Jump to content

Identity of photographer defines identity of photo.


Recommended Posts

<p>In a recent comment to one of Fred Goldsmith photos (link down below), I realized how the photographer's identity can change the identity of a photo. In Fred's Portfolio, the shot in question is located in the <em>street</em> folder and it definitely appears to be a street shot but when I opened it on my browser I saw something very different, even though the scene is taken on the street. This is what I wrote to him:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is not street photography, this is just your mind working outdoors and using unconscious models.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this photo had been taken by a street photographer, it would be without doubt a street shot. However, the undeniable and strong identity of the photographer (Fred), mutates the identity of the shot itself, transforming it into something else. The casual people portrayed in the scene, look to me like models and the photo looks studied and premeditated (in a good way) with the intention of communicating a precise emotional idea. To say it with Fred's words, <em>this photograph is another manifestation of what he often pursues in his work, a counterpoint of pose, gesture, theater, and humanity</em>.<br>

This just a theory but I would like to hear your thoughts about it. <strong></strong><br>

P.S.:<strong> Fred</strong>, if I didn't express the concept well, please help me out here:-)<br>

<a href="../photo/9708192"><strong>market street, san francisco</strong></a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Personally I dislike the whole idea of 'street photography' as a genre. When something is described as 'street', it turns me off. It smacks of a game where there are certain spoken or unspoken rules and the photographer has to go out and snatch pictures, a bit like the way that a hunter bags a deer and sticks the antlers on his wall.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>But it seems to me that it is connected to what you were saying - you regarded it as significant that you didn't see the photograph as falling in the category of 'street', but being something else.</p>

<p>I read your comment as saying that the image was 'more' than just street - the identity of the photographer coming out in the image. And therefore it begins to transcend the category. Because it has "the intention of communicating a precise emotional idea".</p>

<p>While I agree that categorising is inevitable, there are some categories that I generally find unobjectionable - 'portraiture', or 'studio', or 'photojournalism'. Though again, I may think that a particular extraordinary image is more than just a bit of photojourmalism, or more than just a portrait, and so on. But I find something to dislike in the baggage that comes with this category of 'street'. Perhaps precisely because it maybe tends to assume that the identity and emotions of the photographer, and the meaning of the subject, gets subsumed to playing the street photography game.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is about a topic far more interesting than categories/genres and how we feel about them (which should ideally be its own post).</p>

<p>It may sound like a platitude to many, but I've often remarked (in agreement with many other photographers before me) that we can only photograph who we are, and see what we're ready to see. Nothing more. It makes sense that we would carry our selves, aesthetic, identity, values etc, across our work. It's not something you read about in too many places, since the manufacturers want you to believe that with the hewest hardware, your work will be the best it can be. It also means we are not all created equal.This, our self, is not a product, and to change it (and thus change the work) takes a comprehensive effort. Most people would rather buy something than to embark on a quest to change who they are.</p>

<p>I think Fred's image does have his signature, structured, layered, and that directorial quality about it, but IMO, it's hardly unique or unheard of in street photography -- outside of PN.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If this photo had been taken by a street photographer, it would be without doubt a street shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where do I go to get my Official Street Photographer Membership Card and Decoder Ring? And why didn't anyone tell Fred?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would say that <em>perceived</em> identity of photographer defines <em>perceived</em> identity of photo ( and vice versa ), if we're talking about it from a viewers perspective.</p>

<p>From the photographers own perspective - from the one making the photo - of course, how could it <em>not </em>( in regard to the thread's title / opening statement ).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>But I think categorisation is absolutely at the heart of it. By escaping from a category we are affirming our identity. Being categorised is being put back into a box. I think that's why Antonio instinctively expressed it in terms of affirming the self, one's own identity, by escaping from a category.</p>

<p>For me that was interesting. Probably more interesting than photographing who we are, because I suspect that trying to know or understand who we are, let alone photograph it, is a fairly impossible task. I can probably find out more about who I am by trying to sail a small boat across the Atlantic. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Antonio,<br /> <br /> The image might have some of Fred in it, in the sense that it reflects how he sees people and uses reflections, but I don't think at all that it has been created in a posed or theatrical sense. The person walking by seems completely oblivious of what is going on and that suggests to me that he hasn't been orchestrated at all by Fred (except to click on him as he passed). Fred's astuteness as a photographer is seen in his choice of the hand and the reflection (I rather like the hand on one side on the meter (symbolising perhaps TIME), while the other hand is on the cell phone (ANTI-TIME). However, while I do think Fred chose the hand on the meter as something of interest, I doubt if the shortness of this interval of action was such that he could perceive at the same time the <em>apparent </em>hand on the meter, <em>a seeming second one</em>, ostensibly supplied by the chap walking by (note how his shoulder and the hand comply) and the reflection of the hand of the <em>cell-phoner</em> grafted onto his shoulder via the reflection.</p>

