• Anthropography //
  • Photos of people //
  • Archive
  • / Ask me anything
  • / Submit
  • / RSS
  • / Theme
010111r02f17 coney_ (via Mike Peters’ flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
0 ♥
julie (via patric shaw’s flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
1 ♥
Menit tribe man - Omo valley Ethiopia (via Eric Lafforgue’s flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
19 ♥
Curious boys (via Boaz’s flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
2 ♥
Babcia i Nadzeia (via Kiryla Ciareszka’s flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
9 ♥
Ethiopie : la région de l’ Omo; les arbore (via claude Gorlay’s flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
1 ♥
junkies (via Ian Taylor’s flickr photostream). Higher resolution here.
8 ♥
Interview with Mike Peters on cinemafia.net. cinemafia: Your work focuses on a certain denomination of people, for lack of a better description I’m going to refer to them as indigenous urban street-dwellers. The photographs not only highlight their generally unique physical appearances -which, granted, are interesting enough- but subtleties that are very telling of their personalities and traits. Why do you think it’s important to photograph these kinds of people? Is there anything you do in preparation for, consciously or otherwise, to bring out the quirks in the subjects you photograph? Mike Peters: I would define the people that I photograph mainly as being from the working class with a few exceptions of course. I was raised in Kearny, NJ, which is a blue collar, post industrial urban bedroom community, mostly populated with first and second generation immigrant families who are doing their best to move up to a more suburban neighborhood. So, the people in my photos are very much like the people that I was surrounded by as I grew up, interesting characters who are who they are without apologies. These are the people who fix your car, drive the bus, file your paperwork, answer the phone, check out your groceries, and for the most part, who are completely invisible in our society. People who are not celebrities and generally are not interested in drawing attention to themselves. In the current economy, these are the people with the most to lose and the least to gain. This is where I come from, who I know best, and therefore who I feel I can most authentically portray without reducing them to archetypes or punch lines. I see something of myself in everyone I photograph, strange as that may sound, I feel a spark of familiarity, a connection, even if we never speak. The work I’ve been doing for the past eight years grew out of my reaction to the post 9/11 era in which we live. I had feelings about how things were changing, and I saw those feelings reflected in the faces of people I saw on the street and I felt compelled to begin a journey of discovery about what was happening. The work guided me as I went along, and over time I saw patterns and found the theme that was hidden in plain sight. The only preparation I have done for making these photographs has been living my life and owning who I am and where I come from so I can identify with the humanity of others. cinemafia: An interesting comment I noticed you’d made about one of your photographs was in regards to how people you run across in the streets or on the beach interest you- and how others, namely tourists, do not. Could you tell me some of the characteristics that draw you in to a person or group of people? What, then, are the kinds of characteristics that repel you? Mike Peters: When I dwell on the choices I make as far as subject matter, I realize that I have little interest in photographing people who present calculated facades of what they want to be. I tend to be drawn towards people who seem to wear their lives on their skin, every bump, bruise and wrinkle with honesty and openness. I seem to notice people who express vulnerability, pain, sadness, confusion, or just plain disconnection in terms of their body language and or facial expression. I see what I know, and I’m drawn to make a photograph. The only thing that repels me are people who insist on being photographed and who vamp shamelessly for the camera! That explains how I can go to the Easter Parade on 5th Avenue or the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island and only photograph people on the edges. I mentioned tourists just because they’re an easy target, what with their ability to impede foot traffic as they stare upwards with their glassy eyed maniacal smiles in the middle of the sidewalk, they can be quite annoying. However, they do serve a purpose in contributing to the economy, and some are even quite nice when you get to meet them in person, separated from the herd. cinemafia: Street photography -or its upscale cousin, street documentary portraiture- has as a genre been making a surge in popularity on Flickr and other photography related social websites. There is a growing base of young or new to the field photographers who have a very keen interest in the approach, many of whom are contributing fresh and interesting work to it. That said, there seems to be a simultaneous drop in the demand for or value of street