THE PRINCESS IS FIVE

despite being a proud grandfather (and rightly so) you managed to produce a real good portrait

Thank you all so much for the kind words. It is deeply appreciated.

Finally back from my journey to The New World. My computer is once more purring along and pretending to be my faithful servant. We'll see how long that lasts. I've been away from p.net so long I'm not sure I know what to do anymore. I'm going to have to catch up on all your work. This is a wonderful picture, almost circular in the relationship of the young princess and her on-the-job training kit - my mind bounces from the entranced girl to her magical box and back again. This is a very complete picture in that the tale is told with wit, brevity and compassion.

So nice to hear from you again. Your absence has been impossible to ignore and I've missed the lovely postcards from Japan. I shall go to your site forthwith to see if you've posted any gems yet.

I've been thinking about your self-deprecating reference to a "snapshot" yesterday. I wonder if perhaps we're all just a bit too quick to use that label. The idea that a snapshot is signficant only to those who share the experience pictured is, I think, quite wrong. Snapshots can be great art, and they can be deeply moving even to those who don't understand the personal context.

 

In general usage, "snapshot" refers to a picture taken quickly, without time for careful lighting and composition. But those constraints do not necessarily rob an image of either beauty or meaning. A photographer with your skill and experience brings years of compositional sensibility to any shot.

 

The more I view this photograph, the more I see it as something of true value. I would react the same way even if I knew nothing about you or your granddaughter. The image alone tells a lovely story. And the small flaws make it even more "truthful."

 

Warm regards...

I am sure it has been discussed before somewhere on Pnet, but you sure got me to thinking about what a "snapshot" really is. To be sure it is mostly used in a pejorative sense. The reason I used the term on this image is because I knew that I liked the image primarily for its content, namely my granddaughter. I was not happy with the busy background, the extra hands, and even the light on her face. But I posted it because it conveyed a lot to me. But I'm emotionally involved. Fortunately a number of Pnet friends also seemed to find it pleasurable, but I'll be frank here, in saying that I'm not sure that they would have picked this over a million others except that you and others are my "friends." I looked at your kids folder, and I noted that of the sixteen images, only four had questionable backgrounds. That could be just good fortune, or it is more likely a result of thoughtful and knowledgeable photo taking.

 

At any rate, getting back to snapshot, I think that the primary characteristic of that term could be thought of as an image that has limited relevance/importance/appeal to the broader audience. If I use that definition, however, I get into trouble with the images that are superbly lit, sharp as a tack, composed well and technically proficient. I remember a Pnet guy that had only three shots on his site. They were all close ups of camera lenses. Talk about limited interest. But they were all shot properly and presented properly. It would be hard to think that very many folks would find them interesting or would respond emotionally. So I guess we can't call those snapshots.

 

So, then, I guess we get to the factor of time. Does hastily composed and shot on the run constitute "snapshot?" Not necessarily. Ansel's "Moonrise at Hernandez" would almost qualify for that if one can perceive of using a view camera for a snapshot.

 

So you've posed a tough but fun question there amigo. For me, I denigrated this for its flaws and my perception that it had limited appeal to those who don't have personal involvement either by virtue of knowing Allison or myself. That there are many who complimented me is icing on the cake, but it was not what I anticipated.

I really appreciate what you've said, especially just above.

 

I, too, think it is a snapshot, but I don't think that denigrates it. Snapshots have personal importance and meaning in a way that stuff hanging in a museum often doesn't. I agree that, without knowing you, I might not notice this. Just as it's because of the subject that you respond so deeply, it's a matter of empathy for me. If this were my niece, I would get that immediate zing upon looking at it. It being your granddaughter, I am conscious of how you must feel looking at it and in that way it even takes on some universal appeal to me, but it doesn't connect with me personally the same way it must with you. Nor should it. (This is why snapshots are so associated with family.) All this doesn't lessen it, but it does differentiate it from "art," I believe. Hopefully, something we call "art" connects with us both universally and personally and most art has the power of affecting people equally (whether you were there or not, whether the subject is personal to you or not). While there is a level of empathy at play with art, I think there is more a direct transfer of emotion and meaning that takes place. A good snapshot will likely make me aware that the photographer feels something special. A good work of art will make me feel it myself.

 

There is certainly charm to this photo. I almost get the feeling that she is looking in a mirror, the princess on the back of the box being what she could almost be seeing and representing herself. I agree with you that elements of the photo don't quite work to your advantage here, namely the background and the lack of lighting on her face.

