Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

cyanatic · July 28, 2014

Brief background on what brought this topic to mind, and what I mean by it: This past Saturday I went to view an exhibit of Vivian Maier prints at the College of DuPage (southwest of Chicago), "Exposing Vivian Maier". The prints came from Jeff Goldstein's collection, not the John Maloof collection. There was a showing of the BBC film "The Vivian Maier Mystery" (a bit deeper in scope, I thought, than Maloof's "Finding Vivian Maier"). There was a panel discussion afterward, and later one could mingle and talk to Goldstein, some of the printmakers, Richard Cahan (co-author of "Vivian Maier, Out of the Shadows") etc. I could go on for pages about the experience, but that's not really the point of this thread.

Along with an exhibition catalogue, there was a small 4 page foldout with a Maier photo on the cover, some discussion of the prints included in the show, and a commentary on Maier and her work by Debra Brehmer, an art historian, writer, and gallerist from Milwaukee. In making a point about Maier, Brehmer wrote at some length about the cover photo which was this one:

http://vivianmaierprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Vivian-Maier_55_230-12_72dpi-632x640.jpg

(The bolding is mine in the quote below.)

Debra Brehmer: "As viewers, we stand intimately alongside Maier with her Rolleiflex, sharing each choice to stop and use one of those 12 precious film exposures. She's more of a formalist than many, noting the repetition of angles and shapes, the theatre of light and shadow that stirs beneath the pictorial surface to give her work integral structure as well as human content. While sensitive to issues of social status, Maier more strategically notes the channel between what people hope to be and the pockmarked wear that the world has imposed. The back of a woman in one tightly framed picture at first looks elegant, but the edges of the large bow on her hat are actually frayed and re-stitched. Then you see the formal language: how the curve of the hat echoes the slope of her hair and shoulders and how the animated gestures of two locks of hair escaping the hat mimic the matter texture of the sweater."

</blockquote>

Brehmer was not present that day so I could not ask her, but I take her remarks to imply that the details noted above were evident to Maier and part of the reason she chose to take the photograph. This is not the first time I have read a critique of this sort in regard to the intention of a documentary or street photographer. I cannot find them now, but I recall reading similar statements regarding certain photographs by Winogrand, Klein, Levitt, and Robert Capa. (Brehmer's example is quite mild compared to the critique which waxed rhapsodic over Capa's "intentional" timing in "Dying Spanish Soldier" and went so far as to liken the soldier's tenuous hand on the rifle to the hand of God reaching toward Adam on the Sistine Chapel: <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/17/arts/18capa-650a.jpg">http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/17/arts/18capa-650a.jpg</a> )

I can see minute attention to detail, and much planning, in portraits and landscapes (or in some of Maier's found still lifes, cityscapes, and self portraits) but given the rapid decision making process often required in street and documentary photography, some critical claims for deeply seen intention in a given photograph strain credulity for me. In the case of Maier's photograph....maybe. Perhaps they were standing at a stoplight and she thought, "This woman looked so finely dressed from a distance, but look at that re-stitched ribbon! This will make a fine photograph." I think it far more likely that she found the woman's attire interesting and took the photograph on that basis alone. I don't know how much frayed ribbons and errant wisps of hair contributed to the decision to take this particular photograph.

So the questions are: How great a level of detail do you think plays a role in the decision to take a photograph under rapidly changing conditions? (Whether Maier's photograph, or that of another photographer.) Do some critics give more credit to intention in such circumstances than is actually warranted? Are these truly apprehended in the moment, or discovered at leisure when viewing the print? Do you know of any similar examples by critics of other photographs with which you agree or disagree?

I sometimes think it varies by photographer. Off the top of my head I would say someone like Maier (or Bresson) was much more intentional and formal in their approach than someone like Winogrand or Klein.

maris_rusis · July 29, 2014

Detailed attention? Maybe for the large format photographer using a tripod mounted camera photographing static subject matter. But in the street different values apply. I think Lee Friedlander got it right:

I only wanted Uncle Vernon standing by his own car (a Hudson) on a clear day, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on the fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography. - <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=386&name=Friedlander,Lee">Lee Friedlander</a>

Norma Desmond · July 29, 2014

Great question, Steve.