<p>That for me is the resuly, and likely a partially unperceived one, of the photo that gives it some enticing enigma and interest. Apart from the original intention of photographing the cell-phoner and his hand on the meter (interesting as that is) and his rapid acknowledgement of someone passing, the rest of the photo just happened, not planned, and the <em>punctum </em>of the apparent second hand and its juxtaposition is a windfall for the photographer that makes the photo.</p>

<p>Of course I may be "up the creek" on this one, but only Fred knows how the image was realised, at and after the shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Simon - "</strong>By escaping from a category we are affirming our identity. Being categorised is being put back into a box."</p>

<p>Simon, I see that as carrying identity <em>across </em>categories, which to me is far more significant. For example, leaving the picture Antonio linked out, looking af Fred's main body of work, the portraits, we are seeing classic, directorial-mode portraiture of a kind that fits perfectly well within a very-well recognized category that is quite popular and in fashion in our time. Fred has his own angle of attack, style, concerns and tropes, but the portrait pictures themselves do tend to fall in a category, and there is nothing intrinsically negative, wrong or demeaning about that. Mine too, and everyone's I know. I would love to run across photographs that defy categorization (and aren't one-hit snapshot wonders). While at some level everything and everyone is unique, at others, there's similarities.</p>

<p>I do not think Fred's work is "in the box".</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not sure it would not be immensely simplifying to believe that the "identity of a photographer defines identity of photo" unless you introduce the concept of lies. I'm therefore with Phylo that introduce the small term "perceived identity".</p>

<p>It has been said (forgotten by whom) that Art is the only way to run away without leaving home so I would rather look at photos with the basic assumption that it is a lie. If it is too much "real" it is not a good photography.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Luis</strong><br /> You got exactly my point. I have to be honest: if I saw that image in the Photo Critique, labeled as <em>street</em>, and I didn't know Fred's work, I wouldn't even consider it. As you said, as a street photograph it is nothing unseen before. As one of Fred's works, it is stunning to me how an "average" street photo becomes emotionally entangled and can open so many doors to the viewer interpretation. And this is Fred's doing, not the photo.<br /> <strong>Phylo</strong><br /> I am not getting you. Fred put this in his street folder, I don't think he was aware that when he shot the photo he did exactly what he does with his models, only this time outdoors and with an unconscious model. However, the <em>subject</em> (photographer) overwhelmed the <em>object </em>(scene).<br /> <strong>Arthur</strong><br /> Of course it is as you say but I am not focusing on too many details in this photo: I'm talking about the subject, which is the guy with the hand on the meter, and the man passing by. The man passing by is probably an "accident" or maybe not but that doesn't matter; I'm just looking at this shot and how, despite the photographer's attempt to "categorized" it, it shows exactly Fred's identity, that IMO is very tangible. Again, the whole scene to me looks just like one of Fred's ambiances. I mean that the identity of Fred here is so strong that the casual subject becomes almost a model.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Speaking of perception, my hat is off to Antonio for picking up on this one in this context. I did a variety of things when taking the photo, brought out even more when post processing, that give it my voice. Antonio's observation seems important with regard to a body of work and how individual photos work within it. Also how a photographer works.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Fred, I appreciate it. Besides, I forgot to mention how this photo might appear conventional but, after a closer look, the subject reveals aspects that, in the contest of Fred's approach, are more powerful than ever. I wrote in my comment:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You captured a very rare example of non-conformism and freedom in San Francisco</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a world where politically correct, conformism and collectivism dominate, I find this scene very strong and the reason why it's so strong is because it expresses the photographer's identity and not only because it's so well done. Maybe Fred didn't plan to get that guy so perfectly well but he sure noticed him and captured his character so well, just like he was one of his models (sorry if I call them "models"). The previsualization of the shot is proved by the game hand-meter-reflection and guy passing by, all perfectly assembled together in an excellent composition. But all this, in my opinion, is of minor importance in comparison to the idea I expressed in my opening statement.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Phylo </strong>I am not getting you. Fred put this in his street folder, I don't think he was aware that when he shot the photo he did exactly what he does with his models, only this time outdoors and with an unconscious model. However, the <em>subject</em>(photographer) overwhelmed the <em>object </em>(scene).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Didn't you say yourself that the way you perceived Fred-as-a-photographer after looking at his work as a whole, changed or defined your perception of how you viewed the 'street photograph' ?<br /> Of course he wasn't aware, by defintion that he needed not be aware of his own "Fred-ness" in that context. That's why I said :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"From the photographers own perspective - from the one making the photo - of course, how could it <em>not </em>( in regard to the thread's title / opening statement )."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You, as viewer, brings in a <em>perceived</em> identity of photographer <> photograph, which isn't <em>the</em> identity of photographer / photograph.<br /> I don't think we see it that different, I'm just nuancing it a bit.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<p>Antonio,</p>

