Further to my earlier blog about the need to sort and select images from a large number ('large' in this case refers to my experience which is minute compared with what follows) I was, on the same day, reading "On being a photographer" [Hurn, D and Jay, B. (2008) 3rd ed. Anacortes WA: LensWork Publishing] In the section "The Picture Essay" I came across the following - "As a general guide I would guess that for a seven picture essay I would shoot 20 to 30 cassettes of 36-exposure 35mm film." (p 100). Spoken by David Hurn this suggests that he anticipates taking between 720 and 1080 individual photographs to have sufficient to produce the essay. A 'hit rate' of between approximately 1/100 and 1/150. Whilst I find this extraordinary he continues - "A single exhibition-quality image probably occurs every, say, 100 films". Doing the maths that is a hit rate of 1/3600. For a 45 image exhibition he would, based on these figures, anticipate taking 162,000 images which is a staggering amount. We are offered some sort of clue as to the output of Hurn over a year by an anecdote told by Jay (p.99) where he tells the story of Hurn going into a local photography dealer's shop and ordering 1000 films. Jay goes onto confirm that all 1000 films (36,000 frames) had been exposed within a year. In simple terms that means that to have sufficient images for an exhibition Hurn would take four and a half years to have sufficient material. Given this was before the advantages of the digital age where the photographer is able to shoot almost non stop at a very rapid rate without having to wind the film on or change the film after 36 shots it is an astonishing achievement.
These responses by Hurn were in answer to a comment made by Jay that "photography is a medium of quantity as well as quality" (p99). Jay offers the explanation that photography is about taking photographs and that it is learnt by taking photographs. He goes on "Like every other skill , photography is learned by continuous and dedicated practice (p.99). Hurn responds - "Thats true......You learn by concentrating on a subject, planning the actual shooting and critically evaluating the results. At face value these comments are statements of the obvious. Yet I am left wondering what 'critically evaluating' means in practice given the very large number of images produced by Hurn.
It has to be remembered that films had to be developed to produce the negatives and then these had to be developed to produce the positive image capable of being assessed. Even producing contact sheets took time if the thumbnails were to be of sufficient standard to make examination of each individual print worthwhile. The book provides us with a whole section on creating contact prints that, it is perhaps fair to say, is irrelevant in the digital age. However I am sure that some photographers will argue for a continuation of this method arguing that it provides benefit in the whole process of creating the perfect print. In the context of this blog I introduce the topic because the process described by Hurn makes the number of images he claims to use is a task that, I believe, is beyond the capability of one person. Further he argues that he would not simply discard those images he felt did not meet the criteria of the specific project but examine them to learn from his mistakes. To this end he argues that those images that are seen to be over or under exposed should be 'dodged' or 'burned' to achieve the exposure levels that allow an informed judgement of its worth.
Whilst it is possible that Hurn had an assistant(s) to do the technical work I assume that he would do the final selection himself and, because they would be his 'mistakes', study the rejects to see how he could improve his photography in the future. Frankly put he would never have time to produce the final images! Even the most practiced eye would require a finite amount of time to select the best shots and learn from the worst.
I would argue that quantity should never be the aim in the hope that somewhere in the day's shooting there is at least one image worthy of taking its place in the photographic essay or the exhibition. The student and amateur photographer is frequently exhorted to "get it right in the camera" even now when most have access to powerful software that can 'rescue' the most unpromising shot. The advice is good (although needs to be tempered with the overriding need to get the photograph) because it underlines the need to engage the mind at the same time as engaging the "inner eye". The benefits of taking an appropriate period of time in getting the image with its final place being part of the thinking far outweigh the machine gun approach to photography. Experience and practice will reduce the time to 'realise' the desired shot. It follows that we then increase the chances of an improved hit rate which if it moves from 1/100 to 1/50 doubles the time we have to improve our chances further.
In fairness to Hurn he argues that "...it is not a learning process to wander around banging off frames of film for the sheer fun of shooting pictures."(p99) Yet his bald statements about his success rate strongly implies that 'banging off frames' is what he does.
