Combining photos with words?

I tend to shoot with specific themes in mind and I usually end up

assembling my pictures on a theme into some kind of photo-essay

format. Sometimes the pictures stand alone, and sometimes I like to

add words. For me, both ways are equally valid expressions. I think

some people see this issue quite differently, maintaining that

pairing their pictures with words devalues the photo work. <br> 

  For some examples of what I am referring to, one place to look

is the "New Yorker Magazine" which recently has been showing the work

of big name documentary photographers along with related articles.

Recent issues have paired articles with the work of Mark Leong,

Martin Schoeller, Richard Avedon, Gilles Peress, Sylvia Plachy, and

Mary Ellen Mark.<br>    I don't see the work of those

photographers suffering from attachment to text. There is,

furthermore, an element of synergistic collaboration that I think

produces something of artistic value that rises above either the

words or pictures alone. I realize that most of the photographs have

been commissioned specifically to accompany the articles, but that

does not necesarrily mean that the photographers would not prefer to

see their work exhibited differently; I don't know how any of them

really feel about that. What else am I missing?

Mike, look into some of Robert Franks work also.

I think narrations do give photos more meanings. Unless the context is known to the public, photos tend to be private/personal. Most people take photo for a reason; it can be aesthetic, education, emotion, self satisfaction, ...

 

Although not explicitly street photography, an example of what I am trying to say can be found here

http://www.rollei-gallery.net/ridings/folder-5142.html

I'll put Franks on my list for my next visit to the NMSU Library, which is about the only likely place around here to find photo literature.<br>    I thought the combinations of words with those rollei shots was quite appropriate. Just to clarify my proposition, though, I was not suggesting that pictures with words are superior to pictures-only presentations, but that they are of equal artistic value to me. My thought was that if we could come up with some points of view from people who feel strongly about the issue, it would be a useful starting point for the discussion. Perhaps it is not as contentious and issue as I had thought.<br>    Whatever the case, the general subject of documentary presentation styles is of great interest to me. I'd be happy to look at any sort of idea around this general topic.

Small aside. One of my favorite photographers is Robert Franks. I believe his classic book 'The Americans' was reprinted a short while ago and may still be found. He also produced a number of others, 'Lines of My Hand' is the only other one I can recall just now.

 

Another item by Franks is the Rolling Stones album cover 'Exile on Main Street' + the postcards that came as an insert. The images were all shot in Super 8. The story I heard was that on the way from the airport to the photo shoot he got high on some powder that the Stones had thoughtfully provided along with the limo. Too wasted to change the film in his 35mm camera the only option was to use a Super 8 he had along for the ride. I don't know if it is true or not.

Just an aside, it's Robert Frank, not Franks.

When I think of combining photos with words I think of Duane Michals.

Duane Michals was one of the very first photographers who used words and text with/in his photographs to evoke a certain feeling and mood that would not have been sensed without the text.

His handwritings in his phothographs create a surreal narrative between the two mediums.

Thanks Jeff, it is Robert Frank. I was just trying not to spoil the flow :-) One good thing, thinking about Frank made me dig out my old copy of the Americans. From the intro...

 

"Robert Frank, Swiss, unobtrusive, nice, with that little camera that he raises and snaps with one hand he sucked a sad poem right out of America onto film, taking rank among the tragic poets of the world.

 

To Robert Frank I now give this message: You got eyes."

 

Jack Kerouac

Thanks for the good suggestions about specific photographers who have blended words and pictures with success. I have a passing familiarity with quite a number of them. But, looking at a selection of an artist's work clearly is not the same as devoting the necessary time to looking at a body of work in depth. A good reminder that there is no art without context.

Speaking of words and pictures, I heard an interesting story last night about the disassociation of the two. Had a great evening attending a slide presentation by the wildlife documentarian, Subhankar Banerjee. I had read several accounts some time ago about how his exhibit on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge was banished to a basement gallery at the Smithsonian after Barbara Boxer displayed Banerjee's book on the Senate floor during a debate over oil drilling in the sanctuary. What I hadn't heard before last night was that all of the captions and explanatory material accompanying the pictures were removed and replaced with simple titles like "bird", "caribou", etc.<br>    The Administration's clumsy attemp at censorship turned into one of the most incredible triumphs of an artist in history. A couple big foundations rushed in to promote Banerjee's book and to set up his speaking and exhibit tours. At the time, Banerjee was $100,000 in debt from financing the project himself to that point. He was not yet a mature artist as this was his first big effort, and his book could have ended up on the remainder tables in short order. Instead, the young photographer is riding high with every prospect for an astonishing career. I assume his next book will be prefaced with an appropriate note of thanks to George W. Bush.

I personally have never understood the idea that that pairing photos with words somehow devalues the photo.

 

While a photo is supposedly worth a thousand words, photography is also an inherently superficial medium. In that supposedly inferior thousand words, you can provide much more depth and context than photography alone can provide. The photo, on the other hand, often provides what words can't -- what Maria Szulc called gut impact in a previous thread on this topic.

 

It's possible to combine photos with text in a clumsy way, thereby trashing the entire presentation. On the other hand, the two media combined can be stronger than either would be on its own.

