Representing Cities

"I think the problem you describe occurs only because you see documentary photography as being objective. I'd submit that many documentary photographers don't view their work as objective."

 

Oh on the contrary, I rarely view documantary photography as objective and I know there are many "documentary" photographers who don't view their work as objective.

 

But I would say (and perhaps objective is the wrong word?) there is a widely held understanding among perhaps a majority of photographers, and certainly the viewing public, that documentary photography strives for that sense of objectivity, neutrality, conveying reality and so on (which, in the final analysis probably doesn't exist within photography anyway).

 

In a way I am much more at ease with Evan's description of himself as a photographer who works in the documentary style. Which is something quite different. I think all those I listed (and many more) fit much more closely to that description.

 

But I also think there are many "documentary" photographers - who would claim a certain objective, detached approach - who in reality fall much more within that description as well.

<i>I'm glad to know that your beliefs have coalesced into facts.</i><p>

 

I gave examples of street work that fulfills a documentary function. If they aren't, explain how they aren't. Otherwise, it's totally unsupported.

I think we've reached the point where documentarians and their audiences are comfortable with the notion that the enterprise is subjective. The goal is not objectivity (which is impossible) but integrity or intellectual honesty--that the materials have been presented truthfully and accurately, even if they reflect a bias. You can shoot truthfully for Hamas or for the IDF, even though they seem mutually exclusive. Salgado once observed that you photograph with your politics. His are certainly clear, and his biases are well known. That somehow does not interfere with our accepting his photographs as truthful, even if they tell only one side of the globalization story.

"I think we've reached the point where documentarians and their audiences are

comfortable with the notion that the enterprise is subjective. The goal is not

objectivity (which is impossible) but integrity or intellectual honesty--that

the materials have been presented truthfully and accurately, even if they

reflect a bias. You can shoot truthfully for Hamas or for the IDF, even though

they seem mutually exclusive. Salgado once observed that you photograph with

your politics. His are certainly clear, and his biases are well known. That

somehow does not interfere with our accepting his photographs as truthful, even

if they tell only one side of the globalization story."

 

interesting

 

"The goal is not

objectivity (which is impossible) but integrity or intellectual honesty--that

the materials have been presented truthfully and accurately, even if they

reflect a bias."

 

In the end, I'm not quite sure that matters - it is perhaps where the whole issue tips from "documentary" into "art" (maybe it parallels the posed street photography question?).

 

Salgado shaking his fist at subjects to stop them smiling for the camera (presumably because that conveys the wrong impression?) - he gets the picture he wants, to convey his point of view.

 

Gursky's photographs can convey the truth of a situation, even though they are manipulated.

 

Are Evan's FSA photographs documentary photographs or artistic/personal statements?

<i>Are Evan's FSA photographs documentary photographs or artistic/personal statements?</i><P>

Why can't they be both? Again, you seem to be asserting that "documentary" and "objective" are inextricably linked.

"Are Evan's FSA photographs documentary photographs or artistic/personal statements?

Why can't they be both? Again, you seem to be asserting that "documentary" and "objective" are inextricably linked."

 

On the contrary - I do think they are both - but then I also think Wall's and Di Lorca Corcia's are to some extent as well.

Preston's point about honesty is the crux of the issue, for me.

 

Tim, how can you view Jeff Wall's work as documentary? This is where I part ways with this kind of thinking. Although objectivity isn't a criterion, surely working with subjects drawn from the real world rather than constructed by the photographer is. If that criterion is thrown out, I think everything suddenly becomes a documentary photo.

well, you see, I think that in the end there is little difference between these two photographs:<p>

<img src="http://www.riccomaresca.com/Artists/Photography/Delahaye/images/Xlarge.jpg" width="850" height="391"> <br><p>

<p>

and<br>

<p>

<img src="http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/bilder/wall/Dead-Troops-Talk.jpg" width="600" height="332"> <br><p>

 

Wall's subject is as drawn from the real world as Delahaye's <p>

 

In a way both are fiction and both are true (in some ways, especially when the former is dislayed in an art gallery - the context chnign it's meaning and significance). And the photograph itself is always a fiction, a construct, an unreality.

It seems to me that the essential character of documentary photography is mostly being overlooked in this discussion. I think that a photograph has documentary value if it reveals essential characteristics of a specific time and place. The style can be impressionistic and subjective, or "objective", but the specificity is essential. The best documentary photographs will also reveal something that is universal in human understanding, but it will be expressed with reference to a specific time and a place.

What Mike said.

 

All art, with the exception of purely abstract art, could be said to be drawn from the real world. It's how it's drawn from the real world that makes a difference. Accepting subjectivity in documentary photos doesn't mean throwing out the notion that they document an external reality.

'Wall's subject is as drawn from the real world as Delahaye's

 

In a way both are fiction and both are true (in some ways, especially when the former is dislayed in an art gallery - the context chnign it's meaning and significance). And the photograph itself is always a fiction, a construct, an unreality."

