Does photography affect biography?

william l. palminteri · October 7, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645">John Kelly</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 06, 2009; 01:45 p.m.

Unfortunately the thread degenerated into repetitive misunderstandings and authoritarian intrusions.

</blockquote>

John, what thread are you reading ?

Fred has put forth one of the most interesting and useful threads I've read in quite a while. I've looked at my process from different angles and I've discovered some things about myself that will help with my craft.

I am glad to share those introspections with everyone here.

If more threads were like this one, we'd all become better photographers, and better people to boot.

Fred, my compliments to you.

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · October 7, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 04, 2009; 03:10 p.m.

Good points about the snapshots - I (too) loosely used the word to indicate a photo that is not very consciously made, as opposed to a photo with considered framing, exposure and, for those with more skill, intent.

</blockquote>

Wouter, most snapshots are done with a very specific intent of freezing significant life events in time for enjoyment and the rekindling of memories later on.

That shows serious intent. The snapshooters are not looking to create an artistic portrayal, that's left to the guys at the Sears photo booth.

But that doesn't diminish the importance those people put on their snapshots.

Those people are, by definition, documentary photographers in the most basic sense, and their photos are most consciously made.

Should those people develop a photographic skillset, those snapshots become more pleasing to look at for people who have no emotional connection to the event.

That's why people who weren't on the trip with uncle John cringe at the nine packets of snaps they are "forced" to look at.

Aunt Jaynie, however, can't wait to get those packets back from the drugstore, because she was on the trip, and those shots have meaning for her.

It would be good if more "real" photographers exhibited that much intent !

Bill P.

Wouter Willemse · October 7, 2009

Bill,

At first reading, I think "yes, you're fully right, and I've been too light-minded dismissing snapshots". But a few thoughtful seconds laters, I'm torn over that idea, and again not too sure.

So I will just ramble a lot below and try to organise those 2 points of views...

You do raise a valid point in that snapshots are "intended personal life PJ like pictures". Valid point that they may have more intent than all the pictures the most of us try to make, which are meant to be beautiful or meaningful in one way or another. And maybe more than any of the more skilled attempts, they are the biography, an autobiography though. But, a reflection of it, not an "input" to that story.

But what keeps me from fully agreeing are my thoughts on another thread here(<a href="http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00UdrZ">http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00UdrZ</a>) on the decisive moments. Or the decisive composition. A snapshot, just taken out of "nothing" to record a specific situation, usually has no intended composition. In that sense, the photo has no intent as beyond its "visual content". And that visual content is a memory enabler, as you already indicate. An intent only aimed at the photographer him- or herself, and whoever was there. No intent beyond that.

The intended photos I meant earlier (the post preceding the part you quoted) have an intent that's embedded in the photo, in its composition; it's its ability to tell a story to any viewer. Something that, I think, takes tremendous skill beyond most photographers. I'm sure I'm not capable of it (yet?).

The ability or aspiration to work on such pictures is the type of work that will work as an input to ones (auto)biography. The thoughts and consideration that go into creating that picture, defining what you want the "world" to see, how, and with which angle of view, shows a contemplation and a vision on that same world, and/or on other people (the viewers). You're not enabling your own memories at that moment, but rather in a process of expression and introspection - to me a whole different dimension than serving the memory with an "a-ha erlebnis".

So, yes, I dismissed snapshots too easily, definitely. But photography as output of your life, or as input to your life - I think that's where the difference is which I attempted to indicate.

Although I'm sure the next reply will make me doubt it again, but the doubt is more enjoyable and more of a discovery than the knowledge, so please don't stop ;-)

luis_g · October 7, 2009

The snapshot is the Mother Tongue, the Ur- language of photography. It affects all our lives as an illumination and definition of family times, vacations, and rites of passage(s) in our lives.

It is one of, if not the most aesthetically rigorous photographic forms. Many artists have consciously utilized the form to great advantage, as it is a familiar visual Pavlovian trigger encoded into our unconscious.

I see Callahan as addressing style issuing from a state of being , as opposed to a desire for becoming.

Norma Desmond · October 7, 2009

Bill/Wouter--

I think your two posts express both sides of the coin beautifully. They distill much about snapshots that I have not heard so clearly and succinctly put. I come away from Bill's thoughts with a better sense of why snapshots are so significant and from Wouter's with a better sense of why we distinguish between snapshots and photos of a less casual nature.

