Blind Photographers and Their Work

[ted_fisher]

<p>In 2007 I was fortunate enough to meet some members of the "Seeing With Photography Collective" on the last day of an exhibition they were involved in. From interviews with the group, I co-directed a short (7 minute) documentary. It's been out on the film festival circuit, and is now available online for free.<br>

 

<p>http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/blind_faith/</p>

<br>

I'm curious how people view the concept of photography by the blind, and I would love to know what you think of the specific ideas these photographers discuss in the piece. There are a number of related projects and exhibitions out right now (and coming soon) on this topic, and I think it makes us consider our basic assumptions about the field. I'd love to hear your thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>

[anov]

<p>I posted this a while back<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00TK6U">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00TK6U</a><br>

The ones they show were really good, I can understand the making of the photo because they can utilize their other senses however I wonder in the evaluating part, the part when you check the result, would that requires a sighted person to describe it to them? Otherwise how would they know, how would they get better?<br>

Thanks for the link Ted, I watched the entire movie and at the end the screen show sponsored link for a LASIK procedure, ironic.</p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>I think you've hit on one of the key questions. While there seem to be blind photographers working in many different ways, the group I met work closely with a sighted artist, and there's an element of collaboration.</p>

<p>As you mention, though, the process of learning is different than for those who are sighted: I find my photo students, if everything goes well, see the world differently at the end of a course. The process of looking, making a photograph, considering that image, and starting again is a very powerful one. And it doesn't seem to be part of the practice of these blind photographers. I get the impression there is a feedback circuit that happens, but it isn't the same as the one most sighted photographers experience. It may be more internal / mental than visual. It's difficult to know for certain.</p>

<p>Of course, there are "blind photographers" who work in other ways, and some who are sighted to some degree and may experience more of that visual cycle.</p>

<p>Thanks for watching!</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Not to be insensitive, but I really don't understand how the "blind photography" works.<br /> <br /> I read an article about this a while back. There were some really neat images included, but what I don't understand is how someone who is blind can compose the shots. The article didn't really explain the method.<br /> <br /> Is anyone willing to explain?</p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>I think there are many different approaches, but most of the photographers I spoke with had previously been sighted. So the process was one of imagining what they'd like to create, then -- usually working with a sighted person -- setting up that situation and photographing it. In the video, one of the photographers illustrates a portrait process that is basically a "painting with light" situation -- shining light over the features of the subject in a long exposure. There's a little more info on these specific photographers at: http://www.seeingwithphotography.com/</p>

<p>(I'm aware of photographers who work in other ways, or course, so I think this shows just one possibility.)</p>

[jtk]

<p>I'm aware of two non-famous photographers with "legal" blindness. They can't drive but can navigate afoot in most terrain.</p>

<p>One shoots DSLR and views test prints and finals at around two-inches from nose (I've watched).</p>

<p>The other uses ultra large format (bigger than 8X10)...ultra large format allows more careful ground glass examination...I imagine he views prints a two-inches as well. </p>

<p>Someone unaware of how these two photographes work might misunderstand their unique perspectives....valuable contributions IMO to the body of fine photography. If one understands "where they're coming from" one adjusts to view the work differently (eg making special effort to get nose-close).</p>

<p>Both produce fine, distinctive work and believe (as I do) that being a non-professional photographer-in-full tends to imply printing one's own (I'm not making that case rigidly, but it's my general belief).</p>

<p>The DSLR-shooter produces fine work that's "different," seemingly because of the way the scene is studied, and certainly because of the way print tests are viewed. I've not seen enough of the view camera shooters work to say the same thing...though it doesn't seem to require the same adjustment, ie it's easier to appreciate.</p>

<p> </p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>Two interesting examples, John.</p>

<p>Have you seen anything on the "Sight Unseen" exhibition out at UCR / CMP? (A couple of the photographers in my short film are in that show.) There seem to be a range of approaches.</p>

<p>http://www.cmp.ucr.edu/exhibitions/sightunseen/</p>

<p>I get the sense that human beings often thrive when given limits.</p>

[buffy_h_f.]

