Does quality matter? - the case of Jacob Holdt

[inoneeye]

"The question [...] Can quality matter?"

yea

[John Peri]

I have said this before, but no harm in repeating it once again.

 

I had the pleasure of living in Paris for 30 years where photography occupies a privileged position in the arts. Not only are the museums, galleries, exhibition halls and lecture theatres filled with works of artists from all over the world, there is a yearly” Photography Week” in which al the above and more feature prominently. The most surprising thing to me is the astronomical, stellar prices for which some of these works are sold.

 

As regards content, the works are often filled with missing limbs, ears and whatever, sloping walls and horizons, out of focus areas, absence of saturated blacks (a favourite here on PN) and all the other little things which appear to be anathema to amateurs such as myself that contribute to our forums.

 

So what is the common denominator to the works chosen for such display which underlines their success, it is “impact”, and that in my opinion is the only single thing that matters.

 

I get trampled on sometimes for quoting Ansel Adams, bring told that in reality he was the most conservative of all, he nevertheless wrote something to the effect that there are no rules in photography only good photos (I have not looked up the exact words before writing this).

 

.. and since we are on the subject, what rules, who wrote them, where are they ... maybe Trump wrote them, I'm sure some people would swear by it! Let's filter out all the nonsense and just be content to say wow!

Edited December 1, 2020 by John Peri

[John Peri]

… just an afterthought, having now read again the totality of this thread.

 

I do not claim that such elements as lighting, perspective, composition, perspective etc., do not matter, of course they do and many of these will affect the impact that an image has.

 

What I do claim is that many of the said errors in technique cited frequently in our pages are no more than individual likes and dislikes - simply said they are not mistakes or the non-adherence to any rules. The key word remains "Impact".

[samstevens]

What I do claim is that many of the said errors in technique cited frequently in our pages are no more than individual likes and dislikes - simply said they are not mistakes or the non-adherence to any rules.

I agree with you in spirit but also wonder how individual-minded are both the criticism and praise we often see.

[AlanKlein]

<p>Well not every image must be high resolution and beautifully composed (sometimes there might be artistic reasons for not doing so). That said, I agree with the previous posts. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. And IMO if you are serious about photography, and want be be recognized as such, you really should purchase quality equipment.</p>

I agree. If you're sloppy with your craft, you're probably sloppy with your art. If you care about your craft, you'll care about your art. And vice versa.

 

Having said that, I think that content is most important to the viewer who cares little about how you shot the photo but they could also be influenced by its quality But for the main, its impact is what counts to them. If he looks more than two seconds, your photo is working on them. It's only later that he may look at the craft and wonder how it was taken and the story behind it.

[AlanKlein]

<p> Holdt's work has a certain verite' that is his own. Should we regret that so many gearheads with a pro-quality 25+ mp camera have spent so much of their lives producing the same vapid, oversaturated, meaningless pictures of exotic places instead of documenting the plight of people suffering in a moving manner? Or would it weaken your message if you had produced essays of this magnitude instead of soporific, meaningless, beautifully composed, high resolution images?</p>

<p> Holdt is, by any measure, one of the great documentarians of our time.</p>

<p> </p>

I think you're being hard on the rest of us non-artists. Photography is a huge endeavor. Different desires on all subjects. Not everyone is interested in the plight of people. Some photographers, maybe most, are interested in beauty and awe. It's a break from the problems they face daily. Calling their work meaningless and soporific is rather a holier-than-thou position, insulting to many. Bringing beauty into life is a valuable endeavor. Whether it meets some standard you and others have created is beside the point.

[samstevens]

Calling their work meaningless and soporific is rather a holier-than-thou position, insulting to many.

It would be, if it was a stand-alone comment. But it was a comment in response to this, by the OP ...

Should we regret that no one offered to buy Holdt a decent camera before he spent so much of his life documenting the plight of these people? Or would it weaken his message if he had produced a set of beautifully composed, high resolution images?

I believe Luis, now long gone from PN, was countering the OP in a similar tone of voice. Just like the OP was sarcastically asking if it would weaken the message to produce a set of beautifully composed, high resolution images, Luis is responding in a more mocking and sarcastic than serious tone.