I think a significant aspect of art is how the artist uses his medium and the effect to which he uses the tools of that medium. Wouter points out that that kind of intention is often not seen in family and vacation snaps. In art and more "serious" photographs, there can be a self-referencing use of the medium. Does this piece seem like it HAS TO BE a photograph? Is there a uniqueness to its being a photograph that gives it an essential ability to express what it expresses? So many good artists are that in tune with their medium.

That having been said, the clear focus (intent) of snap-shooting that Bill talks about is often overlooked. I think about Aunt Jaynie's (mine is Aunt Carole) smile, memories, longings, her love being embedded and embodied in those photos, whether of her vacation to Florida or of her grandchildren. That strong emotional attachment/catharsis/outpouring is what so many artists strive for but, as Both Bill and Wouter point out, hopefully with a more universal touch and reach.

Some snapshots of others do reach me at a gut level, even while remaining snapshots. Even a snapshot may make that more universal leap. A special case is old snapshots, like from the World War II era which, for me, is likely more about nostalgia than the specific photos. They feel personal because they convey so much about my immediate roots, things which I never directly saw with my own eyes.

I wonder if it's fair to say that snapshots reflect more than affect my biography? I'm not sure I can think of a family or vacation snapshot that has transformed me, though many have really moved me. But I suppose when I am moved, I am transformed, so . . .

Norma Desmond · October 7, 2009

Luis-- I was writing as you were. Can you say more about why you think snapshots are one of if not the most aesthetically rigorous forms of photography? I can't see that. Snapshot and aesthetic rigor don't seem to me to go hand in hand. As I said in my post above, I see the use of craft as a significant aesthetic consideration and I don't see as much intimate use of craft in snapshots as in other photos.

GerrySiegel · October 7, 2009

An interesting subject, Fred. It is revealing for those who examine their lives periodically.

Not long ago I went to a college reunion event with some classmates. We spent a lot of time touring places in the Las Vegas area by bus. Retired doctors, lawyers, businessmen, some really high powered types of course. Who did I talk to and connect with the most? The ones who had an interest in photography of the scenes or were willing to open up a bit. I think we knew it (photography, music, books) was a personal language beyond the superficial talk of people; We skim the surface of things, you know what I mean. Sexuality and picture taking has a component that is elusive but powerful I think. I have felt personally that photographing someone you care about, or admire,or fancy, is a form of love making and a kind of courtship surrogate. Hard to explain,but there it is. At times one sacrifices the artist or imaginative part of ourselves ( As in "Hey you should have been an actor..you do a great imitation of ....") to the business of a secure but less fulfilling livelihood. Clearly, photography, like acting, allow us to jump out of our personal social shell and express something more inside, a stretching exercise that feels good.

Rebecca, I grew up on reading and immersing myself in sci fi. The so called Golden Years of the 1950's .Astounding and Galaxy. Shopped for used pulps at a bookstore near Scollay Square of Boston with my earnings from my paper route. It was a flight of imagination into a world far from the strum and drang of pimple faced adolescence. When I am asked what do in retirement, it is enough to say I am a photographer. If the questionner "gets it" we have a bond. A shared personal biography inpat. Beyond how our mutual funds have been doing or the dollar to yen ratio...

To step beyond the superficial in this internet age can be 'de-arming "and a little tricky. Even vulnerabel . " (Steal this Identity" Go ahead, See if I care .)...I jest, but you all know what I mean. I need an good avatar;-) for my next phase of life..who will I be next? What role will I assume,after grandpa...householder...et al...can we not handle several and is photographer a separate role or augmentative?gs

william l. palminteri · October 7, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 07, 2009; 09:23 a.m.

Bill,

At first reading, I think "yes, you're fully right, and I've been too light-minded dismissing snapshots". But a few thoughtful seconds laters, I'm torn over that idea, and again not too sure.

So I will just ramble a lot below and try to organise those 2 points of views...

You do raise a valid point in that snapshots are "intended personal life PJ like pictures". Valid point that they may have more intent than all the pictures the most of us try to make, which are meant to be beautiful or meaningful in one way or another. And maybe more than any of the more skilled attempts, they are the biography, an autobiography though. But, a reflection of it, not an "input" to that story.