<p>I am legally blind; my sight is impaired enough that I have a service dog. I typically don't see the details in things so my composition is sometimes off; sometimes I don't know exactly what I photographed until after the fact. There are times that can be very frustrating, but I still love the process.</p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>Hi Buffy,</p>

<p>Are there times when that leads to photographs that by chance, or happy accident, or just by exploration, are better or more interesting? If I'm remembering right, Chuck Close said that photography is "the only medium in which there is even the possibility of an accidental masterpiece." Do you sometimes get unplanned results that are surprising and good? </p>

[buffy_h_f.]

<p>Ted,</p>

<p>Yes, that does happen occasionally. I think it happens more often when I'm shooting digital; I'm more casual with digital, more deliberate with film, especially medium format. Still, I really don't know that it happens to me or other blind photographers any more often than it does to fully sighted photographers. </p>

<p>If there is a an experience unique to blind photographers it's probably having people wonder or question why we are holding a camera at all.</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>Recently I saw a (1991 or 1992) Australian movie with a blind photographer as the main character titled Proof. Well worth renting. (Russell Crowe is in it but not the lead). The main character takes polaroid photographs and then asks various people he meets to describe, and write down, in one or two sentences what he or she sees in the photograph. He gets several such impressions. There is more to the story of course. The idea that a (totally in this case) blind person could use photography to help make sense of his world was quite intriguing.</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>It would appear that this movie has been discussed elsewhere in these forums. <br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=0060om">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=0060om</a></p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>First, for Buffy: that's a very interesting point. I was once told by photographer who meant well that I was using the wrong eye with my camera. He very aggressively insisted that I was doing it wrong and should correct how I was working. I can only imagine what reactions you experience from people. That must be very strange.</p>

<p>For Bruce: yes, I am hoping to catch that film on cable sometime soon. I noticed that by coincidence the thread you pointed to (from years ago) also had a reference to the "Seeing With Photography Collective."</p>

[jtk]

<ol>

<li>Flip "blind" over: I think it says something about their goals when photographers use devices that actively make vision difficult: electronic viewfinders or mirror boxes (instead of prism) for example, or squinty 4/3 dslrs, or digicams whose monitors underperform, or slr/dslr whose screens are so poor that they required split screens to manually focus.</li>

</ol>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4610433"><em>Keith Aldrich</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Sep 10, 2009; 05:35 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Not to be insensitive, but I really don't understand how the "blind photography" works.<br /><br />I read an article about this a while back. There were some really neat images included, but what I don't understand is how someone who is blind can compose the shots. The article didn't really explain the method.<br /><br />Is anyone willing to explain?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, right ? Kinda like a deaf musician. Okay, so there were composers who went deaf in their later years, but they still could 'hear' the piece in their heads, and score the results.<br>

It seems like we're talking here about people who are 'legally' blind, not completely without sight.<br>

I think 'vision impaired' would be a lot closer to the truth, but 'blind' is a lot more dramatic.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>Bill P. said:<br>

<em>"It seems like we're talking here about people who are 'legally' blind, not completely without sight.</em><br>

<em>I think 'vision impaired' would be a lot closer to the truth, but 'blind' is a lot more dramatic."</em></p>

<p>The photographers in the video I started the thread with are blind rather than legally blind. As far as I can tell, all or most of the photographers we interviewed / followed for that film had been sighted at one time, then lost their sight.</p>

 

[sobeystudio]

<p>Ted-<br>

Loved the film. It makes me want to see the works in person. I think that many people here are disregarding, or didn't notice, one of the key points to the photography. The woman interviewed, whose work is absolutely amazing- said she photographs people to get a response from the sitter, to open a dialogue- a connection that a seeing photographer could never achieve, because we don't have the same capacity to separate ourselves from the visual. It seems as if these people have come upon an aspect of photography that is rarely considered- the physical nature of a photography session- the actual space involved- not the numbers game we all play, depth of field, focus, aperture etc., but the shape of space and impressions of something otherwise taken for granted. I put an emphasis on <em>impression</em> because photography tends to be very rigid, and these people aren't just stepping outside the box, they live there, and are attempting something totally unorthodox by stepping inside the box. As someone who sees a greater potential for photography, I find these people who are working as only they can, to be quite inspiring. Regardless of the results, which are often quite striking, they are getting a great joy from photography- something we all share. </p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>Martin, that's a great point. I wish we had been able to visit them during their working sessions, and maybe an opportunity to do so will come up sometime. We were restricted to a five-day window for making that film, though, so were just happy to meet them and get a sense of what they do.</p>

