Photographic Statement and Purpose

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Luis, yes, that's what I meant and understood too with the "world as it is", <em>perceived</em>, in both the understanding and interpreting context.</p>

<p>Fred, isn't the photograph always a referent to its subject, whether we're talking about the subject that's in the photograph or the - statement - as - subject.<br /> There's never that 1 : 1 correspondence, neither from the photographers perspective nor from the viewer ( the photographer of course becomes a viewer of his/her own work too ).</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>How about the world as it's not. It's not this, it's not that, it's not...,<br /> Each picture ( taking ) can be about what the world is <em>not. </em>And with enough pictures we can hope to deduct of what it is then, that world.<br /> But there will never be enough pictures of course, that's why we keep taking them.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" It is different for all of us. Our personal delusions are bespoke. The eye is also not as simple as a camera. The world is many things."</p>

<p>Of course we can only perceive the world from our own reality of it. However there is always universal truths such as the horrors of war,poverty, etc. I don't think the camera is that simple which is in a sense is just an extension of our own eyes. Of course a photograph can be interpreted ,taken, in many ways but again there is always the universal truths contained within it. A photograph of your granny is a photograph of your granny. All photographs have these realities within them..."the world as it is".</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Allen, that's true. The way I see it is that we can understand these realities within photographs. Just like we can understand that these understandings are interpretations, both by the camera and by the mind. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Does the subject have to be in the frame of the photograph? Can't the "objects" and the way we arrange and present them be used to create a subject that is not visible or are we bound to photographing physical subjects?</p>

<p>Personally, I think it can go both ways but I do believe that we can use objects to create subject and that happens in some work and not in others. No judgement there, just a difference in the types of photography that is possible.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>It seems we are on the same reality on this one, Phylo;)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Can't the "objects" and the way we arrange and present them be used to create a subject that is not visible or are we bound to photographing physical subjects? --John</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, good question. Do you by any chance have such a photo? It would be interesting to look at it with that in mind. (Or a link to a photo of someone else.) It may be somewhat similar to what I was trying to say to Phylo: That the objects in his picture are less significant as objects or as subject matter themselves (because the subject seems to lie elsewhere) than many other photos I look at. Nevertheless, we are photographing physical things, so they will always to some degree be part of the subject, I think. A way of saying this would be that, though the whole can be greater than sum of the parts, the parts remain visible and can still be experienced as parts . . . of a greater whole. But, yes, many times the subject goes well beyond the details of what we actually see.</p>

<p>______________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>isn't the photograph always a referent to its subject --Phylo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably so. What I'm saying is that sometimes the photograph puts me more in touch with the referent of the subject in the photograph and sometimes the photograph puts me more in touch with the statement, or at least something that transcends the subject in the photograph. Your series leans much more toward the latter for me.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Fred, this link is to a group where the object, as subject, was less important to me. This first one is a good example, but there are others. Some work both ways for me although object as subject was less important to me than what resulted.</p>

<p>http://acurso.com/OneMoment.html</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I have not engaged in the discussion and have yet to read all of what has been said. I really hope to do that as soon as I can get my other current thought projects (those putting bread on the table) out of the way. So, given that perspective I probably cannot add anything very constructive to what has already been said. But I will try.</p>

<p>One of the photographers interviewed in the recent photography month documentaries this week on TVO was Gregory Crewdson. I could relate very closely to his manner of statement and purpose in creating images (the polar opposite of discovering images as many of us seem to enjoy) in which his sum of life experience, emotional and metaphysical ponderings and desire to communicate are brought into play in elaborate scene and event creation that precedes and envelopes his art. I think his approach is very much akin to that of many artists who are not interested in recording reality (or some subjective derivative of it), but rather are intent on creating images out of their mind. Of course, not all of us can work, or would want to work, with the Hollywood scale sets and intricate set-ups he employs en route to his “perfect moment” (I think that was the term he employed for that situation and moment when everything comes together exactly as it should (as he planned it).</p>

<p>So I think that Crewdson defines in some way statement and purpose in very real and at the same time artistic terms.</p>

<p>How do I personally feel, apart from sharing Crewdson’s approach in some instances?</p>

