Jump to content

Photographic Statement and Purpose


Recommended Posts

<p>Do you make statements and have a purpose with regard to your photographs? I do, though it's come about as part of an evolving process and the statement I'm making has become more focused over time. I expect it to continue evolving. I'm not talking about abstract purposes or general themes. I'm talking about something you can talk about with at least some degree of specificity.</p>

<p>I set out on an exploration with my work, after first taking a more passive and distant approach, shooting from literal and metaphorical shadows on the street at people I found interesting. That grew into engaging with people, usually people in the gay community that I met through friends, social situations, ads placed in various places, word of mouth, joining a photo club, etc. I found myself mostly interested in shooting men around my age. Slowly, I realized I was wanting to say something about aging and, especially, the physical side of that. I saw our bodies related strongly to the visual aspects of photography. So photographs seemed a great way to communicate about this. I found that many of us were still quite physical, though physically changed in so many ways from when we were younger. I found a lot of men willing to assert their sexuality, still play with it, and still willing to be very physically oriented. They were willing and in some cases anxious to explore that with me photographically. That often helped us open up emotionally as well. One way to put this statement, this purpose, into words is that I am making these men -- physically and emotionally viable even as we age -- visible. We seem to disappear to younger guys, who often have little use for us. Many of us seem to disappear even to ourselves. We don't recognize ourselves because we continue to picture what once was. I want to remind us that we are still here . . . and remind others.</p>

<p>Brief slideshow: <a href="http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/gallery/Men/">MEN</a> (includes nudity)</p>

<p>Many photographers aren't message oriented and can't, won't, or don't want to translate their work into a coherent and specific statement or can't, won't, or don't want to state a particular purpose. Many do. I do. One photographer told me today that he wishes he had gone in a photographic direction of "giving something back" in addition to creating photographs for their own sake.</p>

<p>I think bodies of work can be evidence of statements and purpose and I think individual photos can be so as well.</p>

<p>I don't think it's necessary or better than many other ways of photographing.</p>

<p>Do you have a photographic statement to make? Have you done so in your work overall or in some specific photo or photos? How has that come together for you?</p>

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

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I see a mix regarding statements and find that because of where photography has developed that it is harder for one person to fully understand the vast number of concerns being explored--and visual solutions- out there by only looking. So I generally look first, then read a statement, and then look again. Sometimes when there is no statement I just find it harder to connect with the work. On the other hand, overly explanatory statements can ruin the life of the work by defining it too specifically. One that I read recently was not all that specific over all but specific enough that looking at the work created a disconnect with what was said versus what I was looking at--and the work was familiar enough as to the idea and presentation that this was not what I would have expected. As such, my conclusion was that the work had a disconnect with the intent.</p>

<p>I have a statement attached to all of my series of work on my website. I try to discuss generally what my motivations and concerns are about but let the work take it from there. Personally, I think developing the statement is part of the process of making sense of our own work and then allowing others to at least get oriented in the direction we at least thought we were heading. The viewers experience might be different as they bring something unique to them to their viewing of the work and I don't have any interest in controlling what they see or experience--good or bad. Over time, I find the statements change a bit or are modified, but also provide insight into how someone's ideas and concerns evolve--even my own.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>*John, I may have been unclear. I wasn't talking about written statements accompanying photos. I was talking about making a statement and having a fairly specific purpose with the photos themselves. I was asking whether people attempt to make more or less specific statements with their photos, NOT WITH WORDS. Thanks. And sorry that my post wasn't more clear about that.*</strong></p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Nan Goldin video (other thread) was a revelation to me, and far more than a "statement." </p>

<p>Fred's photography conveys much more than he's able to convey verbally. If he was ever able to make a clear statement in words I wonder if he'd have accomplished as much as he has photographically, or as much as he will. </p>

<p>I'm not adept with written poetry. More ephemeral, spoken or sung, it can come close to what I want in photographs. But moments of song or spoken poetry have no value without engaged listeners, just as photographs have no value without momentary engagement of viewers. Everything I want is fleeting and it often "upsets" me : <a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hardin+upset+the+grace&aq=f">http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hardin+upset+the+grace&aq=f</a></p>

<p>Sometimes photographs seem to convey those fleeting moments.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, I think I might have gotten drawn that way because of the words you posted regarding what your concerns with your work are--essentially the written statement you ended up making above about your work.</p>