 

One thing I've been concentrating on for months now in my own photography is energy. It's a bit intangible but something I believe is crucial to photographs, other artworks, and life itself, of course. Energy in photography may come in the form of lighting, dynamic (or intentionally static) composition, color play, texture, etc. But it also comes from gestures and the right expressive moment. I feel the most energy from this photo in your granddaughter's engagement with her new present (?). So there's honesty, which I think is actually easier to capture in a snapshot than in an "art" photo. I think that's why many -- particularly contemporary -- photographers hold up the snapshot as some sort of ideal. While art may need those elements mentioned above (composition, lighting, texture) which most snapshots don't have, most snapshots effortlessly hold the key to good art: emotion and truth (and I use the latter term loosely and somewhat metaphorically).

 

Combine all this and you're a genius.

This time we are in complete agreement. I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

very cute. Maybe the DoF is too big, and I'm not sure about the hand emerging from the bottom part of the frame, but she sure looks like a little princess. Hey, did you start her on V8? It's about time, ya know... Cheers, Micheal

 

Do you realize you just commented on a picture that has people (or a person) in it? Are you losing your mind? She won't touch V* with a ten foot pole. She's at that stage where junk food is the only food. Thanks for the comment. I miss having you around. There's just not as much wackiness.

She's lovely David. You catured the moment.

Thank you very much. Nice to see you looking here and I'm grateful for the comment.

First, this is a very nice portrait of your precious grand daughter. You have successfully captured her moment of excitement and the universal thrill of childhood. Then, after reading all of the above, I have to say that there are few of us on PN that could elicit such eloquent responses with a photograph of their grandchild. And that, David, is the ultimate complement from the PN community to you. You put your heart, soul, humor, satire and whole self into this endeavour and we all appreciate you! I'm new to this, but you are in large part why I enjoy participating and I thank you! This is a great photo...directly from your heart to ours!

 

The best to you and your family,

 

Dick

Dick I have been greatly blessed with the people I've encountered and gotten to know on Pnet. Most have been very kind, extremely helpful and shared their lives, images, and thoughts with me. That is why I spend so much (read, "too much") time here. And you and your comments are just one more example of the encouragement I've received. So I thank you and wish I could say it in a more profound manner than my meager vocabulary permits. But know that I do mean my words from deep down inside.

Dave:

 

At some point I will respond in greater detail to you and Fred re the history and importance of the "snapshot" debate. It is a long-running argument that dates back to the 1880s. I can, if you wish, cite various opinions, beginning with the overlapping eras of Stieglitz, Steichen, Weston, Hines, Strand, etc., on through the '30s and '40s, and up to the semi-current argument -- hardly a new one -- begun in 1964 by John Szarkowski at the Museum of Modern Art.

 

I will refrain from bombarding you with that extra verbiage because, although I find the question interesting, I no longer think the debate is of much importance.

 

So for now I'll simply say that I disagree with Fred's (and your) analysis. I maintain that this image is good and that it stands by and for itself. In support of that simple position, I'll refer again to what I implied in my earlier comment. I had not read the other remarks or the title before reacting to this photograph. I was not influenced by any prior knowledge that this is a picture of your granddaughter. (I did not recognize her at first.) And yet I immediately found this image both good and moving.

 

The only irony here, amigo, is that I'm again arguing with you on behalf of your own fine work.

 

Warm regards...

Joe, I'm quite interested in such things as definition of snapshot, and the meanings associated with the word. I'm not much of a photographic scholar, so I could use a little education. I'm glad Fred is here to voice his opinion, because whether I agree with him or not, I always learn something from the exchange. I don't view it as adversarial at all.

 

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks this image is worthy or not. It will always be infused with great emotion and love for me. That many of you think it has value is frosting on the cake. As I said to Dick, (and you know I mean this in a most non religious way) I've been blessed big time by being able to interact with you guys. I really believe that.

 

But you sure piqued my interest. I thought you were just an old newspaperman, and now it sounds like you are a bit of the photo scholar. Did you formally study any of this?

Amigo,

 

Yes, I did take some classes -- eons ago -- and studied art history a bit, also in the distant past. But my most influential sources were the many fine photographers I worked with on magazines and newspapers. Through years of work with them, and during numerous long conversations, I developed a deep interest in both photo technique and history. And, as I followed their recommendations, I slowly built a small library of photo material that I still delight in looking at and reading.

 

As I wrote above, over time I've become less interested in the formalist debate about "art photography," and more interested in studying images that move me, no matter how or why they were taken.

