Photographic Statement and Purpose

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, thanks for your answers to the question, which leave me with a couple of questions myself. You talk about isolating a piece of the world by framing within your lens and then you talk about isolation making you more receptive. Do you, yourself, feel isolated when behind the camera? Can you speak to the difference between the isolation you express and the increased receptivity you feel? That increased receptivity would seem to say something about your connectedness to your subject or at least to your photo-making. If I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like you experience a chasm between yourself and the viewer (<em>"See in them what you want to see. If people find a deeper meaning, a protest statement, an outcry or whatever in my photos, great. I doubt whether I put it in there . . ."</em>) Do you ever feel more connected to a viewer when they say something about a photo that rings true for you? Have viewers expressed things to you that remind you of your own feelings about a photo or about your own feelings when you took a photo? Would that provide any kind of counterpoint to your doubt that you put something there that they were in touch with?</p>

<p>I'm glad you brought up value, because it's not something we talk about a lot. It might be a good topic for a thread of its own. I hadn't really considered whether making a statement necessarily entails values, probably less aware that it might entail dictating them. I'm not sure all statements entail taking a stand. Maybe not. Maybe some photographic statements are more a matter of questioning coherently. One can guide a classroom, a reader, an audience, a viewer to a line of questioning without necessarily supplying answers, and yet effecting questioning can itself suggest values. One can also be more leading toward answers and that might more obviously entail value. Do you feel in any way <em>responsible</em> for your photos and does that responsibility suggest something about values to you?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Do you feel in any way <em>responsible</em> for your photos and does that responsibility suggest something about values to you?"</p>

<p>Responsible in what way? What are these values?</p>

<p>The world "as it is" seems to me the greatest responsibility and value. Do we have to hide those values and responsibility because of the current ever changing mores and values of society. Or, perhaps we we should hide them to protect the vanity of subjects we photograph.</p>

<p>What we see is the honesty anything else is what we are told to see.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>If there is a purpose, it's a journey inwards for myself. I like being behind the viewfinder, observing and being alone there with the piece of world I am framing. It's between me and me, and what comes out of it seems to have the purpose to isolate that piece of world as it struck my attention. In this isolation, I notice I am/become much more receptive. - Wouter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer as wanderer. Wandering, wondering, <em>*click*, </em>got it. A statement to yourself and your self in the world. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>An open society is a healthy society.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p>If there is a purpose, it's a journey inwards for myself. I like being behind the viewfinder, observing and being alone there with the piece of world I am framing. It's between me and me, and what comes out of it seems to have the purpose to isolate that piece of world as it struck my attention. In this isolation, I notice I am/become much more receptive. (<strong>Wouter</strong>)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very interesting statement. Aren't we in the end photographing for ourselves? To look at our own statements and viewing our own purposes? Can we just rely on the capability of viewers to capture the tiniest element we want to include in our images?</p>

<p>The ideal coincidence by two perceptions, the author's and the viewer's, isn't it utopia? If the viewer could exactly read the author's statement, then there would be a perfect coincidence between the two. Is it realistic that this might happen? Wouldn't it imply the con-fusion of the two individualities (producing and viewing)?</p>

<p>Maybe we photographers are producing statements for ourselves. When others read our statements, they could have a more or less coinciding view. But it's more likely not to coincide because of the different individualities. The more complex the statement, the less</p>

<p>When others read different statements in our photos than we intended, in some way they betray our purpose as authors.</p>

<p>I also see a correlation between the elementarity of a statement and the legibility of a statement. The more simple the photo, the more the statement is universally legible.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, the communication between photographer and viewer is only utopian if put in all-or-nothing terms, only if idealized. Sure, the viewer <em>exactly</em> reading the author's statement is unrealistic.</p>

<p>We communicate without <em>exactly</em> doing anything all the time. The kind of statement I'm talking about is not <em>precise</em> and is not understood precisely. That doesn't mean that some connection and understanding between photographer and viewer doesn't take place.</p>

<p>More complex statements don't have to mean less understanding or empathy. They can mean more suggestiveness and potential. Connecting through suggestion and possibility is much more the kind of connection I want than connecting through precision or factual accuracy.</p>

<p>For me, it's not about the coincidence of photographer and viewer. It's a <em>vicarious</em> communication and relationship.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<p>you are right and I was thinking of some specific situations where the lack of coincidence is particularly extreme.<br>

I agree when you mention the vicarious relationship, which seems to me pointing at integration and complementarity. It's very true, a viewer can complement the statement of the photographer.<br>

However it takes very skilled viewers to achieve this vicarious relationship.</p>

<p>The problem with my statement is that we are dealing with human beings and their relationships, culture and emotions. A common ground can be there but is not necessarily there.<br>

