Maybe it ain't all about the photographer

[pico]

First, I am not standing on higher ground here. I include myself in the collective Them, Us, They, We...

 

Read through a couple hundred responses in this group and tell me if you get the impression that

responders tend to turn subjects into egoistic exposes as if it were all about them. A benign interpretation

is that they are writing to create self-affirmations. Another is that some of us misunderstand the purpose

of criticism or the muse. Less generous interpretations should be obvious. See my occasional,

unfortunate rants for examples. :(

 

Is photography really about what the photographer thinks of himself? Many ideas in philosophy and

subjects in photographs can be discussed without being hijacked by mere opinions. In formal criticism,

opinions of like or dislike are not necessary. One goal of formal criticism is to attempt to place the thing,

the work, the idea within its cultural, artistic context (domain) in order to appreciate it in a deeper

manner. This does not mean we are abstracting a subject in order to render it impotent. It means to

understand it further.

 

We rarely find here writings that concern the content, the subject or theme of photographs, the thing

itself. I would like to read more posts that approach the subject matter of a photograph or an idea rather

than the photographer or thinker. Or is that an impossible thing to achieve? Or can it only be done with

certain genres, for example photojournalism or story telling/making?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Photography is about photographs.

[charles.]

I like your definition Ellis, but I don't think it explains much.

 

I would say that photography is about what is seen and, through that, what is not seen. Sometimes the photographer has a lot to do with this, but often times not. Most people seem to have big egos relating to what they have "created" though.

 

Conversely, it would be difficult to have any given photograph without the photographer.

[dave_reichert1]

"Is photography really about what the photographer thinks of himself?"

 

No.

 

Speaking for myself, the photographer's self image is the last thing I consider when

looking at an image. First and foremost is the image itself. If it moves me, or piques my

curiosity, or stimulates me to think about a deeper meaning, then, and only then, will I

move on to consider other things. The other things are not always positive. I may be

moved to revulsion. I might be curious as to why the image was printed or presented at

all. And, I could be prompted to look more carefully for the photographer's agenda. On the

other hand, a positive impression will also cause me to look for deeper things.

 

In the course of my own photographic work, I found that these same principles are the

most important determining factors when it comes to releasing the shutter, and again, in

making the decision to share the image with another person. I also suspect that these

factors are the selfsame ones that place an image in the greater context, historically. It's in

this context that criticism becomes applicable.

 

We're never going to be privy to the motives of another photographer. Sometimes it's even

difficult to be clear about our own motives when we decide to make an image. The image

must stand on its own, and it must be judged within the context of the greater collection

of images, if that judgement is going to have any meaning at all.

 

I hope I'm addressing point you're bringing up.

[conor_mack]

Photography is gaint. It is bigger than all of us.

the individual is insignifagant.

[ivan_dzo]

Pico, it's hard to write about a photo as though there is some absolute standard that applies.

 

I often find it difficult because people don't say "I set out to acheive this in this photo, did I succeed". So it's hard to know what sort of critique people want/will accept.

 

So I'm not sure that formal criticisms really transcend like or dislikes. Ultimately it either speaks to you or not. The rest is technique, which it is very easy to get caught up in, when it should really be the minimum necessary to support the vision.

[root]

This has the potential to be an interesting discussion, but as you say, it requires an actual photograph in order to get anything useful out of it. It would be hard to find much to say about formal portraits and most vacation snaps. Yet, most of the photographs I see printed, framed, and displayed in your typical living room fit that description.

[jtdnyc]

<Photography is about photographs.>

 

Seems obvious...but might not be the whole truth.

 

Ever watch people chimp at a party? Most often they're looking at images that will never be printed, might soon be erased and in any event are unlikely to survive past the introduction of the next storage medium.

 

For such people, photography seems to be about the shared experience of viewing the image -- almost any image, regardless of composition or quality -- that shows them with their friends and family. It's almost as if the experience is validated by their being able to view it from the vantage point of another person.

 

Many people hunt and eat their kill. For all but a few of them, it's the process, and not the meat, that motivates the hunt. If were about the meat, they could just go to the butcher.