I'll take a slightly contrarian view on this. I have no problem with words going with photos, it certainly depends on the photographers' intention for the words and *Art* doesn't have any rules valid enough that they can't be broken and still produce good art but... to the extent that words are there to *explain* the image, then I think it implies either a bad image or an empty image.

How much does an image (or musical offering or sculpture etc) need explained context? I'm sure that Mahler had a personal context for the musical images in his 9th symphony and I don't know what they are and still love the symphony. I'm sure that Rothko had a creative context for the Seagrams paintings I was looking at yesterday but I don't know that context and still find the paintings awesome (in the non-collequial sense). I think that its true for all enduring creative works that they can stand on their own without a little attached note telling us the *key* to understanding them (a joke which needs to be explained...). The key I guess is not to be bogged down in rules like a photo shouldn't/should have text but to make the text a meaningful adjunct.

 

New Yorker Magazine adding text to photographs is different from the photographer themself adding text. In your case, if you feel that text adds value, put the text and don't worry about those who disagree. There are people who will disagree with you no matter what you do. If you really have something to say, say it the way you think it comes out best. My 2c

Those are good points that Eric has made. A good test is probably to separate photos from any text they might be attached to in order to see how well they can stand alone. Of course, the meaning will be altered, but that may only point to the fact that good pictures have several or many dimensions which may be differently emphasized by the context they are seen in.<br>    I tend to think of documentary subjects and treatments as being more amenable to word/picture combinations partly because there seems to be more of a need for specificity in regard to time and place. However, the best photographers also have a way of portraying ideas with universal appeal even while focusing on very narrowly delimited subjects.<br>    I'm thinking now especially of the FSA photographers whose work stands up very well even today. Of course, even in those cases, time does alter perceptions of the messages in the photos, whether viewed singly, in multi-picture groupings or in conjuction with text. For a couple decades after Dorothea Lange produced "Migrant Mother" it was no doubt associated primarily with the rigors of the Depression. These days, I would guess that the picture is seen more as an illustration of human suffering in more universal terms, and similar to what one might see in Bosnia, Ruwanda, Afghanistan, and many other places.

Eric's point is sound but he's missing the point -- the idea isn't to strengthen weak photos with words, but to use words to provide depth and context that photography -- no matter how strong -- can't provide on its own.

 

Consider W. Eugene Smith's "Tomoko in her Bath." This photo certainly stands on its own, but it provides no information on mercury poisoning or industrial pollution. It can only say so much, without text or additional photography to add context. That's the "synergistic collaboration" Mike wrote of -- you're not bolstering a weak image, you're creating work more powerful than the sum of its parts.

 

Photography is limited by its inherent superficiality. It can only show the outward appearance of things, and this is a severe obstacle when dealing with complex ideas or with things that are not readily apparent -- such as mercury pollution.

Thanks for providing that example of Gene Smith and the mercury poisoning essay. Much better than any I had come up with so far. And, I think Smith is a good example because he provided everything from initial conceptualization to the details of the text in many cases. I don't think Eric missed that point so much as he was just expanding the discussion in a slightly different direction. It is true that the meaning of the pictures in the example is lost or changed to some extent in viewing the photos out of context, but they are still powerful images. Part of Smith's appeal is due to the fact that he clung very tenanciously to his ideas about presenting his work, though I imagine some editors had different ideas about that.

Have a look at Guillermo LaBarca's presentation 'The Sofa', here on PN. A great example.

Thanks for the heads up on this very original use of words and pictures in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=243672">The Sofa</a> by Guillermo LaBarca. It certainly demonstrates that the combination of words and pictures need not be confined solely to a documentary style. I would guess that there are many examples of good photo essays in the form of Photo.net presentation pages. Unfortunately, there is no good way to find them specifically, and browsing does not seem to be a viable option.<br>    I have so far used the presentation page format to put together little stories about my old camera collection. However, I think the format does lend it self to a variety of photo essay forms; it is easier than writing all the html code yourself, and it is nice to have someone else worrying about the details of site maintenance. The main downside is that you must first upload the individual photos to a folder which often becomes a target for piece-meal and inappropriate ratings. My effort to get around that consists of placing a statement with each picture that it is being uploaded for inclusion in a presentation. I also usually include a direct url link in the technical description to the presentation itself.<br>    It is also neither expensive nor difficult to set up photo essays on your own web site, which is what I prefer for what I consider to be my better work. I have experimented with several simple styles of organizing pictures with and without words, usually in some kind of two or three-cell table format. I'm thinking now about the possibility of using an image map rather than thumbnails as I have always done in the past. My web site with several documentary photo essays is at <a href="http://www.zianet.com/connealy/">www.zianet.com/connealy</a>.

In a slightly different vein but nominally related... Last night I clicked on that crazy-

looking pink-sky tree picture on the front page of Photo.net because I was tired of

seeing it there, and wondered what the deal was.

 

Well I went from being grossed out by that one picture to being enchanted by the

author's words-and-pictures-poem-thing pretty dang quick.

 

Perhaps most here have seen the "featured presentation" by Jean Schweitzer, but it

was my first time.

 

It's not exactly documentary, and I don't think there's but one person in it, but it is a

right nifty merging of words and pictures, and it's done in a style that could inform a

documentary presenation, if you interpret that tradition loosely.