A "statement" requires a "common language". Not necessarily all terms of the "vocabulary" are the same, but the more correspondence there is, the better the statement creates a connection between author and viewer.</p>

<p>Maybe the term "coincidence" I used was wrong, or in the wrong acceptation. I was thinking of some sort of correspondence.<br>

And of course photographers are able to conceive complex statements and there are viewers who can understand and empathise these statements, they might even be able to elaborate on the statements and expand them.</p>

<p>But still I believe that this is not very common.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I wrote previously of the epiphenomenal nature of statements that emerge from one's photography and the autobiographical aspect is one such. A former student of mine progressed to take a degree in photography and in her final year show she intended to make a statement about her metamorphosis to the status of 'artist'. Ironically, the work was so perfused with ego and so unsubtle that the autobiographical statement was smothered in kitsch. Hence, I contend that we should simply follow our Muse, see where it leads us and discover something of ourselves in the process. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Chris, I appreciate the anecdote and recognize the dangers of overindulgence. At the same time, there are many statements of great significance made with a combination of i<em>ntention</em>, skill, coherence, and expressiveness. Statements can emerge and they can also be very deliberately hewn. There can also be an emergent character to a carefully-shaped statement. The most intentional of approaches to a photograph or body of work can allow for accident and surprise.</p>

<p>Luca, yes. There are so many different ways to photograph. I do think some photographers have a more solipsistic approach, which does show in their work and it can be incredibly moving and/or meaningful. I agree that some statements and even some non-statement photographs seem to demand a visually literate viewer. Other statements simply require the skill or desire of the photographer or can be as emergent as Chris describes and will become clear to most viewers fairly readily.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Parallel comments in "Casual Conversations" :<br>

<em>"What subjects do you shoot and why and how do you photograph them?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Most of those comments seem to <em>describe</em> what the photographers actually do, which isn't quite the same as announcing "statements" or finding them in their work. Slightly, but significantly different.</p>

<p>I think those comments are descriptive, aspiring less to ideas than to photography. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred,<br /> Thanks, your questions help me a lot again formulating a bit better (also for myself!) what goes on behind that viewfinder...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you, yourself, feel isolated when behind the camera? Can you speak to the difference between the isolation you express and the increased receptivity you feel?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I do feel isolated. Not in a "lonely" sense, but in some sort of exclusivity. When I frame (sometimes a split second, sometimes I take my time), it seems to close off the rest of the world. It's, I guess, working very intently with the scene I envision to get it the way I want it. So, the increased receptivity I should possibly rephrase a little to be an awareness of the framing I want, which would tell the story correctly as I saw it. In a sense connected to the scene, maybe more to my ideas on that scene. Disconnected, since I'm frequently working from a physical distance.<br /> I should note, this obviously does not apply to all photos, but even when taking photos of something like birds playing around in the harbour, for example; I am very closed off and somewhat hyper-actively following what's happening, hoping to catch that one scene with the right graphical appeal to me. Possibly this is also because my 'way of working' orchestrates nothing about the photo; so, I don't make the scene look the way I want, I just hope it happens.<br /> One of the things I feel I am still learning better is to not do *click* when I know it's just not working. Learning to wait more and let pass when it's not what I hoped for.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you ever feel more connected to a viewer when they say something about a photo that rings true for you? Have viewers expressed things to you that remind you of your own feelings about a photo or about your own feelings when you took a photo? Would that provide any kind of counterpoint to your doubt that you put something there that they were in touch with?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and no; I am pleased when people pick up on what made me make the photo in the first place. Eventually, I do hope to be an effective (visual) communicator through photos, so if this happens it boosts morale.<br /> My point here was more about statements, in the sense of people stating that a photo is addressing some social/political/environmental issue. I took <a href="http://www.ww-web.nl/photos/Megara%20Hyblaea/20100829_065.jpg" target="_new">some photos on a (for me) nearby archeological spot, with a very ancient Greek village (~700 bC), surrounded by petrochemical industry</a>. I could mark those photos as a protest against that industry, as a sign of changing times, as mark of how the local government disregards these archeologic spots etc. For me, they are just photos of that spot. The place itself tells the story eloquently enough, and I'll leave people to make up their mind on what it signifies. The photo just shows how I've seen it. My opinion may shine through, but whether it effectively communicates it, I wonder.<br /> When I show people this serie of photos, some have commented it's such a pity. And I'll share my opinion on how I perceive this spot. I like this sequence of events better - it means my photo achieved something, and that's make others think. Now, I do not see this as a statement, since I'm avoiding to stress my point.<br /> Which indeed leads to a question of responsibility. It sounds like I am trying to avoid that, which is not the case. I hope, one day, I will be able to challenge my viewers. Challenge them into thinking of their opinion, and taking their stand. So, in the end once I grow up, I'd prefer to communicate a question rather than my point of view. Maybe there is a purpose.... Hope this lengthy reply makes a bit more sense on what I was trying to say earlier. (*)</p>