 

There are certainly occasions when photography is truly about the photographs, such as weddings. On those occasions, people tend to hire professionals who know what they're doing and can create superior images.

 

But when an amateur stands next to a rack holding perfectly composed, perfectly exposed pictures of the Eiffel Tower -- pictures that he can buy for less than the cost of exposing and printing an image of his own -- and yet takes his own shot anyway...well, then photography has to be about something other than just the final image.

[john falkenstine]

I think its possible to achieve, but not on photo.net. Perhaps a new netsite that caters to this type of approach might be the answer. My obervation is that photo.net is basically a technojunkie site with almost obsessive conrol in some forums, and that the step to another level of interpretation or looking at images in the manner you describe (higher, lower, whatever), is inhibitedy by the "model" that photo.net operates on. (See the specific concepts of the netsite as set forth by the netsite's owner, which reflect a pure technocratic approach). But: I would also say that your approach would be exlusionary and smacks of Plato's Republic. To label external input not conforming to the model as hijacking is in itself the bomb that defeats this idea. Then you're basically back to what we already have: the POW, but only allowing interpretation with a new set of parameters. Moreover, to put an image within such a discussion context, and then comment on it taking such a context into consideration often invites extremely angry responses as the sensitive issues "behind" the image are suddenly exposed.

[john falkenstine]

0-b-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-o-n. There.

[pico]

<i>. But: I would also say that your approach would be exlusionary and smacks of Plato's

Republic. </i><p>

I can see how there might be an aristocratic impression when speaking to a larger idea

rather than simply yielding to off-topic opinions.<p>

<i>

To label external input not conforming to the model as hijacking is in itself the bomb that

defeats this idea.</i><p>

I was not clear. I was thinking of, for example, where a question might be, "Does this

picture speak to the subject, or does it ignore the subject to promote a certain technique?

Neither, both?" and then someone responds with something like, "I don't believe in

technique" and then rambles into a selfserving, promotional and irrelevant subject. That's

hijacking. That's impertinent opinion making. Not criticism or examination of the subject.

[john falkenstine]

Perhaps, often pictures do both of these at the same time. Perhaps for example, a cultural bias (or dictate) causes an image to be taken in a certain way and that way only, and then the only creative outlet left for the photographer is to play with the image in a technomanner and to label this dodgery as creativity, while for me at least, its only making things worse. (This perhaps, is why so many of the TOP-rated images are exercises in romantic escapism, as if its still the 1890's). To explore images within the framework you suggest certainly could make for some lively discourse, but I doubt if a large enough pool of interested parties currently exists on photo.net to make it viable. Now, please don't get me wrong here as a party who phoophoos newer ideas and approaches, but I think you're on an isolated hilltop and asking other folks to climb a steep cliff to your viewpoint. The vast majority of image posters here are folks who have just bought a camera and post images. To demand an intellectual discourse of an image by somebody who loses his temper in traffic and doesn't know 90% of the functions of his or her new camera is pushing the envelope. The true heartbeat of photo.net is not in the forums where the elite few post, but in the thousands of image submittals and their subject matter. The desire for many posters is to be seen and to have their images seen.

[phyrpowr]

Pico,

 

are you actually asking responders here to stick to the point raised by an original poster?

[john falkenstine]

I have to assume that this is part of Pico's premise. But that's difficult to do for an undisciplined crowd. To moderate a discourse and to discipline it into the desired path doesn't strike me as workable. PHOTOGRAPHY is a wild loose medium that only appeares fixed when viewed in its photo.net format because that's what the netsite has forced it to be, either through manipulation of the forums and topics, or the denial of other viewpoints. Using philosophical methods to discuss an image might first require a different kind of netsite that allows a greater variety of images or perhaps first explores why the variety of image topics is so limited and fixated.

[spanky]

A teacher at school has told me several times after viewing work of mine as it comes out of the wash "Good subject matter". A friend of mine says "What a waste of film". So is one opinion more valid then the other? Is a the thoughts of a photography teacher more important because he/she is a teacher? Obviously, these comments were directed towards the work itself.

