Blog Note: Bash It Out and Up It Goes

So I can't really say much about this, but, a while back, out of the blue, I got invited to write about photography for a major publication. Actually it's one of the most famous, prestigious, and storied publications in the English-speaking world. Not to displace TOP; in fact, the editor specifically said he didn't want to distract me from TOP. The proposition was that I would contribute short pieces to them intermittently.

I've written two things for them and am currently grappling with a third. Nothing has come of it so far. For one thing, it's like skipping from pickup games at the friendly neighborhood sandlot straight to the Major Leagues. My mojo has always been that I'm fairly good at stringing words together—I've gotten praise for my writing since grade school—but that's baseline for them. Even their little throwaway pieces just glitter with writing talent. You don't realize how much until you try to do it yourself. For another thing, my bloggerish habits have gotten pretty ingrained. You'd never use a word like "bloggerish" with them, for example. Based on a 365-day year, I've published an average of 1.6 times a day for 16.5 years, and haven't had a vacation that's worthy of the word since George W. Bush was President. That creates...let's call it a groove. lol.

I would say those bloggerish habits are: first, everything's grist for the mill here, so everything gets tossed cheerfully in, down to those ferocious, human-averse little brown-black fisher-cats lurking in these woods; second, everything's done and up. I bash it out and up it goes. I haven't been able to identify it, but I think there's an old black-and-white Spencer Tracy movie (if I were writing this for them I'd have to go research that) in which he plays a journalist, and in one scene he rushes back to the newsroom, plops down at the typewriter, bashes out a page at high speed, rips it out of the typewriter and has a kid run it down to the printing press. If that scene doesn't actually exist, it should. That's like blog writing.

Except they had rules.

And oversight: editors. I haven't worked with an editor for a long time. Direct and immediate feedback from an erudite and informed audience, however, functions excellently as a form of oversight too—it has matured me, and honed my sense of the way what I say will be received. I've personally moderated over 300,000 comments—imagine a magazine writer receiving that many responses for his or her articles. Without, I mean, being driven around the bend by it.

I think my main weakness, and I hope not my Achilles heel, might be that I get all first-persony. Like I am now. I talk to you as me, and that's sketchy in real journalism. Except perhaps in carefully measured little amounts. When writing for a newspaper or magazine, you do get the byline for the reader to ignore (fact: bylines are magically invisible to the eyes and craniums of all but very few readers), but it's best to think of your writerly "voice" as if it's the publication talking, not you. Keep your triflin' self outta sight, you bum. If you don't, it's like physically inserting yourself between two parties who are standing talking to each other. Rude and awkward. So I'm having to relearn some old...manners.

On the other hand, I'm not 100% sure I should. Writing as myself might not be a deliberate didactic choice, but it's certainly the way my style of writing about photography has evolved organically. Who am I to parade my opinions as if they're objective truths? Who is anyone? I don't think it's justified. No one owns photography. Even though everyone thinks they do. Photography is a huge, baggy, sprawling medium, and saying that you know it is like saying you know the ocean or the stars. It can be used for anything, but it's not even constrained to being useful; there are a thousand paths into it and ten thousand things it leads out to. Consider this: a single human lifetime is no longer long enough to look at as many photographs as are made in one single 24-hour day. Photography and everything it contains is even more subjective and personal than, say, cooking, or clothing, where at least there is a semblance of consensus about what's good and bad within various groups in various cultures.

I had a good chance to become a critic. I took a one-on-one class at the Corcoran in writing criticism from a working art critic, and she was quite taken with me and with what I wrote for her. While I was taking that class I engaged in a broad "tasting" of art criticism from all over and from many eras, sampling writers from Lady Eastlake to Susan Sontag, John Ruskin to John Berger, Vasari to Clement Greenburg. I don't need to go into it here, but my conclusion was simply that I didn't want to write that way. It was a conscious decision. I remember where I was when I made it. I was already being published in local publications in D.C. before I graduated, and then, after graduation, the Washington Post offered to hire me to review local photography shows. I was to write two reviews a week. Visit the shows, talk to the gallerist, interview the artist or artists, brush up on their work and its context, and write it up newspaper-style so that it could be cut to fit space. I suppose I should have accepted, but it would have been about a half-time job and they wanted to pay me $100 a week. That wasn't much even then. I was poor as a church mouse at the time and simply needed a real job, so I turned them down. It would have dovetailed nicely with teaching, more's the pity, but I hadn't landed my first teaching job yet at that point.