<p>Phylo, <em>wondering wanderer </em>- now there's a verbal homerun for me. Yes.</p>

<p>Luca,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Aren't we in the end photographing for ourselves?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I think so. We express ourselves to confirm ourselves and our self-image, I think. When talking, when writing, when.... so yes, also in photography. But whether that makes <em>coincidence by two perceptions</em> an utopia (I left out the word ideal on purpose), that may be a step further. Totally the same perception, sure it's not going to happen. But as a communicator I could have the ability to guide the viewer where I want them to be. I could be more empathic to my viewer and arrange my work in such a way that I know up front the chances of getting the message across is higher. I would not need to sacrifice myself, while being a better communicator.<br /> Actually, re-reading your reply another time, it sounds to me you state it a bit harsher than I would, while we're actually not too far apart on this point.</p>

<p>Fred, Chris,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a combination of i<em>ntention</em>, skill, coherence, and expressiveness</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't this where the Muse took you so far? The intention, coherence and expressiveness as lessons taken from the part where we <em>discover something of ourselves in the process </em>? Skill being maybe a bit the odd one in the list, though I think we all pick that up to some extend as we grow.</p>

<p>________________________________<br /> (*) Much of what I allude to hear, are aspirations rather than things you'll find in my photos now; as Luca says, it takes a very skilled photographer, and quoting on, I am mostly just following my Muse....</p>

[jtk]

<p>Chris Waller wrote: <em>"... in her final year show she intended to make a statement about her metamorphosis to the status of 'artist'. Ironically, the work was so perfused with ego and so unsubtle that the autobiographical statement was smothered in kitsch. Hence, I contend that we should simply follow our Muse, see where it leads us and discover something of ourselves in the process."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Yes. Or maybe the same, "should" have enough faith in ourself (the self that evolves over time) to do and respect our work without reducing it verbal formulations. That faith may allow more of the exploration that can lead to discoveries.</p>

<p>Some highly productive photographers make statements introducing or framing projects, rather than pretending those statements have to do with who they are or what they're fundamentally about. For example, Lee Friedlander does one project after another accompanying each one with its own statement. The statements aren't about LF, they're about projects that stand independently... they're works, after all, not accidents or X-rays of his soul.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, I'm not sure whether "craft" might have been a better word than "skill," maybe even "technique." In any case, I'll use "craft." I see craft as somewhat inseparable from the others, because it is with the craft that I can gain coherence and expressiveness, the kind of subtlety and nuance necessary to do more than the obvious, if I so choose, or even accomplish the obvious if that's what I choose.</p>

<p>As far as Muse, for me it's a back and forth. The Muse does carry me along, but the intention and thoughtfulness, the skill and expressiveness bring me to the Muse as well. </p>

<p>I am not photographing for myself (though I do so in small part). Honestly, I'm not all that independent. Perhaps, in some ways co-dependent, perhaps in some ways more community- or socially-oriented. Because I work with live subjects, I often consider it a joint project and am in a position to be photographing with and for those subjects as well as for myself. I do want to reach out to a viewer, so I am mindful of that viewer even if I don't compromise my vision for that viewer. As Luis noted above, I do show something about <em>us</em> as well as about myself. It's why I said my work feels less like a diary and more like a statement than, for example, Nan Goldin's work, which I think appears to be more personal. Though I am photographing people in my close-knit community (in at least the work I'm concentrating on in this thread), they are often not people I know well or am in intimate relationships with. In that sense, perhaps I remain a little more distanced than some others who I also greatly admire and respect and whose work I certainly appreciate and love.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, thank you for the response. It was just enough to convey something significant about your thinking on the matter. I appreciate your sharing it. And it nicely supplemented what you originally said. It does not sound like you are trying to avoid responsibility.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"respect our work without reducing it verbal formulations."<br>

"they're works, after all, not accidents or X-rays of his soul."</p>

<p>Two good points. It is all to easy to loose ourselves in too much soul searching and trying to reduce our work to <strong>verbalization...I cannot help thinking we loose something in the translation.</strong> A photograph is a act of creativity both for the photographer and viewer and that is simply the enjoyment of it. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Well if it's fixed it ain't loose.<br>

( you have to shake it like a polaroid picture if you want to lose it )</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>You mean something like this. </p>

<p>" This knot is too <strong>loose</strong>. Please do not <strong>lose</strong> my book.<br /> I had better not <strong>lose</strong> that file."</p>

<p>Hey, I was typing real quick that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it;) I did not want that gold star anyway.</p>

[jtk]

