Is it all that bad?

[alan_zinn]

<p>Scott,<br>

There is a part of being a photographer that compels us to question our true concerns. Wanting to make a difference is a challenge. Moving someone to feel the joy of living IS more likely to produce a better world than depicting violence and agony. Human agency and struggle is another kind of beauty. "Concerned Photographers" is a movement that someone here no doubt can illuminate. <br>

For a start see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Vishniac</p>

[scott_martin10]

<p>Thanks Alan :)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Moving someone to feel the joy of living IS more likely to produce a better world than depicting violence and agony. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, this is poignant and interesting but I'm also having a strong reaction to the mutual exclusivity of it. I think a case could be made that the depiction of violence and agony in the right hands can produce a better world. Without the depiction of suffering, homelessness, starvation, in some form or another, the world that is not experiencing these things might not know of it. So it's important in an informative way and can also be important in a cathartic way. We release demons not only by imaging joy but by expressing our fears, sorrows, and emotional horrors. It is so possible to move someone toward joy through the honest expression of something negative. I often come away from Shakespeare plays feeling a kind of joy, or awe as I mentioned, even as I suffer through the deaths and bloodshed of, say, a Macbeth. Some photographs, plays, movies, books, allow me a kind of distance that, as I said, transforms what is presented, even horror and sorrow, into something else.</p>

<p>Vishniac is an interesting case. <em>A Vanished World</em> was one of the first photography books I owned, given to me by my brother decades ago. My reaction to the book and the kind of imagery it contains really isn't a matter of simple joy of living vs. agony and violence. The "truth" of Vishniac's work, and its power, is in its presenting of what was, it's documenting of life with its complex set of emotions and its historical evidences. It lies in its preservation for future generations of what was about to be extinguished, even without the full knowledge that it would be so or what that meant. So while it surely portrays hope and agency, it also portrays suffering and what would be a complete lack of agency, final determination at the hands of another. This book has always made me feel a myriad of things, joy and sorrow, possibility and loss, honor and defeat, pride and hate and shame and empathy and distance. It doesn't seem to me Vishniac was concerned with the portrayal of particular emotions or guiding us to a better world or a worse world. He was simply moved by what he saw and wanted to document the realities of a time, a culture, and a people. It is we who use the vocabulary of results, what will get produced. He used his eyes, his empathy, his place, his desire, to see and show. To me it's much less about any sort of desired effect than it is about a reaching out, a determination to see and have seen, and the richness of the gamut of what human beings can and must experience. It's as much about memory as it is about what it will produce.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>From the introduction by Elie Wiesel:</p>

<p><em>"Not to forget, not to allow oblivion to defeat memory: that is his obsession. Defying all dangers, surmounting all obstacles, he travels from province to province, from village to village, capturing slums and markets, a gesture here, a movement there, reflections of hope and despair, so that the vicitms will not wholly vanish into the abyss—so that they will live on, past torture and past massacre. And he has won the wager: they live still."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is WAY beyond the feeling or the production of joy or agony.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>So while it surely portrays hope and agency, it also portrays suffering and what would be a complete lack of agency, final determination at the hands of another.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

I think we're probably on the same wavelength. I always challenge everyone to show struggle rather than victims. It doesn't degrade the subject and requires compassion and understanding. So much reportage is cheap - doll on the bomb rubble and raw agony.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>struggle rather than victims. It doesn't degrade the subject and requires compassion and understanding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>!!!</p>

[don_essedi]

"I believe that a key role of documentary photography is to reveal something about the human condition. I get that people often reveal deep things about themselves when pushed to the brink but people reveal amazing truths about their nature in all kinds of different situations. They are just perhaps harder to capture."

 

People may not reveal deep things about themselves, or they may not in a way that can be captured visually. A documentary project, I believe, should have a strong concept -- 'strong' because it has gone through a reality-check. A poor concept will doom the project. Though the photos might be good, and good as documentary photos, they will likely not come together as a project -- a 'documentary'. One ends up with good photos with good documentary qualities, but nothing more. The concept has failed.

