Introspective trend in photography.

Looking at the pictures appearing on the site, I find that more and

more photographers tend to create image with an introspective

approach: there's no interest in showing the world or some concrete

aspect or life. People prefer to show intimate portraits, set up

images with complex meanings and similar images.

 

The strange thing is that others seem to prefer this approach as

well. I mean, people rate this kind of imagery more and with better

scores than, say, reportage or street photography. I find some very

good reportagists are totally ignored or receive very low ratings.

 

Do you think this is good or bad? I mean, I believe that expressing

ONLY our personal point of view in any art form is wrong. Notice I

said "ONLY". To me, this is too selfish: we all think our life and

our thoughts are somewhat more important and interesting than

others' but, obviously, they are not.

 

I do think personal expression is fundamental in art, but that

cannot be the only content we are showing. I recently bought a book

from Berengo Gardin to add to my collection, and I found a lot of

pictures showing past ages, beautiful people and lost moments.

Looking here I mostly find images with no story, so I wander wheter

this "normal" for today standards or not.

 

I'd like your thoughts on this!

 

Simone

There is no "Peoples Photography Committee" to yank your permit to carry a camera. There is no right and no wrong, there just "is".

 

Photography is either art or documentary. Sometimes both are in play at once.

 

So if I consider myself an artist how can I judge others other than through a prism of my own thoughts and emotions? Any comment on composition and subject matter will be through that prism.

 

Even technical aspects will be viewed through that prism. Is that blur artistic expression or choice of a poor shutter speed? If the intent was to freeze motion it may have been a technical error but an artistic gift. Only the creator of the image can know this.

 

So you say there are photos with no story behind them. To turn your argument on its head is it not wrong of you to assume there is no story behind them?

 

I have a technically poor shot of a late great aunt I took 20 years ago. To post the shot for critique would generate a thrashing of immense propertions, and justly so because it is technically horrid.

 

But I love that image because it is one of the very few candid images of a woman who hated being photographed. That one poor image has more history and story behind it for me than any coffee table book I have ever read. It is a door to a history running back to the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

There is great irony in your words. In some ways are you not making the same judgement calls by saying you see no story?

 

Are you not being selfish by failing to see that just because you don't see it that it isn't really there?

 

Is it not selfish to think that the creator of the image did so with no real meaning or intent because the style is not to your liking?

 

It's one reason I don't post images and I don't comment on others. My art and my images are for me to enjoy, and I am happy with that regardless of what others think of them.

Simone,

 

Your first question is: I find some very good reportagists are totally ignored or receive very low ratings, and do I think this is good or bad? My answer is, I think it is bad. Asking us to evaluate photographs on "aesthetics" and "originality" ignores the fact that the photograph may have other virtues. On the other hand, I have thought about this a lot and I don't know what else Photo.net might do.

 

As for your second question, I found some photographs by Gianni Berengo Gardin on the Internet. Wonderful work. I have a couple of thoughts about your "images with no story." One thought is that many photographers today are indeed taking pictures with a story. Mostly they are in the "street" category, but stories appear in other categories as well. The other thought is that America, ever since its settlement by Europeans, has always been a land of wide open spaces. Artists (painters, water colorists, photographers, etc.) have always pictured the glories of these wide open spaces, story or not. Maybe it's an American thing. So yes, especially in Photo Critique Forum areas such as nature, landscapes, and closeups, photos without stories are normal.

 

Those are my thoughts.

Bill makes a good point. One of the reasons I rate so few photos is because

of the "aesthetics" rating. How can I rate the aesthitics of an image on a

monitor? I don't believe sublimity can be projected on a monitor. (uh-oh . .

.this is a can of worms I do not wish to open.)

 

Yes, Simone, I believe you are correct that some very good street stuff goes

unappreciated. Is it because knowledge of the craft, i.e. great grab, but no

shadow densities and the highlight are blown? I can't explain it otherwise.

<B>"There is nothing that is not proper to photography - despite the 'experts.'" </B><BR>{from C.J. Laughlin's "First Principles of the Third World of Photography)

To Jeremy

 

>Are you not being selfish by failing to see that just because you >don't see it that it isn't really there?

 

I believe a picture is supposed to "show" something. The image must tell the story, so if I don't see it to me this means the story isn't there. As an artist, a photographer should be able to show you that his pictures have contents rather than telling you. If a picture has got a special value for you, it's fine for me, actually I think it's great! But why show it to others knowing it might have no meaning at all to them?

 

To Bill:

 

Yes, it probably IS a cultural thing, but not strictly connected to American since I see similar pictures taken by my italian friends all the time. Documenting the vast space of the USA is actually a GREAT content to me (I have been there and "space" is the right word to describe your country), but I feel like most landscapes and such things are photographed just because the photographer happens to be there, not following a particoular purpose.

 

To Rich:

 

I've come to think people do not appreciate some kind of imagery simply because they are not used to it and don't understand it. Not that I believe they aren't smart or intelligent enough to do it, but maybe being exposed to the same kind of images over and over can induce neophites to believe that's the right direction to take. When I started photography some years ago I used to dislike reportage pictures as well, but once some good reportagist explained me what was the point the value of these images became evident.

 

Thanks for the nice discussion!

 

Simone

Nice one, Alan :)

 

Simone

Simone: My barber has a sign in his shop. It reads: "What is that haircut really saying?" It is meant to be funny of course, but I often think about it when I look at my photographs and photographs taken by others. With my barber's funny sign in mind, I think: What is that picture really saying?