Hubristic as it may be to say this, and it does make me wince, but I'm an original thinker on photography, for better or worse. I only mean that I have my own opinions, tastes, values, beliefs, conclusions, and photo-pertinent politics; I decided, again very consciously, that I wanted to write for practitioners, people in the trenches grappling with the problems. It ended up being a replacement for teaching. Writing for enthusiasts doesn't join in the conversation with what you might call the establishment gatekeepers, by which I mean the academics, critics, theorists, cultural commentators, curators—the real writers. Traditionally, enthusiasts got exposed to those people through the writeups on museum walls and in the prefaces and introductions to monographs. And I used the phrase "in the trenches" as though it's close to the front lines, but that's a conceit. I was never in any vanguard. I really only mean that I wanted to live closer to the border between photography and the public. I think (hope?) I developed the way I write about photography because that's the way I think it's most valid to write about it. I want to be a specific personalized individual in my writing. I want readers to see an individual engaging on a personal level with the medium. As if it means something to me and matters to me. I want you to see how I feel about it viscerally and not just what I think and what I can think of to say. I want you to know your opinions and tastes do not in any way have to align with mine, yet I do want to model a person who does have strong opinions and distinct values.

If all that is tl;dr, then put it like this: maybe I'm more of a columnist-type than a reporter, essayist, or author of articles. Someone who'd fit better in an Op/Ed section than in an Arts section. I don't know. In any event, I printed out the latest piece I wrote for that publication, lit up every instance of firstpersony with a highliter, and am currently cutting all the me Mike and I out of it, systematically and methodically, like a surgeon with a scalpel. It's harder than it looks.

When this first happened, I was high on hope for a while. Then, during the long delays, I had to accept that maybe nothing would come of it. Had I failed at something I didn't even ask to do?! But I know my editor is on my side—I've submitted, as I said, two pieces so far and he's consistently said he likes them. So something still might happen. I'll keep you posted.

Bottom line, though: sure is fun. When he approved of something, my late brother's late banjo-playing friend Jimmy-James Rollins used to say, laconically, "fired up!" And this has lit a fire under my katuschka, no doubt. I feel like I'm in it. I like to write, and I consider myself lucky that I get to. (It's thanks to you, too, and thank you again.)

But what the hell was I thinking, turning down the Washington Post when I was a wet-behind the ears newly-struck BFA grad? I had forgotten that. Was I crazy? Who did I think I was? That would absolutely have been worth the slog for six months just for a single line on the resumé! It's quite possible to argue that when it comes to career, I'm an idiot. Really. I'll try my best not to be an idiot this time, but please, keep your fingers crossed for me on that, would you? Because that's always going to be touch and go.

Mike

P.S. This piece: not counting breakfast and not counting my little jaunts out to the pool shed with Butters to rustle my creaky bones: 1,663 words, ~3:45 from concept to completion, ~45 minutes between finishing and posting. That's how that goes, in Bloggerdom.

Book of Interest this Week

Gregory Crewdson: Alone Street. "Filmic" seems the best single adjective to describe Gregory Crewdson's work; his directed and carefully managed tableau are the still photography version of scenes in movies. As such they are hyper-real; more beautiful than life and more poetic, and more concerted. They're also very easy to enjoy and a pleasure to look at.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Alex Mercado: "Re 'one of the most famous, prestigious, and storied publications in the English-speaking world': OMG!!! YOU'RE WRITING FOR TIGER BEAT?!?!?!?!?!?! Seriously though, you're a crackin' good writer. I feel confident in saying that's the reason why we all come here. I will be crossing all my fingers for you."

