Camera Club Culture

'What is it with camera clubs? They appear all over the world. They are run in local communities, businesses, even in the UK Parliament. The desire for photographers to congregate, share and compete seems to be universal.

I have the privilege of acting as Public Relations Officer for my local Photographic Society. That's what we call it. It's not a Camera Club, it's a Photographic Society. Is there a difference? Of course not, but it sounds better: prestigious... occupying the high cultural ground... a bit up itself really. And that is simultaneously the strength and weakness of the title. The term 'camera club' bears connotations of a bunch of friendly amateurs 'clubbing together' to share their enthusiasm and expertise. The term 'photographic society' suggests something far more erudite, (think Royal Photographic Society... is my society putting itself on a per with a national institution?). Well, it's just semantics really, but it does say something quite significant about how the amateur photographer culture perceives itself.

Most camera clubs/societies follow the same format and have a similar ethos, however they are named. Some will have a set of well-defined core values and a mission statement, but more often the structure is less formalised and, arguably, less productive as a result.

It is a sociological imperative for humans to interact, preferably with like-minded others where a common bond can be forged. In a typical camera club (I shall forego the pretentious 'Photographic Society' label for the sake of brevity) the membership will be drawn from a wide socio-economic and intellectual catchment: the membership of mine, for example, includes carpenters, teachers, building conservationists, Inland Revenue officers, refuse recyclers and IT consultants. There is also a huge age range within the membership, from students to the retired. (It is fair to say that membership in my experience is heavily weighted to the more mature end of the age spectrum.)

What draws all these people together is a common interest - photography - and little else. Therefore as a unit, there is only one cohesive bond, albeit a powerful one. But, as with any group drawn together from a diverse range of people with one factor in common, the bond is tenuous and somewhat superficial. Scratch below the surface, attempt to forge deeper associations, and the mass dynamic disperses into much smaller groups based on intellect, social standing and, to an extent, age. Whilst this diversity is potentially problematical is is of course a huge strength, as it brings together people from different walks of life who can offer fresh new perspectives on the common interest of photography. However, it does mean that the club has to find a middle route down which all members can comfortably travel: anything too high-brow and academic risks alienation, and anything too trite invokes boredom and dissatisfaction.

Thus we have a non-contentious, 'safe' environment in which to indulge our interests.

The 'middle road' ethos shows itself most clearly in the choice of photographic material members choose to put forward. If a club stages in-house competitions or enters photographs for external ones, then the overriding imperative is to produce what is disparagingly referred to as 'judge-pleasers'. Entrants very quickly learn to 'play the game' and submit work which will tick all the right boxes on the judges' mental list of 'good photograph' criteria. Thus, no-one is willing to experiment, no-one rocks the boat (at least, not if you want to win).