Identity of photographer defines identity of photo.

jtk · November 8, 2010

Hm, I don't recall anybody "calling Szarkowski a McCarthy."

Concerned about someone's bizarre attempt to link Robert Frank's "The Americans" or the Americans he depicted, to McCarthyism (presumably because of the Midwestern parades and flags) I pointed out that there were at least two prominent McCarthy's in Szarkowski's era. One of them was a significant writer during Frank's era, on the side of angels politically (Mary McCarthy). The other is popular for Limbaugh-style name-calling purposes.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Frank-Americans/dp/3931141802">http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Frank-Americans/dp/3931141802</a>

Luis G attached the evil "Senator McCarthy" to Robert Frank's work, as if they were related ...another demonstration of the peril in attending to what writers say about photographers.

Frank's " Americans" had nothing to do with the nasty Senator (Wisconsin, not Minnesota...oops...America's Dairyland, not Land of a Thousand Lakes) . On another thread yet another non-photographer insisted that the flags Frank photographed were "tropes," ie visual gimmicks rather than depictions of what Frank actually saw. There have always been lots of flag-waving parades in the US, in places as McCarthyite as San Francisco. America saw lots of flags in celebration of Obama's election. :-)

Robert Frank brought surprising new images to city people, generally ignorant of the middle of their own country. I'd guess those were mostly East Coast ignormi because the West Coast is farm country as much as is the Midwest...

luis_g · November 8, 2010

JK - "Luis G attached the evil "Senator McCarthy" to Robert Frank's work, as if they were related ...another demonstration of the peril in attending to what writers say about photographers."

Pure BS. I hate to disturb the slumber of the blissfully ignorant, but... Frank made the pictures in "Les Americains" during the peak of the McCarthy era, which was what I meant. The zenith of the Red Scare. He was arrested during one of the two trips on suspicion of being a communist agent. Straight out of McCarthy's Red Menace histrionics.

You may have heard of the Beats, living in San Francisco? Frank hung out with Kerouac and Ginsberg, Corso, etc. Ever read what the Beats thought of McCarthy? You should.

I find it very difficult to believe that someone of John's age doesn't understand why Frank's pictures caused such an uproar, and it had nothing to do with rural vs. city life. What does it matter, it's all to feed his vendetta anyway.

Look at the magazines of the day, John....how life in the US was depicted. Then check out "The Americans" and see if you can spot the difference.

BTW, WTF is an "ignormi" ? Sounds like a plea from your subconscious for me to ignore you...

simon_crofts · November 8, 2010

Sadly I haven't had time to follow this thread, but dipping into it - the idea of a car having an identity that it might want to express through photography was one that tickled me.

The characteristics that allow you to identify your own car (you can always press the remote button on the keys if all else fails) is a different thing from it having a strong personality - perhaps even the capacity to be an artistic genius. Its wonderful how far semantics can lead one away from common sense and up one's own arse.

luis_g · November 9, 2010

Simon - "Its wonderful how far semantics can lead one away from common sense and up one's own arse."

I think that is truer than you know. Simon, I don't mean to diminish your moment here, and it's obvious that it felt good to you to rip on me with the above insult, but if you go back, you would see this:

JK- "the whole idea of "identity" is bizarre"

[L]Why? How do we tell one person from another? Somehow we can tell. Ok, most of us can, maybe John K cannot. Can you tell your own car in a parking lot? Between two identical year and color ones? Saturn knew his own children, and not just by taste. Why is the idea of "a condition of being a specified person or thing" so bizarre? or 2nd meaning: "Individuality. Personality". I doubt even Fred would disagree with that. [He didn't] Those with associative disorders do have problems with these things.

____________________________

That's what that exchange was about, Simon. About semantics, John's, to be precise, not about photography at that point, nor the literal absurdity you suggest about a car "wanting to express itself through photography", but "the whole idea of identity". It was pure semantics when he said it, but you remained silent.

Do you agree with John that the "whole idea of identity is bizarre"?

Anyway, thanks for your kind and considered words.

simon_crofts · November 9, 2010

You threw so many custard pies, I thought it meant we were all allowed to chuck one.

Do you agree with John that the "whole idea of identity is bizarre"?

