Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography

Well, my conduit image generated more intense conversation than I imagined it would. Perhaps some background: I was in the process of making documentary photographs of my project. I was also looking for opportunities for interesting and aesthetically pleasing photographs of architecture and construction details. I have shared a few of these previously, but none are singular or extraordinary. (The building itself is an interesting piece of architecture, but that is for another thread.) In the electrical room, I was struck by what was to me an obvious and possibly extraordinary effort on the part of the electrician to imbue the esoteric with creative life through application of craft and imagination. I took a number of purely documentary photographs, but I also wanted to make an image that communicated my emotional response to the craftsman's work. I do not suggest my image is truly artistic or aesthetically outstanding, but it represents my visual response as a photographer to my emotional response as an architect. The photograph is representational of something that is concrete, and through the means and methods of photographic representation it is an attempt to communicate something more than a simple documentary condition. In this case it will be more meaningful to those who have knowledge of the conditions being represented.

 

Because so much of my professional work is related to industrial-type facilities, I have a certain predisposition to seeing aesthetic opportunities in otherwise purely esoteric assemblies. There is an entire school of design aesthetics relating to "vernacular" buildings. In any case, going back to the Roman aqueducts, Gothic cathedrals and Shinto temples, up through the Industrial Revolution, the Modern Movement, and continuing today, expressions of engineering necessity as aesthetic architectural components has a long and well developed history. Photographs of such features can range from the purely documentary to the abstract, with every creative variation that the photographer can conjure to make an artistic statement or communicate feelings or perceptions. These photographs can be solely about the subject (for documentary purposes), or the subject can simply be a disembodied element in the photographic composition. In the end, the photograph, any photograph, is a two-dimensional representation of the photographer's idea, subject to interpretation by viewers based on their own knowledge and experience.

 

It is likely true that a creatively seen and made photograph of a terribly disordered pipe installation could be more engaging, interesting, and artistic than what I have offered.The examples offered by Phil and others certainly are. That is not the point. The image I offered is simply a minor creative response to what I felt was an unusually thoughtful, even aesthetic response to a very esoteric requirement. The Golden Gate Bridge is generally considered a beautiful object. The things that make it beautiful, to whatever degree it is, are the essential engineering forms of the catenary structure, developed in response to strict engineering requirements, and NOT the few decorative details (though they don't detract). There are a whole range of photographs of the GGB, some lovely, others boring, and some that are unhandsome (to be kind). Whether a photograph of the GGB is lovely or not has far less to do with the subject than it has with the photographer.

 

I have more thoughts to share, but I'll have to come back later...

When this aspect dies down you can always revive it by discussing the importance of and defining context in relation to the photo.

Barry, 'creatively seen' could also mean resonating with what's simply there when we're looking at something attentively and when we aren't glancing over things through predetermined selective filters of what should or shouldn't hold our attention. I think that's what the Bechers were also showing by essentially making the same photograph their entire life.

Well the Bechers put it in partial quote.

". . .the objects must be isolated from their context and freed from all association.’" But that's a view point they adopted for the purposes of their project. "Creatively seen can also be isolating an disassociating an object from its named context, and creating a different context. But do you think to the Bechers were thinking of the whole cataloguing and comparing of the structures as "the" photograph? I'll tell you as you probably already know, if you ever go to a Becher exhibition where a significant portion of their work is present, you will come out with a huge headache after looking at a thousand photos of apparently the same type of thing.

Well the Bechers put it in partial quote.

". . .the objects must be isolated from their context and freed from all association.’" But that's a view point they adopted for the purposes of their project.

Not only is it a viewpoint they adopted for their project, it's a theoretical viewpoint and one that can't be adopted in practice. Though context can be changed (often easier said than done because often even when changed, the original context remains in the mind and at least implied) an object can't be isolated from all context or freed from association except to a degree. So the conceptual theory, to me, has limited ramifications or import. I understand the headache part! ;-) I think theory-driven "projects" often have that headache-producing tendency, especially when the visuals are uninspirational, even if they're supposed to be. Now, I know some will say that the fact that the visuals are uninspiring is actually what's inspiring about the "project," but I tend to abhor that kind of twisting and turning in the wind, the "everything is really its opposite" syndrome, so I usually just reject it and move on.

...the objects must be isolated from their context and freed from all association.’" ...it's a theoretical viewpoint and one that can't be adopted in practice.