<p>I find value in Fred's approach, both in his choice of subjects and his use of light and posing (in those cases where he uses that). Whether he uses well-known photographic methods or not is beside the point for me (we all do). Fred has said that he used post processing as well as a pre-capture visual approach (which I assume may include choice of place to provide the reflection, the positioning re subject and the choice of the main subject who was no doubt there for at least the time of his phone call), but has not stated that the image was pre-meditated in the sense that his subjects (the two of them) have been "requisitioned" and placed by him. As I mentioned, only Fred can divulge that, if he wishes to.</p>

<p>To the question of how well this image identifies Fred, and with my own limited but studied range of Fred's images to go on, I would say yes and no. Yes, because Fred is one of a number of photographers who are inclined to this type of enigmatic and thoughtful representation of humans in street scenes. No, because my knowledge of Fred's approach would suggest that he is more commonly involved in portraiture settings in which he has more control over the scene and the image. I can link Fred with his portraiture image approaches and expression (having viewed a good number of them), but not particularly so here.</p>

<p>In sum, it is not terribly important that Fred the photographer is identified by you in this image and not by another such as myself. The theme of your OP is important of course, but the ability of the viewer to recognize an individual photographer by his approach is not always certain, given the number of approaches or types of expressions that we are mostly familiar with, and the far greater number of photographers.</p>

<p>This suggests to me that Luis' following comment is quite relevant, perhaps not here (as I don't think the image is the best identifier of Fred's photographic expression), but in a general sense:</p>

<p>"I would love to run across photographs that defy categorization (and aren't one-hit snapshot wonders). While at some level everything and everyone is unique, at others, there's similarities."</p>

<p>The search for an expression that defies categorization is the "Holy Grail" of artistic endeavour. Fred's considered approach in photography means that he has a "heads up" in what is involved in that quest. Whether he is interested or not in pursuing that is another thing, as successful expression through photography can be also achieved through already categorized approaches.</p>

<p>Back to the original question, I would be interested to know what Fred actually perceived or controlled in the pre-capture time of making this shot.</p>

<p>And if one can detect by this my unbridled and revolutionary interest in seeing PofP discuss artistic approaches as much as philosophical essays, then so be it. So many member images put up for discussion here in the past have been simply ignored, in the rush to personal philosophical comments, so bravo for inciting this reflection on approach and eliciting some discussion and comment on individual approach.</p>

 

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I did not "requisition" these people. (I don't think Antonio was suggesting that.) I think about theater, pose, and gesture a lot, when photographing and when not. It likely influences my shooting even when I feel as if I'm being "spontaneous."</p>

<p>I saw this guy's hand, lit, on the meter. I've always loved the look and energy of the bar he was in front of. I moved off the sidewalk behind him and at that point realized what a good subject he was for me seeming to be on stage in the window reflection. I was immediately drawn to the tableau, including those inside the bar and in reflection in the window. The hand was the gesture around which I felt a photo could be constructed. I needed a moment or two to set up and figured I had time since the guy was smoking a cigarette (not talking on a cell phone -- I doubt I would have taken this if he'd been on a cell phone -- less engagement to the present when cell phones are involved, usually uninteresting expressions). I positioned myself to include his hand which was also reflected in the window and quickly considered the juxtaposition of his face and the secondary face right next to him so they wouldn't obscure each other. I find him sexy. I saw the guy with the sunlight catching his cropped white hair walking toward us up the block and had a moment to think about where I wanted him in the frame and where his reflection would land. The scene did seem theatrical to me and I had several passersby to choose from but this guy's hair and red shirt sold me. (I had not yet really considered whether I'd process this in color or black and white.) The trolley coming by was a happy accident. It added a dimension and its darkness helped bring out the poeple inside the bar, wiped out some distracting reflections from across the street, and supplied some more faces, inside the trolley itself, and another layer. In post, I did what I could to bring the faces in relationships that seemed to establish a visual and rhythmic line, from the guy's head right next to the parking meter up to the girl with glasses at the top right. (The photo is better viewed large by clicking on it.) With the movement and the beat of the music coming from the bar on a sunny Sunday afternoon, even the sound and motion of the trolley, there was rhythm at play for sure.</p>