 

True, but this is NOT the same thing as saying that there is no difference between the two shots. They have been taken according to quite different protocols - rules, terms of engagement, whatever you want to call it. In other words, the relation between photographer and subject is quite different in them. I always make my terms of engagement quite explicit by shooting according to a manifesto that lists the rules. Of course, this makes the photographer rather than the image the source of authenticity (if I say that I don't direct my subjects, you only have my word for this: it can't be definitively proved by reference to the image). This is where the issue of trust and integrity come in. You can choose to disbelieve me, of course, but that's not my problem. You also have to accept that this rule (or any other rule) is an important spect of the image's meaning, but this acceptance is a variant of the 'suspension of disbelief' that operates in a theatrical performance. It's not an unreasonable demand for a photographer to make.

 

Of course, I don't photograph the 'real' Venice, but on the other hand, I think it would be pretty pointless if all I was offering was a visual diary of my own personal experiences there, because really, why should anyone care? I photograph in the attempt to enter into a dialogue with my subject, which means I am trying to be open to what it has to teach me rather than insisting on imposing a predetermined conclusion upon it. There's a good HCB quotation about this. Part of this 'openness' is trying to find a match between form and content.

 

Objective / subjective. It's not an either / or situation, and treating it as if it is leads you up a cul-de-sac, just as worrying about whether what you do is 'art' does. I'd prefer to use my energy more productively. Good photography abolishes the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective' or makes it seem irrelevant.

"I think that a photograph has documentary value if it reveals essential characteristics of a specific time and place. The style can be impressionistic and subjective, or "objective", but the specificity is essential".

 

I'd go along with this definiton, by the way.

Noll, hello old friend :>

"True, but this is NOT the same thing as saying that there is no difference between the two shots. They have been taken according to quite different protocols - rules, terms of engagement, whatever you want to call it. In other words, the relation between photographer and subject is quite different in them. I always make my terms of engagement quite explicit by shooting according to a manifesto that lists the rules. Of course, this makes the photographer rather than the image the source of authenticity (if I say that I don't direct my subjects, you only have my word for this: it can't be definitively proved by reference to the image). This is where the issue of trust and integrity come in. You can choose to disbelieve me, of course, but that's not my problem. You also have to accept that this rule (or any other rule) is an important spect of the image's meaning, but this acceptance is a variant of the 'suspension of disbelief' that operates in a theatrical performance. It's not an unreasonable demand for a photographer to make.

 

 

Of course, I don't photograph the 'real' Venice, but on the other hand, I think it would be pretty pointless if all I was offering was a visual diary of my own personal experiences there, because really, why should anyone care? I photograph in the attempt to enter into a dialogue with my subject, which means I am trying to be open to what it has to teach me rather than insisting on imposing a predetermined conclusion upon it. There's a good HCB quotation about this. Part of this 'openness' is trying to find a match between form and content."

 

I believe that contrary to what you appear to say, you are indeed doing just the opposite of being "open" and avoiding a pre-determined conclusion. You are overly concerned with rules, manifesto's, red herrings like trust and integrity and so on.

 

I think this shows in your work (or what there is online). It is very tight, controlled, rigid.

 

interestingly you say "just as worrying about whether what you do is 'art' does". Again, you appear to dismiss as a non issue something which in fact you appear to be struggling with - as if banishing it will somehow negate it?

 

One of the important points about "art" is, for example, no one give a damn about the "trust and integrity" or honesty of the artist - as long as they are true to their work and vision. It's a false note introduced into photography due to it's pseudo-realistic way of seeing. Similarly rules and manifesto's - they are for crazy Dadaist's or Scandinavian filmmakers (the whole point of most of them being you state them categorically so you can then go right ahead and break them).

 

"Of course, I don't photograph the 'real' Venice, but on the other hand, I think it would be pretty pointless if all I was offering was a visual diary of my own personal experiences there, because really, why should anyone care?"

 

Again, I think you miss the point completely - in a way it can't be anything but a visual diary of your own experience because it has to be an account of your vision. If your own vision is lacking then no amount of "dialogue with my subject, which means I am trying to be open to what it has to teach me rather than insisting on imposing a predetermined conclusion upon it." is going to change that - it's just psycho-artspeak mumbo jumbo.

 

Your seeing needs to be clearer, you reasons for photographing more articulated (whether externally or internally). Your reliance on rules and manifestos should be abandoned altogether - it's a rigidity that is crippling any potential in your work (and there is potential).

 

You cited Atget in your start to this thread. He is perhaps the clearest, simplest and yet most profound example. At it's core his work is simply about pointing at something, indicating it - a gesture (happily for him, like us, recordable on film). Drawing our attention to something we had never noticed before in the same way - form and content coming together in the most effective way to enable us to notice it as well. Done "with a special grace, sense of timing,

narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with

intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work

of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the

tour, how much of our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the

things pointed to and how much from the pattern created by the pointer"

 

 

Read the essay in the first of the four volume MoMA set on Atget - I think it will tell you all you need about your project on Venice - on which I wish you luck.