Mike replies: Tiger Beat? Let's not get too carried away. A guy always needs something out of reach to aspire to in the future.  :-)

Dave Levingston: "First, I have to say I do love your writing. That's why I come here every day to see if there is a new post. It's the best writing about photography that I've ever encountered. Second, you reminded me of one of the greatest feats of writing that I've ever witnessed. It was many, many years ago when I was a newspaper photographer. There was a breaking story right at deadline. The best reporter in the newsroom sat down at his manual typewriter and started writing. When he would finish a paragraph he would hit the carriage return several times, rip off the paragraph using the paper bail, hand the paragraph to a copyboy who then ran with it to the line-o-type operator. He then wrote the second paragraph and repeated the process. He wrote the entire story in about 10 minutes without ever being able to refer to what he had already written. And it did not pass through an editor. It just went straight to the line-o-type and on to hot type and the front page of the newspaper. I was awestruck watching it happen."

Mike replies: The real-life version of the movie scene!

Kenneth Tanaka: "I hope this opportunity becomes a thing for you, Mike. I think it would be very productive and constructive for you to work under the pencil of a top large-market editor occasionally. About ten years ago I backed-into doing assigned photo work for one of America's top modern and contemporary art galleries and one of the world's top living sculptural artists. It was a sobering, draining, educational, and exciting experience of self-discovery for a guy in his mid-50s who thought he knew everything about himself. I would chew my left leg off at the hip rather than do any assignment photography again. But I would not trade those experiences for anything. I made life-long friendships and got quite a bit of my work published, too! I think this experience might have similar results for you.

"One more thought; I think writing about photography for a non-shutterbug audience would also be a strong experience for you. It will almost certainly force you past your own tendency toward personal retrospection, past photography's techie-ness, and put you front-and-center with explaining the fundamental essence of a photograph. Cold shower, anyone? Refreshing!"

darlene: "Mike my fingers are crossed for you. I do believe writing is your calling no matter how big the space, the topic at hand, or the argument. You got this!"

MarkB: "If some editor at a publication that-shall-not-be-named-but-can-be-surmised, ahem, explicitly asked you to write for them, isn't that request solely based on what you've written here, in all its bloggerish glory? So be yourself and run it up the flagpole! Editing yourself while you write is like driving a (real) car without using the clutch pedal—just makes noise and smoke and damages the machinery, IMHO."

Mike replies: Well, they certainly allow for stylists. But there has to be respect for the general tone and approach of the publication. The integrity of the publication comes first. Publications have a culture, you might say—history and tradition.

Maybe the main thing I have to relearn is to how to take my time on a piece, let it percolate, and be willing to rework it substantially—you know, what's called "writing" to most people. For example, so far I can't help but organize the piece in my head and then whack out the whole thing from beginning to end in one sitting. Which is a little funny. I don't have to do that with these, but it's almost a reflex at this point.

Chuck Albertson: "I was wondering when the Times was going to replace the Lens blog. Now, if they could just bring back a chess columnist...."

Comments

[Albert Smith]

Let's see, they asked you, meaning that they know your style. They know this site and don't wish to dissuade you from continuing.

Why seek out a possible change to your way? Be yourself, it enabled the invitation.

Good luck.

[Aakin]

I know journalism doesn't normally go for first person, but they approached you because of the work and the writing style of TOP, right? Do they want you to change it up? That's a good question to ask your editor; if they want more of what you have on TOP but in their publication (which would be why I would see someone approaching a known prolific writer with their own site and style already) then you don't need to change anything.

Check with them to see what they want, vs what you think they want.

[David McClure]

Not sure, Mike, but the film might be Woman of the Year with Spencer Tracey and Kathrine Hepburn. He played a down home sports writer and she played a high class critic.

Best of luck in your new writing opportunity Please consider that the publication may want you to continue in your engaging, informed style, to give them a different voice. (I've always thought you'd be a great guy to have a coffee with... ooops, with whom to have a coffee)

[MikeR]

I'm puzzled. If the publication reached out to you, don't they already know your "voice?" Why must you adhere to their style guide as it pertains to effacing yourself?