<p>As for my portrait work, it often happens similarly, except that I know the subject I am working with. But generally, we are walking around town and situations often come together very much in the manner this one did, though there may be more intentional posing, etc.</p>

<p>I think it's quite important that the photographer is identified by Antonio (and some others) here. </p>

<p>Categorization is the business of art collectors, critics, historians, and salespeople. I don't think of defying categorization as a holy grail of photographers or artists.</p>

<p>I find that what is being considered the identity of the photographer is expressed well when I talk about a photographer's or my own "voice." "Voice" allows for a degree of fiction, coming from the photographer and the situation and perhaps even consistently so, but not telling "truths" in terms of accurate details about a photographer's life.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Without making this forum a "Chez Fred's" forum of discussion, I find also this thread of interest because it invites to discuss artistic approaches hopefully without breaking the golden rule that it is another competing forum of critiques.</p>

<p>When I first saw this photo I wrote the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, interesting and intriguing scene that surely catches the eye. It is scene of four layers occupied by the two persons and a train passing by. If you shaw this coming when you shot it, I take my hat off for you, if I had one.<br /> The guy on the phone is surely calling himself and only his fellow pedestrian comes in between.<br /> I like the black and white version you share here making us concentrate on the two persons and their reflections and I like the sharpness on the third layer of the scene which happens to be the reflection of the guy passing by as if he was the main person in the event.<br /> As so often when you are at work, Fred, well done. Knowing you I'm convinced there is a allegory hidden here but I leave that for others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred never came back telling about the "allegory" hidden in the photo, so maybe there is none. A pity, because that's where the photo becomes interesting in my eyes.</p>

<p>The straight forward superposition of layers of persons and their reflections is eye catching but not necessarily profound. This is why I earlier referred to the notion of "lies" in art. I did that with direct reference to Oscar Wilde and his essay "<a href="http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/wilde/decay.html">The decay of lying - An Observation</a>" (1889) where one of the principles of "aesthetics" defended, is : <strong>Lying, the telling of beautiful untrue things, is the proper aim of Art</strong> - if that can be referred to without starting a new discussion on art.</p>

<p>I think it is relevant when considering the very personal approach of Fred that can be found in most of his portraits and in-door work (but whether this street photo is a good example of his style, can be questioned).There is in fact very little "lying" going on in most of his photos. Without putting words in the mouth of Fred I would believe he would argue that they are "honest" and that "lies" have no place in his artistic universe. His photography follows another principle discussed in the above mention Oscar Wilde essay: <strong>Art never expresses anything but itself. </strong><br /><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Great discussion of your approach, Fred. Maybe this photo does reflect more on your signature than I originally thought, which your description allows me to question. I hadn't really noticed the SF tram in the background and for me it is not what is important in your image (and of course, the music and bar are unknowns to most viewers, myself included, although no doubt contributing to your stimulus to make the image).</p>

<p>Anders mentions allegory and if there is one, I would take it personally from my observation of (what I as a viewer consider) the <strong>"punctum"</strong> of the image, the presence of the "apparent" second hand of the walker on the meter and his apparent "appropriation" thereby of the main subject, a virile looking young man. Whether that appropriation is sexual or other, it appears to me to be the thing that makes the photo, whether you intended that, or not.</p>

<p>The latter phrase is not a criticism. As photographers, we put into motion our aproach and ideas and feelings, but we recognize also that the subject(s) can come to life, sometimes in partly unexpected but meaningful ways.</p>