Fred, I disagree with this position, though it is seemingly well-founded. How frequently do we as photographers very carefully choose the composition and perspective of an image specifically to include or exclude some component(s) of the "context"? You are correct that the context in which the image was captured will remain with the photographer, but the viewer may only have what is visible in the image itself and his/her own life experience with which to establish context. My recent day at the Center for Wooden Boats was an exercise in managing context. I had absolutely no control over the location, placement, orientation or contents of the boats, nor of objects visible in the background. I was also bound by the available, natural lighting (mostly cloudy and flat). In response I did two things: 1) I made most of my images as tight vignettes in an effort to exclude undesirable contextual elements. 2) I used the largest aperture appropriate to the composition so as to blur-out and de-emphasize distractions in the background. given the opportunity I would love to shoot these boats in a highly controlled and visually selective environment, but that was not an option. Instead, I did what I could to isolate my subjects from their context so that they could stand alone as visual artifacts. Probably not as extreme an example as you are arguing against, but along the same lines. I suspect photographers do more of this than we suspect, since the evidence is, by definition, removed from the final images, no?

David, the quote says, "the objects must be isolated from their context and freed from all association." This can't happen, I believe. As I said, objects may be freed from their ORIGINAL context but they will always be seen within a context of some kind. And they will never be free of association, IMO, period. So, for instance, in the exhibition that quote goes on to talk about, the objects in the photographs are seen in the context of many other similar photographs which very heavily influences their viewing. That's part of the so-called project. The project, at least in substantive part, is to create such a context, which seems to me both repetitive and monotonous, therefore the headache mentioned.

I wasn't at all thinking about the difference between the photographer maintaining the original context and the viewer not having access to it. I mostly set that aside. Because, to me, the PHOTO is what's important, what I've framed, more important than what I may remember of the original moment when it was taken. Important photos of mine that aren't family mementos don't have much to do with their original context. I rarely try to memorialize my emotions or capture what the moment feels like to me, as much as project and create something I think the photo can be apart from the reality of the situation.

Any photo of a supposedly isolated-from-context object you take is surely not isolated from the part of its context which was that it was the object of your camera at the time. As a matter of fact, that may be the MOST important part of its context at the time you took the picture, and that, the viewer IS getting to see.

Also, when I made the statement, I was thinking about real or imagined context, which is important in photography and, unless it's a documentary or journalistic photo can be given equal weight. If I see parts of a ship in a photo without greater context, whether I imagine it in the water or on land, with people on it or not doesn't really matter, because we're not talking about ACCURATE context here. At least, I'm not. I'd question whether we can imagine "part of ship" without either knowing a factual or conjuring up an imaginary context, and that was what I was thinking. Objects, as I said when I talked about the Golden Gate Bridge, occupy a space, whether in the world or in a photo, and that space will always be the context, often suggesting a narrative to fill that space, again, whether real or imagined.

to isolate my subjects from their context so that they could stand alone as visual artifacts.

Pictorial content (material and formal) carries/retains its varied meanings via symbolism. Things "mean" what they do from one context to another because of their symbolic meaning, on which pictures rely for communication.

literally described

What is that? Describe for me the "literal" content that you see in one of their pictures.

From interviews with the Bechers:

************************************************

The Bechers felt that the objects in their pictures were already symbolic (carrying meaning); they didn't need to have it imposed by the photographer.

Perception and the act of looking

That's everything visible. Seeing. What's not covered by that?

If sport can be an art then the German team was effortlessly making a masterpiece.

You can also look at this as Germans being the meticulous craftsmen, while the Brazilians being the unkempt bohemians. Bring in the Italians, and you have a complete drama group. :p

It can be, as can many other sports, looked at like one would watch a ballet.

Alistair Cook, a deeply English Englishman who was the BBC's correspondent in the US for many years attempted to explain American football to Britishers. He likened it to a game of chess, in which each piece is assigned a specific, limited movement and role, but which together orchestrate a consolidated strategy. (AC later became a US citizen, and authored a book, Alistair Cook's America, which also became the basis for a PBS documentary series.) I also like to wonder at the very vague boundary between athleticism and art that one sees in ballet (or other dance). Dancers are, without question, extraordinary athletes. Yet they are also, at least the best of them, artists, or at least exponents of the art of dance. These examples and others are interesting considerations when examining the lines of separation between the arts and other disciplines and crafts. So consider: Is a major league pitcher a craftsman, an artist, just an athlete, or an amalgam of all these? Whatever the answer, then why?, and how does one differentiate?

Is a major league pitcher a craftsman, an artist, just an athlete, or an amalgam of all these?

I think most people aren't limited to one category of identification. For ease, I'd say a pitcher is an athlete. That seems reasonable to say in most contexts. That I can view sports as art doesn't necessarily entail categorizing each athlete as an artist. But all this stuff is just classification. And I'm pretty loose about how we label people, in different contexts or kinds of discussions. The important thing is that we understand each other when we talk about different ways we see baseball, football, and dance.

Here is an example of photography thats definitely not straight.

Could someone give me a working definition of straight photography.

Seeking a definition was the whole point of the thread. Take your best shot!