</blockquote>

You'll not be surprised to hear, since I said earlier in the thread:-

I suspect that trying to know or understand who we are, let alone photograph it, is a fairly impossible task. I can probably find out more about who I am by trying to sail a small boat across the Atlantic.

</blockquote>

that I do agree with John on that.

A person's identity is so complex and constantly changing, that it is impossible to pin it down to a particular moment and say 'this is this person's identity'. Personally I doubt that each person him/herself has much more than a bit of an impression - of what their own identity is. Probably just more in the way of an ideal that they strive for, or a sense of failure at what they haven't achieved. Think of Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim - someone who is brave and a true hero, but probably had the wrong thing for breakfast or got out of the wrong side of bed that morning. Unfortunately becomes categorised as the opposite of what he believes his true identity to be. Between what he believes his own identity to be, and what others believe his identity to be - what it his real identity - if such a thing really exists? Could he have expressed it through photography? It starts to get too bizarre.

Since it is impossible to define identity in the first place, claiming to be able to (a) express it or (b) even more improbably, for the viewer to understand that expression, through photography is for me far too 'loud' a claim.

It's a bit like historians who used to believe that the purpose of history was to establish or describe objective truth. It is a totally impossible task, even if such a thing in history as objective truth exists. On the whole historians have given up trying to pretend that they are doing that.

With photograhy, I think that the most that we can say, is that a fragment of our own concerns or obsessions comes through in the photographs. Maybe at some level this gives a tiny flavour of our own personalities - or identities. But to say that )as you said earlier in the thread Luis) we can only photograph who we are is I think far, far, far too grand a claim.

The only photo that can truly be said to express our identity is the one in our passports.

luis_g · November 9, 2010

SC - "A person's identity is so complex and constantly changing, that it is impossible to pin it down to a particular moment and say 'this is this person's identity'."

Surely we can see some of the qualities that make somebody a particular individual, no? In the Lord Jim case, we could differentiate between long-term and state qualities. Or are you saying we are so mercurial, such constantly evolving beings that nothing can be said about our individuality? Do me a favor: Ask your wife or a friend what makes you an individual/you. I'll bet they don't stay tongue-tied as they watch you ever-shifting out of reach.

Yes, we're always becoming, but also, at any given moment, being.

SC - "The only photo that can truly be said to express our identity is the one in our passports."

But not the one in the driver's license? Never mind, rhetorical question. I guess we can close the thread now.

SC - "I think that the most that we can say, is that a fragment of our own concerns or obsessions comes through in the photographs."

Which are part of who we are. I did not mean that every photograph is an exact, literal point-by-point correspondence/topo map of the totality of its maker any more than a portrait is of the sitter.

I guess you and John aren't big on biographies. <---<<< Humor.

simon_crofts · November 9, 2010

Surely we can see some of the qualities that make somebody a particular individual, no?

</blockquote>

Describing apparent external traits which make somebody a particular individual (a bit like the external traits of your car, it's shape, how well it goes round corners) is a very different thing from identity in terms of what's going on inside someone's head (which a car presumably doesn't have).

So, I can take a picture of you and to some extent that defines your identity. If you like, a driver's license can qualify too: "Excuse me Sir, can you show me some identity?"

The passport has a unique position in this form of identity. I'm doing a project about it at the moment. Bulgakov, Master and Margherita: ""You were right," said the Master impressed by the neatness of Korovyov's work, "when you said: no documents, no person. So that means I don't exist since I don't have any documents."

It's a very different thing from internal identity - what is going on inside someone's head, their thoughts, emotions, fears, hunger, sense of suspended animation before a television, faint sense of worrying about something, lust for possessions, lust for lust, boredom, smell of bacon and eggs triggering a long lost memory, the slight nagging pain in my butt from sitting on a lumpy chair for too long, and so on. The latter is so intangible that it can barely be expressed through photos. I think it can a bit, but to say 'we photograph who we are' or 'we express our identity' is in my opinion just taking it too far. Way too far. I doubt that any of us knows who we are. All we can do is touch the very edges, the periphery, like an ape with a camera on a particularly small planet on the edge of a rather large ever-changing universe thinkng that he can express the universe. It's just the wrong way of putting it.

a fragment of our own concerns or obsessions comes through in the photographs." Which are part of who we are

</blockquote>

We are getting closer. Yes, a part of what we are, but such a small part. It's not expressing our identity. It's expressing a tiny little part of what we are or what we experienced.