Asking that as a sheer ignoramus of the world of writing and publishing.

[Ed Wolpov]

Ooh, ooh, Aperture or maybe The New York Times photography section?

[robert e]

Congratulations, Mike! Can't wait for the big reveal. You absolutely deserve to be more widely read, and in a prestige setting, too (sounds like New Yorker level stuff, the way you describe it).

I hope you stick with what got you the offer in the first place, down-to-earth, personal, columnistic style and all. I'm pretty sure that's what Montaigne would do. Don't sweat it--you can write rings around most writers, and you're an original.

[Ernest Zarate]

Question: Why did “…one of the most famous, prestigious, and storied publications in the English-speaking world…” seek you out to contribute pieces?

Answer: I suspect, given how this publication doesn’t want to interfere with TOP, that their attraction to your writing was what they saw at TOP. If that’s correct, then you need to be like the Will Smith character, J, in the movie, Men in Black. “You asked me to join because you see quality,” to paraphrase.

All of the readers at TOP also see and respond to the quality of work here. It is both intelligent and accessible - not an easy mix to achieve or maintain. I know I’m not alone when I say I look forward to coming to TOP, anticipating a new article. And it is very rare indeed that I don’t finish an article of yours once I start reading it. That’s how engaging your writing is.

My recommendation, from my distant perspective, is you do you.

[Patrick Dodds]

Well now, that's just great - and well deserved. I hope something comes of it. And, BTW, the manner of your telling us? What a compelling piece of writing.

[Keith]

I've been pounding out a blog for about 15 years now, averaging a post every day and a half or so. Lots of times the writing goes well and I can put out even a long post in an hour. Sometimes waiting for the photos to upload is the long part. Other times, well, the writing stalls. It is what it is. Like you say, pound it out and hope readers aren't too cruel about pointing out any oversights.

But writing for a 'famous, prestigious, and storied publication', wow! Hope it goes well.

I think that Spencer Tracy movie you're thinking of is actually Cary Grant in His Girl Friday, 1940!, but it's been a while since I've seen it.

[Adam Isler]

Mike,
This piece hits so many points for me:
1. When I was a teenager my father, a Renaissance English scholar, was invited by Clarendon (the Oxford University Press) to write a book translating to modern English and annotating an anti-play pamphlet. There were 4 or so extant copies in the world and he ordered microfilms of them from such places as the Bodleian Head and Huntington Libraries. I dutifully printed up pages for him in our bathroom darkroom. The book was completed and submitted. Partly on the basis of it's imminent publication my father was promoted to Associate Professor. But Clarendon is unlike other University presses - their calendar runs to centuries. Every decade or so my father would write and ask for an update. They still planned to bring it out in due course. Late in life he asked to be released from his contract to shop it around but they refused, still planning to publish it. My father retired from academia and became a novelist. He died a dozen years ago and I'm his literary co-executor. Still no word from Clarendon.
2. As a budding would be writer and English major at Columbia I tried to write at Spectator the campus paper. I was offered an art gallery opening to cover. The invitation offered such an opaque art-critical introduction I couldn't bring myself to do it (at least, that was my self-excuse)
3. Still bothered by much art criticism bombast I started photographing the worst offenders in museums and galleries and grading them as if they were English papers. The series is here: https://islerphoto.zenfolio.com/critique

[Speed]

The first time I was paid to write for someone-not-a-teacher, I became a cartoon version of a writer. I wrote a few sentences on a yellow pad. I read the sentences. I tore the page from the pad, balled it up and threw it at the trash can in the corner.

By lunch my output was ... zero.

Years passed. I'm pretty good now but I still let things sit for a while -- at least overnight -- before hitting "publish". Often more work is required. And because I enjoy it, it's not really work.

(Don't tell my boss.)

[Animesh Ray]

There are very few who can make, let alone recognize, a good print, good photographs, who knows the likes of Sally Mann, and yet can write as you do. Your 'voice' might be more important to your readers than any classic journalistic writing.