Being fairly free from other commitments, I am retired, I can and do spend a lot of time examining the output of a day's shooting. Rarely nowadays do I shoot for the fun of it concentrating instead on the requirements of a particular element of the Course I am studying. Shooting wholly in digital and using the RAW setting I am able to quickly download the images to my computer. I can then examine each individual shot (usually in Lightroom and at full size) and make a decision about what images I wish to work further on. Those that are obviously wrong e.g. a picture of the ground because I pressed the shutter release when walking or completely without detail because I took it with the lens cap still on. Others that are under or over exposed by a significant amount and are unlikely to benefit from further work in Photoshop are also discarded. I then look at groups or sets of photographs that are essentially the same shot but taken from a slightly different angle or other reason for the similarity and using Lightroom's 'Survey" facility select the best shot of that group. I work my way through the whole day's shoot in this way ending up with a selection that are worth keeping and are relevant to the project work I am doing. I will then carry out any necessary work to produce a 'final image' and save them in a separate folder keeping a safe copy elsewhere.
I will view the saved images a few days later and make a final choice. It is at this stage that I look at those which did not make the cut and try to decide why they failed to meet the criteria when compared with those that did. What I concentrate on is the framing, composition and lighting of the image as opposed to the actual subject matter. I noticed in a recent batch of images that I have a tendency to cut off people's feet because I am concentrating on the face. The lesson here is to take a fraction of time to look round the frame of the viewfinder to spot anything obvious such as cutting people off at the knees.
Over a period of time I will have accumulated a number of images greater than that required by the Assignment so that further selection is necessary. At this point I will often print the images as I personally find that having the physical photograph in my hand helps me in my decision making. This is the point I have reached in preparation for Assignment 5 of the 'Your Own Portfolio" Course. It should be pointed out that at this stage I have the benefit of my Tutor's comments on many of the images together with his suggestions. These always play a significant part in my decision making. I also value the opinion of my wife who has shown throughout my time with the OCA that her opinion should be taken note of as it more often chimes with that of the assessors. In essence I have tested my response against that of others whose emotional commitment is less than mine so that their views are more closely aligned to objectivity.
I have printed all the images that I feel are worthy of inclusion in my final submission having excluded some at this stage that made it through earlier selection but have been replaced by later images. Now comes the process of final selection and I shall blog about this process as I proceed.
Friday, 29 November 2013
Thursday, 28 November 2013
Sorting things Out
Spent the last few days getting together the material for the final assignment which is to be based on a book. As I look at what I have got now there is a quiet sense of mild panic as I realise the task that I face. The large number of photographs taken over the period of the Course which have been whittled down to about 100 need to be sorted so the final choice tells a story. Whilst I started with an outline plan this has been amended as I have widened the scope of the original project and now I find myself being drawn to a slightly different structure that, whilst remaining within the original remit, offers a better chance of achieving my final aim. I sense that on further sorting I will possibly need further images to fill some gaps but that is yet to be seen.
One wonders how the professionals work who probably work under stricter guidelines and certainly more definite deadlines. At least I have the luxury of some 3 months before I have to commit finally so I have some breathing space. I have also decided to print off actual copies of the most likely candidates so that I can physically place them in groups which at least allows me to easily make changes.
One wonders how the professionals work who probably work under stricter guidelines and certainly more definite deadlines. At least I have the luxury of some 3 months before I have to commit finally so I have some breathing space. I have also decided to print off actual copies of the most likely candidates so that I can physically place them in groups which at least allows me to easily make changes.
Friday, 22 November 2013
Printing Black and White
Attended a Course in Black and White printing led by Paul Gallagher yesterday (21.11.13). Paul who learnt his trade in the darkroom and references most of his lecture to this base nevertheless works in the digital world. Most of the day was devoted to getting the image ready for printing and began with the most basic of introductions to Photoshop - particularly ACR (Camera Raw) - but gradually worked through Paul's workflow to reaching the final product ready for printing. A great believer in 'doing it yourself' and dismissing presets and software such as Silver Efex Pro as being limiting and not producing the best print possible. I am nor sure that I was entirely sold on this approach. Presets make for a good starting position and, when understood, can lead to very successful outcomes. As always the trick is to use the software as an aid rather than pressing the button and feeling that is enough. Having said that one cannot deny that the work Paul produced was stunning. I have very little doubt that I will be using the lessons learnt on the Course to improve my work.