<p>I feel that I have been spending most of my photographic energy, not always very successfully (from a communicative viewpoint and not a technical photographic, or picture compositional, viewpoint), in discovering what is important to me (a personal statement, if you will, for personal consumption) and how I want to communicate my viewpoint or sense of visual statement via photography. An unfinished process for me, or at least an on-going one. One in which I seek change, if only because I believe that this iterative process will lead me to a more final appreciation/realisation of my personal commitment (personal statement).</p>

<p>The discovery and application of what is important (to me) sees its next phase of exposure in treating certain subjects, where the opportunity to connect with the viewer is attempted. This is an attempt to an outward statement. Although I have a pretty good idea of my values and preferred approaches I am still floundering a bit, and possibly because I haven’t fully developed my “personal statement”. But connect I do at times and this is useful as a learning experience. On the other hand, different viewers react to different subjects I photograph in entirely varied, sometimes unpredictable and uncontrollable (for me the photographer) ways. That might be construed as a problem, but the other end condition, in which my statement (or that of any other photographer) would be received by most viewers in perfect clarity and simplicity, is not a situation that I desire. I would prefer that my work simply catalyze some issues of thought in the mind of the viewer, perhaps only subtly or abstrusely infer something and not present my statement in a neat package that would risk being too evident, too simplistic. I would rather be somewhere between the two cases, preferably creating statements that are enigmatic and interpretable on different planes. Despite all his planning and perfection in bringing thought to photographic paper, the works of Crewdson are mostly in that vein. An enigmatic statement can also be achieved in less directorial ways, which is more how I tend to create what statements I do in my own work.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Very powerful images there John A, especially <em>Buffalo</em><br /> I think you expressed what you're saying well - and what I also meant with the statement being the subject, rather than the subject photographed - in your statement of the <em>Under Perfumed Skies </em>series, when you're talking about <em>meaning beyond form, </em>and <em>removing reference to place</em>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, got it, thanks. Yes, these are less important as the objects they are (or at least a case can be made for that, though I suspect some would disagree). There is a contemplative aspect which seems beyond "object" and the objects themselves are also conveyers of both design and abstraction.</p>

<p>When you talked about the subject not having to be in the frame, I thought of <a href="http://www.arkitectrue.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/0228_v-j-day-kiss-eisenstaedt.jpg">THE KISS.</a> Though some viewers might see the subject as the kiss itself and the two people involved in it, I tend to see the subject as jubilation, exhilaration, the end of the war. "The end of the war" is really not something that can physically be pictured, so we are led to it through associations and context.</p>

<p>I can't think of one off hand, but there are also photos which lead me physically outside of the frame, for example a few people who seem to be intently watching something out of the frame, and that something outside the frame becomes the subject.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm saying is that sometimes the photograph puts me more in touch with the referent of the subject in the photograph and sometimes the photograph puts me more in touch with the statement, or at least something that transcends the subject in the photograph. Your series leans much more toward the latter for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, yes. And that's probably also why I'm so attracted to its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiodromia">opposite</a>, or at least where the two collapse into each other. The <em>Memorabilia</em> series attempts to come closer - if ever so steadily - to that <em>objective photographic'ness</em> that I was also talking about in the beginning of the thread.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, sorry, is there a link to the <em>Memorabilia</em> series that I missed?</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>It's the one above <em>Be Here Now</em> in the menu, or <a href="http://www.motionandstill.net/index.php?/projects/memorabilia/">here</a>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I appreciate what you said about not having fully developed your personal statement. Perhaps no one ever does. I did find it useful the other day when my friend asked me to distill a statement into a quick one or two sentences. Now, of course, I was resistant (and even looking back at it, I have hesitation) because I do realize the inadequacy of a couple of sentences summing one up. But it was worth the try and I know no one is going to hold me to it. I've noticed your absence lately and figured you were busy, but I've been hoping you'd join in because I thought of you a couple of times while reading through the thoughts in this thread. I would love to see a brief statement from you (even if it's not to cover your whole body of work or personal journey but just a photo or series) and then a link to a photo or series that you think might make the statement. The two significant ideas you mention in your post are "I seek change" and "the opportunity to connect with the viewer." I'm a little unclear whether those are statements you are trying to make with photos or if they are statements about your approach itself (or some combination of those two), but they stood out to me.</p>