[mukul_dube]

<p>"... struggle rather than victims. It doesn't degrade the subject and requires compassion and understanding."<br>

... and, often, it compels respect.</p>

[gary_meader]

<p>My best work has come when I allow myself to look at the camera as a sort of lie detector; Am I at this moment connected to my world? If the answer is 'yes' there's a better chance that the resulting photo will have some strength. If the dial points to 'no' then almost guaranteed, my photo will be meaningless. It's about me and my openness to the world in front of me. FWIW</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Is there a danger of turning something mildly worthy to a limited audience into something altogether more pretentious in an attempt to reach a wider audience? Is it possible to increase interest without affecting the 'honesty' of the piece of work? How do you guard against examples of exception as opposed 'the norm'? And in doing so, look for the 'blood and guts' and not the mundane and expected.<br>

I've always struggled with the demarcation of documentary and jounalism - maybe that's it - journalism deals with exception and documentary the norm. </p>

[c._b.]

<p>Maybe just that the human brain works like that! Positive and good things delight us for a very short span of time.. but negative thoughts, images incubate in our minds and grow to consume all other thoughts.. hence negative documentaries or photographs leave a deeper mark and is thus more popular!</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>...negative documentaries or photographs leave a deeper mark and is thus more popular!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yea, people avoid those films that say "Uplifting" on the DVD cover. It is troubling to see all the violent video games being advertised this time of year. Another sicko thing, just in time for the holidays, Time/Life WWII series with emphasis on the graphic death clips. I think the more grotesque daily life becomes - and I do believe its gotten way worse in just a short time - the more, <em>escapists</em>, if you like, work is needed to offer some respite. Why add to the ugliness?</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Great philosophical photography topic... kudos to the OP!<br>

I think when it comes to documentary photography (or cinematography) the TRUTH is sometimes dark and dirty and it has shock value too so that probably why you remember it more than the good documentary.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Alfred Hitchcock once said " In feature films the <em>director</em> is <em>God</em>; in <em>documentary</em> films <em>God is the director</em>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still photography is no different than cinematography so the same truth applies (except the former is still and the latter is motion photography). Relating to still photography an example would be this: A high fashion photographer shoots a high fashion fantasy concept involving clothes and fashion accessories. Now lets say ( I wont name any fashion labels but believe me this exists) that ____ (fill in the blank) fashion designer outsources the clothes to be made in a third world country in a sweatshop with kids. A documentary photographer would take photos of that exact sweat shop...all the behind the scenes stuff the public never sees...the dark and dirty. Do you see now what Hitchcock was trying to say? The fashion photographer creates <em>fantasy</em> while the documentary photographer just photographes the <em>truth</em> ...opposites of the same exact coin.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Rob, I think what Scott is saying (asking) is that the TRUTH is also sometimes joyful and exuberant, yet those TRUTHS are not told as readily as the dark and dirty ones. If the fantasy fashion designer had the clothes made by volunteers who were supporting charitable organizations throughout the world, Scott's asking whether that would as likely be made into a documentary.</p>

<p>One thing I come up with is that the press (not always a clear distinction between journalism and documentary), has always had an <em>adversarial</em> role (by design), which may lead it to what we think of as negative stories. The press and documentarians have a long and quite significant history of uncovering bad stuff about governments and people and institutions of power. The reason it's important to history that Woodward and Bernstein uncovered Watergate (a very negative story) is that they spoke truth to power. If it were up to the powers-that-be, they'd show us only the lie that tells us everything is blissful. The so-called negativity of photojournalism and documentary is a fundamental self protection for the people.</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Fred, I do understand what Scott is saying that the TRUTH is also joyful but covered less than the dark and dirty in documentary photography, but unfortunately the dark and dirty documentary has more <em>shock value. </em>Shock value sells documentary photos because you remember it more than the wholesome joyful stuff. So I do agree with you about the press uncovering mostly the negative stuff more than the good stuff.<br>