But what keeps me from fully agreeing are my thoughts on another thread here(<a rel="nofollow" href="../street-documentary-photography-forum/00UdrZ">http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00UdrZ</a>) on the decisive moments. Or the decisive composition. A snapshot, just taken out of "nothing" to record a specific situation, usually has no intended composition. In that sense, the photo has no intent as beyond its "visual content". And that visual content is a memory enabler, as you already indicate. An intent only aimed at the photographer him- or herself, and whoever was there. No intent beyond that.

</blockquote>

Wouter, what a well thought through response. Yes, the snapshooter cares only to document his/her memories, and I've seen and been part of their very arduous attempts to "get the composition right". Remember "Get closer, get everyone in the frame, get Aunt Jaynie in front where we can see her". "OKay, now say 'Cheese' ".

"Oh dear, cousin Tommy blinked......"

Considering that these people are not photographers, they have a vey clear grasp of what has to be in the shot for posterity.

And much of this was happening with film, when film cost money and most people were tightly budgeted. These snapshots could become mini-events in their own right.

Since these people were by and large not photogaphers, they had no intention of creating anything that would be seen beyond their families.

As far as no specific intent, I think that a shot of Papa Louie with that gigantic flounder has plenty of intent. Look at that grin on Papa's face. That's not a random shot, it's been thought out.

I think the dividing line might be that they are not photographers, they are vacationers who take pictures.

We are photographers, and I go places to take photos and do other things while I'm taking photos.

As an aside, I spent quite a while looking at family snaps that someone had posted of people I did not know, in places I had never been.

I spent many moments with each shot, just wondering..................

Those shots weren't meant for me, but still they had a haunting effect......

Bill P.

luis_g · October 7, 2009

Fred, I said aesthetic, not craft. The latter seems to have had a certain level of "acceptable" competence in the film era, and since digital, that seems to have improved considerably.

When one works at a 1-hr lab and sees thousands of (back then) rolls of snaps, all nearly identical (in many respects), the aesthetically rigorous part becomes obvious. I am not saying it is a complex aesthetic, mind you, just a narrow and pervasive one. Its universality makes it seem almost instinctive, though I believe it is learned. It is a basic, illustrative set of visual strategies, that act as a mnemonic trigger, family chronicle, and more.They say: This is what we did together, the things we valued, people we loved, moments we never wanted to forget. We came, we saw, we lived. This is who we are. Who you are.

One example: One sees thousands of the same exact birthday pictures. They're almost interchangeable for a given age and socio-economic class. The 1-hr I worked at was in a crusty neighborhood, but sometimes people from other areas dropped off films. There were the same pictures at the same hotels in the Bahamas, new puppies, older people in groups, babies, neatly outfitted people on Colorado pack trips, graduations, the Smoky Mountain NP, some bodies in caskets, Busch Gardens visits, office parties, Disneyworld, by the rail at the South Rim, the new Jag or Vette in the driveway, children playing at the local parks etc. All with similar central compositions, and often unconsciously loaded with class signifiers. And to go back to the topic here, this style, along with everything else we have seen, felt and imagined, is embedded in us.

The snapshot style is a hot wire to our emotions.

Now and then, we got some nudes of the wife being frisky, or something really odd, like a frat initiation, pictures of bruises, car wrecks, blue-haired 70-somethings, always feeding a huge alligator slices of bread, and yet, the aesthetic was the same.

There were exceptions, however. We had a lady, a brilliant, pretty, chubby and nervous (HCB-style) 30-something housewife, who was a natural, the real thing. She had evolved into a talented, serious photographer on her own . Never read a photo-book, or photo-magazine, and (probably wisely) rejected my suggestions she do so or take a class, though she routinely milked me about technical stuff. Her family pictures looked like something out of the Magnum book of family portraits, and was a first-rate work. Her husband made her put "her" photos in a separate album from her family pictures, soon she had three albums put together and what albums they were! There are many great undiscovered photographers out there.

william l. palminteri · October 7, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 07, 2009; 10:33 a.m.

Some snapshots of others do reach me at a gut level, even while remaining snapshots. Even a snapshot may make that more universal leap. A special case is old snapshots, like from the World War II era which, for me, is likely more about nostalgia than the specific photos. They feel personal because they convey so much about my immediate roots, things which I never directly saw with my own eyes.

</blockquote>

Fred, as I was mentioning to Wouter, snapshots can have an awesome impact on people who were never intended to see them.

Looking at those snaps I mentioned, I would wonder if that guy is still alive.....

Does his store still exist?

I wonder what he had for dinner that night.

Did he watch Ed Sullivan that Sunday evening?