<p>Again, I am glad that Fred has given, and we have in part extracted from him, his approach and mindset when making this interesting image. If that serves to incite a companion activity in POP that allows photographers to express their intentions and motivations and interact with others, <strong>it would be a very good step</strong> in my opinion. We are all quite involved in the communication aspects of images, but not always able to recognize the value or the possible shortcomings in our approaches. That recognition can allow us to change and to advance, or to maintain a certain trust. A reconciliation of intent and result can be provided in some cases by others, provided that the intentions are to sincerely explore (as I hope I have done modestly in regard to one effect of Fred's image) what the other is trying to achieve, or what his approach communicates to others.</p>

<p>As has been noted, that can go much beyond the normal form of comments in the critique section of PNet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Categorization is the business of art collectors, critics, historians, and salespeople."</p>

<p> Very revealing statement. It reads as if John wrote it, except you left out academics. So, Fred, are you saying that outside of art collectors, critics, historians and salespeople categorization does not exist? Or that artists don't do it? Or haven't done it historically? Seriously?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, thanks for your further response. I see no criticism in your seeing something that I may or may not have intended. I expect that to happen all the time. My post above is a description of the way this photo came about, which includes intentions, deliberations, insinuations, accidents, sensory reactions, and my own influences on myself. It comes with no expectations that those will be things perceived or cared about by a viewer.</p>

<p>I understand that the tram is not that important to you. For me it is not so important as it pertains directly to any sort of "interpretation" or "allegory." It is, however, very important as it becomes an element vital to the construction of the photo. As I said, the tram blocked out a lot of direct light which enabled the window to act more like a mirror and to reveal with more clarity the faces reflected it in and also the ones that were behind it in the bar. When I say that my viewing of a photo goes beyond personal interpretations, it's because I seek out and find photographic details like this, which impact me visually and directly but don't necessarily have interpretive or meaningful value. And it's not just a matter of studying a photo or honing the craft. I actually get off on these kinds of elements and how they interact. The visual effects of the tram, for me, are like the sensual auditory effects the bases in an orchestra can have and how they relate to the overall color of the orchestra and impact how the violins will sound at any given time.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What about this one, Antonio?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7571274</p>

<p>I am making no claim about categories here, nor about street v. non-street photography, rather about your basic thesis: "Identify of photographer defines identify of photo."</p>

<p>(Sorry about the triple posting. I tried to edit the photo after posting it, and this is what I got. I have no idea why.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>" We categorize things, that is inevitable. The whole society is structured in categories."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Rigor-mortis thinking. Neither "inevitable" nor even reflective of "reality." <strong>It's the everything-is-as-defined-by-somebody-else mantra</strong>. Society isn't structured that way, it's <em>described</em> that way by people trained to think that way. <br>

<br>

Others a) seem to successfully evade/avoid categorization and b) seem not to think or photograph in categories. </p>

<p><strong>Poor scatter-brained Timothy Leary </strong>tried to fix his rigor-mortis with something like Drano. An odd tactic. It isn't necessary to destroy circuits with chemicals...there are other ways to fix frozen perspectives, such as quiet reflection and/or hitting the road for a new environment. IMO.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was going to suggest that we look at <em>someone else's</em> work in the context of Antonio's question. I'd leave it open for someone who thinks there might be value in that. I was wondering if you, Antonio, have a photograph that you think, in the context of the rest of your work, identifies you as the photographer, or at least has your voice, and if its being your photograph somehow changes it, but I don't want to put you on the spot and certainly understand if you don't want to go there with your own work.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>(On categorization:)<em> "Society isn't structured that way, it's described that way by people trained to think that way." </em></p>

<p>All civilisations categorize. Look at all the categorized art movements ovee more than a century. If you are a fairly old guy like me (I should say old, and energetic), which I think you are, you will have read the 20th century book "The Organisation Man" on corporate business and on those who want to climb the ladder (the latter an example of categorization). Your former clients are categorized. Perhaps New Mexico escapes a categorized society, but you are surely familiar with categorization in your larger federal jurisdiction.</p>

<p>Societies, education, science and many other collective human activities categorize. It helps to simplify analysis and attribution of characteristics, rather than dealing with 350 million (or whatever) individuals, 300 million gun owners or X number of distinctive (categorized) Tea Party members. It may not be desirable, as you seem to say John, but it is unavoidable. I guess that anarchy cannot be broken down into categories.</p>

<p>If someone can provide expressive images that cannot be categorized into type of approach or style or whatever, he or she will be considered by many to be highly original. I think that was what Luis and some others here have considered.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...