A couple of things. The attribution of intention is tricky, so critics might be better off just noting things. If we see repetitive angles, shapes, elegance against wear and tear, that could happen for any number of reasons. It could be quickness and intention working together to show a particular perspective or take on the world. It could also be a photographer's more natural inclination (rather than overt intention) to notice certain things or be drawn to certain signs, symbols, shapes, textures, sociological phenomena, even without putting much or any thought into it.

I also try to remember that photos do and should go beyond the photographer. Those things the critic mentions, the frayed edges, the elegance, are IN the photo, regardless of why or how they got there. And whether intentional or not we are allowed to see them, care about them, and give meaning to them. Whether or not we ascribe these things to the photographer is one thing, but that we find them in the photo can't really be denied. And why not find meaning in them even if the photographer didn't purposely put it all together? The elements are there, no matter why and no matter how they got there. The photo can very profoundly speak of things the photographer may not have been aware of. We are looking at a photo, not simply a manifestation of a photographer's mind or sensibility.

When a critic or a viewer or anyone else starts noticing patterns in the work of a photographer, so if we notice a kind of frayed elegance in Maier's work that runs through many, many photos, then we might start to attribute a kind of sensibility to the photographer. Again, that could be very consciously driven or it could just be because of the nature and inclinations of the photographer without an overt decision having been made. That's why many photographers can use their own photos to discover things about themselves. What do you notice about your own photos that could tell you or someone else something about you, that could enlighten you about yourself, that you didn't have an intention of doing or showing? Those are interesting things to look for and consider.

Brad_ · July 29, 2014

>>> Do some critics give more credit to intention in such circumstances than is actually warranted?

Absolutely. With respect to VM, there's a ton of conjecture floating around, based solely on the narrative created

and controlled by a single individual, along with prints edited, selected, and editioned for exhibition and

sale. A large part of that is image creation/building, helping to foster interest and to make and drive

markets.

Even with Winogrand and all of his interviews and films of him making photographs on the street, it's

astonishing how many people try and ascribe all sorts of things to his photography in particular and "street

photography" in general. Might be why he seemed to enjoy toying with interviewers so much.

Julie H · July 29, 2014

Steve, your illustration has almost nothing to do with your questions. The Maier phenomenon in which you took part (for a few hours), which is in full swing with books, movies, and shows; is about initiation, about apotheosis, about the process of getting from urban noise of the town square to slowness and stillness of the temple (art institutions). Did saints really perform miracles? Did the Greeks really believe in Zeus? Do initiates really believe in the rites of transformation they go through? Is Avedon really a God (test: say bad things about him and see how many people call you a heretic)? Maier may well fail the test (Cinderella's fat sisters couldn't get into the glass slipper).

As to how much detail one "really" sees, try looking at the research on eye-witness testimony. I'd summarize it by saying, we have no idea what we do or don't see.

That being said, however, reference a fashion accessory such as a frayed ribbon, are you actually questioning whether a woman (and a woman critic, and this woman commenter) can see, at forty yards, the intimate details of a fashion accessories, handbags or shoes????

aplumpton · July 29, 2014

I must read these interesting comments in more detail, but I think that intention has less to do with observed detail (and the desire to photograph that) and more with what such detail or overall perception of what is there, or what is happening, means to the photographer and how that relates to his or her manner of seeing things. And in re-intepreting things (a parallel intention). Fred is correct I think in stating that the photographer's intention (I sometimes prefer the term artistic approach) can really only be discerned after seeing and considering many images.

When Bresson captures two black dressed women walking beneath twin sculptures on the upper walls of a building behind them, is his intention related to just that chance disposition, humour, and momentary intention, or is it part of his overall approach and intention in photographing humans, and perhaps their environment?

Brad_ · July 29, 2014

>>> When Bresson captures two black dressed women walking beneath twin sculptures on the upper

walls of a building behind them, is his intention related to just that chance disposition, humour, and

momentary intention, or is it part of his overall approach and intention in photographing humans, and

perhaps their environment?

Perhaps it's lying in wait in an area recognizing the possibilities were a pair of appropriate subjects

to walk by. Then hanging around making multiple photographs over a period of time from different subject sets, and later on choosing the best

image from contact sheets. Many street shooters do that.

Or it could "simply" be serendipity - which so much street shooting is about.

It all works...

.

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

.

</center>

aplumpton · July 29, 2014

A formative activity of my onetime affiliation as an activities director with a camera club (really a photographic association, active both locally and in exhibitions abroad) was to undertake weekend outings of interested members in order to stimulate individually created images in either a theatrical (intended scene, context and props, human or otherwise) or an opportunistic (observational street type photography) manner.

