sprouty Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 There was a posting a few days ago <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005w9m">(A different (?) perspective on film verses digital.)</a> that veered off course when a comment was made regarding the merit of shooting only photos of your children. I interpreted the comment to be derogatory and this struck me as odd for two reasons. The first is that I personally consider the camera to be one of, if not the, best tools to record and document the important events, and people in our lives. And for this reason photos of our children, and families, are often some of the most interesting and important we ever take. The second reason is a little more subjective, it has to do with how these same personal images stand-up to the scrutiny of a viewer outside the context of our lives. In other words can pictures of my two children have any value, artistic or otherwise, to you without intense personal knowledge of the subjects? My opinion is that they can and do. After some thought I�ve decided that I might even go further. I would say that even though there are many talented and studied individuals posting on this forum, I suspect that often times there is a �native genius� inherent in most people that surpasses even the best among us. It may not be obvious or even reliable, but if you sort through the family shots long enough you�ll see it. To perhaps better illustrate my point I offer you an image culled from a friend�s family album. I�ve never met the subjects or really know anything about them and it certainly breaks many of the commonly accepted rules of rules of photography, yet I find this image fascinating. Another example might be found <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg? msg_id=005LBq">here.</a> Any thoughts? Or am I just nuts?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Nuts is so subjective!! ;-) I think you're bang on. If you look at the images of Sally Mann, Harry Callahan, many of Ralph Gibsons (his partner, Mary Jane as opposed to children), and many others, there is much 'art' out there that is based on an artists view of his family (the same thing happens in paintings as well). Where the problem arises (IMHO) is in whether this art will have the sort of appeal that causes someone to hang it on their wall. And this is what 'makes art' for a lot of people...is it a pretty picture that I would put in my living room...if I wouldn't, then it isn't art. This of course then leads to the whole 'is documentary photography art?'...and the only answer is 'to some poeple yes - to some no'. This 'hangability' issue is why I think this kind of photography leads itself to book form. These kinds of images usually need to be seen in sequence to be taken in context. The supplied images don't do a lot on their own, but taken in context with other images they may form a powerful statement about the family in society. A question with probably no definitive answer, and I'm sure there will be many who disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_barker Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 <p>I'm personally a big fan of family photos and albums as sources of family history, Stephen, and feel fortunate that several people in past generations of my family preserved a variety of family photos. My observation would be that there's sort of a style to family-album photos, and that style has changed over the years. </p> <p>Almost all of my family photos from the late 1800s and early 1900s, for example, are very formal, and likely done by a pro for insertion into the family album. Later shots are mostly done by family members themselves, and far less formal, but still stiffly posed. While I appreciate these images from a family-history perspective, they are mostly snapshots of the least-artistic kind. </p> <p>I would much prefer to see candid images of the three ladies in your picture, for example, going about their daily routines - slicing apples for a pie, perhaps. That sort of approach is more common among trained artists and photographers, rather than those typically taking family-album shots. Consider the images that Reina posts of her children here. Those are artful shots that just happen to be of her family. Perhaps the other, more common style classifies as "folk art" though. </p> <p>A recent shot of my dad, explaining reality. ;-) </p> <center> <img border=2 src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Family/Father16-550bw.jpg"> </center> <p>Compared to a photo of my grandparents taken in 1907: </p> <center> <img border=2 src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Family/GeoF-LenitaIBarker07101909-600.jpg"> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Stephen Of course you are right. The person who made this comment is highly "superior" and thinks that only the kind of photos he takes are worth anything. Best to treat these opinions with care. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_milner2 Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 The cheapness and quality of modern equipment allows nearly anyone in the developed world to make a historical record of his family. Even 30 years ago, it was still an expensive and technically challenging thing to do. Family photos are very valuable to the families whether they are artistic or not. I have photos of my family going back over 80 years, and it is marvellous to see the similarity of facial features cascading down the generations. My wife's family bitterly regrets having lost all their albums in the firebombing of Tokyo in 1944-45. Family albums can also be a valuable resource to historians of the future. As a previous poster mentioned, family pics can have artistic merit. There are various photographers who either used their family as models, or did journalistic projects on them. I am also reminded that Martin Parr and others have acclaimed work that looks like typical family snaps even if they are actually of strangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I regard photos of family and friends as the most important, and they're the first ones I would save in a fire. My other photos -- street shots and another long-term project, some of which gets published occasionally -- are far less important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 "I suspect that often times there is a �native genius� inherent in most people that surpasses even the best among us" You're absolutely right, Stephen and it agrees with what I've been saying here for quite some time. The problem is that a forum like this attracts some people who want to prove their superiority with their keyboard, quite probably because they're inadequate in real life. Family pictures are among the most important documents that any of us will ever produce.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I find it a pity to see stacks of inwanted family photo's at the estate sales (another hobby not listed below), which I frequent. There are quite a few good ones being tossed. As for my travel pic's, I'm sure they'll end up in the dumpster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raleigh_dog Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Family vs. "art" photos are certainly not mutually exclusive. I love that photo you posted. Probably my favorite photography book is called "Other Photos" (from the Thomas Walther collection). It contains botched efforts, screw ups, flare (oh the horror!), unintended double exposures and the like. HOWEVER, there is a naive genius in all the photos. I highly recommend the book. It also contains an excellent essay about unintended genius and photography in a broader context. So yes, I think a lot of the best work can come from non-studied, non-trained photographers. Besides, hopefully you take photos because YOU enjoy to and place value in them, not because you're looked to be stroked on a photo.net critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 I'm afraid being emotionally involved with the subject makes it difficult (to me) to discern what works from what doesn't. I keep an album of my pictures of my kid here on PN, for the sole purpose of my extended family to see. I am so proud of <a href="http://http://www.photo.net/photo/1670329">this picture</a> that I posted it for critique. Let's just say that it didn't receive the attention I would have hoped. That being said, nothing is going to stop me from doing this. Making this album is a personal eandeavor and that's all that matters to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 OK I screwed up. