Documentary / photObituaries: Friends, Family, Acquaintances

[fi_rondo1]

<p>I've been thinking that the power of the photograph (on the viewer) may have more to do with his associations than with the actual aesthetics of the photograph itself. The guy in the picture below, Billy Ruane, was a Boston staple around the rock and club scene for over 30 years and he died recently. A troubled guy; diagnosed as bi-polar, often drank, smoked like a fiend, and every time I saw him he was disheveled, sometimes no socks, shirt always untucked... a man at odds. After going through countless CDs I found the picture below and it struck me as fitting for the kind of life he led.</p>

<p>Interesting how a chance encounter can turn into something symbolic or commemorative over the course of time. And does it matter if the picture is good or not? Taken: January 14, 2005.</p><div></div>

[spanky]

<p>Content always trumps technique imo.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Content over form? Sure, but a photo should speak visually. The said photo above is some guy walking in the dark somewhere in the snow...pretty cliche (and doesn't say much) unless one already read Fi's info paragraph. IMO try to let your photos go without captions, Fi...they won't be as interesting, if at all, as they are with your literary input... </p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been thinking that the power of the photograph (on the viewer) may have more to do with his associations than with the actual aesthetics of the photograph itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a interesting question Fi but I think the answer lies in the intent with which such a photo is created and who's viewing it as of course you realize.<br /> In general I feel that the narrative should be in the photo and not under it. However, there's context to consider and if you look for instance at a documentary set-up it's often a combination of both. While most here shoot street, urban or whatever else you want to call it that you do a documentary is quite different from that which means there are also other tools that you can use. That's a nunace that has to be made I think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And does it matter if the picture is good or not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, intent is what matters here. You decide.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Content always trumps technique imo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While in general I agree this is a bit too absolute for me Marc because I see too much crappy technique hiding what could have otherwise been a interesting photo. Besides, any photographer worth his salt doesn't (or shouldn't) have to worry that much about technique because he/she knows how to work it to begin with.</p>

<p>As for your comment Leslie I'm not sure I agree. Even if Fi would have left out his story there's something there that appeals to me, I quite like it. Besides, even cliches (if it is that?), if photographed properly can stand out.</p>

<p> </p>

[crappystuffs]

<p>I can relate with the above picture having a bi-polar friend myself. At times it feels all I can do is watch as he retreating into a domain of his own.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I like the photo without a caption, representing something along the lines of how Phalayasa describes it— actually and metaphorically going alone into the night.<br /> It works for me <em>with</em> a caption as well. I don't know Billy Ruane, but if the photo was of, for instance, John Belushi, and the caption said, "John Belushi, 1949-1982," I would recognize what the photographer was doing and it would be, in my view, a touching photograph. People in the Boston music scene would probably have the same reaction to the above photo and caption.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I like the photo Fi. You get a sense of loneliness. Knowing the the guy I'm sure it has deeper meaning to you, but the essence of an individual lost comes through with or without the text. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>As for your comment Leslie I'm not sure I agree. Even if Fi would have left out his story there's something there that appeals to me, I quite like it. Besides, even cliches (if it is that?), if photographed properly can stand out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think the photo is neither bad nor good...just another average photograph. Without the long caption, no one would have gotten the bi-polar, the troubled singing, smoking, r n 'r, odd man out life he have had in that picture. The photo is some random guy shot from a distance, shot from the back alone in the snow wallking away at night...much less interesting than, say, with the lengthy caption or if one actually knew the guy...</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>First off, glad you guys understood what I was trying to get at... (thanks)</p>

<p>Second: Leslie, the point of the post wasn't about that photograph in particular, but the nature of photography itself... Mainly how an "average shot" can be transformed into <em>something symbolic or commemorative over time.</em> Before Billy died, the photograph was one thing; after he died, it became something else altogether. A reminder, a bit of nostalgia, something I think his family wouldn't mind having.</p>

<p>Of course, the picture is more relevant to those who knew him. But since this was an Obituary, the text, as Ton said, puts the photograph in context. The picture may still be <em>average</em> but the viewer's associations with the guy's condition strengthens the photo, causes the viewer to reflect on his own life and the people he's known who are in similar straits.</p>

<p>The picture may be a cliche--but, Leslie, you unwittingly turned that photograph into something else again...</p>