Did he have any idea that the snap would survive and affect me fifty years later?

People spend huge sums of money to tour museums and ponder those questions of the people in Edouard Manet paintings (not so much the Ed Sullivan part).

Pretty heady stuff for a snapshot.....................

Bill P.

mizore · October 7, 2009

Snapshots are attempts to catch the moment as we'd like to be remembered. If there's are other things going on in snapshots, it's that we all live surrounded by images in ways that were probably uncommon for most people in the past.

That's most snapshots are stereotypes and resemble each other (the grinning torsos in front of the captured landscape or city street) speaks to the common pool of images most people use as templates. Going beyond that may require more thought, more imagination, more intuition about the possibilities of a lens and film combination, but there's an unconscious grace to some snapshots that too often is lacking in the more consciously "artistic" shots.

I also see a lot of technically proficient work, both in writing and in the visual arts, that's an imitation of generically good photographs, sort of a mix of Cartier Bresson and Anselm Adams, and some other number of photographers the imitator admires. This turns into the generic arty shot of dead tree parts taken on medium format black and white film -- and it's maybe necessary to shoot those shots, too, to keep from becoming too smug. I've certainly taken them.

Theatrical maybe another matter. Some people just are, naturally.

I still remember one of the shots I took for the weekly newspaper, girls playing basketball, all bodies arching toward the basket, but I've forgotten the rest of them.

Going somewhere new doesn't require being noisy about it, or even obvious. Playing with the conventions of the snapshot, but trying to make the photo do more than be a document of a memory, strikes me as more fun than moody shots of more vegetables.

mizore · October 7, 2009

Writing has the equivalent in the generic literary story, the generic science fiction story, the generic free verse poem, where people aren't imitating any one person, but a mishmash of all that they admire in the genre. Imitating one person can be more useful as the disconnect between self and the other artist is more obvious, what isn't being done that one could contribute is clearer.

Norma Desmond · October 7, 2009

Luis--

Thanks. I understand what you're getting at, the similar and strong aesthetic of the snaps which you've related. I think I'm using "aesthetic" a little differently and maybe in a slightly different context. I don't think of aesthetics as separate from craft, despite their differences. It might be too strong to say that all craft comes under the umbrella of aesthetics but I do think of aesthetics as including craft. For me, the aesthetics of photography includes craft and technique: the use of technique to be expressive and the use of the characteristics of a particular craft. Beauty, emotion, taste, etc. have to be considered, too.

So, on the one hand, I understand now what you mean by snapshots having a rigorous aesthetic, and I agree with you and appreciate your expanding on it. What confused me is that I think of craft as a significant aspect of aesthetics, and snap shots don't seem to be too concerned with deliberative craft.

Whether it's cabinet-making or oil painting, there is something beautiful and often transcendent in the harmonious application of one's craft. I think (all?) craft has the potential of being art. More importantly to this particular part of the discussion, I think art and aesthetics imply craft.

Aesthetics is often thought of as theoretical, whereas craft is thought to be more of a practice, something we do. Prior to Aristotle, many Greek writers and philosophers didn't even distinguish between theory and practice, between understanding and craft. And even though Aristotle did eventually make the significant distinction, he recognized a unity as well.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "It is in Aristotle that we find the basis for something like the modern opposition between epistêmê (knowledge) as pure theory and technê as practice. Yet even Aristotle refers to technê or craft as being also epistêmê or knowledge because it is a practice grounded in an ‘account’ — something involving theoretical understanding. Plato — whose theory of forms seems an arch example of pure theoretical knowledge — nevertheless is fascinated by the idea of technê or craft that is informed by the more theoretical [*and even transcendent] knowledge of Forms. *[bracketed phrase is my addition for emphasis]

luis_g · October 7, 2009

Rebecca, I think that in the snapshot, there is a very specific aesthetic, and the content is also very specific. The generic artsy shot routinely fails spectacularly (outside of being "purty" or technically apt, both yawners) precisely because it lacks specificity in both aesthetics and content. The quote from Callahan is directly related to this. Whatever else the snapshot shows, there is emotional involvement, even if at a brickbat level. It is intentionally and intensely biographical (extending into fiction at times) and within a household set of albums, one sees repeating subtler tropes and themes, including "American postcard surrealism" and other fictions. I remember in a La Chapelle interview/article him telling the stories about how his Mom would drive to ritzy neighborhoods, and pose the family in front of mansions, then insert them into the family album.