<p>And, yes, it's always a crap shoot what the viewer will get out of it, though we can still attempt to put stuff into it that will make a difference.</p>

<p>Welcome back!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, I wanted to expand a bit on what I meant by something above. In talking about your <em>Be Here Now</em> series, I said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It's more about the watched going right through the watcher."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The picture I have is this. There's a king of triangle. There are two points of the triangle (maybe call them the physical and the metaphysical . . . maybe not) in the photos and the third point of the triangle is somewhere behind you, Phylo, the photographer. So it's as if the vision is coming from behind and through you. Like you're not at the end point.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p><a href="http://merfeldcollodion.com/about/artistic-statement/">http://merfeldcollodion.com/about/artistic-statement/</a><br>

If you're into photography you may want to look at Ken Merfeld's work first, like you might in a gallery...before the statement:<br>

<a href="http://merfeldcollodion.com/portfolios/portraits1/">http://merfeldcollodion.com/portfolios/portraits1/</a></p>

<p>Merfeld's work is so strongly committed that.... perhaps the statement flowed from it...and it helps curators and writers, who may be less visual than photographers often are. Does anyone think his statement shapes his work?</p>

<p>Cart and horse. Commitment first. Click. Film/file. Print. Statement.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, I meant to mention that <em>Memorabilia</em> still has a metaphysical quality, though it is, to me, heavier and more grounded. It nevertheless bears the kind of Phylo-ness I alluded to in my post above.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred, yes, perhaps. It's difficult to see our own work through the eyes of others. Your <em>the watched going through the watcher</em> rings true, as it suggests being aware of awareness with the subject as metaphor for/of awareness. <br>

In your work there's firstly the awareness of and by the presence of your subjects and your interaction with your subject and through that interaction the interaction with the viewer. </p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Statement as <em>pulse</em>, as this central point of energy which transmits from one photograph to another. Until this one picture comes along, the one which forms another pulse. </p>

[jtk]

<p>fwiw the phrase "be here now" originated with Baba Ram Das. <a href="http://www.ramdass.org/">http://www.ramdass.org/</a></p>

[dan_south]

<p>My photographs are their own statements. That's what I expect of them at any rate. Whether they succeed or fail is up to the viewer.</p>

<p>My website contains very little text save for an introductory blurb and a handful of quotations on the front page. There are always exceptions, but when a photographer's website is full of words, chances are the photographs aren't very interesting. If your images are compelling in their own right, you shouldn't have to recount every detail of the shoot or critique every lens that you've ever owned. Spare me the explanation and show me some photos that knock my socks off.</p>

<p>If the story of your photos is genuinely fascinating - and sometimes that IS the case - a blog that's separate from your gallery area would be a good forum for such accounts. This provides the viewer with background information that isn't available in your galleries. But in general, photo galleries shouldn't require statements of purpose. Yes, I can imagine legitimate exceptions to this rule. Nevertheless, the challenge of the artist is to communicate through one's chosen art form, not to publish art that requires explanation to be appreciated. Beethoven didn't include 'liner notes' with his symphonies. All that's required of the audience is listening. Photography audiences deserve no less.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>fwiw the phrase "be here now" originated with Baba Ram Das</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I did mention his book <em>Remember</em>, <em>Be Here Now</em> a few posts back. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Hi Fred,</p>

<p>I acknowledge gratefully your comments and questions. I hope this thread continues on over the next week, after which I hope to better interact in this thoughtful discussion and pursue the discussion of the points you raised and those of your fellow contributors. For the past month my preoccupations have unfortunately not been photographic or philosophical, as goes the occasional work opportunities of a supposed retiree. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Dan, I do understand. And like I said, I wasn't talking about accompanying text in a web site or gallery setting. I was asking if you could put the statement (even loosely) into words just for yourself (and other photographers) here, in the Philosophy forum. As I said at the beginning of the thread, I doubt everyone would want to or even could, and I doubt everyone photographs in such a way as to allow them to talk coherently about the statement that <em>is</em> their work (not that might accompany it). We all work differently and I appreciate your candor.</p>

<p>Arthur, thanks.</p>