Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961) was an American novelist, short-story writer, and journalist. In 1953, he won the Nobel Prize for "The Old Man and the Sea." Unquestionably, Ernest Hemingway was antisemitic. Throughout his letters, he makes nasty remarks about Jews. But Hemingway felt his prejudice had a place in his fiction as well, most notably in "The Sun Also Rises," his classic 1925 novel about a group of Paris expatriates at the bullfights in Pamplona. He was a product of his generation’s white supremacy, casual (accepted) racism, and bigotry.
Whatever you think about Hemingway, he was a talented writer and had a big impact on novels and writing. In a way, he created a genre. I studied and read his work in undergraduate school. While it was intriguing and engaging, it was littered with machismo and patriarchy, along with antisemitism, racism, and generally chauvinistic views. Some of it was relevant to the stories and characters, but most of it was connected to the time period. Hemingway was part of the “Silent Generation.”
In my new work, I write about him and his suicide in Ketchum, Idaho. It’s relevant because I ended up at his grave site in 1995. I made a Polaroid portrait as I sat on his grave, next to a dozen yellow dead roses that were there. You can read about it in my book (which will be published next year) if you’re interested. Although this Polaroid wasn’t in my exhibition (it was two years later), it made me think about my use of color photography back then and how it’s made a reappearance in this work.
It’s always a struggle for me to separate the artist from their ideologies. Hemingway fits perfectly into that dilemma. Martin Heidegger is another example: a profound philosopher who was a nazi. I struggle with this. However, I digress. That discussion is for another time.
Often, when the topic of making pictures comes up, some of the first questions are, "What process did you use?" or, “What kind of lens or camera did you use?" I always refer to Hemingway. Let me explain what I mean.
There is an important element to what materials or process(es) you use to make art. No doubt. I’ve written about this before and expressed my views clearly. They’re important for reasons, not for importance's sake alone. In other words, I don’t think you’ll hit your mark simply by riding on a process or a piece of equipment.
The materials, equipment, or process(es) need to support the work, not the other way around. If you’re making pictures in a process for the process’ sake, I think you may be missing the point. It’s like stringing a bunch of letters in a line because they look good, not because they communicate something or give context to the work (they can still look good and support or communicate an idea). My point is, I don’t know of anyone who’s ever asked what kind of typewriter Hemingway used to write "The Old Man and the Sea." Does it matter? Was it a Corona? Underwood? What difference would it make? Full disclosure: After Hemingway’s death, people wanted to know more about him, and they published what kind of typewriter he liked. This was in a very different context than what I’m referring to.
Give these ideas some thought. What are your choices, or the motivation behind your choices, when making pictures? Can you defend why you’ve chosen the materials, equipment, and process(es) you’re using?