I am not quite sure why but a small part of the time available was devoted to the tilt and shift lens with Paul eulogising about its ability, used properly, to ensure that everything between the nearest and furthest objects in an image were pin sharp. Paul is an excellent landscape photographer and apparently uses this facility in his work. I was left asking the question - Why? The viewer requires clues about the relationship of elements within the photograph. One of these is that distant objects appear less sharp than those in the foreground. To remove this element seems to me to be self defeating because it introduces a feeling of uncertainty - a feeling that may not be capable of expression just a sense of unease. One of the mantras of photography is 'pin sharp' or 'tack sharp' but if one isn't careful the end result can be seen/felt as false - it does not match with our expectations. The level of sharpness across an image may be important (not necessarily in all images) and lack thereof a sign of poor performance by the photographer but it should be tempered by what our expectations are.
It was a great day and I learnt a great deal.
I am not quite sure why but a small part of the time available was devoted to the tilt and shift lens with Paul eulogising about its ability, used properly, to ensure that everything between the nearest and furthest objects in an image were pin sharp. Paul is an excellent landscape photographer and apparently uses this facility in his work. I was left asking the question - Why? The viewer requires clues about the relationship of elements within the photograph. One of these is that distant objects appear less sharp than those in the foreground. To remove this element seems to me to be self defeating because it introduces a feeling of uncertainty - a feeling that may not be capable of expression just a sense of unease. One of the mantras of photography is 'pin sharp' or 'tack sharp' but if one isn't careful the end result can be seen/felt as false - it does not match with our expectations. The level of sharpness across an image may be important (not necessarily in all images) and lack thereof a sign of poor performance by the photographer but it should be tempered by what our expectations are.
It was a great day and I learnt a great deal.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Sontag On Photography - Relevance Today
Much of what Sontag said in the late 70's is relevant today although the ambiguities found throughout the book means that it is possible to find support for any point of view considered today. The cultural element that leads us to interpret images in an unique way remains as true today as it was when Sontag was writing. Whilst camera technology has changed almost out of recognition in the past 40 years the photographer has not. We still make decisions at the time of taking that support our view of what should, and equally importantly, should not be in the photograph. Whether we consciously seek the 'proper moment' or the 'decisive moment' is probably not known, even to ourselves, but we will go to extraordinary lengths to get the 'righ't light, the 'right' elements and the 'right' action to ensure, as far as possible, the 'right' image. We remain the 'deciders' about our photography albeit we do not make the final judgement about its worthiness.
How we view images has also changed over the years. It is true to say that the majority of photographs are not seen as prints. The most common viewing is on a digital device that emphasises the transient nature of what we are seeing. We can flick through literally hundreds of images; only pausing now and again to look longer at a particular image. There is no direct physical contact with a tangible thing so that there is no sense other than sight involved in what we are doing. Sontag talks in her book of photographs becoming more beautiful as they become older as though the passage of time and the 'patina' they acquire through handling bestows upon them an additional element. She even praises the creasing and scratches and the fading and the shift in colour that occurs in photographs. None of these things can be experienced through the medium of the computer. A photograph will remain as it is on every showing until we can no longer view it because of its outdated technology.
There is also the impact upon our thinking of an image that offers a glimpse of a past that we have not experienced or only vaguely remember or a reminder of relatives long dead - a glimpse into our place in life's continuum. Such impact can also be created by viewing on a digital device but there is the very real risk that the sheer volume of images and the existence of moving images on DVD's or other storage will condition us to ignore the still image.