It is no doubt no news to most here that the intentions of the photographers in these outings were quite varied, even within the limits agreed to in a deterministic scene created collectively by the group, more so with the observational street scene shooting. It is hard to take intention out of the equation in most photographic situations, although the success of the intention varies enormously from viewer to viewer.

Wouter Willemse · July 29, 2014

Indeed I get the same idea when reading a description as in the quote; based on what exactly does one think Mayer (or any other photographer) noted all those details, and the logic binding them? Too often the difference between a good streetphoto and a not-so-good one is a split second - and that second isn't about the details, but about that moment where the composition falls into place and gets its "maximum story-telling".

That composition falling into place, can be a variety of things - Cartier-Bresson an awareness of shapes, forms, lines in the right spot (Brad's last photo also fits quite well here), Capa a keen timing with the (implied) action, Maier facial expressions, but also a bit of both before instead. In all these scenarios, there is a case for a bit of hesitation, patience, to catch that right moment - but realistically, are you focussed on details at that moment, or focussed on catching that exact second? Could be my admittedly limited skillset, but I need to stay focussed on that moment. Any details creeping in and making the resulting image a richer experience - serendipity, and luckily, that exists. But in no way intent.

That's not to say that a detail (intended or not) cannot turn a photo upside down from its actual intent. When I made <a href="/photo/11356675">this photo</a>, it was really just meant for the repition of the benches, a somewhat mathematical exercise. I saw the lady in the background, but figured it would be a blurry out of focus mess, so I didn't care much. And then Fred posted a critique on it, and despite my own original intents, I never quite saw the image in the same way. That tiny wrapper I never noticed while shooting became the centre of gravity.

And indeed, as noted above, stating the intentions of somebody else is tricky at best. If she would have stated in the above quote how all those elements for her make the photo reach a high level, perfect. Saying it was the intent of Maier is potentially a completely false statement, and that never quite helps credibility.

In short, I could also have written that I agree with Fred :-)

Allen Herbert · July 29, 2014

A thousand words can be informative. Nice....helps to formulate an idea/vision ; a picture in words. And then someone spoils it all with the magic of a photograph.

Lost in the world of words...the magic of the photograph.....

Allen Herbert · July 29, 2014

"Or it could "simply" be serendipity - which so much street shooting is about"

You need an eye to see.....and a lot of time and opportunity to find.

charleswood · July 29, 2014

From Steve's quote of Brehmer: "The back of a woman in one tightly framed picture at first looks elegant, but the edges of the large bow on her hat are actually frayed and re-stitched."

I think Brehmer's argument is evidence based, that is, the shot was tightly framed because Maier noticed interesting details, likely looked at the detail of the ribbon in the hat, felt connected to the subject for reasons similar to the one Brehmer offers (the contrast between hope and wear) and that the picture offers the viewer a closer recognition of her subject as a person than if Maier was just broadly noting the issue of social status. For just social status the photo didn't have to be tightly framed. The photo is also the view of one woman (Maier) who was viewing the woman that was her subject and now we have the view of another woman, Brehmer, who would notice more than I what a woman would notice about a woman and how Maier might have felt about all that and expressed it photographically.

Brehmer also opined that Meir was more formalistic and backed up that opinion by giving us an example of shape and shadow. Did by talent, training, and practice Meir intend something close to that ascribed to her by Brehmer? And to express herself photographically did she make use of formalisms like shape and shadow? It's plausible. It's plausible to me that Maier would notice that a woman in less than an ideal situation would nevertheless still be presenting herself as best as she could; and plausible that Maier would use her skills to enhance her statement. And all without her statement becoming an admonishment. Brehmer from that quoted example comes off as a serious art critic.

Allen Herbert · July 29, 2014

It always thought is was interesting that we can tell a story about a photograph. Does it matter whether it is true or not? The clever couched words are what really matter. The cleverer, the more plausible...

Of those words might leave most folks lost in space in their ambiguity. Like politics which are full of rhetoric but actually saying nothing.....

Spearhead · July 29, 2014

Then hanging around making multiple photographs over a period of time from different subject sets, and later on choosing the best image from contact sheets. Many street shooters do that.

