Jump to content

The intention of the photographer


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>"A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer". - Martin Parr</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't often venture into this forum with my "tortured reasoning"...as one of your regulars recently described my attempts to put forth a perspective or "argument"...but I would like to hear what your thoughts are on Mr.Parr's comment. Thanks! - John</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I believe that there should always BE intention on the photographers part, but it is not incumbent upon the viewer to see it, or understand it. Many images carry intense private feeling and emotions, but these meanings may not be apparent to the viewers.<br>

On the other hand, if the image does not reflect any intent at all......then what point was there in its creation?<br>

And.....does does that matter?<br>

I see many images which contain no meaning to me personally, but that's the nature of art.....Regards, Robert</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unless produced accidentally, I believe a photograph is the result of an intention, just as most actions of humans and other living things (lovely quote by Julie) are intended. I agree with Robert that many photographs may not show the intention of the photographer or only marginally (e.g., picture of a group), but Martin Parr's statement (even without knowing the full context within which he made it) is probably very true for photographs that many would consider as art or photographs which communicate significant messages. I have produced some nice photographs accidentally, where my intention was not related closely to the image. Like the humorous statement sometimes made in company, without having realized it. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2397502"><em>John Galyon</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 18, 2010; 12:57 a.m.</em><br>

<br /><em>"A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer". - Martin Parr</em><br>

<em>I don't often venture into this forum with my "tortured reasoning"...as one of your regulars recently described my attempts to put forth a perspective or "argument"...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I look forward to, and enjoy your well thought through responses, regardless of the topic.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>....but I would like to hear what your thoughts are on Mr.Parr's comment.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, anyone looking to make a "mark" in any field has a P/R person or a team of P/R people who dream up these statements to make the artist sound "deep' and "unreachable".<br>

In a word, a "star", above what we mere mortals are able to comprehend.<br>

"...intention of the photographer...."<br>

Yeah, okay. How "deep" is that?<br>

Wow, man, like we can all sit around the local bistro sipping Chianti and speculating into the wee hours what the artist was "trying to say".<br>

Coffee table books abound about this kind of thing. Entire college courses are given over to "interpretation".<br>

Here's how it plays for me.<br>

If I don't "get" what you're doing from the outset, then you're not being very clear in your presentation.</p>

<p>That's my version of "tortured reasoning".</p>

<p>(*,*)/</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How could a photograph <em>not</em> show the intention of the photographer ? A photograph clearly shows but doesn't necessarily explains nor does it have to explain intention, for it to succeed as a *good* photograph.</p>

<p><em>An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. - </em>Charles<em> </em>Bukowski</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>How could a photograph <em>not</em> show the intention of the photographer ? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly you have not seen my photos. I frequently have those moments where I have a scene before me, a mood that my mind feels i can capture ... and the result fails to "capture" on film.</p>

<p>Sometimes the resulting photo isn't "bad" ... it just fails to capture my intent. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think a photograph should (or shouldn't) have to show intent. Besides, intent, which is always implicit and sometimes explicit, may be visible to some viewers, who may be reading it correctly or not, while others won't see anything at all. What fun!</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p >Allen Friday , Feb 18, 2010; 10:59 a.m.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree absolutely with Mr. Parr. And the artist should go on and explain the intent with a lengthy artist statement using as much art speak as the photographer can put on a page. </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Allen Friday is, within the strictest bounds of casuistic anomie and heuristic evolutions of cognitive hagiography (as evidenced, nay <em >illuminated</em> even, by the post-colonial musings of Jan Baetens) entirely correct. Yet cautionary tales abound in the meta-minefields of artistic intentions and a liberal application of deconstructive conceptualization is required for anything even vaguely approximating critical understanding <em >vis a vis </em>protean dissimulations of Jungian or Campbellesque approaches to creative archetypes and their conscious, subconscious, or metaconscious “intentions”. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The use of "should" negates any value in the statement. Who gave that person the authority to dictate "should?"</p>

<p>In following posts, reliance on "capture" as opposed to, say, "make" indicates a way of thinking that's acceptable to many digi snappers but probably wouldn't to people who credit photographers actually <em>making</em> images. Using a camera to record phenomena seems different than using a camera to create phenomena...profoundly different.</p>