As viewers we are increasingly becoming immune to the shock value of an image whether it be beauty or horror. We are surrounded on all sides by images that initially shocked and then became commonplace. Pictures of starving children on the African continent are part of the daily fare served up in newsreels, adverts and commercial breaks. They are rapidly becoming that most dreadful fate for all that we see - wallpaper. The horror of war impinges less and less upon our emotions as the level of horror shown on our television screens becomes ever more horrific. Sometimes I wonder if the films shot at the end of the Second World War of the victims of the concentration camps which show shocked our forebears would raise an eyebrow in the present generation. Our culture is changing and so is the way that we interpret images but it remains the case that we continue to interpret photographs through the distorting lens of this culture.
It is difficult to imagine a time in the future when all the controversies that surround photography together with the desire of photographers to glorify their work (is it art or is it not art? - a question that is unanswerable because there is no universally accepted definition) have disappeared. As long as human beings are both the producers and consumers of photographs the controversy will happily continue. Whilst it is possible to imagine photographs being created by robotic beings who apply strict logic (think of the cameras today that take much of the decision making away from the human operator) as long as human beings are the arbiters of taste then the arguments and endless books discussing the subject will continue.
How we view images has also changed over the years. It is true to say that the majority of photographs are not seen as prints. The most common viewing is on a digital device that emphasises the transient nature of what we are seeing. We can flick through literally hundreds of images; only pausing now and again to look longer at a particular image. There is no direct physical contact with a tangible thing so that there is no sense other than sight involved in what we are doing. Sontag talks in her book of photographs becoming more beautiful as they become older as though the passage of time and the 'patina' they acquire through handling bestows upon them an additional element. She even praises the creasing and scratches and the fading and the shift in colour that occurs in photographs. None of these things can be experienced through the medium of the computer. A photograph will remain as it is on every showing until we can no longer view it because of its outdated technology.
There is also the impact upon our thinking of an image that offers a glimpse of a past that we have not experienced or only vaguely remember or a reminder of relatives long dead - a glimpse into our place in life's continuum. Such impact can also be created by viewing on a digital device but there is the very real risk that the sheer volume of images and the existence of moving images on DVD's or other storage will condition us to ignore the still image.
As viewers we are increasingly becoming immune to the shock value of an image whether it be beauty or horror. We are surrounded on all sides by images that initially shocked and then became commonplace. Pictures of starving children on the African continent are part of the daily fare served up in newsreels, adverts and commercial breaks. They are rapidly becoming that most dreadful fate for all that we see - wallpaper. The horror of war impinges less and less upon our emotions as the level of horror shown on our television screens becomes ever more horrific. Sometimes I wonder if the films shot at the end of the Second World War of the victims of the concentration camps which show shocked our forebears would raise an eyebrow in the present generation. Our culture is changing and so is the way that we interpret images but it remains the case that we continue to interpret photographs through the distorting lens of this culture.
It is difficult to imagine a time in the future when all the controversies that surround photography together with the desire of photographers to glorify their work (is it art or is it not art? - a question that is unanswerable because there is no universally accepted definition) have disappeared. As long as human beings are both the producers and consumers of photographs the controversy will happily continue. Whilst it is possible to imagine photographs being created by robotic beings who apply strict logic (think of the cameras today that take much of the decision making away from the human operator) as long as human beings are the arbiters of taste then the arguments and endless books discussing the subject will continue.
Tuesday, 19 November 2013
On Photography - Susan Sontag
The copy of the book - On Photography written by Susan Sontag - that I have used was published by Penguin Books England in 1979. One of the first things that I noticed was that throughout the book Sontag presumes that the reader will know who the people are mentioned. There is no usual references and frequently no first names. First published in 1977 in the United States of America and Canada it was published in Great Britain in 1978. In a foreword to the book Sontag writes - "It all started with one essay - about some of the problems, aesthetic and moral, posed by the omnipresence of photographed images..." The final result was 6 essays entitled "In Plato's Cave"*; America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly; Melancholy Objects; The Heroism of Vision; Photographic Evangels; and "The Image World". Although it was tempting to follow the same structure and consider each essay in its own right I decided to explore Sontag's views on the three main elements of Photography - the Photographer; the Photograph; and the Viewer. In part my decision was based on the overlap between the essays on these elements.