<p>But in some ways I suppose these two things are connected. Generally, I find that I tend to work in series and the work has a point to it, although maybe as I said above, not something that is closed ended. As such, I can certainly discuss my intent with the work but I do shy away from absolutes with regard to any piece or group.</p>

<p>The word statement has a certain power behind it to me when it comes to a single image, I have a harder time wrapping my arms around that in most cases. Sometimes it might be closer to a statement but maybe more often a suggestion to a "direction" or concern or thought of some type--specific or more ethereal in nature.</p>

<p>So, maybe it is the way I view "making a statement" in an image versus being able to discuss what an image is about generally--or part of--that causes me some pause here in my way of viewing this question.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John A, thanks. Good points. I agree with you about how absolute a statement can be and I know that as soon as I put it into words the words seem inadequate and I feel like I want to take them back or say more. I hope you didn't take my own words about my work to be any kind of absolute statement or finished product. It's where I am today . . . and part of a continuing process . . . and the words are necessarily incomplete . . . but they should give some concrete idea of where I'm at or at least the ballpark I want to be in.</p>

<p>At the same time, yes, the work has a point to it and I do sometimes think it's a copout not to take a committed stand about what we're doing, if we are, in fact, taking some sort of photographic stand, which I think I am or at least am moving toward. We can understand the inadequacy of words but I don't want to rely on that inadequacy to be non-committal when I'm discussing my work and intentions with other photographers. We all know (well, most of us seem to know) that words are no substitute for photographs. But most of us are willing to articulate things about our work in order to further that work along and help solidify our aims and how we achieve them.</p>

<p>I understand that photos and images do have more suggestiveness than words, which are often more precise, but I think limiting our discussions to suggestion could be limiting, at least in my own case. I think forcing myself (or at least encouraging myself) to be a little more specific about what I'm doing (even if it's still somewhat at odds with the more suggestive nature of pictures) will help me articulate and communicate that even further with the photos I make, which will still maintain their suggestive nature.</p>

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

<p>John A, your caution (reference to "parsing") holds the key. I add written commentary to photos but they're not "statements," they augment (or perhaps confuse). That commentary could, and perhaps should, be organized in a blog rather than appended to individual images.</p>

<p>I think the desire to make "statements" has to do with needing to draw attention to oneself in a way that may not be accomplished by one's work alone. I think strong photography, like yours and Fred's, stands on its own for the anticipated viewers, and they'll make their own statements about it, verbal or otherwise, if they feel the urge.</p>

<p>The viewer matters more than the photographer. How's that for a statement?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John K, you consistently talk about the strong work of others and denigrate your own work comparatively. That may well be because of your own unwillingness to articulate more specifically not just about your goals (which you've done) but about how you might go about accomplishing those goals visually. I don't see the evidence of what you abstractly talk about (commitment, the importance of exceptional printing, risk taking) in your photos. If you were willing to actually discuss the relationship between those goals and the imagery you put out, you might become more in tune with what you yourself are doing and be less distracted by the inconsistencies and philosophical and literary shortcomings that you perceive and obsess about in others.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, I didn't take your words as absolute in any way. I think the type of statement you made is the kind that helps the viewer get more connected to what you are doing with the work rather than flailing around too much. It orients us in a direction but we can still find the richness that each image can hold for us in that context--or maybe allow us to see more than you might see yourself--which I believe is the magic of art anyway.</p>

<p>I think if one were to delineate that my image says (a),,,,,,,,,,,,,,(b),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,©,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then it closes off the very dialogue the work should stimulate, sort of like "end of discussion". I don't find that very productive. (not saying you suggest this sort of thing, but wanted to suggest the extreme of 'making a statement")</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, yes. I love hearing most ways others choose to talk about my photos. Sometimes, they do open a lot of doors for me. I'm sometimes not so in touch yet with stuff I'm doing and a genuine and heartfelt reaction can make me see things in a different way, even my own things. I think a lot of things we might say about our own work and we might say in reaction to another's work can close doors. But I think it's better to get it all out on the table and then look at it all than to be overly cautious about looking at it out loud, as it were. Yes, I knew you didn't take my words as absolute and I don't and won't take personally all the ideas you put forth. I know some of what we all say is not specifically directed at each other but at the general idea of photographing.</p>

<p>I love getting the kind of feedback you're offering on what I've said and would also reiterate that it was also meant as an invitation for others to offer whether or not they want to articulate their own specific purpose with a particular photo, series, or body of work. I'd learn a lot from hearing that from others as well.</p>