<p>It appears that bug/bird/mountain/sunset-oriented snappers typically think they've "captured" something outside themselves, but many other photographers think there's nothing in the image that they, as individuals, didn't create. They take credit for the images they make, rather than admitting they've just sniped a passing moment.</p>

<p>HCB did deal in "decisive moments," but few photographers who think in terms of "capture" actually do deal with decisive moments (evident in their portfolios). </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>reliance on "capture" as opposed to, say, "make" indicates a way of thinking that's acceptable to many digi snappers but probably wouldn't to people who credit photographers actually <em>making</em>images. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and No. There are many different subjects and categories that photographers focus upon. In portraiture, when providing studio lighting and guiding the pose ... I suppose "making" is a completely accurate term.<br>

I tend to focus on non-studio subjects (e.g. landscapes, flowers, animals, buildings, etc...) and admittedly take less credit for 'making' the scene.<br>

There is obviously volition, planning, and execution in every photo ... so, I admit that "making" is likely an appropriate term ... though I lack the shame response i am apparently supposed to have when I suggest that "capture" is an equally pleasing term to me.<br>

Back to the topic ... whether a skilled maker or a digi-snapping capturer ... I think every camera user has an INTENT when they push the button. Some are more skilled and consistent at relaying their intent. I believe that success likely correlates well to successfully relaying the intent. I do think that an occasional photo can be successful when the audience completely misses the artists original intent.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Intention" normally is used to convey purposefulness. In this sense, every photograph - whether taken by "snappers" or otherwise - involves the intention of the photographer. Intention, in this context, is a matter of degree. Some photographers spend a great deal of time lining up a shot, adjusting the camera settings, etc., while others just point and shoot. Those who point and shoot intend nothing more than to produce photographs that may be pleasing to themselves and their circles of family and friends. Others who are more deliberate intend to produce more sophisticated photographs, perhaps on a professional level.</p>

<p>It seems that each photographic <em>genre</em> calls for differences in photographers' intentions. Thomas put it well in speaking about landscape photography. The subject itself in such photographs cannot be set up. On the other hand, portraits and still-lifes shot in a studio obviously are set up.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think photographers should at least make an attempt to make their intent clear. Otherwise, why have an intent in the first place? Or, more importantly, why bother publishing/displaying the photo to be viewed? A photographer can't control how well that intent will be perceived since we all ultimately "see" with our minds - and no two minds are alike. Text can accompany a photograph and it can also often help to enhance the appreciation of the work. However, I believe with or without text, a photo should be able to independently convey the artists intent with the universal languages of shape, tone, color and light.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Perhaps what many of us are missing here is that "showing the intention of the photographer" and "being the product of the intention of the photographer" are two very different things.</p>

<p>It would help, John, if we had more context to the one-line statement of Martin Parr. Knowing why he made the statement, or what he was thinking of when he made it, would go far in illiciting a more focussed discussion and perhaps convey more to the reader. Can you elaborate on the why and what of his comment?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the statement heads in the right direction but is too strong. I think a more accurate statement would be something like</p>

<p>"A photograph should be the vehicle for a conversation between the intention of the photographer and the interpretation of the (individual) viewer"</p>

<p>As an aside, it also pops into my head that this notion of intention can have some significant boundary / group effects. If I have a very clear 'intention' that I want a majority of my audience to understand then I am more likely to use more cliche'd styles, symbols, and subjects and to ram whatever it is that I'm intending to convey down my audience's throat. I'd 'play the percentages', as the sporting term goes. However if I am not so fixated on my intention being clear to a large majority of my audience then I find myself liberated to explore my theme in a much more personal, and possibly subtle and/or unorthodox, way.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, I'm just getting back to the thread...and my apologies for not providing some context to Parr's comment. </p>