Photographers
It is a statement of the obvious to say that without photographers there would be no photographs for the photographer chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what shall be photographed. As Sontag states (p.11 note all page numbers reference the page in the edition I used) - "A photograph is not just the result of an encounter between an event and a photographer; picture taking is an event in itself, and one with ever more peremptory rights - to interfere with, to invade or to ignore whatever is going on". The act of ignoring happenings surrounding the chosen subject of the picture is to exclude context that may be important to understanding and subsequent cropping is not only used to achieve a better composition but also to exclude elements that would detract from or confuse the message that the photographer wishes to convey. Whatever the claims photographers may make that they wish only to record reality they are always conditioned by their understanding of taste and conscience and what makes a great image.
As a student I often come across the phrase "photographic seeing" and yet I have never been sure what the term means as it seems to be one of those things that defies a consensus view among photographers. There is a commonality of view among photographic writers that to ensure a good photograph you must first see it in your imagination - a first construct of your mind. Stieglitz (Alfred 1864 - 1946) "proudly reports that he stood for three hours during a blizzard on February 22 1893 "awaiting the proper moment" to take his celebrated picture "Fifth Avenue, Winter" (p.90). Sontag suggests that the "proper moment" is when one can see things (especially what everyone has already seen) in a fresh way. It is not until you think about Sontag's statement that you realise that it is actually not very helpful having substituted one phrase (fresh way) for another (proper moment). Cartier-Bresson (Henri 1908 - 2004) talks of the 'decisive moment' which is only slightly more revealing.
For Sontag photographic seeing ..."turns out to be mainly the practice of a kind of dissociative seeing, a subjective habit which is reinforced by the objective discrepancies between the way that the camera and the human eye focus and judge perspective" (p.97).
To distinguish between the professional and amateur photographer in terms of their approach to photography is no easy task. Professional photographers are more likely to defend the place of photography in the world of art or in revealing of truth. Sontag claims that virtually every important photographer has written "expounding photography's moral and aesthetic mission" (p115). Some, such as McCullin (Don 1935 - ), believe their work can reveal truth and change the world for the better only to be disillusioned by pressing reality. One wonders how many conflict areas McCullin had to photograph before he realised that the same thing was happening only the characters and the scenery changed. Perhaps even more alarming is the possibility by the public's constant exposure to his and others work we became immune to the true horror of what was being presented and no more real than such films as "Saving Private Ryan".
Professional photographers will also emphasise the non-partisan, non-involved nature of their work. Sontag makes reference to Diane Arbus (1923 - 1971) - "Arbus's photographs - with their acceptance of the appalling - suggest a naivite which is both coy and sinister, for it is based on distance, on privilege, on a feeling that what the viewer is asked to look at is really the "other". (p.34). On page 39 Sontag makes, what to me is a startling statement - "The fact of her suicide seems to guarantee that her work is sincere, not voyeuristic, that it is compassionate, not cold. Her suicide also seems to make the phtographs more devastating, as if it proved the photographs to have been dangerous to her." It seems odd,to say the least, that suicide can in some way legitimise the work of the person killing herself. It could equally be said that her suicide followed a realisation of the nature of her intrusion into people's lives.
Professional photographers are also more likely to emphasise the level of skill needed to take a great image whilst having to acknowledge the chance element in their success. Recent developments in cameras and their inclusion in a whole range of devices increase the chances of the amateur capturing that "proper moment". As Sontag states "..there are pictures taken by anonymous amateurs which are just as interesting, as complex formally, as representative of photography's characteristics as a Stieglitz....p.132.
I would like to finish this section with two further quotes from Sontag:
"The photographer - and the consumer of photographs - follows the footsteps of the ragpicker who was one of Beaudelaire's (Charles Pierre 1821 - 1867) favorite figures for the modern poet:
Everything that the big city threw away, everything it lost, everything it despised, everything it
crushed underfoot, he catalogues and collects...He sorts things out and makes a wise choice; he collects like a miser guarding a treasure, the refuse which will assume the shape of useful or gratifying objects between the jaws of the goddess of industry". (p.78)
"...1928 silent film, The Cameraman,...has an inept Buster Keaton vainly struggling with his dilapidated apparatus...never managing to take one decent picture, yet finally getting some great footage...by inadvertence. It is the hero's pet monkey who loads the camera with film and operates it part of the time." (p.53)
Perhaps the greatest character asset the photographer should have is humility.
