The intention of the photographer

fate_faith_change_chains · February 19, 2010

"Parr is nobody to most of us."

</blockquote>

He's a Magnum photographer, surely that means enough to consider him *somebody* in the world of photography, a world known to most of us. But I suspect that you would have been among the one half of the photographers who cried heaven and hell when Parr joined the agency as a member. Hmmm ?

william l. palminteri · February 19, 2010

<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/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 19, 2010; 03:16 p.m.

Parr is nobody to most of us.

</blockquote>

With the sheer volume of things that can be known, most everything is not known to most of us.

The beauty if the internet is that I can 'google' "Martin Parr" and get up to speed in minutes, not years.

I did just that, before I posted my initial comments.

Bill P.

jtk · February 19, 2010

Phylo, I don't happen to know or care about the names of everybody in Magnum...presumably you do.

Magnum members are a wonderful photographic niche group, I frequently link them here. Magnum doesn't pretend to relate to all of photography.

I think purported quotes by photographers should be cited and, ideally, linked...an ethical matter. It that's not possible, context should at least be given.

I doubt Parr meant to speak as broadly as John G made him by taking a purported television quotation out of context.

Throwing Parr's name around as if a Magnum photojournalist (or any other photographer) is enough of a generic authority to tell adult photographers what they "should" do is absurd on its face. If Parr was talking about photojournalism, a specialized topic, an honest effort at quotation would specify that.

I wonder why the OT avoided explaining that Parr was addressing children.

If the OT mentioned "children," Parr's "should" would still thrill people who relate better to commands than to concepts.

fate_faith_change_chains · February 19, 2010

John,

Children ? In the follow up and explaining post by the OP there was a mention of a photo contest for non professional / non commercial photographers, or " amateurs", but I didn't read a mention of children.

I don't know all the magnumphotographers by name either, although a fair amount of them do ring an instant bell if they're mentioned. Not because I consider Magnum necessarily the beginning and end of everything photographic but because they were the reference that one of our schoolteachers constantly threw on us, perhaps rightfully so, while I was a student. One Magnummember gave a visit to our class with a full auditorium slideshow showing all of his work with explanations about it all in detail. I skipped the second half with a fellow classmate to go smoke some more " cigarettes", but if I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have....But hey, what did I know...Had to write a paper about Helmut Newton afterwards, as a punishment for skipping that second half. Hmmm, I never really liked Newton's women, too cold.

I know that you've mentioned Magnum a lot in the past, that's why I was sursprised that you regarded Martin Parr as a possible *nobody* to some - most - of us. If there's any name in Magnum, and therefore also in photography, that should spur an immediate recognition, negatively or positively, surely it would have been Parr, since his membership to Magnum was " controversial", and I suspect still is in a way. He's not exactly my style, especially all the copy-cats that came after him, but, it is what it is...

jtk · February 19, 2010

Phylo, I'll bet 99% of Photo.net never heard of Parr, your classmates not withstanding. I did hear of him, but simply forgot.

His work online seems derivative of Weegee, but I suspect he's more influenced by the club/rave work on Flickr.

"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 misread: sounded something like "children" to me.

Its obvious what "upstart" means: A judge evaluates, elevates and rejects. Same as Soviet Supremacist or Nazi propaganda. There are wonderful pros in their late teens, doing their own work innocent of Paar's evaluation...even in my little city. They're not "upstarts," just young.

Magnum membership means business to the co-op members (its owners). They presumably tolerated Paar for money reasons. Is that OK? Might be a good OT.

I do suspect you're wildly wrong about Parr's prominence in Magnum name recall contests (is that as enlightening as wet t-shirt?). I suspect Capa and HCB are light-years ahead. No?

My favorite Magnum PJ, of the few I've followed, may be Paul Fusco. Why? Because a) fine photographer, seen from various perspectives b) he's told a few profoundly important stories. But there are a number of Al Jazeera photographers who are more important today than anybody in Magnum.

BTW, did you bring Helmut Newton up because you think he belongs in Magnum? :-) :-)

walter_strong5 · February 19, 2010

A photographer has no obligation to do anything other than what the photographer wants to do. There is no obligation to show "intention", or anything else for that matter. Restricting the freedom of the photographer through some artificial, contrived rules is contrary to what art is all about.

walter_strong5 · February 19, 2010

Steve Gubin said: "Allen Friday is, within the strictest bounds of casuistic anomie and heuristic evolutions of cognitive hagiography (as evidenced, nay illuminated 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 vis a vis protean dissimulations of Jungian or Campbellesque approaches to creative archetypes and their conscious, subconscious, or metaconscious “intentions”."