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

<p>"If you were willing to actually discuss the relationship between those goals and the imagery you put out, you might become more in tune with what you yourself are doing and be less distracted by the inconsistencies and philosophical and literary shortcomings that you perceive and obsess about in others."</p>

<p>Fred, I've never commented on anybody's "philosophical and literary shortcomings." </p>

<p>You began this thread with C- writing, tried to make up for that by <strong>shouting</strong>, <strong> </strong> then attacked me personally, then discovered you could write skillfully: A+. That's not a "literary" matter, but it does demonstrate something. I wouldn't call it "philosophic," but I wonder who you thought would understand? Neither John A nor I did, at first, as you saw.</p>

<p>I've always expressed appreciation for your photography, never needed to distill that from your writing. You can make all the statements you want, but that won't hint at your photography's commitment or merit. I doubt it will contribut to your ongoing work. You seem to have used "statement" as some kind of commitment engine. Why do you think that's valuable? </p>

<p>I think the potential to do badly and be unpopular is intrinsically diamond-like, far more valuable than general agreement, high ratings and the like. Does explanation, photo-labeling reduce that potential? Is that the point of statement-making?</p>

<p>My own work is far inferior to yours in every respect, at least online (I'm a pretty-good printer). If I was as committed as you to online imagery I might post a lot more....but I don't respect the glowing screen sufficiently.</p>

<p> I post online images to illustrate some life-long frames of reference, and I don't think reducing them to a "statement" serves well. If someone else sees a statement I won't argue, will find that fascinating.</p>

<p>My photography boils down to prints, made mostly to let others see hints of what I find interesting. Shallow, huh? I love the connection, no matter how brief: click my earlier Tim Hardin link.</p>

<p>I gave a pair of portraits to someone today ... giving is my greatest photographic joy. I refused money. Is that a statement? Yes, perhaps it suggests pure ego. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, you've mistaken me for a student of yours. I'm not interested in your grades of my writing. This is not the place for it. It's really annoying, and habitual.</p>

<p>John A. misunderstood, and I took some responsibility for that, and we immediately recovered. He didn't harp on it. Instead he tried talking about photography.</p>

<p>You've expressed appreciation for my photography which is nice. You then use it as an excuse to derail threads and make pointless assertions about things that don't matter. Given who you are and given your own work, I really don't care at all about your relationship to my photography. I'd much rather hear about others' relationships to their photography and how their goals are reflected in their work. That was the point of this thread, which you still don't get.</p>

<p>The point here was not to discuss in the abstract whether or not statements can be made about photographs or bodies of work. It was to hear about people's purposes in photographing, in somewhat specific ways, and to talk about actual ways that can happen photographically and visually. Instead, you took it to your comfort level, which is to grade writing. If you want to emulate Nan Goldin, emulate her. I'm Fred, not Nan. And I wasn't after doing what she did in that link. I don't have to rely on faux heroes like you do in order to make a move. You see, I am truly willing to take risks. I don't just spew out hollow talk about it like you continually do and I don't demand it of others like you do. You take no risks here. You are as predictable as the day is long and you rely on demeaning others so as not to look at yourself. You attack, attack, attack and then feign surprise when others attack back. I won't stand for it. </p>

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

<p>What I do is take pictures of my family, friends, our lives and the places we go and see. It's a chronicle of our lives. It will not be a book, a show or anything. Just photos in albums, and pictrures in my home. </p>

<p>Fred: Thanks for the warning on the link. It's appreciated and I chose not to enter the site.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>They are mainly goals of the practical kind, right now.</p>

<p>I haven't been photographing seriously for some time now. It has been mostly a photographic reflection that I've found myself in, of how to take what I've made so far to the next logical step. That step is one of more concentrating on one particular scope of subject.</p>

<p>The goal is to set myself limits in order for the work to breath more freely, rather than scatterable.</p>

<p>An example, the goal is to make photographs of the "visual iconography" of my country, starting in Brussels. And also playing with the Walloon and Flemish part of the country. Photographs taken in the manner of a photographic dead pan neutrality that has eluded me so far. This doesn't mean losing every personal subjectivity, but those kind of photographs I've been taking enough already in the past. </p>

<p>I don't want to lose subjectivity and synchronicity but it has to grow more subtle visually in order to be more profound I feel.<br>