* Plato's Cave - Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe names to these shadows. According to Plato's Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)
Photographs
Photographers
It is a statement of the obvious to say that without photographers there would be no photographs for the photographer chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what shall be photographed. As Sontag states (p.11 note all page numbers reference the page in the edition I used) - "A photograph is not just the result of an encounter between an event and a photographer; picture taking is an event in itself, and one with ever more peremptory rights - to interfere with, to invade or to ignore whatever is going on". The act of ignoring happenings surrounding the chosen subject of the picture is to exclude context that may be important to understanding and subsequent cropping is not only used to achieve a better composition but also to exclude elements that would detract from or confuse the message that the photographer wishes to convey. Whatever the claims photographers may make that they wish only to record reality they are always conditioned by their understanding of taste and conscience and what makes a great image.
As a student I often come across the phrase "photographic seeing" and yet I have never been sure what the term means as it seems to be one of those things that defies a consensus view among photographers. There is a commonality of view among photographic writers that to ensure a good photograph you must first see it in your imagination - a first construct of your mind. Stieglitz (Alfred 1864 - 1946) "proudly reports that he stood for three hours during a blizzard on February 22 1893 "awaiting the proper moment" to take his celebrated picture "Fifth Avenue, Winter" (p.90). Sontag suggests that the "proper moment" is when one can see things (especially what everyone has already seen) in a fresh way. It is not until you think about Sontag's statement that you realise that it is actually not very helpful having substituted one phrase (fresh way) for another (proper moment). Cartier-Bresson (Henri 1908 - 2004) talks of the 'decisive moment' which is only slightly more revealing.
For Sontag photographic seeing ..."turns out to be mainly the practice of a kind of dissociative seeing, a subjective habit which is reinforced by the objective discrepancies between the way that the camera and the human eye focus and judge perspective" (p.97).
To distinguish between the professional and amateur photographer in terms of their approach to photography is no easy task. Professional photographers are more likely to defend the place of photography in the world of art or in revealing of truth. Sontag claims that virtually every important photographer has written "expounding photography's moral and aesthetic mission" (p115). Some, such as McCullin (Don 1935 - ), believe their work can reveal truth and change the world for the better only to be disillusioned by pressing reality. One wonders how many conflict areas McCullin had to photograph before he realised that the same thing was happening only the characters and the scenery changed. Perhaps even more alarming is the possibility by the public's constant exposure to his and others work we became immune to the true horror of what was being presented and no more real than such films as "Saving Private Ryan".
Professional photographers will also emphasise the non-partisan, non-involved nature of their work. Sontag makes reference to Diane Arbus (1923 - 1971) - "Arbus's photographs - with their acceptance of the appalling - suggest a naivite which is both coy and sinister, for it is based on distance, on privilege, on a feeling that what the viewer is asked to look at is really the "other". (p.34). On page 39 Sontag makes, what to me is a startling statement - "The fact of her suicide seems to guarantee that her work is sincere, not voyeuristic, that it is compassionate, not cold. Her suicide also seems to make the phtographs more devastating, as if it proved the photographs to have been dangerous to her." It seems odd,to say the least, that suicide can in some way legitimise the work of the person killing herself. It could equally be said that her suicide followed a realisation of the nature of her intrusion into people's lives.
Professional photographers are also more likely to emphasise the level of skill needed to take a great image whilst having to acknowledge the chance element in their success. Recent developments in cameras and their inclusion in a whole range of devices increase the chances of the amateur capturing that "proper moment". As Sontag states "..there are pictures taken by anonymous amateurs which are just as interesting, as complex formally, as representative of photography's characteristics as a Stieglitz....p.132.