[Dan Farmer]

I'm sure this point will have already been made by several others*, but consider the simplest of reasons why this publication and their editor invited you to contribute: They want your voice. As you (inadvertently?) point out elsewhere, after 16½ years there's more than enough of you published in blog form that they really do know what they're getting.

In other words: Please try not to let the intimidation of writing for an austere publication change what you write. To do so would be a mistake, I feel.

* A downside to moderation of comments and the inevitable delay. I'm sad to say that I've been held back from commenting more than once by the thought that a point has already been better made by another reader in a comment simply awaiting moderation. Did anything come of the plan to enlist moderation help from a few established readers?

[Dave Jenkins]

As I wrote about you 20 or so years ago, "A writer's first job is not to be boring. Mike is never boring."

[Dave Riedel]

Mike,
If they didn't like your style, they wouldn't have asked you to contribute. Don't fix what isn't broken.

[Bryan]

Did they give you specific instructions to “not” write all first persony? IF they didn't maybe they're surprised you're not and are just being polite.
If they don't say anything and you keep sending non first persony stuff won't hilarity ensue?

[Dave Pawson]

When you stop enjoying the writing, stop writing; that's what keeps me coming back and reading your posts to the end.

[Joe Kashi]

Go for it, even if the "storied" publication doesn't pan out in the end. Perhaps you'll prove Fitzgerald wrong and show that there are second acts in American life. Good luck.

[Bradly]

Why I read this idiot's blog...

This is the first time I have commented here. I've never thought that what I had to add was eye opening, or enlightening, or merely not something mundane or inane that someone else had already said.

I used to read another popular blog almost daily, a blog which has been ongoing for a few years. This blogger, over time, has become less tolerant of his readers. He has lately taken to frequently replying, not always politely, to comments he doesn't agree with. I can only view him, sadly, as a product of an America that is less accepting and less tolerant of varying views & opinions that are, well, out of step with the status quo.
He seems to favor large cameras with zoom lenses. Not what a savvy traveler would carry.
After a post about the Sigma FP, a reader commented on the lack of a hot shoe for optical viewfinders. Most cameras offer that. One of my favorite cameras, which I still own and use, is the Zeiss Ikon SW, which is a 'rangefinder without a viewfinder' (like the Voigtlander Bessa L) for m-mount lenses and external viewfinders. I understood the commenter's deal breaker post, but this blogger didn't get it; he decided to acknowledge it with a disagreeing negative reply.
I know this Johnston idiot would have merely shrugged and thought 'different strokes for different folks.'

I don't agree with everything written here, but that's the fun. I prefer 3-ball carom to pocket billiards.
I like what Michael has to say, and how he says it.

I tremble to think of how many hours of my life have been spent reading these idiotic posts, and all I can say is, "Thank you Mr. Johnston. Keep it up!"

"I want you to know your opinions and tastes do not in any way have to align with mine"

[Zack S]

Speaking of missed opportunities here is mine. In 1979 while at Michigan State I took a film class. In the class we learned about composition, editing, lighting etc and by the end we needed to have produced a short film. One of the guys in the class brought in a film he shot in high school. It was a slasher film that he shot in his parents home with his sister as the victim. We were all amazed at the film and the fact that it was shot while he was still in high school depressed us. The film I made was stop-motion done with cutout photos from magazines but was nothing much to remember. By the way the instructor, Dr Assari had been the personal cameraman for the Shah of Iran and escaped during the revolution there.

Fast forward a year and I was working as a production assistant and grip Detroit. Due to the Big 3 being here there used to be a lot of training films and product intro films being made and it was quite a busy scene back in the day. One day I was reading the Detroit Free Press and there was a story about the guy who I was in the film class with. He had made a film called the Evil Dead and was getting a lot of attention. The name of his company, Renaissance Pictures was mentioned in the article so I looked them. They were in a close city so I decided to give them a visit and drop on my resume. I spoke with then for a bit but thought that they were going nowhere as there were many people in the area trying to shoot feature films but was very difficult to get funding to do this. After a few years of working I realized that I was going never going to get into the IASTE and since recession had started moved onto a different carrier. Got a job in IT with EDS who was subcontracting in a GM plant in Detroit. Then HP bought us and after awhile GM them bought us out. Worked in the same place for 35 years. On the other hand the guy, Sam Rami who was in the film class had a little bit better career than me.