Norma Desmond · November 9, 2010

Simon, I think that's the reason it's important to see Antonio's question for what it was in spirit, which was to ask whether a particular photo takes on a different sense or has a different impact when it is viewed in the context of a more complete body of work. Though he used the word identity, I submit -- and Antonio has come back and said as much -- that he is talking about photographic identity as evidenced in a body of work. I don't think he was claiming to know me or my biography by looking at my pictures. (Though I think some of that stuff starts to be revealed in some bodies of work.) In other words, because he may notice certain patterns, concerns, commitments, types of subjects, handling of those subjects, stylistic variables, perspective choices, etc., it may affect how he will view a particular photo as being a part of a somewhat larger and more far-reaching view.

simon_crofts · November 9, 2010

But it seems to me that the answer to that part of Antonio's question that you describe is: "yes, but of course". I didn't notice anyone on this thread trying to argue against (though didn't read all the posts carefully).

Of course a photograph has a different impact when viewed with a larger body of work. And of course a good photo in some way [often] reflects the preoccupations, the character, or even the identity of the photographer (which is I think a different thing from it 'expressing the identity of the photographer', or 'photographing who we are', which I think is a big leap).

To me, the question as you describe it wasn't such an interesting question, because, unless someone can come up with an interesting argument against, in which case let's all argue about it, the answer is clear. Personally I think that the implications of what Antonio said about categories and moving outside them (and for that matter the wider discussion of identity) was much more intriguing and insightful than whether a photograph reflects something about the photographer. But there seemed to be resistance to discussing this aspect of what Antonio said, so I ducked out.

Norma Desmond · November 9, 2010

Simon, I don't think a question only has merit if it can stir a good argument. Maybe the simple answer is clear, as you say. Maybe, "of course," a photograph has a different impact when viewed as part of a larger body of work. But that would only be the start. How does that happen? What do we show and look for, what signs are there, etc.? What consistently happens in these forums are that the arguments (it's this or it's that, the "versus" syndrome) take precedence over actual constructive discussions about how photographs work, are made, etc. For me, it becomes interesting not because someone comes up with an argument against it. It would be interesting if someone actually wanted to look at photographs and bodies of work and talk about what is actually going on, visually, emotionally, narratively, values-wise, etc. Not likely to happen, I know. So keep fighting!

luis_g · November 9, 2010

Simon - "Describing apparent external traits which make somebody a particular individual (a bit like the external traits of your car, it's shape, how well it goes round corners) is a very different thing from identity in terms of what's going on inside someone's head (which a car presumably doesn't have)."

True, but 'identity' covers both exterior and interior. And objects (which I think we can agree on have no discernable inner life). You're electing to disregard a significant portion of the whole, which is allowed, of course, but does not invalidate the rest.

I like the principle of your project, but here in the US we have plenty (millions) of undocumented (illegal/paperless) aliens, but one rarely hears that they don't have an "identity". No biggie, just an aside remark.

Ever see the thing police use to draw a sketch of suspects? They call it an "identity kit", and there's zip about their inner individuation. Our passport picture, too. BTW, Avedon did ID pictures as a Merchant Marine.

SC - "I doubt that any of us knows who we are."

Agreed, in an absolute sense, but, come on, talk about common sense, we all know some things about ourselves. As do our friends and loved ones, even our pets. If not out of ourselves, from whom do we draw on when we take photographs? I think you're being blunt-object literal, and that's OK. This may be as close as we get on this one, and it's not as far apart as we were earlier.

BTW, it was I, not Antonio, who wrote about identity across categories.

Luis - "Simon, I see that as carrying identity across categories, which to me is far more significant."

simon_crofts · November 9, 2010

Fred - But that would only be the start. How does that happen? What do we show and look for, what signs are there, etc.? What consistently happens in these forums are that the arguments (it's this or it's that, the "versus" syndrome) take precedence over actual constructive discussions about how photographs work, are made, etc.