<p>Parr's remark was taken from a recent British TV show entitled, "Picture This". The show takes 6 amateur photographers and gives them assignments over the course of three weeks, eliminating the unsuccessful contestants until just two remain to battle it out for the prize...which is, a fairly sizeable amount of cash, a book deal, and an exhibition at a major art gallery (can't recall which one) His comment came about during the judging process as he surveyed the photograph of one of the contestants Some of the assignments are very specific, but in this one it was left up to the photographer as to what, where, how, and why they chose to present a particular photograph. The photograph was an informal portrait taken of one of the other contestants. In looking at the picture...Parr just didn't seem to "get it"...and then offered the quote I provided. So, while the critique came about as part of the elimination portion of the program, it seemed to be intended as a bit of instruction from the veteran photographer/teacher to the young, upstart, still wet behind the ears...photographer. I don't want to read too much into Parr's statement...but speaking of <em>intent</em>, it came across to me that he was laying down a principle that he believes should apply to photographs...all photographs, period. Hope this helps a bit.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"I lack the shame response i am apparently supposed to have when I suggest that "capture" </em><br>

<em>is an equally pleasing term to me."</em> <strong>- T Powell</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Thomas, Any "shame" is only evident to you. I didn't suggest it.</p>

<p>I do find it absurdly authoritarian for someone who is surely nobody to most photographers (Parr) to tell us what we "should" or should not do photographically. Groucho Marx had something to say about that...</p>

<p><strong>You asked</strong> what initially seemed a "philosophic" question but you now seem unhappy to have your question answered in those terms. </p>

<p>I think you're fundamentally wrong about this: there's no less inherent intentionality in photographing one subject (eg mountains) or another (eg portraits). At the subject/procedure level they're identical in terms of <em>intentionality</em>. But some of us don't think in terms of subjects. Are you aware of that?</p>

<p>Photographs are not inherently "of" anything. The "of-ness" has to do with the intentions of the photographer. Some photographers, more abstract than me, make photographs that refer to nothing at all. I'm personally a bit more conservative. Others specialize in photographing Little League and Pop Warner teams, to their eternal credit.</p>

<p>Maybe you will notice that some photographers are satisfied with captures, excellent or less-so, others labor to create something arguably more of their own. </p>

<p>The first group probably aspires to excellent conventional renditions, the latter struggles to make images that may be harder to appreciate, more obscure, more often failures than successes. There are many shades of difference.</p>

<p>The differences have little to do with subjects or procedures: posing subjects in studios vs hiking to locations isn't that different. A bigger difference has to do with something about the photographer...the very "intentions" you initially seemed to want to address.</p>

<p>One photographer functions in a mostly procedural/technical, smile-for-the-camera "capture" mode, eg the honorable work done in Walmart studios. Another photographer may just struggle to make an image that rings his own bell, and maybe the bells of a few others.</p>

<p>Taking or assigning responsibility for "making" something, rather than "capturing" isn't a matter of better or worse. It is a matter of apples vs oranges.</p>

<p> There's nothing wrong with "capturing" a subject, but it's not similar to "making" an image, no matter how badly that "made" image seems to you or me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John- </p>

<p>Thanks for the background. Is it reasonable to say that Parr was saying that without intention there is no meaningful communication (and what he didn't see in the amater's portrait)? If so, that clears up what I was struggling a little with in regard to the use of the word intention and how it was being interpreted by several of your respondents.</p>

<p>A good subject, and its consideration by you not at all the product of 'tortured reasoning'.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Mea culpa. I accidentally combined John Gaylon's OT with Thomas Powell's comments. Sorry.</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

1) Parr is nobody to most of us. Dragging an unknown's televised comments into a discussion doesn't seem to me to be a good way to frame an OT.</p>

<p>2) If the OT had explained that Parr was addressing CHILDREN it might have made his authoritarian advice ("should") a little more understandable.</p>

<p>3) <strong>HOWEVER</strong>, I regularly see work by children that addresses a lot more than "subject" ...does something other than "capture"...when they photograph each other or various "subjects." </p>

<p>Many children are highly photographically fluent, like big ideas, are able to "express concepts" as readily as "capture." </p>

<p><strong> Kids' photos are often titled in ways that indicate something complex or subtle is going on</strong>: they are stretching conceptually rather than simply making "captures." They may be demonstrating the benefits of curiosity and a desire that's more challenging than their highly experienced yearbook photographer experiences.</p>

<p>4) <strong>Stretching conceptually</strong> needn't be everybody's cup of tea, but "making captures" does seem to be enough for most photographers, and it's certainly all the camera advertisers want from us. </p>

<p>We don't all need to stretch conceptually, but it's nice when a few do more than properly operate technology, take exotic vacations, relish sunsets.</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...