I would like to finish this section with two further quotes from Sontag:
"The photographer - and the consumer of photographs - follows the footsteps of the ragpicker who was one of Beaudelaire's (Charles Pierre 1821 - 1867) favorite figures for the modern poet:
Everything that the big city threw away, everything it lost, everything it despised, everything it
crushed underfoot, he catalogues and collects...He sorts things out and makes a wise choice; he collects like a miser guarding a treasure, the refuse which will assume the shape of useful or gratifying objects between the jaws of the goddess of industry". (p.78)
"...1928 silent film, The Cameraman,...has an inept Buster Keaton vainly struggling with his dilapidated apparatus...never managing to take one decent picture, yet finally getting some great footage...by inadvertence. It is the hero's pet monkey who loads the camera with film and operates it part of the time." (p.53)
Perhaps the greatest character asset the photographer should have is humility.
* Plato's Cave - Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe names to these shadows. According to Plato's Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)
Photographs
"...first of all a photograph is not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stenciled off the real, like a footprint or a death mask...a photograph is never less than the registering of an emanation (light waves reflected by objects) - a material vestige of a subject in a way that no painting can be" p.154
Sontag offers a number of statements about the photograph and here she offers an almost magical explanation - the photograph captures the uniqueness of the subject as 'seen' by the camera. We are offered an interpretation of reality not reality itself. Yet later in the book (p163) we are told that "photographs are a way of imprisoning reality, understood as recalcitrant, inaccessible of making it stand still." This ambiguity is evident throughout the book one of the earlier statements (p.3) being that "Photographs really are experience captured." [ Sontag argues on p.52 that surrealism is at the heart of the photographic process because photography by its creation of a duplicate world - real;ity in the second degree]
The photograph in its essential state is an image printed on some form of medium is part of the real world (I am avoiding here the philosophical arguments as to what constitutes 'real' instead taking a pragmatic approach that if I can sense an object using one of my senses then it is 'real'). What is less certain is whether what I 'see', in the wider sense of interpretation and understanding, is reality. Sontag argues (p.5) that photographs are not so much statements about the world but miniatures of reality that can be created by anyone. Most of us will accept that what we see in a photograph is proof that the subject matter was in front of the camera at the time the photograph was taken and, further than this, that it is sufficient proof of something happening. Whilst their is a healthy cynicism about the veracity of the photograph rarely do we challenge what we see unless it clashes with our fundamental understanding of the world around us. Photographs reinforce our world view.
Yet is this world view universal or are we alone in what we 'see' when we look at a photograph? Sontag gives a range of statements about what a photograph can tell us from "a photograph passes as incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened" (p.5); "In the fairy tale of photography the magic box insures veracity and banishes error, compensates for inexperience and rewards innocence" (p.53); and "the force of photographic images comes from their being material realities in their own right, richly informative deposits left in the wake of whatever emitted them, potent means for turning the tables on reality - for turning it into a shadow. Images are more real than anyone could have supposed." (p.150).
Can these statements be held to be true if we are also told:-
"The ultimate wisdom of the photographic image is to say: "There is the surface. Now think - or rather feel, intuit - what is beyond it, what the reality must be like if it looks this way" Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation and fantasy." (p.23).
Unable to speak to us the photograph relies upon our ability to interpret what we see in such a way as to have awareness of the message that the creator of the image intended. That the creator is aware that the message may not be heard or seen offers the reason why photographs are often accompanied by text designed to guide our thinking - to set our thought processes on the road to the desired conclusion . That this is a fruitless quest is evidenced by how we do not understand how to react to a particular photograph unless we can place it within our world view. It matters not what we are told if the understanding from that telling is at odds with what we believe to be true.
The Viewer
As suggested in the previous paragraph how we interpret photographs is personal and, to others, unpredictable. We need to know or, at least feel that we know, what it is that we are looking at when viewing a photograph. We have to be able to place it within a reference frame that we understand. As Sontag says (p.19) we have to have a political consciousness to be affected morally by a photograph. How we react to images of the people living in the ghettoes of Poland in 1938 depends upon our knowing what their future held. If we are aware that nearly all of those we see in the images will die in camps we will have a different reaction to that if we knew nothing of their fate. She further argues that because each photograph is only a fragment, its moral emotional weight depends upon where it is inserted. A photograph changes according to the context in which it is seen. (p 105). Not only do we see the photograph through the filters of our own world view but that world view is altered by where we see the image.