 

That being said, there is a serious side to what Luis is saying, and it's ok for each side to be a bit passionate about it. Art is a passionate subject, for many. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Luis questioned the whole idea of beauty here (we had many long discussions, so I'm comfortable with this tack), which only has a passing resemblance to what many photographers are producing, which is not so much beauty and awe as it is pretty and typical.*

 

*The scenes of nature aren't typical, but the photos of them often are.

[AlanKlein]

Sam, I was addressing what he posted not what was in his mind. I wouldn't know what that was.

[samstevens]

Sam, I was addressing what he posted not what was in his mind. I wouldn't know what that was.

I know that, and I was pointing out that what he posted is posted in the context of his responding to a post. If you don't read it as such, your reading comprehension won't be as valuable as if you paid attention to what he was responding to which offers clues about his tone of voice. That's what reading's all about.

[Ricochetrider]

Hmmm. Photography seems so wide open to me. I'm uncertain how anyone can assign what would work for them to what anyone else has done, or say that "only" any one thing is better than any other thing.

 

Mr Holdt obviously clearly had a vision and proceeded with what feels like a very solid sense of determination, to see his vision through. As noted (recently and otherwise in this thread), his sheer body of work, just on his time here (5 years?) is super impressive. Could he have had more (of a global) impact or would his photos be more impactful if they'd been made on a super high end camera? Doubtful. To the contrary, to my way of seeing, just by the few shots I looked at, this sort of lo--fi imagery honestly suits his subjects.

[ray .]

Whatever works. It's up to the photographer.

 

If you're totally unaware of the technical aspects of making a photograph or how to achieve what you want then that's a different story.

[John Peri]

Whatever works. It's up to the photographer.

 

I agree with that .. when Pollock splashes paint on a canvas with a bucket and steps on it or Yoko Ono throws tomatoes on the wall, there is no special methodology involved, yet these are at the forefront of what the world considers art and creativity today. Of course these are extreme examples chosen so as to underline the point, but I think that art has more to do with impact and what feelings are evoked rather than with any special methods or technique used in making it.

[samstevens]

when Pollock splashes paint on a canvas with a bucket

... that is, among other things, a matter of technique!

[Vincent Peri]

...when Pollock splashes paint on a canvas with a bucket and steps on it or Yoko Ono throws tomatoes on the wall...

 

Hmm... I can do that. I'm

gonna be a millionaire...!

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

[samstevens]

I can do that. I'm gonna be a millionaire...!

Easy to say once it's been done. No, until you think of it first, you'll likely stay poor! :rolleyes:

Edited December 24, 2020 by samstevens

[movingfinger]

While 10 years late to the party I'm thankful to have come across this thread and to have been introduced to the work of Holdt. I consider his photographs to be outstanding. I don't care what equipment he used, it is outstanding in my humble opinion. That said, I think the camera he used adds to the quality of the result given the documentary nature of the work. His work has a spontaneity and 'in the moment' quality that is only enhanced by the snapshot like look of the photographs. He has a remarkable talent for entering into people's lives and capturing decisive moments. I don't see it benefiting much, if at all, from high tech or high priced equipment.

[inoneeye]

In the case of the book quality mattered. to me.

I really admire Jacob Holdt. Not just for American Pictures but his continued proactive work as an educator and chronicler of the injustice of elitism and racism. Not without merit even now... an urgent reality. I admire anyone who speaks out and stays the course like he has. It's important. His motivation to point at & improve the inequities seems very genuine. His approach is thoughtful and not unfair even to those who practice racism. It is layered journalism not 1 dimensional as some think.. The bigger picture imo.

I like his photos, sometimes in spite of his verbosity. I did not like his first book American Pictures self published in the seventies. As a book lover/collector I regrettfully passed it by many times. I was very disappointed back then in the quality of the printing. I had only browsed the the heavily laden text. In time i began to seek it out and read it more thoroughly and appreciate his intent that had already been communicated me through his photos. And in spite of his own minimizing of his photography I find them very effective at communicating and some personal expression. The later book pubished by Steidl United States 1970-1975 was a great improvement focusing on the imagery. As a fan of the book as a stand apart/alone medium of expression the editing and print quality can matter. The camera not at all in this case.