 

You make an excellent point, and I share your concern. We of the age of fast shutter speeds and heavy glass on our cameras tend to focus on the technical aspects of using our cameras and software. Our images can be sharp and well composed, yet they can somehow fail to tell us "the story." I for one have seen too many photographs that look like they were taken by someone who was speeding down the highway in an air-conditioned car, stopped to take a picture, and then sped off again. If I am not oversimplifying too much, it is hard to tell a story when you don't stop, slow down, and find out what the story is, and then make up your mind to tell it.

 

Since I am by profession a writer, and only an amateur (at my own insistance) picture-taker, I also happen to think that good photos can be helped by well-written titles. Lately I have had occasion to place my photographs beside articles in a publication, and I think each helps the other. But that perhaps is another story.

 

Thank you for a couple of good questions.

I'm not sure that photography should truly tell us anything beyond what is in front of the camera. It's nice to have a "story" in a photo but isn't the fundamental basic merely to capture light at a particular moment whether it tells a story, documents people/things for future remembrance or simply to serve as a reference for future use? I've never understood why some folks insist that if the photograph doesn't leave a 1000 words, then it's not worthy or not special. I guess I'm not big on cliches.

Documentary photography such as journalism or social change/political work comes with framing narrative--this is what I saw, what's happening, or this is what I want you to think about, this is news. Art photography can have a narrative as well, but more modern styles tend not to push that narrative too hard; rather, they tend leave themselves open to interpretation, sometimes cultivating a certain ambiguity. I think they seek to draw the viewer in and leave them to draw their own conclusions. Other contemporary art is quite self-reflexive; it provides its own narrative because it's subject is itself (and, usually by inference, asks questions about the nature of perception and how we build narratives). Though some of it's just snarky and chic.

 

Finally, a lot of stuff on photo.net doesn't seem to concern itself with a narrative at all; rather, it's a pursuit of an aesthetic, striving to make images of beauty. You can read what you want with them, but I think a lot of time, the narrative is simply: this image spoke to me and I wanted to make a beautiful photograph of it. I think that's wholly legitimate; there's plenty of room for self-contained, striking images and images with strong narrative content, whether overt or subtle.

Great thread...I'm in agreement that a photo does not have to be either art or reportage, both come into play and in wierd and different proportions. At the moment, I'm completely obsessed with the work of someone who in my eyes doesn't really differentiate between the two: Nan Goldin (her stuff from Tokyo underground in the early to mid 90s is to me unspeakably brilliant...it tells a different story to different people, I think).

 

As to whether or not a photo HAS to tell a story? I don't think so. Photography is basically painting on film or sensor, you can choose your content just as you would if you were working with a brush and canvas...abstraction is fantastic at times. HOWEVER, I realize that the vast majority of photo.net disagrees with me (errr, you'll notice a conspicuous lack of a series of abstract light thingies...yep, a technical term...that I did a while back. If I recall, NO ONE commented, and the ratings consisted of 2-3 6s and 7s and a WHOLE pile of 2s (errr, and the odd thing is that almost no one has figured out how I did 'em, and its scary brain dead simple...a drunk martian could pull off similar shots)...BUT, the point is, they don't have a story. They don't even have discernable objects. Its just light and color with form and shape. The interesting thing is that people who have seen the prints with their titles love 'em, but those who see 'em online tend not to...

 

...as to introspective on p.net, I had found the opposite from my perspective, people tending toward realism and not really willing to go out into creative la la land and try looney stuff (just to see if it "works"). Then again, I thin we may be using different definitions of realism...

How can a photograph express anything but (except may be the right word)the photographer's personal point of view? How can any art form express anything but the artist's point of view?

 

Ratings and comments on the posted photos can't be taken as definitive

artistic or technical analysis. I find many photos here which are exceptional, yet have no comments posted. I also find many photos with

high ratings and positive comments which are not particularly imaginative, nor were technically challenging. All this proves is that we all have different standards for judging the world around us.

The great appeal of photography is that it is a bridge between the

"real world" and the introspective world represented by "the arts".

Very few people are willing or able to bare their souls on a blank

sheet of canvass, but most <u>can</u> take a snap of a pretty

sunset or a pretty face. Once you have done that and seen the

nice result and received the appreciation of kind friends or family

it gives you courage to try to capture something a little more

specific, personal or challenging. Gradually you develop both

your ability to see and to record effectively what you find

important. <p>For some people, what is important is the world

around them and their relationship to it - they will stop at this

level and refine their vision and skills to a progressively high

degree. <p>For others who sense that their reaction to the

outside world are determined more by their inner mental selves

the aim moves towards representing aspects of their psychic

lives, their personal mythology. They hope that Jung's "collective

subconscious" will allow their images to link directly with the

imagination of the viewers, creating a deep level of

communication which is truly exhilerating. <p>For others still the

forms of the real world reflect beautiful or powerful abstract

shapes and colours so their photography progressively

emphasises these until they become tha main or entire content

of the picture. Finally there are those primarily interested

exploring the personalities and lives of their fellow humans who

develop portraiture into a multi-dimensional representation of

both the subject and the artist, and the relationship between

them. <p>For those following any of these (or other) paths of

evolving into visual art the level of "just" representing the material

objects in front of them, however well, seems rather banal as an

activity, even if the results may be beautiful, inspiring or

historically valuable. This is certainly not the only point of view but

I think it explains the trend you describe. I believe that inside

most photography enthusiasts there is an artist trying to get out.