</blockquote>

Those are no doubt valid questions for discussion - but I would rather explore them in the context of a particular series of photographs rather than generally in the abstract. In other words, as you say, "It would be interesting if someone actually wanted to look at photographs and bodies of work and talk about what is actually going on, visually, emotionally, narratively, values-wise, etc. Not likely to happen, I know." I've just come back from portfolio review as part of a photo month, and spent the last few days doing just that looking at and discussing intensively the amazing series of photos taken by fellow attendees from many different countries, which was a great fun experience and very inspiring. Now I'd better do some work for a bit! Others are more than welcome to dive in.

Luis - If not out of ourselves, from whom do we draw on when we take photographs? I think you're being blunt-object literal, and that's OK. This may be as close as we get on this one, and it's not as far apart as we were earlier.

</blockquote>

Yes, I think that what we are saying now is not a million miles apart. It was the over-generalised expression about identity that I disagreed with. That doesn't mean that our own experience and obsessions aren't critical to good photography.

Norma Desmond · November 9, 2010

Simon, yes, I think that's why Antonio started this thread relative to a specific photo and specific portfolio and the door was opened several times to continue along the same lines with others' work. The thread wound up going other places.

simon_crofts · November 9, 2010

I think it's the nature of threads that they sometimes explore questions or provide answers in ways that the original interlocutor didn't anticipate.

Personally I wasn't in a position to comment on the portfolio aspects of the discussion since I was following the thread via email on a mobile phone while travelling abroad, not able to look at and compare images. The issue of escaping from categorisation could easily have involved a discussion of the portfolio in the way the original question envisaged, but instead was unfortunately diverted into whether that was a permissible way of discussing the question.

I think it is important to your 'street photo' whether not it is seen as street photography, or, for example, something that could be seen as part of a series with your non-street photos. I suspect that many people who would categorise the image as a street photo (I don't mean people on this thread) would have difficulty in allowing it to be seen as a coherent whole or part of a series with, say, something categorised as portraiture. A bit like the prejudice against including commercial work in an art project.

About your images, now I'm back in Broadband Land, even the most cursory glance at the thumbnails of your p/f shows you obviously have an awful lot of beautiful, creative and inventive imagery. That is just stating the obvious. How closely the image that started the discussion is tied in with the rest of your portfolio, I find it hard to judge without spending more time on it. My initial reaction is that it is quite different, though there are some common devices, such as the use of reflections, close attention to lighting etc. But I don't really see the image as closely related to your other images. I don't honestly see your preoccupations coming across in it in ways that it does from a quick look at a number of your other images. Maybe, being human, I'm unduly affected by its categorisation as street photography ;) and it is not intended as a criticism of the image - different images can have different purposes. If you had told me the image was constructed with actors or friends that there was some kind of relationship with (eg. public intimacy), I might see more of a common vision or at least a common thread linking it with other images.

Norma Desmond · November 9, 2010

Simon, thanks for the feedback. I agree that the "street" photos stand out like a sore thumb. I include them in my PN portfolio because they are somewhat of a sideline for me and something I may want to develop if I can figure out where to take it. But I don't see them as an integral part of my overall work right now. I do, however, think Antonio made a cogent observation by noting how he was affected by the photo given his familiarity with the rest of my work and I do see that one in particular as able to tie in for various reasons. As I mentioned, I think gesture and pose probably play significant roles in establishing a connection to my other work.

simon_crofts · November 9, 2010

I didn't mean it in a negative sense. Rather the opposite. Artists can be boxed (or categorised!) into a particular recognisable style, which is what they are expected to produce in order to be consistent, so that it isn't too challenging for viewers to understand why they are doing what they are doing, and then to repeat it in variations. Otherwise viewers get confused. They end up producing the photographic equivalent of endless sheep floating in formaldehyde. I think it's great when photographers experiment with different approaches, different styles.

As for Antonio's observation, I don't doubt it was a valid and perceptive one. It's just not one that I can honestly say struck me personally. The interest in gesture may well be a connecting point, I think I would have to see the image alongside ones that you had selected as being relevant or connected, since it seems to me that the sense of the image could head in different directions.

luis_g · November 10, 2010

Simon - "I think it's the nature of threads that they sometimes explore questions or provide answers in ways that the original interlocutor didn't anticipate."