Going beyond the humble snap entails other things -- and taking some of the snapshot lessons with us.

One time my wife and I made the trip to see the in-laws, and we rented a convertible Mustang for the occasion. I was surprised to find some of her relatives asking for us to take their pictures sitting in it, and they insisted we move it to different locations between pictures. Years later, the prints had worked their way into their family album (!). :-)

Can photography act as a form of confabulation in our lives?

Norma Desmond · October 7, 2009

Luis--

We're overlapping in our writing, so I'm going to relax a bit so I don't miss out on any responses before saying more.

Rebecca--

I want to reread your posts and think a bit.

Wouter Willemse · October 7, 2009

(oops, only missed 3 replies while typing this....sorry!)

Bill, thanks for the compliment. The answer came as I was writing it, and it's for me to most pleasant site of this particular forum: bringing into words what you "sort of" understand brings a much bigger clarity to some things. It's very refreshing, and a big bonus to this site to have this place. Really great description on how the family group photos go. All too recognisable. I'm always the blob of hair in the back (do photographers hate to be in pictures? Nearly all I know do...) Luis G, the snapshot of a famous building with a torso in front... for me that's about as bad as snapshots can get. Thanks, though, since the mention of it sure made me smile. As much as I dislike such pictures, you all made me think about them seriously, instead of just despise them.

Though it was never my intent to stir the pot so much on snapshots, I do find it very enlightning, from each perspective. It also reminded me of my own progression as a photographer/snapshooter. I did not start with photography all that long ago, and in the beginning, I just took pictures. Lots of them. Pretty clueless about anything else. After a while, as my interest deepened and my technical knowledge a bit better, slowly I started to become aware of a need for composition and originality. So I tried. The quality of my pictures declined. Only since a year of two, I feel I'm back on track to improve. In that meantime I've became a technically much more proficient type, and that "ease of operating the camera" allows me to focus more on what matters. But what I do not get back is that unassuming, unspoiled "shoot some of that and then some more, and oh! nice, and hey! see..". Those pictures were taken pure on instinct. Indeed, snapshots. But they have a quality that I cannot match now anymore, though hopefully it's traded off against other qualities. And like Luis tells, some people just have it. Gut instinct to take seriously good pictures. A natural ability to balance a composition and see what others fail to see. And I've seen people (including myself to some extend as told above, though I'm no natural by any means) spoil that natural ability by thinking too much. Writer's block, to play with the biography theme. Fred, Bill, I cannot completely relate to watching other people's snapshots, and getting pulled in. I feel voyeuristic, and "not at home". It just doesn't connect to me, so it's not something I'd easily do. And coming to think of it, this could also be a lack of imagination on my side. Sure, sometimes they catch me when touring around photo-sharing sites, but rationally I do find those pictures to have a very strong graphical element (eyes, most of the time) anyway. At least something that gives the picture such a strong point of attention. But are they still snapshots, or just accidental seriously good photos? How thin is the line between those two anyway?

Another point that strikes me is the point about film and the associated cost. The oldest family photos I've seen are all stiff, formal, portraits which costed a fortune in those days. People found it worth the money. Self-made "snapshots" on film, where indeed carefully "everybody" was taken in, the children warned to act normal; people found it worth spending money on. But now? Everything gets recorded. At random. Is it fair to say that the added cost in film added a level of intent and consideration to those pictures? Compared to the hordes I see now in zoos trying to take a picture of a lion 25 metres away with their telephone? Does the snapshot loose value because it's a mass-product to the extreme, or does it just mean you'd have to look harder to find the good ones?

Nearly bedtime here, just a closing note,

We are photographers, and I go places to take photos and do other things while I'm taking photos.

</blockquote>

So true, and so many people think I'm completely insane when they see that overstuffed, way to heavy backpack with any kind of lens ("you might want it")... But it's what I want to do. Just like I will never understand the need to take a picture of a smiling head with a Tai Mahal in the background, will they not understand me and that 11 kilo bag of goodies.

jtk · October 7, 2009

In addition to too many of my own photographs and snapshots (irrelevant distinction), I have two huge collections of other people's photos. Several family biographies.

One is of several threads of my own families, made by "serious" as well as "snapshooting" photographers, but also including beautiful studio portraits..they go back to the late 1800s. Farmers, tradesmen, America's middle class. I even have several of their cameras, one of which became my own at age 8.

