but it has the virtue of being sincere."
Plato Rivellis