...and people are repeatedly imposing their agendas on threads as well...

Simon - "Artists can be boxed (or categorised!) into a particular recognisable style, which is what they are expected to produce in order to be consistent, so that it isn't too challenging for viewers to understand why they are doing what they are doing, and then to repeat it in variations. Otherwise viewers get confused. They end up producing the photographic equivalent of endless sheep floating in formaldehyde. I think it's great when photographers experiment with different approaches, different styles."

In the US, artists eagerly conform to market demand characteristics in order to increase potential sales, recognition, or get into certain galleries and/or museums. They're jumping into the boxes on their own, many without ever being asked to. Even students and amateurs.

__________________

Fred - "It would be interesting if someone actually wanted to look at photographs and bodies of work and talk about what is actually going on, visually, emotionally, narratively, values-wise, etc. Not likely to happen, I know."

A question. It's interesting to Fred, Simon, Arthur, John K, and others, right? So why isn't it happening? The attention-seeking is definitely there, as it always is everywhere. Everyone wants an audience. The audience is not materializing, nor is the discussion. It is Fred's agenda, and he's been pushing this constantly for well over a year, and still no philosopher-viewers. Not even the "participants" are willing to play viewer for someone else's pictures. So why keep pushing a failed agenda?

Who would waste their time reviewing a portfolio when Fred himself enjoins others to: "So keep fighting!"

The last time I talked about a singlet, the photographer ranted/rebutted for a week in two threads. That's what I call one-trial learning.

The simple fact is that we have more (and a greater diversity of) participants when the discussions are more generalized.

antoniobassiphotography · November 10, 2010

I believe there is also another important aspect that needs to be addressed: not all photographers, though artistically relevant, show to have such a well defined and prominent personality to affect the viewer. I do not know Fred personally but I understand from his photography that he is probably a person who has come a long way towards self-discovery and, in my opinion, this is reflected by his photography much more than the norm. I think this is what I mean when I talk about identity. Knowing who you are and what you want allows great expressive power.

jtk · November 10, 2010

From my point of view, "knowing who you are" begins with "deciding who you are." The difference is between actually being your own person and pretending you aren't responsible for what you do, blaming mysterious inner workings ("subconscious").

If you want your photos to look a particular way, serve a particular purpose, or reflect your relationships with subjects or ideas, the name of the path is honest work. If we insist on labels, whose meanings we don't know (eg "art" or "street") we may be working but we're avoiding honesty. In photography, IMO, there is no way to be honest without sharing some of our work.

That's not to say "self discovery" isn't possible...it has been for me. But I think it's unlikely that we can use photography well that way if we don't pursue a likely path, as opposed to simply wandering and snapping. For example, I believe many photographers are afraid to deal directly with subjects, so they dodge them with long lenses or emphasis on graphics or "nature" etc. I think we do know if we have fear, so beginning with that knowledge we have the opportunity to deal with it...we choose: avoidance or mano-a-mano :-)

The photographs that I share reflect my goals. I rarely share images that don't point in the direction I'm currently going, therefore I don't share images that paid the bills or served emotional purposes in years past. No view camera work, for example. No (or almost no) "street." No "higher purposes."

luis_g · November 11, 2010

Antonio - "I do not know Fred personally but I understand from his photography that he is probably a person who has come a long way towards self-discovery and, in my opinion, this is reflected by his photography much more than the norm. I think this is what I mean when I talk about identity. Knowing who you are and what you want allows great expressive power."

Oh...you actually meant what you said.

Norma Desmond · November 11, 2010

I think John makes a good point, which is that if there is some amount of intention behind a body of work and that intention is made or allowed to manifest itself in the work, there will usually be a sense for the viewer that a purpose is being pursued/served and that will look like an identity. As you put it, Antonio, "knowing what you want allows . . . expressive power." I would add, "or at least being on a self-directed path."

__________________________________________

Simon, I didn't take your comment negatively at all. In fact, I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Your last statement strikes me and I agree with it. It can go off in different directions depending on the context in which it is seen. That's why I find it often difficult to nail down a photo of mine with words. The minute I say the words, there seem to be a bunch of ifs, ands, and buts that come up for me.

Sign In

Identity of photographer defines identity of photo.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in