Lets elaborate on the example I gave. How often is the high fashion industry using volunteer or charitable organizations? almost never...they are a for profit industry with huge mark-ups in profits. Most the time the fashion is fairly cheap to make but you are paying for the designer label ... you are paying for the <em>fantasy or illusion</em>.<br>

Lets say that same documentary photographer after taking photos of the third world sweatshops traveled on a flight back to say New York City where the fashion shoot was. This time he takes photos of the models behind the scenes. He takes photos of the models that have aneroxia, addicts on expensive hard drugs and expensive plastic surgery. He shows the models in their expensive condos and cars with scars wrapped up in bandages after surgery, near skeleton condition from starving themselves for the shoot or runway and with track marks from drugs. Its dark and depressing stuff. The documentary photographer is only photographing the TRUTH, to do otherwise he would not be doing his job as a documentary photographer. Its also healthy to show opposites of the same coin. You need both fantasy and documentary. People want to see high fashion for fantasy and beauty. People see documentary photography for the TRUTH, and the TRUTH sucks sometimes but its the TRUTH.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, the truth sucks sometimes, as you say. But it just as often does not. I don't see the question as a matter of truth vs. fantasy. I think Scott knows the difference. I see the question as negative truth against positive truth. I think negative truth is more true to the purpose of journalism and documentary photography at their roots, which is adversarial. I don't think the truth is more likely to be negative than positive and I don't think positive truth is akin to fantasy. I think positive truth is not as necessary to show to keep the powerful and mighty in check in this world. Fantasy is a different genre and a different realm. </p>

<p>By the way, Hitchcock, despite whatever he may say (he's often cavalier and self-deprecating as well as oblique in his own commentary), tells a lot of TRUTH, precisely through his brilliant, insightful, and very human telling of fiction.</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Yeah Fred I agree with you, Hitchcock is great! as a film buff I have seen most of his movies. He was very deep, a genius actually, and Hitchcock does indeed tell the TRUTH in his story telling. As a photographer I also learned alot from the cinematography in his films. You bring an excellent point too that <em>fantasy art can show the truth as well as illusion</em>. I also understand what you are saying about negative and positive TRUTH in the press. You may be right that its not about fantasy vs. truth , I was only trying to illustrate a very interesting point Hitchcock made about who the director is...God or the film director (or fashion photographer in my example) in documentary vs fantasy.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And it's a great point. Hitchcock, mysterious as he sometimes was with words, was very worth paying attention to!</p>

[scott_martin10]

<p>Wow. I go away for a few days and come back to a fantastic discussion. I really was not expecting that!<br>

My question is a matter of positive truth vs negative truth. To use the sweatshop analogy, I understand that the sweatshop has to be shown to give people insight into what goes on and open their eyes so that they might think twice about buying from a particular brand. I just question why the other side of the coin isn't shown as readily when it is equally true and (to me) equally as important.<br>

It becomes a little bit more complex when you consider that there are many positive truths that come out of the negative truths. People being brought together through their suffering for example. Good photographers (and there are many out there) see ALL of the truths in such a situation and capture the positive with the negative. My fear is that a lot of photographers go into a situation such as a sweatshop and ignore much of the love and tenderness that can come out of it and focus purely on the suffering, purely for shock factor. I feel that there is sometimes a tendency to be so focused on keeping 'the powerful and mighty in check' that the FULL truth is somewhat forgotten.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><a href="http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/8b29516u.preview.jpg">Migrant Mother.</a></p>

<p>Don't you see both sides of the coin here? The great documentary photographers cover a gamut even in a single image.</p>

<p><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Im3AA6llaJ4/TY-5ObYlH2I/AAAAAAAAp5k/8xfiFlAbj0M/s1600/trodd.jpg">Walker Evans.</a></p>

<p>Poverty, despair, and hope?</p>

<p><a href="http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2742/1WRND00Z.jpg">Gordon Parks.</a></p>

<p>Questioning. Neither positive nor negative. A question is a very significant kind of truth.</p>

<p>_______________________________</p>

<p>You'll rarely if ever get the full truth. You just get truths.</p>

[scott_martin10]