photography in the art world and the media. I’ve talked about this before in some of my other interviews, but I’d like to know how you feel about this situation, and where you see street photography going both as an art form and as a commodity in the future? Mike Peters: Street photography is very approachable, the best practitioners tend to be people who discuss their work plainly, and thankfully without resorting “art-speak” or academic jargon. It looks and sounds easy, so anyone thinks they can do it just by walking around and taking random snaps of people walking towards them on the sidewalk. A lot of what I see on Flickr, though popular, is not really well informed or particularly interesting. Far too many of the people posting on Flickr have no idea of any of the work that was done long before they were born, or started shooting, they seem to have no point of reference, so it’s hard for them to know what they’re doing in any context as to what has been done. Not that today is any different from 30 years ago, we just get to see it all online instead of having it stuffed in shoe boxes under the bed where much of it belongs. Probably much of my work, too. There is some good work there, but you really do have to sift through it, if you have time. I’m just as guilty at not being especially selective with my own work. I use Flickr as a place for my initial scan selects from contact sheets. Not all of those will make the grade, but I get to live with them, and a bit of feedback, and to see how long I can stand looking at them and whether they will make it to my web site, or to the trash. As far as the future of street photography, the media lost interest a long time ago for a variety of reasons to long to go into and the art world is off on a different tangent. The big issue as I see it is that photographs of real people are not so easy to hang on your wall. Taking one of my photos and putting it over the couch takes a real act of bravery on the part of the buyer, it’s like inviting a stranger into your home and having him or her stare at you all day long. I understand where they’re coming from. Most people, when they buy art want to be transported from reality into another place, and street scenes do the opposite. Landscapes, abstracts, stylized portraits or conceptual work that is fantasy based are all much less challenging to confront every day. I think street photography and street documentary portraiture ( I like that term! ) will have more value as time passes and the work takes on a bit of historical perspective. But I feel that will happen to large and consistent bodies of work that capture an essence of the time in which it was made, much like Robert Bergman or Harriet Maier. I believe that in order for ones work to persist, one has to work with diligence and consistency over a long period of time, and then hope that when you die your kids don’t just put it all in a dumpster. Having an authentic point of view, or as some might say - a singular voice, that is arrived at as a consequence of the sum of your life’s experience, is far more important, satisfying and ultimately more relevant than working towards fitting into any set of parameters. You have to make your own way and learn to make images that only you can make, and once you do that, you may have something worth caring about. At this point, I have no idea where I fit in the continuum of the art world. It could very well be that the cyclical nature of the interests in the art world are elsewhere right now, and that if I just stick around long enough, it’ll come around more to what I’m doing. Another possibility is that my work is not so good and I’m wasting my time. Whatever. I don’t have to make a living with this work, so I’m free to follow my instincts and do what feels to be most organic to my way of being. All I know is that I’m compelled to make the photographs I do because of some internal need to make some sense of the chaotic world in which I exist, and as a means to explore and make peace with who I am and where I come from. So that’s what I’ll do, to the best of my ability, until I can no longer hold a camera. At some point, others will judge if my work is any good. However, I believe in the work that I’m doing, and that’s good enough to keep me going. cinemafia: One of the persistent qualities of your work is a sensibility that falls somewhere between straight documentary and nostalgia. Your images depict people and places in a very static way. I don’t want to say sterile, but they have on one hand the approach of a historian or an anthropologist. On the other hand, though, there is a very deep sense of capturing a specific, cultural time and place. Further, this sense carries with it a tone of what I would characterize as loss- especially when associated with some of the things you’ve said about the changes taking place in the areas of New York where you typically shoot. Could you tell me about how time and place, culture and geography, figures into your approach? Mike Peters: I am acutely aware that everything changes, constantly, and that it cannot be stopped, and that everything in life is hanging by a thread. The moments that most interest me are the ones that are in