<p>My sense is that concern with "statement, " unless it's "explaining" a project to non-photographers (as in galleries), is usually intended to focus on the photographer...intended to draw attention away from the viewer's personal appreciation of the work itself. That's why statements are so self-referential.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Evans's approach eventually became Szarkowski's essential position on the medium. In 1971 he wrote, "The photographer must define his subject with an educated awareness of what it is and what it means; he must describe it with such simplicity and sureness that the result seems an unchallengeable fact, not merely the record of a photographer's opinion; yet the picture itself should possess a taut athletic grace, an inherent structure, that gives it a life in metaphor." He continued, "Evans at his best convinces us that we are seeing the dry bones of fact, presented without comment, almost without thought. His lesser pictures make it clear that the best ones had deceived us: what we had accepted as simple facts were precise descriptions of very personal perceptions."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em><a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/05/theory-master-of-medium-maria-morris.html">http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/05/theory-master-of-medium-maria-morris.html</a><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

[Allen Herbert]

<p><em> "were precise descriptions of very personal perceptions." <br /><br /></em>The photograph as the statement of those personal perceptions.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>If the photographs created themselves, some of the comments above might be totally true, but they do not. In the case of Evans, he was a very literary man, and a failed writer. He coujld, and did, talk and write about photographs, and that did not hurt his place in the history of the medium one bit. Anything that we do can be expressed at least partially through more than one of our sensory modalities. Doing so is more fully using our human faculties, not less.</p>

<p>Fred's original definition of statement has been distended as the thread wears on. It is not an artists' statement, or a short verbal explanation of the work, though it can be expressed verbally, by some, and discerned by many viewers -- even where the photographer can't see it.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>He was a documentry photograph, a moralist, with linguistic skills. Those linguistic skills helped to give documentry content to his revelations. However, it is all about his photographs, which were his final statement.<br>

<br />Absolutely, those photographs can stand alone without even a whisper of a word.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Alan Herbert - "</strong>Absolutely, those photographs can stand alone without even a whisper of a word."</p>

<p>That's a charming retro notion, circa 1965 Modernist. The truth is that the photograph has real antecedents. It came from someone, who saw it, got it made into final form, using specific materials in a specific culture, and timespace coordinates. It also has conceptual antecedents, in the case of Evans, most notably, Atget (among many others). And descendents, most notably William Eggleston (among many others). You can cookie-cutter/excise anything out of its context, and loudly proclaim: "Look it stands alone" and "Look, Ma, no words", but it's an absurdity. It didn't spring whole out of the vacuum.</p>

<p>Everything lives in a web of being.<br>

<a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Language is fossil poetry.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The etymologist finds the deadest word to have been once a brilliant picture. Language is fossil poetry. As the limestone of the continent consists of infinite masses of the shells of animalcules, so language is made up of images, or tropes, which now, in their secondary use, have long ceased to remind us of their poetic origin. </em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

- Ralph Waldo Emerson</p>

</blockquote>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Phylo, very nice word smithing. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>Luis, perhaps I'm not explaining my thoughts adequately,or, perhaps you are missing my point. So, I'm going to take your hand and together we will walk through this until we have a mutual understanding.<br /><br /></p>

<p>"That's a charming retro notion, circa 1965 Modernist."</p>

<p>When I hear the world modernist, and other such cataloging terminology I think of an outworldly place. There's a little hunched back man with a handfuls of photographs looking at endless rows of filing cabinets stretching before him. Every photograph taken, every photograph to be taken, he is cataloging to the end of time, in those endless rows of filing cabinets. Not that its got anything to do with our discussion, it just popped up in my mind unbidded really.</p>

<p>"The truth is that the photograph has real antecedents"</p>

<p>So, he was influenced by others, to a lesser or greater degree, as we all are consciously or sub consciously. I do not see the relevance in this discussion.</p>

<p>"You can cookie-cutter/excise anything out of its context, and loudly proclaim: "Look it stands alone" and "Look, Ma, no words", but it's an absurdity. It didn't spring whole out of the vacuum."</p>

<p>Who has been saying than anything springs out of a vaccum? What I have been saying is the photographs are good enough thay are capable of standing alone without dialogue or even context. Indeed, without a word about them being whispered.</p>

<p>Of course Evans was doing a documentry, and a documentry is usually occupied with words and a contex. We can take that as given.</p>

<p>I would like to refer you to the photographs of Vivian Maier a" nanny with a camera". These photographs were found by accident when she was deceased. She was unable to give soul searching intimacies, or, explain why she took this or that photograph. Neverthless, they are great photographs, and like Evans work if found in an attic.......</p>

<p>" can stand alone without even a whisper of a word regardless of charming retro notions, circa 1965 Modernist.2"<br>

<br /><br /><br>

My case: I rest it.</p>