Anyway, I figured, while it is always stimulating and inspiring to travel and take photographs in and of "exotic" places ( both literal and metaphorical, places of the imagination too.... ), I want to start dealing with what's photographically directly in front of me. Something which can be seen with the eyes and touched by the mind, and which is both personal and universal.</p>

<p>And symmetry, I need to regain some photographic symmetry, in process, methodology, etc...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am late to this party, but a few observations...</p>

<p>Perhaps I am mistaken here, but the impression I get from Fred's original post as it relates to his work, is that the "statement" is an ur- conceptual and visual <em>kernel</em> around which many other things accrete (and erode), and it goes much further, functioning as an analog to messenger RNA, guiding, building, informing the work as it grows. I guess it could function contemplatively within the work, too.<br>

In my own work, while I have some overriding concerns or golden threads that run through it (see the Goldin Post), I'll have a statement/kernel for any given series. For example, I did a series ( still not entirely happy with it, could use a few more shots) on <em>retention ponds</em>. They are small reservoirs that supposedly compensate for the area the footprint of a building removes from the watershed and its flood-prevention and filtration effects. I wanted the ponds, in part, because they are the most banal-looking things I could think of -- to challenge myself. I also wanted something that is quotidian, accessible, out in the open, artistically invisible and commonplace, and one day out on a bike ride, I <em>saw the ponds.</em></p>

<p> The kernel/statement here was that this is a sham idea that enables developers to proceed unimpeded while pretending to be concerned about the environment. What happens is the ponds do not compensate for what is lost, and thanks to their inability to filter impurities, each becomes a micro-toxic site with a concentration of heavy metals and other evil chemicals. Lots of other things wrapped themselves around that idea, just as they have around Fred's 'statement".</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like to do ( conceptual ) series too, mainly to find out how each will unfold and come together into something broader and more "pure", which in turn enfolds each series. Where the kernel/statement of the series - when mutated together - isn't already known or discovered beforehand.</p>

<p>But, I want to cut straight away to the enfolding part in the future, containing one single vision already.</p>

<p>Luis, your kernel suggests, if I understand the way you used it correctly, something in the series of your <em>retention pond</em> photographs that's the very most basic and central thing behind the reason and context, and which you explained, of making them, from your perspective as <em>maker</em>.</p>

<p>But to the viewer possibly viewing them with or without the preface of a statement, isn't the kernel also the very solely visual forms of the image in the photograph, or the photograph itself, before it may be discovered as what you explained it to be.<br /> <br /> To me the challenge / goal is to make that strictly visual in the photograph <em>as much</em> the statement as the statement which the visual is used for to express.<br /> ----<br /> A Luc Delahaye quote, that I just saw on ASX on facebook and which somewhat relates :<br /> <br /> <em>"If there is something in a picture that you cannot explain, it's a sign that there is something interesting "</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>to the viewer possibly viewing them with or without the preface of a statement, isn't the kernel also the very solely visual forms of the image in the photograph, or the photograph itself, before it may be discovered as what you explained it to be."</p>

<p>Absolutely, and I certainly do not expect a 1:1 correspondence between what I see and what a viewer will see. For that, I would send a text message, not make a photograph. As the work develops, things are attracted to or created by the original statement and change as the work develops. Some of them are near-or just over the horizon of your own awareness, as Delahaye says in that quote.</p>

<p>Sometimes it is tempting to over-control or choke the work into submission, but I see that almost always as a mistake. As I've heard and read many times, the work has a way of telling you where it wants to go. I think it needs a little room for that to happen.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The term "photographic statements" is poor and much too general, like "written statements".<br>

"Statements" (an expression of a view, a declaration) is inherent in any photography, if it is not done by robotics. They are the very reason why the shot what shot and shown, instead of another shot, no shot at all or ending up in bin.<br>

There are however many "private statements" in my photos, that I would not share with many, but there are surely also statements of my photos that I try to convey to the viewers, with or without written support by titles or more or less lengthy explanations or hints. </p>

<p>I don't think I have any folder that is not part of such specific (public) statements. Mostly, as you might expect from the titles of my folders here on PN, my specific statements are related to places more than events or people. When I shoot a city like Paris, which I have done since the late seventies, I try to catch and express my view and feelings of the city, searching for something that I have called it's "soul" (we have discuss (in vain?) that before so it is not the moment to repeat). When I shoot a city like Hong Kong I have the same ambition, expressing my experience and feeling of the place. These are public statements that, if I had succeeded, which is far from sure, are narratives of a place seen through my eyes, guts and heart.</p>