between, either just before or just after something. Moments realized and expressed in faces and bodies in suspended animation. My goal is that the work I am doing will manage to convey an honest sense of the time and place in which I exist by showing a bit of what I see, and hopefully conveying a hint of how I feel about what I see. And that the images I make provoke questions and imagined scenarios about the people in them. I’m not sure if that makes me anything more than a photographer, however I suppose every photograph is a historical document, for the brief moment that was recorded is already a part of the past and never to be experienced again, only seen. The place I live, the Northern NJ suburbs of NYC very much informs my work. I was raised in a very urban and industrial landscape that was a visual mash up of bricks, concrete, asphalt, aluminum siding and peeling paint. I was surrounded by first and second generation immigrants with rough hands and leathery skin. Irish, Scottish, Italian, Portuguese and Polish accents were the norm, as were the bars, churches and stores that catered to them. Sidewalks are my preferred hiking trail. When I was in California a few years ago, I realized just how profoundly our sensibilities can be molded by our physical environment. I was finally able to appreciate where Ansel Adams and Edward Weston came from, actually and metaphorically. And from that I came to a greater understanding of how my formative environment made me who I am. As a product of this area in which I shoot, I feel a connection to the places and people who make it what it is. As most of my work is done within a few miles of my front door, I feel no need to travel to exotic locations when I live in one already. It’s just a matter of seeing it fresh every time I leave the house. cinemafia: Two of my favorite photographers, Lisette Model and one of her protégés, Harry Lapow, also photographed Coney Island over a period of decades. Were you at all influenced by their work? What kinds of things have changed in Coney Island as it stands today? What things have remained the same? Mike Peters: I think anyone who shoots in Coney Island has been influenced by Lisette Model in some way or another, so I can say yes, to some extent, along with Weegee and the Bruce’s - Gilden & Davidson, but my sensibilities are more a mix of Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson, Paul Strand, Mike Disfarmer, August Sander, Robert Frank and a dash of Diane Arbus. Besides, that Coney Island of the 20th century is long gone and the place does not look that way anymore. One of the things I try to do when I go out is to be, as I call it, empty headed. What I mean by that is I don’t have any preconceived ideas as to what I’m going to shoot, I’m open to what is and am guided by what and who I find when I get there. Mostly, the photos I make choose me to make them. Something or someone grabs my interest and pulls me along as close as I can to make the photo, simple as that. Sometimes I’m successful, and often not. Coney Island is currently in a state of flux, has been since 2007 really, but now the changes are happening fast and will soon turn it into a haven for people of a more exalted social order than what appears in my photos. It will go the way of 42nd street, taken over by corporations for year round maximum profit making by bilking the moneyed masses in the shiny and new theme park that used to be known as the neighborhood of Coney Island. Everything that made the place the authentic wonder that it was is being swept away to make way for a newer, cleaner, and more expensive place to be. This will keep the locals away, along with the working class and the immigrants that make up the bulk of the summer crowds, as they will be priced out of the equation. I hope I’m wrong. But then, change is the only thing constant about Coney Island. Time will tell. Until then, the Cyclone and Wonder Wheel remain functional, and the parachute jump is still standing. cinemafia: Lastly, you mention on your Flickr profile that the work you upload is done on your own time, for your own reasons- essentially as a hobby. Though, I think most people would say they thought a lot higher of your work than would befall the connotation of hobby work. At any rate, you have a conscious separation of your for hire and personal work. My first question here is how do you approach this, in terms of how do you organize, schedule and distribute the differing work? My second question is do you believe that it’s a good idea for photographers to have this kind of diversity in their work, and do you think it’s a good idea for photographers to make their living with photography? Why or why not? Mike Peters: Hobby? No, that is not a word I would use to describe what I do, I’m far more serious minded than that. This is the work that I do strictly to satisfy myself and to keep me connected to the reasons why I became a photographer in the first place. My ambitions for the work are a bit higher too, but how that works out is partly up to others. Unfortunately I’m better at making the work than I am at marketing it. I have a full time gig making photos for Montclair State University in New Jersey. In