Here is his IMDB page which is quite amazing; https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000600/

[John]

I used to be a newswire, newspaper and magazine reporter/correspondent. I’m not sure I could write in that style again or pass muster with the editors. Then again, I also think they are often sticking with a style for the sake of tradition while they should in some instances embrace the directness that blogs and others bring.

[JimK]

Mike,

I came here because I loved your writing style, as well as your choice of subjects (even non-photography ones). I've gotten to know you a bit in person, and I still come here daily. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you--I'd love to be reading some material from you published on a bigger stage!

My fiancee was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune for nearly 18 years. She left almost a decade ago, and she still misses the thrill of writing for an organization that had those high standards. Bloggerish Mike--you'll do fine!

[David Miller]

I have no advice to offer, but here are a couple of observations (o.k. — opinions) to toss into the seething pot:
1) This post is a splendid piece of writing. I hung in through every word and am left with much to ponder. What more could I ask?
2) There is little doubt that you are capable of writing worthwhile and important pieces for this 'famous, prestigious, and storied publication'. The question is whether you want to. I, for one, will be very pleased if you do.

[Bear.]

Congratulations, Mike! Your invitation is every writers' dream come true. And very well deserved too. One of the great joys of TOP is not just that it is a written blog about a visual medium, which is mostly (though not entirely) unillustrated, but that it reflects your very personal but well-informed viewpoint about it all - IMO, that is your "voice". I've always thought that although a picture may be worth 1000 words, 1000 words about the picture from someone who knows what they are talking about is probably be more interesting. For your new role, may I suggest as follows? (1) Dash out a few possible topics without thinking too much or trying to think too hard about it (IMO thinking is the key source of the dreaded writers' block). (2) Pick those topics about which you think have the most to say, which should make them easier to write. (3) Dash out drafts on your selected topics - again without thinking too much - and, certainly, without trying to change the way you write at all; after all, your work has been selected because of the way you write. (4) Pick what you think are the best and set them aside for polishing for your submission to your new publication. (5) In due course, polish (wax on; was off; repeat; but you know all about that) and send to editor, and then... (6) Use all the rejects as TOP posts. Viola(!): two birds with one stone. Also, if you get stuck for topics, you have an awful lot of readers here on TOP happy to make suggestions! Just put out a call. Oh and one more thing (whilst I am giving unsolicited advice) - don't forget to sign up your new publication to advertise itself on TOP so that you can also get paid for your readers here to read you there.

[Gary]

Mike, your very good soul-searching and expository piece (this post) notwithstanding, DO IT.

[Rob Campbell]

If you are going to write for these people on a purely photographic remit, you will soon run into problems.

All photography magazines found that out the hard way: photography, by itself, has very little about which to write: it is about doing, not discussing.

In the world of the youtuber photo "experts", this is demonstrated in the way so many end up doing those embarrassing "unpacking" things that turn anybody with any intelligence right off.

Somebody threw the Sally Mann name into the ring: she writes well, but the writing is about her. She has achieved fame and success in one world and that's the truck that carries her writing further afield. Nobody is going to offer a monograph to an unknown; your offer, presumably, comes based upon your current work here. Why change it on a supposed idea of what the client may want? If your style doesn't suit them, you'll soon be the first to know. Give it to them in your own excellent manner.

[John Camp]

You're a talented writer of a particular kind. So was I -- I got a Pulitzer writing journalism, and that led directly to a $50 a week raise at a time when I had two kids and a wife who wanted to go to college. I'd taught myself how to write journalism, when I was a kid, and then in my mid-forties, in four brutal years with a couple of misfires, I taught myself to be a novelist. I'm holding myself up as an example to somebody I consider to be as talented as myself -- you just have to teach yourself to do it. It's purely possible, you just have to teach yourself to do it.

The Times is just another journalistic rag, you could do that typing with your toes; I'm thinking New Yorker.

[ricN]

put idea before I