<p>Brilliant post there. it shows exactly why they are rightfully considered great documentary photographers. Obviously this is an incredibly difficult thing to achieve but good photographers are always striving for it. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I just question why the other side of the coin isn't shown as readily when it is equally true and (to me) equally as important.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most media play one side of the coin. Most people consider one side. A lot of people assume that what they find to be true, is in fact true. Considering different viewpoints on a subject means leaving the comfort zone of the assumed reality / truth, and challenging yourself and your beliefs. Or worse: leaving the comfortable idea that a single truth and single reality exists ;-)<br>

(OK, OK, it's not THAT bad, to stay in tune with the theme!)</p>

<p>Fred's examples are brilliant photos. Yet, a lot of people will see just one aspect in them. As photos they offer you multiple views, but only if you can and want. Being able to considering multiple views, moving between them and accepting that there is no right or wrong view on this, is a skill not all people master. So great as the photos (and the photographers) are, the audience still has to bring in a skill to make get from these photos what is in there.<br>

And extending on that, I think you have to have these viewing skills well before you can make a photo that achieves what these photos achieve.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Truth in many sectors of what we mentally consider is that which I feel is approached but not fully attained. Truth for most of us is simply what works.</p>

<p>The excellent photo of Walker Evans is revealing on many planes, firstly the poverty and the concern or despair (the young girl), then the sense of stoic resignation (the near smile and determined face of the mother and the expression of resignation mixed with a certain curiosity of the grandmother or aunt) and the unconcerned playfullness of the little boy. The baby is symbolic of neutrality as he is not yet aware of his suroundings or condition. Only the father to me seems to be mainly devoid of expression. The interesting and hopeful signs are reflected by the formal family photos on the wall, perhaps also in the apparent attempt at wood flooring that doesn't quite reach the front door and still exposes the more primitive original stone or earth floor of the dwelling. It really succeeds for me in providing what is ostensibly a simple example of humans living in poverty and possessing some pride and which provides some sort of a cross section of human emotions in that context. Although apparently elusive, hope appears also to be there.</p>

[tom_ziegler2]

<p>I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the "idea" of truth. To quote from the New Testament, "Truth? What is truth?" Is Gordon Park's photograph of the cleaning woman truth or a statement of the times? We perceive...we feel...we interpret. Also a mediocre photographer can produce an excellent image. There's no good or bad photographer, only those who are more successful at their craft.<br>

I applaud this thread, just don't know where it's going.</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Tom, you bring up a good point. I think there are layers of TRUTH in photos. It can be in documentary or fantasy photography. IMO opinion even one nugget of TRUTH in either documentary or fantasy photography is priceless. And you can be any <em>"average joe"</em> photographer (<em>as long as the photographer can make a decent exposure!</em>) and photograph a "masterpiece". How? It could be the most everyday mundane photo you could imagine. An example would be a casual photo of a famous person of historic importance, taken right before he or she accidentally died in say a plane crash the next day. Your photos were lost for decades and recently discovered. They are now worth a lot of money because you captured the last known photo of that famous person. Now that "average joe" photographer has a historic photo that is priceless.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Rob, I like the idea of "layers of truth." Makes me think.</p>

<p>I'd question the "masterpiece" status of the photo you're describing. The photo you talk about would be a great catch, a historic photo that may be priceless as you later describe it, and could garner a few other descriptions. But it's more about the magnitude of the subject of the photo than the photo itself, and that's an important distinction. For me, the word "masterpiece" denotes something extraordinary about the photo as photo, something internal to the photo as well as just what it signifies or represents. A masterpiece could be an accident, but it would be that the elements of the photo came together to look a certain way, not that a hugely significant confluence of events got captured (any old way) by a guy with a camera. How the photo looks, much more than what it's of, IMO, would determine whether it's a masterpiece.</p>

<p>I'm not big on masterpieces anyway. I think it's often much smaller photos that express important truths. A sure way to fall short of creating a photo with a meaningful emotional truth is to try to create a masterpiece.</p>