<p>It's always good, I think, to see that there isn't just one "photography" but instead many ways of working. I know some sighted photographers I would say put emphasis on the process of photography rather than on the image created, for example, and I find that fascinating also.</p>

[jtk]

<p>A related idea is the ability of people with fine drawing skills, who can do beautiful work without looking at the paper. In fact, some drawing teaching focuse on that...it's a matter of developing muscle/sensibility connections. Advertising agency art directors call illustrators "wrists"</p>

<p>However, I truly don't understand how someone totally blind gets satisfaction from producing something s/he can never see. I think that if I was blind I'd want to play guitar a lot better than I do.</p>

<p>We often refer to photographs as "well seen" or we say a photographer has "good eyes." </p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>John- "we say a photographer has "good eyes."<br>

Aside from the obvious aspects of seeing well or having a strong aesthetic sensibility, I think referring to a photographer, or anyone for that matter, as someone who has a good eye also speaks to the photographer's ability to read the situation about to come together- to coalesce into the "decisive moment". I think these people have a talent for understanding this moment, just through terms we don't really know. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Martin, true, but it's not an accident that the reference is visual rather than auditory or tactile, both of which might seem more appropriate than "good eyes" for good work of a blind person.</p>

<p>Musicians are are inherently more involved with "decisive moments" than all but a few photographers (perhaps HCB)...I've never heard musicians described as having "good" eyes. They are sometimes said to have "good ears."</p>

<p>I don't know how dancers or dancers, comedians or actors, who have the same sort of timing concerns, would be described in two words "good...uh?" They're probably more concerned with muscles related to visual phenomena they create than are musicians or photographers, but I doubt the phrase would be "good eyes." There are many totally blind athletes...perhaps we'd say they have "good timing" just as we might say about HCB, a drummer, or Frank Sinatra (his phrasing).</p>

<p>I'd be interested to consider what complimentary phrase would best describe an accomplished blind photographer, if such a phrase is relevant...</p>

<p>And how would the work be evaluated by another blind person? In political terms? Is that the point?</p>

<p> And how would that photographer's work relate to the larger body of photography? (not that it's necessary, but it may be inevitable for a sighted person).</p>

<p>There there are reportedly two ways of thinking about instruction of deaf children (in a local "school for the deaf" there's been near-violence between their proponents): </p>

<p>One way says "American Sign only between hearing and deaf, including hearing parents and deaf children... lip reading actively bad (has to do with rights and self esteem)." </p>

<p>The other way says "teach deaf kids to act like hearing as much as possible, teach to better read lips, hearing parents should speak to deaf children ( sense of larger culture's "normal")." </p>

<p>What phrase would be used to describe the "good auditory work" of someone totally deaf? Not a joke: "Good vibes?" "Good feel?"</p>

<p>"Interesting" would work, though that has a patronizing ring to it. Nonetheless, this is an interesting topic.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>"I'm curious how people view the concept of photography by the blind"</p>

<p>It's difficult to truly get a sense of how blind photographers would see the photographs they're making but the Charles Bonnett syndrome, as talked about in the link below, might touch on how some, if not many, of the blind or visually impaired people who do take up photography or painting or some other visual form of expression / communication can experience by vision what it is that they're also expressing and communicating through photographs.</p>

<p><a href="

 

[jacob_vats]

<p><a href="http://www.wonderwall.co.in/abstract_photography.aspx">Abstract Photography</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.wonderwall.co.in/female_fine_art_photography.aspx">Female Photography</a></p>

 

[ted_fisher]

<p>Hi Jacob,</p>

<p>I'm not sure I understand why you've posted those links. Are the photographers blind or do these relate to the topic?</p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>Ah, Jacob, now I understand. You posted those same links in your only other post. Unfortunate.</p>