this capacity, I provide all of the imagery for the website, printed publications, advertising, editorial, news, multimedia and video presentations. It’s a full time and then some kind of job that often has me working nights and weekends. I’ve been here for 10 years, and for the 20 before that I did still life, architecture, interiors, corporate, editorial, advertising and photojournalism on a freelance basis for many and varied clients. Needless to say, the time I get to devote to my personal work is slim and precious to me. However, with a day job, I have the luxury of creating a body of personal work without having to make a buck doing it. I’m free to express myself with this work, where with commercial work, there is always a client to satisfy. I chose to shoot on the street for a number of reasons. Firstly, I didn’t want to have to make any appointments to do my personal work. I want to just be able to show up whenever a few hours became available. No matter where I am, the street provides flexibility and a continuous stream of potential subjects. When I first started on this body of work in 2002, I had to overcome my terror of photographing strangers of course, but then that was a phobia I needed to tackle for quite a while, and this was a good way to deal with it. For many years, my personal work was shot with a 4x5 camera which was a natural conversation starter with strangers, but a bit too deliberate for how I wanted to work moving forward. This time I wanted to work with something more spontaneous yet simple, so medium format squares seemed like the best compromise. The square relieved me of having to decide between vertical and horizontal, and I settled on one film type, making my life even less complicated. My foray’s onto the street are usually less than once or twice a month, and almost always on weekends as my week days are quite full. I do my scanning when I have time, again, on weekends and by working late at the office. Right now, I’m sitting on about 60 rolls of film to scan, so I’m hoping for terrible weather over the winter so I can stay in and get through it. Each final scan takes about an hour, so there’s lots of time involved. My other reason for choosing to work with the square is that when I look through the finder, I know I’m shooting just for me, not for a client. Rectangles, especially 2:3 aspect ratios, are reserved for clients, and 1:1 is all for me. I leave behind all automation and embrace the simplicity of an all manual camera, again, as a way to stay connected to my roots, and as a personal challenge to work with a tool that is counter-intuitive to what I’m doing, and make it work anyway. Using what I do truly allows me to make a very strong distinction between assignment work and work for myself. Otherwise both would look and feel the same. I found out the hard way that when making photographs it is impossible to serve two masters, your client and yourself, without disappointing one of them. As far as diversity in work, I think it’s a good idea. Throughout my career I’ve done pretty much everything, and I feel that every experience has made me a better photographer no matter what kind of work I do. The more you know, the more control you can exercise over your craft, the easier it will be to say what you want when you want, no matter the circumstance or the camera in your hand. Assignment work teaches you how to work under deadline and to bring back the images no matter what. And once you’ve proven yourself, to yourself, then you can go forth with confidence in your abilities to get out of your own way and just be able to be a conduit for the images to get into your camera and on to your film, or sensor. That being said, making your living as a photographer these days is very dicey. Everyone with a DSLR and a few lenses thinks they are a photographer now. It takes little skill to get an in-focus, well exposed image these days. And frankly, most people buying creative services have no idea what the difference is between a good photograph and a great photograph. All they want is cheap or free, and far too many photographers are quite willing to give it away just to be published. It’s not necessary to make your living as a photographer in order to meaningful work, and if anything it almost makes it harder. Every time I go out, I have to forget all of my client satisfying skills and just go with my gut. And, as I’ve seen with friends and colleagues, you can easily burn out on photography when you have to do it all the time. A few people I know will not even think of making a photograph for themselves any more, someone has to be paying them. I consider myself fortunate to still be passionate about what I do. I’d like to thank Alex for the insightful questions, and a special thanks to anyone who has had the patience to read up to the end. I wish all the best to everyone - Mike. * * * Mike’s new book, The Dream: http://www.mikepeters.com/TheDREAM/index.htmlMike on Blurb: http://www.blurb.com/user/store/mikepetersMike on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikepetersMike’s Site: http://www.mikepeters.com Higher resolution here.
1 ♥
  • ← Newer
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Older →