The other traces an upper-middle class European family that, like my own California pioneer family, documented their lives.

The Europeans photos include writing that documents wandering into the Revolution (many silver PR photos of Tsar Nicholas, Anastasia et al, and White Russian officers). After that they moved to Harbin..a modernist Russian city that had been instantly created at the Chinese end of the Trans Siberian Railroad to accommodate the Jews the Tsar needed financially, therefore needed to make safe.

These collections are partially "mere" snapshots (undoubtedly of high value to the families as records), but many are very fine by any modern aesthetic standard. It happens that both families actually included professional photographers, mine in Northern California farm country and the other family's, becoming evident in Moscow and Harbin.

These photos do constitute visual biographies, but were surely made and accumulated in order to keep families whole ...and perhaps eternal. The photographers appear not to have been interested in themselves, therefore I doubt they can be said to have been producing autobiographies.

fate_faith_change_chains · October 7, 2009

Regarding family album snapshots and the photographer's relationship towards personal work <> biography, Meatyards' " The Family Album of Luccybelle Crater " seems strangely fit. I think Meatyard is exploring the ambivalence of the family album, of the snapshot.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/M/meatyard/meatyard_articles3.html

I also think of Blue Velvet when I think of the snapshot. Besides what snapshots show I'm more drawn to what snapshots don't show.

-Fred, I agree with your own words regarding the Callahan quote ( a photographer also known for his intentional photography of his personal life, family ), it expresses much for which I couldn't quite find the right words myself.- And Fred, the portrait "Gerald at home" in your portfolio has a casual snapshot quality to it.

Norma Desmond · October 7, 2009

Phylo-- I absolutely agree, on the "Gerald at home" photo. If anyone wants a look: http://www.photo.net/photo/9728413&size=lg I've talked a lot about its snapshot quality with friends here in San Francisco. It's a reason it's one of my favorites. That one just came together so naturally, even though we were consciously shooting portraits that day. I'll be very pleased if I can do more of that. It's easy when it happens but it's not so easy for it to happen. I think doing that kind of thing successfully requires a mixture of confidence, comfort (at least with my tools), and intimacy. And that is also very much a real life biography photo, for both Gerald and me. He and I both felt it captured something quite genuine and truthful about him (even if there may be ambiguity in it) and I think it suggests a lot about me as well, both personally and photographically. Gerald and I were really sharing something that day, and it was only the second time I'd met him. Being able to achieve that level of intimacy with someone so quickly is something relatively new about and for me. And, to acknowledge what was put so nicely above . . .

Gerry-- Great line you ended with: "is photographer a separate role or augmentative?" As soon as I said "both personally and photographically," I remembered what you'd said and it is so relevant!

mizore · October 7, 2009

Luis G, the snapshot of a famous building with a torso in front... for me that's about as bad as snapshots can get. Thanks, though, since the mention of it sure made me smile. As much as I dislike such pictures, you all made me think about them seriously, instead of just despise them.

</blockquote>

I believe that verbal image was mine, and I have a sister who resents any attempts to photograph her candidly, and who sends all the family her trophy shots. The thing is people are doing the sorts of photographs they want to do with these.

And each hobby or avocation (and vocation) has its stereotyped shots. Falconry has the shot of the bird on game or coming to the fist. The show dog ring has its standard operating procedure shots.

I'm curious as to why the stereotypical shots are the ones people want to take. Some of this may be that they don't want to expose or be exposed, and the grin is a mask.

The past is full of a lot of representation art, at leas 30,000 or 40,000 years of it, which was more documentation or sacred object, or practice thinking about the game, than art as we know it, which is a relatively new phenomenon. People did things better or worse.

The Unknown Japanese Craftsman is interesting to think about in this regard -- that people simply doing lots and lots of something, without trying to be individual or artistic, can create masterworks.

Or they're trying to not be the objects in someone else's works -- the snapshot photographer is the servant of the image, not its master.

luis_g · October 8, 2009

Wouter, it was Rebecca who wrote about the snapshot of a famous building with a torso in front. Just wanted to set the record straight on that. Lots of good points raised, WW. BTW, back in the film era, the average non-pro, non-hobbyist took less than two rolls a year. One look at Flickr and we can see that has changed. Apparently, no one has learned to edit!