The vast majority of photographs are viewed privately or in the company of a few others. Whether it be looking through a family album or browsing through Flickr our surroundings are familiar to us and we can allow our feelings free rein. What we 'see' are snapshots - a much abused term that is more often than not used in a derogatory form. We are ready to accept the imperfections and are usually uncritical of failures to follow the rules of composition or placement of the subject. What, however, if we are viewing a photograph in a Gallery or Museum. Our perception and expectations change. What we demand of the image is something approaching perfection. The paradox is that we may well see the same photograph, albeit enlarged, as we saw in more comfortable surroundings yet demand more of it.
Where we view the image impacts directly upon our responses - in a museum or gallery our judgement of the image is constrained by the often unstated belief that because it is hanging on the wall of the Museum of Modern Art in New York or Tate Modern in London it is in some way 'better' or a work of art. We allow our own personal judgement to be suspended, to replace it by the judgement of those who chose the images that hang in front of us. We feel uncomfortable and ask questions of ourselves if in some way we do not like some of the display. Sontag (p.135) in suggesting why we like a particular image writes "to prefer one photograph to another seldom means only that the photograph is judged to be superior formally, it almost always means - as in more casual kinds of looking - that the viewer prefers that kind of mood, or respects that intention, or is intrigued by (or feels nostalgic about) that subject". Whilst this is true at one level I believe that it understates the power of the placement of an image to affect our feelings about it.
The photographer strives to capture the proper/decisive moment or strives to find that shot that tells the story s/he wants the image to communicate to the viewer but it is all in vain. What we see in a photograph is a combination of expectation, desire and our cultural background. To finish with a quote found on page 170: " .....in China.....Not only are there proper subjects for the camera, those which are positive, inspirational (exemplary activities, smiling people, bright weather), and orderly, but there are proper ways of photographing, which derive from notions about the moral order of space that preclude the very idea of photographic seeing".
The vast majority of photographs are viewed privately or in the company of a few others. Whether it be looking through a family album or browsing through Flickr our surroundings are familiar to us and we can allow our feelings free rein. What we 'see' are snapshots - a much abused term that is more often than not used in a derogatory form. We are ready to accept the imperfections and are usually uncritical of failures to follow the rules of composition or placement of the subject. What, however, if we are viewing a photograph in a Gallery or Museum. Our perception and expectations change. What we demand of the image is something approaching perfection. The paradox is that we may well see the same photograph, albeit enlarged, as we saw in more comfortable surroundings yet demand more of it.
Where we view the image impacts directly upon our responses - in a museum or gallery our judgement of the image is constrained by the often unstated belief that because it is hanging on the wall of the Museum of Modern Art in New York or Tate Modern in London it is in some way 'better' or a work of art. We allow our own personal judgement to be suspended, to replace it by the judgement of those who chose the images that hang in front of us. We feel uncomfortable and ask questions of ourselves if in some way we do not like some of the display. Sontag (p.135) in suggesting why we like a particular image writes "to prefer one photograph to another seldom means only that the photograph is judged to be superior formally, it almost always means - as in more casual kinds of looking - that the viewer prefers that kind of mood, or respects that intention, or is intrigued by (or feels nostalgic about) that subject". Whilst this is true at one level I believe that it understates the power of the placement of an image to affect our feelings about it.
The photographer strives to capture the proper/decisive moment or strives to find that shot that tells the story s/he wants the image to communicate to the viewer but it is all in vain. What we see in a photograph is a combination of expectation, desire and our cultural background. To finish with a quote found on page 170: " .....in China.....Not only are there proper subjects for the camera, those which are positive, inspirational (exemplary activities, smiling people, bright weather), and orderly, but there are proper ways of photographing, which derive from notions about the moral order of space that preclude the very idea of photographic seeing".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)