Well spoken Steve, I think!

iliafarniev · February 20, 2010

Maybe it is just plain wrong that he said, this Mr Parr of Magnum. Like, meaningless basically.

Happens all the time.

jgalyon · February 20, 2010

John,

So, let's see... Martin Parr is "an unknown to most of us". (don't you just love people making assumptions about you?)

I didn't frame the discussion correctly (returning to provide context wasn't good enough)

I wonder why the OT avoided explaining that Parr was addressing children.

</blockquote>

When I did provide context...you went on a little rant about non-existent children. (so much for the importance of providing you with context if you don't take the time to read it correctly) I didn't avoid explaining anything.

"I doubt Parr meant to speak as broadly as John G made him by taking a purported television quotation out of context. "

</blockquote>

And I doubt you know what you're talking about....since you didn't see the purported television show. I didn't "make him" say a thing. Once again...that's your assumption.

Next time I decide to start a discusion in this forum...should I first have you review the content and get your approval?

I didn't start this thread to discuss Martin Parr, whether people know ...or don't of Martin Parr, Martin Parr's standing as a Magnum member, or his place in history as a photographer...period. I was more concerned with his statement. Your choice to make it about Martin Parr was your own.

In starting this discussion I merely wanted to discuss what Parr had said, then you make it into a referendum about Martin Parr...and make several statements that indicate a belief that I was somehow attempting to distort the context of his words...for what purpose...I have no idea. How such a simple request ...the intention of which was to merely begin a discussion ...can somehow be twisted into some conspiracy by the OP to distort the facts and/or intent...is beyond me. This spin on the discussion is the very reason I seldom visit this forum.

jgalyon · February 20, 2010

</blockquote>

And one last thing...

Throwing Parr's name around as if a Magnum photojournalist (or any other photographer) is enough of a generic authority to tell adult photographers what they "should" do is absurd on its face. If Parr was talking about photojournalism, a specialized topic, an honest effort at quotation would specify that.

</blockquote>

I didn't "throw Parr's name around...". Merely citing his name doesn't constitute throwing his name around...any way you look at it. If I had failed to provide Parr's name...I'd bet you would have scolded me for that as well.

william l. palminteri · February 20, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=934135">Phylo Dayrin</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 18, 2010; 11:39 a.m.

An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. - Charles Bukowski

</blockquote>

An artist is someone who produces things that people don't need to have but that he - for some reason - thinks it would be a good idea to give them. <a href="http://www.photo.net/quotes/quotes/a/andywarhol161580.html">Andy Warhol</a>

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · February 20, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2397502">John Galyon</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 18, 2010; 09:41 p.m.

In looking at the picture...Parr just didn't seem to "get it"...and then offered the quote I provided.

</blockquote>

John, it's interesting that in the addendum above, it sounds like Parr is quoting me, for the same reason!

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 18, 2010; 09:37 a.m.

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

</blockquote>

Imagine that!

Bill P.

jtk · February 20, 2010

John G, we differ:

For me it'd be grossly unethical to assign alleged quotations to specific individuals, providing those alleged quotations out of context and without the courtesy of some sort of citation or link.

That has specifically to with my upbringing, Boy Scout oath, one journalism course, nodding familiarity with AP and BBC guidelines etc.

You think it's OK to neglect context and to bait discussions with purported quotations by specific living people, unconcerned with citations.

To each his own.

jgalyon · February 21, 2010

</blockquote>

jgalyon · February 21, 2010

John K., yes we differ.

What you apparently fail to realize is that this isn't the Boy Scots, a journalism class, the AP or the BBC...hell, it isn't even Fox News! This is a photographic forum in which friends and peers have casual conversations. If we were having this same conversation over a beer...and you jumped on your ethical high-horse and tried to impose your strict and formal standards on your friends...you'd come off looking like a an anal retentive fool. If there was anything of importance that would require my spending hours attempting to supply all the proof you'd like hear, to show that I didn't just pull Parr's remarks totally out of context, or...thin air...then I'd either provide it, or I wouldn't have posed the question. But that isn't the case. Once again...it's a casual discussion I was trying to have with my peers. Listening to you,, you'd think this was a federal ethics probe.