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1670329">Here it is.</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reed_caster Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Steve, there are two lines of understanding taking shape in this discussion; 1. the "documentry value" of the the family photo as an important record, and 2. the "artist value" coincidentally captured. I believe you are questioning #2. Bob is onto something when he talks of "hangability" as a gauge of artistic merit. The photo you posted has that. That it happens to have it is accidental genius and not often immediately recognized. It is because these photos are buried within the mass of photos relegated to "the family photo album" that they are summarily dismissed as bad photos. This is where my thinking differs from Bob. "...these kinds of images usually need to be seen in context. The supplied images don't do a lot on their own" - this is actually the problem with being able to honestly see the individual genius within a single photo. It is usually seen as part of a story line or the documenting of an event and not seen as "the" story. Case in point: Your posted images speak volumnes about family - many families - my family. It's "american gothic". Ralph posted a wonderful image of his "dad explaining reality" and one of his grandparents, but I think misunderstands the direction of your inquiry. When he talks of "formal" vs. "candid" he places a filter on the evaluative process by which we judge the naive genius. It can be either way. The genius is by accident and only needs to be seen for what it is. The example of his dad's photo represents to Ralph the remembrance of his father and his mannerisms but it does not represent the accidental art that you are refering to. A good photo but it does not tell a more universal story to its audience. Yet the photo posted by Ralph of his grandparents as an example of one that doesn't work comes closer to the mark of "hangability". It has a historical context to help push it in that direction. Richard talks of "historical record" and the family as models. It is that which drives so many of us to take an excessive number of "bad" pictures and it is for this reason that in all likelihood each of us is probably sitting on a treasure trove of "priceless" photos. The filters - rules - I use to take "good" photos prevent me from seeing my "native genius". To be able to seperate accident from expectation and accept the final result at face value is the merit of a good critic. Steve, a most excellent posting. Reed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 The problem with considering most family photos as "art" is that they aren't. That isn't a bad thing, but to suddenly elevate them is silly.<p> There are people who have shot their own family and turned the photos into something more than "record" photos. Sally Mann fits that category, but Meatyard probably epitomizes it. Meatyard's photos of his family are "art," much more than record photos (and probably useless as record photos) because he used the camera to portray far more than the physical attributes of his family, he used it to delve into the phenomenon of childhood and family.<p> Where most photos fall is "cliche," kids are supposed to look cute, wives and girlfriends are supposed to look "pretty," husbands and boyfriends are supposed to look strong or handsome, parents and grandparents are supposed to look wise, contented, serious. What makes Avedon's portraits of his father so strong, and makes them objects that strangers hang on their walls, is that they show a man in serious decline, in misery. This is how our elders are, but most people don't want to show this. But it's real, and it is what is not shown. It evokes real memories for people, not the idealized ones, but the memories of how things happen. <p> And that is why some family photos become "art" and some stay as family heirlooms. I have no interest in what other people's children <i>look</i> like, but I do find photos of their children that explore what children <i>feel</i> to be wonderful. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Jeff, I suspect people hang pictures of Avedon's father on their walls because they are Avedon's! Interestingly, H.C.B. (the painter!) was a master in potraying children in a most natural and compassionate way, including his own niece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 The above explanation is a good one, Jeff. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. But your original comment that sparked this thread was both wrong-headed and mean-spirited. You implied that content has something to do with art, which of course it doesn't, and that anyone who takes pics of their kids is a lightweight, and not worth your consideration. One could hurl the same sort of accusations at your style of photography and choice of subject matter, (artsy-fartsy, grad-schoolish, etc.) but what's the point? I always assume that if someone took the time to go take a pic, scan it and post it, it must mean something to THEM. But it takes some skill to get a picture to connect to a stranger who doesn't have your memory and emotional attachment to the subject. I suppose that's where the Art begins, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Kevin, I'm curious, what is "grad-schoolish" subject matter? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Exactly, Brad. There's no such thing, really. It's the kind of comment that gets used as a put-down without any real thought behind it. Which was precisely my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reed_caster Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 There seems to be a funny little prerequisite for something to be considered art - that the maker had some sort of intent in that direction. Family photos are not usually taken with that goal in mind but should they happen to pull together all the elements that "elevate" them to that level are they not art? Reed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 There doesn't need to be specific intent to call something "art." In art museums, there are plenty of examples of this, pieces that were designed primarily for utilitarian purposes but done in a way that elevates them above their simple purposes. In the same way, family photos can become more than that. Most don't. That doesn't mean they don't have value, however, it just means that they don't have much meaning beyond the (extended) family. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrypittman Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 IMHO there is NOTHING more important than family photos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlridings Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 <p>There's a Swedish expression that roughly translates into: "Don't go over the creek to fetch water."</p> <p>All the young people <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=289068">here</a> are my children or their friends.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now