</blockquote>

It certainly seems to be what Bresson and, as you say, many street shooters do:

http://zonezero.com/open/157-debunking-the-myth-of-the-decisive-moment

charleswood · July 29, 2014

From the good article linked to by Jeff: "Rather, be very conscious about when you decide to click the shutter."

To that as a viewer I would add: And even more important, be very conscious about why you decide to click the shutter.

Norma Desmond · July 30, 2014

Maybe Winogrand and others enjoyed toying with interviewers. I think a lot of glib statements about approach and thought process and a lot of statements about lack of intention should probably be taken with the same grain of salt we would take Winogrand. Having no intentions may simply sound cool. At worst, it could be a genuine sign of shallowness. Or it could just be disinterest. On the other hand, it could be very significant. I'd tend to judge by the context, the person saying it, and the work produced.

Being glib can make life easier, because when you state more thoughtful intentions, it can become clearer whether you fulfill them or not. If you don't state them, if you simply glide along doing your thing, you have nothing to work toward or live up to. A lack of intention often results in doing the same thing over and over again and not really showing much growth or evolution.

Someone can have this or that intention, this or that type of engagement with subjects, this or that attitude, and their pictures will show anything but. Another may claim to have no intentions and yet their work may consistently show a voice that shows these things anyway. When it comes to what photographers and artists say about their intentions (or lack) I generally try to listen and accept what they have to say, look at their photos or artwork as well, and come to my own conclusions about what's going on based on both listening and looking.

Steve, for me, seeing Maier or Bresson or Brassai or almost any other photographer I can think of as not having some kind of overriding vision or intention that guides their on-the-spot decision-making would mean my missing something very important. A photographer doesn't have to stop to think at the moment of shooting in order to be said to be intentionally focused and to be responsible for much of the content of their work. Of course, accidents and serendipity happen. But there's too much consistency in the work of Maier, Bresson, Brassai and most other good photographers to believe that some overriding desires, intentions, thoughtfulness, and instinctiveness aren't guiding their work. I'm a firm believer in avoiding all or nothing thinking. I think how a photographer works is very complex, whether or not a photographer chooses to look or talk about it that way. Because we are complex beings with complex sets of motivations.

Bresson's work shows a visual consistency because he was in touch with what he was doing and because he most certainly did not just shoot whatever came before him that he thought looked cool in the moment. It was because he was mentally and psychically prepared when he went out, to see a particular way and to be at the ready for photos that would suit his vision and fulfill his desires to ultimately lead to a photograph. He did not, I sense, just hang out waiting, even if hanging out and waiting was part of the act. A lot more went into it than that. There were significant parts of the process that led up to the hanging out with the camera, which would include intentions and developing tendencies to want to and be able to notice certain types of things instantaneously.

AlanKlein · July 30, 2014

Critics have to justify their position and fees so they have a talent for seeing things that aren't there or that the shooter never really considered. (How would they know anyway? The shooter is dead. Of course we can't confirm or reject the critics' views because we also can't interview the dead photographer.) This kind of stuff goes on with all art.

Amateur critics do the same thing. Only it is more ego driven than for financial reasons.

charleswood · July 30, 2014

Alan - 'Only it is more ego driven than for financial reasons."

Ohhhh don't be so hard on yourself Alan.

Wouter Willemse · July 30, 2014

The clever couched words are what really matter. The cleverer, the more plausible...

</blockquote>

Allen, is that why you need several postings to dismiss the fact that others do discuss critiques and photography reviews? Or did you plan to actually contribute to the far more specific subject raised by Steve?

Apart from the sweet irony that you're using words to tell others they shoudn't use so much words, but I guess that's more my twisted lack of humour.

__

Critics have to justify their position and fees

</blockquote>

Really? Is that all? Or just being sarcastic? So, even if for some reason they manage to have to say something really valuable about a photo, if they manage to make you see and experience an image in a different, more profound way - it's all just because they're justifying their existence? Just one question then: how did they reach their position? Was that pure luck, or because they managed to have to say something useful on a regular basis, and as such showed some insight that is worth sharing?

Dismissing critiques as an ego game sounds to me more like being too convinced of your own point of view or misplaced cynicism; a good critique between open minded people has got nothing to do with ego, and everything to do with sharing - sharing knowledge, passion and through discussion both learn and grow.

charleswood · July 30, 2014

Yeah, Wouter, I got a lot out of the Brehmer review, Julie's, and other comments about details I wouldn't have noticed in the picture that then combined to kind of a poignant moment I had with that photograph. I wouldn't have seen any of that without help. Did I see what Maier intended? We'll never know and that is part of the intrigue, wondering about her mind and sympathies. Just because we can't be certain doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about.