You've gone on and on about context...completely failing to acknowledge that when Arthur very kindly and respectfully asked me to provide context...I did, and apologized for not doing so to begin with. That failure was corrected before you wrote your first words...but you seem to have conveniently failed to acknowledge that. By your own admission, you misunderstood something I said (Phyo pointed this out to you)...and even though you acknowledged that it was your mistake...you didn't have the courtesy to offer an apology...despite ranting on about the non-existent "children"...that I never even mentioned. You've put words in my mouth that I never said, attempted to accuse me of intentions that I never had...and you've generally nothing but rude and arrogant. You didn't learn that in the Boy Scouts, journalism classes, or you "nodding familiarity with AP and BBC guidelines".

You obviously feel that you possess some ethical superiority that I don't have, but ya know something? I'll sleep just fine tonight because I did nothing more than ask for the thoughts of my peers concerning something another photographer said. You chose to attempt to make it into something more.

I don't question your ethics...I question your common sense.

.

jgalyon · February 21, 2010

p.s.- I have no more to say. If you feel the need to have the last word...have at it, otherwise...subject closed

fate_faith_change_chains · February 21, 2010

John K., I'm not exactly following you either, first you're concerned about the non-relevance of the quote being attributed to Martin Parr, as you state that he is a complete *nobody* / unknown to "most of us", and then you go on about it being un-ethical for the OP to attribute the quote to Martin Parr without any further context and evidence of it being so. Like it's suddenly something like the U.S. president that is being attributed a quote here, on some big social issue.

Anyway, I think this is probably the photo contest show where the quote came from,with Martin Parr explaining the first portrait assignment:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hke-WrD0voA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hke-WrD0voA</a>

jgalyon · February 21, 2010

Phylo, please excuse me for misspelling your name. I know it's no "Phyo". ;) Typos abound when writing at 2:00 a.m and pissed. And ...yes, that is the show. Thanks, John

william l. palminteri · February 21, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2397502">John Galyon</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 21, 2010; 08:27 a.m. Phylo, please excuse me for misspelling your name. I know it's no "Phyo". ;) Typos abound when writing at 2:00 a.m and pissed. And ...yes, that is the show. Thanks, John

</blockquote>

John, if typos -r- us when you're annoyed, you must be really annoyed now!

I know it's no "Phyo". ;)

</blockquote>

Bill P.

photos_obscura · February 21, 2010

mizore · February 21, 2010

Photos that need a narrative are illustrations of that narrative, not works of art in their own right. Discuss. I'll be in the bar.

Spearhead · February 21, 2010

So a book that needs a diagram to explain something is an explanation of the diagram?

michaellinder · February 21, 2010

John K:

"[T]here'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 intentionality . But some of us don't think in terms of subjects. Are you aware of that?

Photographs are not inherently "of" anything. The "of-ness" has to do with the intentions of the photographer."

You conclude the above observations by mentioning abstract photographs. This, I take it, ultimately is an argument to support the first statement above, i.e., that photographing various subjects involves the same intentionality. And, this appears to have been offered to refute the position I took earlier in this thread that a photographer's intentionality may vary from subject to subject, as a matter of degree .

Whether a photographer, in your terminology simply "captures" a subject in a shot or instead "makes a photograph" involving that subject, a decision is made. A decision, in turn, is an act of human consciousness. And there is a philosophical tradition that originated on the Continent (phenomenology) holding that every act of consciousness is intentional - but not in the sense of purposeful. "Intentionality" in this context refers to an act of consciousness pointing to something beyond itself (thereby not ruling out self-reflective acts of consciousness). I think this is a helpful way of examining the activity of photography.

It appears to me that, what appears to be a spurious argument rests on a fundamental logical error - using a value judgment to support a conclusion that has nothing to do with issues involving valuation. In rhetoric, I believe this is called misdirection.

Please don't get me wrong. Your comments above are interesting and thought-provoking. I think you and I differ on the ground level, and that's fine with me.

fate_faith_change_chains · February 22, 2010

This is also an interesting short video, in it old crime scene photographs are shown, where the only intent was to show as much of the scene as possible, nothing artistic, and yet the photographs, because of their set-up and perspective also, have this strange quality to them. The gift of photography itself often takes over from "non-intention". But which doesn't make the photographer with intent anything lesser an *artist* I think.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8KljdoZM0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8KljdoZM0</a>

jgalyon · February 22, 2010

Bill...the last one wasn't a typo. I'm an Italian of Southern descent and my English ain't so good ;)

Sign In

The intention of the photographer

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