 

(and yes - continue to take note of Basilicos numerous Italian projects Especially Cross Sections, or Bergamo [and also Beirut]) In addition also Geoffrey James' "Paris" or his Olmsted environments

Mark, I think we shall have to agree to differ on the various points you raise (trust and integrity are only 'red herrings' if you deify 'artistic vision' at the expense of everything else, which strikes me as a very poor tradeoff). I shall not reply in detail because we have rather drifted off topic (my fault for talking about my work). Anyone want to get us back to cities? Maybe I can start by suggesting that I like Atget because he is a historian - which is my day job.

jonathan,

 

I'm not quite clear what your aim is - either in your work or in this thread?

 

you seem to have made a statement about your work, implying some kind of response and input, yet are dismissive of most of the responses you get.

 

From looking at your work and what you say about it, there does seem something of a disconnect. Both seem to have very clear and rigid boundaries which don't perhaps seem helpful? It certainly doesn't appear to have presented a clear direction in the work. Form rather than place is certainly much more dominant - and apart from a couple of standard setting shots, the particular place doesn't appear to be the context at all.

 

It would be interesting to know a little more about he writing that seems to have inspired this work.

 

I've read a couple of fun detective novels set in Venice, and a number of these photographs would make lovely covers for those sort of books. They also remind me of the Lavazza coffee adverts. You have some strong individual works, but I wonder about the rigour of the vision of a whole series?

 

Again, I don't know if you do this in your writing, but you appear to have hemmed yourself in so tightly with boundaries, there is little room left for exploration and discovery - unless it's on your terms.

jonathan - are you familiar with the book Austerlitz?

 

Although it may perhaps be the opposite of what you describe as your working method, it strikes me there may be a similarity of apprach in the way you use your writing and your photogoraphic style.

 

(I also happen to think Austerlitz is one of the more important books of the last few years - certainly a very evokative document - especially so in it's use of word and image).

darn - wish there was a spellchecker on here...

Well, I wanted to talk about cities, and some people did. Thanks to them.

 

Sorry if I seemed dismissive. I was actually trying to avoid the usual PN problem of being overly defensive, and also trying to nudge the discussion back towards more general points. But since it seems to have run out of steam anyway, I might as well give a reply, to make it clear that I wasn't ignoring criticism.

 

"I believe that contrary to what you appear to say, you are indeed doing just the opposite of being "open" and avoiding a pre-determined conclusion".

Could be. Certainly I have ideas about what sort of thing I want to photograph when I go out. So maybe the stuff about being open is just 'psycho-babble'. But at the very least I would hope that I am offering the viewer something they haven't seen before, or a new way of thinking about Venice, one that might enrich THEIR experience of the city rather than simply telling them about mine. And in fact I know that some viewers do respond in this way. Obviously Atget is the classic example, as Tim suggests.

 

"It is very tight, controlled, rigid".

I don't see any contradiction in being intellectually open but formally rigid - it's the same combination you find in Evans, Basilico, etc.

 

"interestingly you say "just as worrying about whether what you do is 'art' does". Again, you appear to dismiss as a non issue something which in fact you appear to be struggling with - as if banishing it will somehow negate it?"

I don't need the label of 'artist' to feel good about myself. I'm quite content to see photography as an extension of my day job and think of it as history or a critical essay.

 

 

"One of the important points about "art" is, for example, no one give a damn about the "trust and integrity" or honesty of the artist - as long as they are true to their work and vision".

Debateable, but since I'm not an artist, I don't have to be true to a 'vision' at all costs. I am free to consider other issues and values, things like trust and integrity, or play around with rules whose purpose is to replace the Romantic idea of a completely-free creative vision.

 

"Your reliance on rules and manifestos should be abandoned altogether - it's a rigidity that is crippling any potential in your work (and there is potential)".

Oh dear, nobody seems to like rules. But I do, which is why I don't write novels, but history. I subject myself to a series of restrictions there too, which are to do with proper treatment and citation of sources (photographs also 'cite sources', or at least they should do). There's an interesting question here. What if you didn't know there were any rules, would the work still seem 'crippled'? You can watch Festen without knowing it's a Dogme film, for example. Isn't there anybody else who finds the idea of working according to a set of restrictions interesting? Am I so out of step here?

 

 

"From looking at your work and what you say about it, there does seem something of a disconnect. Both [i take it you mean both the pictures and the words?] seem to have very clear and rigid boundaries which don't perhaps seem helpful? It certainly doesn't appear to have presented a clear direction in the work. Form rather than place is certainly much more dominant - and apart from a couple of standard setting shots, the particular place doesn't appear to be the context at all".

Well, obviously it's disappointing to me that this is the impression you get, because that was not my intention. I tried to choose emblematic or important locations and structures that would be unfamiliar to casual visitors. If other viewers feel the same way, then I have failed. I shall have to think about the structure and presentation. What I can do now is post the written introduction as a comment on the first shot in the 'Trace' folder, which I shall do shortly. Maybe this will help clarify things. Anyone who's interested can check it there.

 

 

"Again, I don't know if you do this in your writing, but you appear to have hemmed yourself in so tightly with boundaries, there is little room left for exploration and discovery - unless it's on your terms."

That's not how I see rules working. I see them as stimuli or encouragements to think rigorously. But again I may have failed to work with them effectively.

 

In theory, I should love Austerlitz, but in practice I found it a bit hard-going and austere.

 

Thanks everybody for your thoughts.