Wouter Willemse · July 30, 2014

Exactly, Charles, for me discussions as this one, or those coming from good critiques are more about discovery and absorbing different points of view than they are about accumulating knowledge or reaching a verdict of sorts.

AlanKlein · July 30, 2014

Oops. I must have touched a raw nerve. Sorry.

Brad_ · July 30, 2014

I’m having trouble understudying your post, Fred. Help me out...

>>> Having no intentions may simply sound cool. At worst, it could be a genuine sign of shallowness.

Did someone suggest they or someone else shot without intention? And that it is somehow cool? Smells

like straw.

>>> I'm a firm believer in avoiding all or nothing thinking

As I am as well. But you conveniently took what I said (starting with "Perhaps...") offering one of many

explanations about how a *particular* photograph may have been made (the one Arthur referenced),

and project that all or nothing belief aspect onto me, even though there is nothing to support that. With

respect to "intention," I don't know any photographer who has developed a coherent body of work where

that was not embraced. I think many would put that into the it goes without saying category.

>>> Bresson's work shows a visual consistency because he was in touch with what he was doing and

because he most certainly did not just shoot whatever came before him that he thought looked cool in

the moment.

Most certainly? Sounds pretty rigid, absolute, and all or nothing to me. Perhaps you have some inside

information about the man, his approach, and his methods. (see below)

>>> He did not, I sense, just hang out waiting, even if hanging out and waiting was part of the act. A lot

more went into it than that.

Just? That's *your* qualifier, not mine,while suggesting I was claiming that’s all he did, though I simply

offered *a* possible explanation which is very consistent with how Bresson and many others shot/shoot.

You might want to re-read what I said starting with "Perhaps…” Did someone suggest that’s all HCB did

- or was there another purpose for suggesting that?

Since you seem to be very interested in "street photography," I honestly think you would gain a lot of

insight into what it's about by taking some time, perhaps 1-2 years, of actually shooting on the street,

exploring neighborhoods, seeing what it's really like, soaking in some experiences and developing a

body of work. I believe you would then come away with a better understanding how intention and focus

work hand in hand with serendipity, along with other aspects in making street photographs.

I think you might also learn that a photographer who shoots on the street can have many different

approaches to making photographs that vary with time, depending on circumstances, objectives, how

one feels (happy, sad, tired, depressed, energized, etc) at the time, if one is working towards a project,

seeking discovery, etc. Or even if one just wants to relax and wander aimlessly without direction for the

sheer joy of being on the street soaking in the energy and contemplating new directions. There are

many, many different possibilities. It doesn’t have to be about a one approach rigidity as you seem to

suggest later in your post.

.

.

</center>

charleswood · July 30, 2014

Brad - "You might want to re-read what I said starting with "Perhaps…”"

So re-reading Brad: "Perhaps it's lying in wait [emphasis added] in an area recognizing the possibilities were a pair of appropriate subjects to walk by."

So my comment in re-reading: describing street photography as involving 'lying in wait' is an emotionally charged way to describe a street photographer's behavior towards a subject. To me it sounds crass, to describe street photography methodology as involving 'lying in wait.'

You post your photographs in this thread about intention. I think your street photography looks crass, that's how I react to it as a viewer of your art. It looks crass. All of it is offensive. Then you describe your crass work as from a methodology that involves what you conceive of as 'lying in wait?' How then, if my sentiment is generally shared, are we to talk about it? Crassly like I just did? Or some other way. It is a public that receives your art, and we are what we are.

Brad_ · July 30, 2014

>>> So my comment in re-reading: describing street photography as involving 'lying in wait' is an

emotionally charged way to describe a street photographer's behavior towards a subject. To me it

sounds crass, to describe street photography methodology as involving 'lying in wait.'

There are many ways it can be described. I'm sorry you feel offended. Do you happen to engage in

street shooting? I suspect if I had described it in a different manner you would still be offended.

>>> You post your photographs in this thread about intention. I think your street photography looks

crass, that's how I react to it as a viewer of your art. It looks crass. All of it is offensive.

Thank you for your feedback, Charles. I appreciate all points of view.

.

.

</center>

Sign In

Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

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

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