<p>A poem by Leslie Cheung</p>

<p><strong>SOME RANDOM GUY </strong><br>

Shot from a distance<br>

Shot from the back<br>

Alone in the snow<br>

Walking</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Well, I agree...the text definitely put the photo in context. Without words, the visual context isn't enough...</p>

<p>I never thought myself as a literary man, but...I do love poetry and photography. Street photography is a perfect blend:)</p>

 

[leslie_cheung]

<p>As for your general assessment that the nature of photography..."Mainly how an "average shot" can be transformed into <em>something symbolic or commemorative over time."</em></p>

<p><em>Sure, to most people, the association of the subject(s) are pretty much all that matters. The general population don't care too much for aesthetics, geometry, or, say, decisive moment etc...they want nice, smiling and dignified photos of their friends and family members looking at the camera (not random doc style streetshot aesthetics). We forget that all too often... <br /></em></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>What is 'enough' ?! What about filling in the blanks ourselves, as viewers.<br>

I like the film noir'ish feel and look of the image. No femme fatale in it though...</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Well, it was obviously enough to you and most of the responding posters here, it wasn't enough for me. There was no draw photograph wise. Yes, he was alone in the dark snow walking away...it didn't speak to me (as a photographer) and nothing significant drew me in...</p>

<p>Phylo, you like Eastwood's 'Madison County while I find it okay but boring. I like Wong Kar-Wai's Ashes of Time but most Chinese thought it was boring and it flopped at the box office...Some prefer Jackson Pollock and filling in the blanks themselves while others, especially photo editors, want good (more concrete, not imagine) <em><strong>visual</strong></em> context...</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I was talking about visual context, or, the context that I <em>see</em> in the image, the aesthetic, not anything written in text with it.<br /> Jackson Pollock is formalism, which isn't about filling in any blanks as it's more than anything about the purely visual, instead of going for imagination, context or content, be it visual or conceptual. It's very specific on a purely visual "context".<br /> Don't know why you think I like Eastwood's Madison County ( I don't dislike it ). I 'like' Madison County, IA the place ( femme fatale ) but I'm more a Lynch and Tarkovsky guy film-wise !</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't know why you think I like Eastwood's Madison County ( I don't dislike it ). I 'like' Madison County, IA the place ( femme fatale ) but I'm more a Lynch and Tarkovsky guy film-wise !</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My bad, I remember you said liking Eastwood here...must have been someone else... </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is 'enough' ?! What about filling in the blanks ourselves, as viewers.<br>

I was talking about visual context, or, the context that I <em>see</em> in the image, the aesthetic, not anything written in text with it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Man, I'm lost at what we are arguing...all I was saying was there wasn't enough visual context as a PJ photograph (w/o the long text caption) And there wasn't enough appeal as a street stand alone photograph...both, of course, IMO...that's all.</p>

 

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Leslie, just the fact that we can't drum up a real fractious debate on this means that we probably agree more than disagree. I think, ultimately, a photograph should stand alone. But sometimes the use of a photograph has nothing to do with photography and more to do with the circumstances that surround the picture itself. That's why a seemingly static image can transform into something else over the course of time.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>SOME RANDOM GUY </strong><br />Shot from a distance<br />Shot from the back<br />Alone in the snow<br />Walking</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First two lines sounds like a challenge to the dark, like being shot like a flower in the dance. All that shooting, where's Eastwood when you need some romance... Cuz hey, admit it, who wouldn't want to be a National Geographic photographer passing through picking up Iowan housewives, stocking your film in their fridges, I mean, who <em>wouldn't</em> ?</p>

[crappystuffs]

<p>Maybe a new thread concerning Illustration (as in photos that need captions) vs. photo (as in photos that work as themselves) is in need?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think, ultimately, a photograph should stand alone. But sometimes the use of a photograph has nothing to do with photography and more to do with the circumstances that surround the picture itself. That's why a seemingly static image can transform into something else over the course of time.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree. FWIW I never disagree earlier...I only said the said photo wasn't a good stand alone street wise. PJ wise, it needed the text or a caption as given by your op.</p>

<p> </p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Personally, Leslie, I don't think your text can stand alone without a picture.</p>

<p>Thanks to an assist by Phylo:</p><div></div>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>You guys make me laugh...Maybe you guys should look into a literary forum...</p>