Fred, my idea of craft with snapshots is "glossy or matte?". My Oxford isn't in agreement with your dictionary, but since this is a philosophy forum, I'll defer to yours. Personal note: Run, don't walk, and look through the Sept 2009 issue of Frieze. I think there's an article or two there you might enjoy, including one that has an interesting commentary about philosophy before Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. BTW, "Gerald at Home" has a delightfully spontaneous quality to it.

Phylo: Gene Meatyard's brother lived (and may still be living) near us, used to teach art at a local university. Back when Gene died, my wife catalogued the hundreds of his brothers' prints in his possession. He definitely mined the snapshot aesthetic (but not the "craft").

Norma Desmond · October 8, 2009

Luis-- "Aesthetics" is one of those words that starts with the dictionary, continues with a bottle of wine or big pot of coffee, and advances either to enlightenment or a headache ;-) I'll check out Frieze the moment I can. Thanks.

chris_waller · October 8, 2009

It occurred to me that, if anyone should trouble to look through my photographs after I shuffle off this mortal coil, they would come to know my life story by what I chose to photograph. I documented the final years of my former home town, an old coal-mining town in the English Midlands, and the subject matter reveals what was important to me - the old brickyards, the railway sidings, the crumbling buildings. But after moving to my present place of residence, and as my photography progressed, although I continued to document my new surroundings, I began increasingly to photograph people. It is as if, by leaving behind my old town and moving to a new city, I changed and thus my choice of subject changed. How much of this is due to my adopting the role of 'photographer' and how much is just due to the changes that occur, almost imperceptibly, in one's psychology with the passage of time, I cannot say.

I had a friend who tried to express herself through a series of self-portraits and thus come to understand herself. Sadly, ego got in the way and her urge to present herself to her viewers impeded her attempt at self-knowledge. The work failed finally to achieve either expression or reflection. I photograph whatever 'proposes' itself to me as a subject. I do not examine the emotions and thoughts behind this process at the time but simply react intuitively in the hope that, having taken the photograph, something in it and in all the thousands of others I have taken, will tell me something about me. It is a process of discovery rather than overt expression.

Wouter Willemse · October 8, 2009

Apologies for the misquote, and apologies for not diving into your answer more, Rebecca. I will later on, there is much new to chew on....

william l. palminteri · October 8, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><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/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 07, 2009; 06:24 p.m.

I did not start with photography all that long ago, and in the beginning, I just took pictures. Lots of them. Pretty clueless about anything else. After a while, as my interest deepened and my technical knowledge a bit better, slowly I started to become aware of a need for composition and originality. So I tried. The quality of my pictures declined.

</blockquote>

Wouter, so true, that's why I strive to use my eyes to see the beauty, grit, whatever, and use the button to get the shot. I shoot strictly instinctively.

But what I do not get back is that unassuming, unspoiled "shoot some of that and then some more, and oh! nice, and hey! see..". Those pictures were taken pure on instinct. Indeed, snapshots.

</blockquote>

By your definition, I take snapshots. I think that instinctive shooting with craft is the ultimate form of photography. Maybe it's all about the "perfect" snapshot !

We've got a semantic issue here. I really do not think about my shots, I shoot what makes me feel good to look at. The compostion falls into place because that's what looks good. I'm not thinking about it. When I see photos that are obviously "artsy", etc. I get turned off. Your thoughts on this ?

And like Luis tells, some people just have it. Gut instinct to take seriously good pictures. A natural ability to balance a composition and see what others fail to see. And I've seen people (including myself to some extend as told above, though I'm no natural by any means) spoil that natural ability by thinking too much. Writer's block, to play with the biography theme.

</blockquote>

I've seen those people too, "natural talent" types.

We had our gut instincts unlearned for us in early childhood.

"DON'T TOUCH THAT !"

Gut instinct can be re-learned, it's not that hard.

Just stop thinking and shoot what looks good to you.

Is it fair to say that the added cost in film added a level of intent and consideration to those pictures?

</blockquote>

You bet ! My friend took several shots of a rare car with his Mom's camera back in the mid '60's and caught hell for it. "Three shots of the same car ? And it's not even OUR car ?"

Does the snapshot loose value because it's a mass-product to the extreme, or does it just mean you'd have to look harder to find the good ones?

</blockquote>

Andy Warhol pointed out the aesthetic of mass production and endless repetition.

Those ideas became important in their own right, as a mirror to our own industrialised culture.

I think a gallery presentation of nothing but family snaps would be a great exhibit.

Bill P.

Sign In

Does photography affect biography?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in