<p>However, I believe, I'm sure like others, that we all do general overall statements by all our work, not related to specific series of photos or individual photos. Some of us, I'm convinced, have a "grand statement" to make that goes far beyond what happens in our photos. The photos are part of it, but such statements, which surely evolve over time, are expressed in our lives and in our modes of private, artistic and in my case at least professional expressions. Such "grand statements" might not be easy to express in a few word and even more difficult for others to see, but they are statements on our individual relationship to others and to reality in general. Our individual view and understanding of the world surrounding us. These statements are what makes the work of each of us somewhat "coherent" and personal and marked somehow by the same "mood" or "vision" whatever we shoot. I'm not sure that many of us are able to express such grand statements in writing. That is one of the many reasons why we are in photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, and I certainly do not expect a 1:1 correspondence between what I see and what a viewer will see. - Luis</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and that's also true between what you as the photographer saw in the subject and what the photograph will end up looking, also to you as the maker. And also what you ( "we" ) possibly see between the first time and the second time, when there has gone some time between the initial seeing and recognition of the subject ( in the case of static subjects ).<br /> Just this morning I saw to 2 photographs within just 100 meters of my street. By photographs I mean scenes / subjects - which I saw in my minds eye as perfectly printed framed photographs hanging on a wall. And, the photographs were shot with an Atget / Walker Evans / Robert Adams'esque*,...authorative photographic gaze of objectivity.</p>

<p>Seeing that and acknowledging it as the subject's photographic potential requires some sort of subjective recognition too of course. I recognised it, and thought that I should come back and photograph it, in the way closest as how I saw the scene-as- finished-photograph in my mind.</p>

<p>This is different than how I used to make photographs ( and still will too ) of having a camera with me and immediately responding to that fleeting subjective recognition and without too much analyses about how to surface the photographic <em>objectivity</em> that's felt in the subject, and in the potential photograph of that subject.</p>

<p>But it has happened before, that when I had seen something like that and thinking <em>I have to come back</em> to purposefully photograph it, that after a few days that sensing of a potential photograph is gone, faded by time and other things on the mind. For some reason, *it* isn't there anymore, while the subject <em>is</em> still there and essentially unchanged in all of its objectivity, that set the spark for that *it*.</p>

<p>Just this week also I came upon a scene of an old bridge, and next to it on the land there was this newly finished steel bridge that was waiting to be put in place of the old one, you could almost see it eagerly waiting to be used and put to function. I loved the subject / statement of this blue steel bridge, which because it was on the land next to the water and not yet functioning <em>as a bridge</em>, it had - in all of its purposelessness - the beauty and aesthetic of this giant sculpture and work of art, making its mark and claiming its space in the surrounding landscape.</p>

<p>Now, all of this conceptualising of what I saw took place in a blink of an eye and an instant of subjective recognition, but to fix that into a photograph as an objective statement which still has this 1 : 1 correspondence to that innitial subjective spark of seeing the scene, is were the purpose and major challenge comes in, to me. I have to go back as soon as possible now before it is made in "just a bridge".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The term "photographic statements" is poor and much too general, like "written statements".<br />"Statements" (an expression of a view, a declaration) is inherent in any photography, if it is not done by robotics. They are the very reason why the shot what shot and shown, instead of another shot, no shot at all or ending up in bin.- Anders</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, but to take my bridge example, while I didn't had time to stop and get out of the car because I was on my way to an appointment, I did had a camera with me, and I suppose I could have quickly taken a shot to see if that innitial spark would stick to the resulting picture. Even if it wouldn't, the photograph in and of itself would still be a statement like you say, because <em>that</em> photograph was taken, and not another.<br /> But, I saw the futility in that, and knew that I had / have to go back to make a STATEMENT, at least as much and photographically as possible.<br /> <em>--------</em><br /> <em><em>*Adams approach to photographing these landscapes was to take a stance of apparent neutrality, refraining from any obvious judgements of the subject matter. His images are titled as documents, to establish his neutral position. However, in the words of John Szarkowski, Adams... "has, without actually lying, discovered in these dumb and artless agglomerations of boring buildings the suggestion of redeeming virtue."</em></em></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...