 

Here are some comments that were directed not to my work but to me personally after looking at some of my pictures:

 

"Taking pictures of strangers without them knowing is weird".

"You have issues".

"You have a dark side".

"You take pictures of crazy people".

"No Marc, this is just wrong. Really wrong".

 

Pretty unflattering if I might say so. Do I care? Not really, but I value their opinions. So I guess for some, the picture is just that...a picture. For others it's a glimps into the person who took it. I fall into the first camp. A picture really boils down to I like it or I'm indifferent. If I'm indifferent to it, it doesn't mean it's a bad photograph per say. I often cannot put my finger on what makes me arrive at this decision which is why I don't bother critiques.

[mrstubbs]

"I would like to read more posts that approach the subject matter of a photograph or an idea rather than the photographer or thinker."

 

You come then to the impossible postion of assuming the photographers intent and context...unless they have the opportunity to explain it beforehand. I think JF is correct. Not here or anyplace other than a formalised place of study. And even in such a place you have the bias or limits of the critiquers knowledge, along with the possible failure of the photographer to comprehend the critique offered.

 

I believe the major benefit of this site is providing an opportunity to view responses (haphazard as it may be) to an image. What you do with that information is personal choice.

 

It is impossible here for all viewers to see an image in the same way as the photographer. Not a bad situation, considering the outcome if we did.

[jimmy_english]

QUESTION: "Is photography really about what the photographer thinks of himself?"

 

 

ANSWER: "It would be hard to find much to say about formal portraits and most vacation snaps. Yet, most of the photographs I see printed, framed, and displayed in your typical living room fit that description."

 

ANALYSIS: Self profiling can be Soooo nuanced.

[pico]

<i>A picture really boils down to I like it or I'm indifferent. If I'm indifferent to it, it doesn't

mean it's a bad photograph per say. </i><p>

That's a good example of hijacking a subject to point to your own opinions that have nothing

to do with the subject. It ain't about you.

[pico]

<i>You come then to the impossible postion of assuming the photographers intent and

context...unless they have the opportunity to explain it beforehand.</i><p>

The point is drifting. Let's focus on the original post. One goal of formal criticism is to

attempt to place the thing, the work, the idea within its cultural, artistic context (domain) in

order to appreciate it in a deeper manner.

<p>

In many cases, the photographer's original intent doesn't matter. At some point, history

takes it over, for better or worse.

[john falkenstine]

See Pico, even the initial posting is introduced to degradation. The problem is you're alone on the AM band of photography trying to steer a subject that running on digital downloads, instant gratification and buying the latest doodah at Best Buy. Its even gone past FM Stereo. Its a DOA proposal here.

[mrstubbs]

"The point is drifting."

 

So is the question. If you mistake the attempt to "place the thing" then what basis do you use to critique from that perspective but your own. A critique is personal ..not universally true.

 

Three cheers for drifting!

[pico]

<i>See Pico, even the initial posting is introduced to degradation.</i><p>

Entropy :) <p>

 

<i>Its a DOA proposal here.</i><p>

 

As dead as the proverbial parrot. So much for a philosophical query in a philosophy forum.

<p>

[pico]

<i>So is the question. If you mistake the attempt to "place the thing" then what basis do you

use to critique from that perspective but your own. A critique is personal ..not universally

true.</i><p>

A formal critique has nothing to do with whether one likes or dislikes the artwork: it is an

attempt to see its place in a cultural perspective, something larger or smaller than the

photographer. It is an attempt to remove the egoism. So, it's an attempt to transcend

personal issues.

[mrstubbs]

"A formal critique ..."

 

The word "formal" does little to describe any point you are making.

 

If you include even a basic list of elements you may include in a critique you would find many unaware of the existence of many of the concepts you might contemplate.

 

If so...how can the critique be of value to the photographer.

 

Comments in that manner would be seen as no more than egotistical of the person making the "formal" critique.

 

You say "it is an attempt to see its place in a cultural perspective"

 

How could anyone possibly understand all perspectives.

[pico]

Methinks we should all get one of these:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/_19-6-06-parrot.png