 

Here is a thought to ponder while considering the artistic merits of a "snapshot" -- such as this image of yours. Suppose the party (I now assume it was a birthday party) had been at a different time of day -- meaning different light. Now suppose you had been shooting something else a moment before, something you'd chosen to shoot with a wide-open aperture, and you then had no time to change the f-stop before taking this shot. Suppose also there hadn't been that extra hand and you were in a slightly different position -- different PoV -- when you snapped off this shot.

 

You might well have produced a perfectly lit, perfectly framed, perfectly "artistic" image, one with lovely bokeh, soft shadows, and no "distracting" detail. But it would still have been a "snapshot," at least according to the definition that you and Fred agreed upon in your earlier remarks.

 

But how would anyone else know it was an "accident"? The image itself would look and seem as if it had been taken with exactly those values in mind. (And to some extent that is accurate and makes the argument more complex. As I argued earlier, you are a photographer, and you bring a particular level of skill and experience to every shot -- "snapshot" or not.)

 

And that's how I viewed the image you did post. I approached it as though you had intended to take it that way. And with that simple perspective, I found it charming, revealing, insightful, and very moving. The details seemed appropriate to the moment. It worked.

 

Some people consistently take wonderful snapshots. Some don't. The label alone means nothing to me anymore.

 

Please don't misunderstand. I'm neither dismissing the arguments you and Fred have made, nor am I arguing in favor of chance over skill/ talent. I'm simply positing this: in the end, it's the image itself that matters.

 

Warm regards...

 

I really hope someday we can meet. Not only are you a damn good photographer and writer, but you have had what sounds like a fascintating life and exciting experiences. You are very persuasive and I'm really enjoying what you (as well as Fred and the others) have to say. No doubt about it, a snapshot can be art. I don't think we need to necessarily look down at the term, even though it is often used in a pejorative sense. I think there is some value to the term, in the way there is value to using other photographic terms such as "landscape," "portrait," or "digital alteration." All those terms simply help us to categorize the style of shot. So in that sense, I don't think we should necessarily dismiss a snapshot, nor assume it cannot be good. Stay high and dry, amigo.

Great to hear your thoughts, Joe. Thanks.

I want to clarify something. You refer to David's and my "definition" and then go on to speak of perfect lighting, bokeh, framing, no distracting detail, etc. I was probably unclear in talking about such things. While I think art more often utilizes them than snapshots, I don't feel they make the big difference between art and a snap nor are they definitive in assessing an image. I, myself, have taken many great snaps of my family and friends that are technically quite good photos. Perfection is not much of a consideration for me either. Nan Goldin and Jackson Pollock are artists whose work is not perfect, and is not trying to be.

It's the expression itself, and the kind of expression that, for me, is pivotal more than the way it is achieved. The crux of my beliefs occur in the first full paragraph in my comment above, where I talk about feelings, how they are evoked, how they strike me, how different people might react. The stuff about empathy vs. direct feeling, etc. is very important to me. So is the distinction between universality and particularity.

As for intentional/accidental, I think it's great that you bring them up. I, too, find them important . . . but not definitive of what's art. Much great art has an accidental component (as do many great snaps) and much great art is intentional (as are many great snaps).

Actually, I really try to avoid defining "art." For me, the closest I come is to use a compilation of most of the definitions that have been suggested throughout history, from Plato's representation to Aristotle's catharsis to Tristan Tzara's Dada is nothing to George Dickie's claim that art is whatever the art world accepts as art, and many more. I think there is truth in each of them and each of them alone misses the mark just a little.

A word that I like to apply to art is "transcendence."

Example from David's portfolio: THE GOOD LIFE.

As we've examined, explained, and clarified our positions, I think it's become apparent that we agree far more than we disagree.

 

It's been a most interesting discusssion.

 

Warm regards...

 

Yes, I've felt that we agree much more than disagree all along too. But it's been a great discussion, and this is the reason I get so much pleasure on Pnet.

David,

 

First off, this is a beautiful "snapshot" or "fine art image" or "documentary photo" or "environmental portrait" or whatever you want to call it, it is very nice. Your princess is beautiful and the apple of your eye, so feel great about sharing this love with us! People who don't have grandchildren will just have to either understand, bear with it, or change the channel.

 

Your images always spark the most interesting exchanges. I have more thoughtful and insightful moments reading the comments on so many of your images than I have ever had being forced to attend a house of worship or in sociology class. (Maybe the Methodists aren't very insightful?) I am glad you are all with us here.

 

Best regards, and Happy 5th Birthday to the Princess!

 

Tammy

Thanks. What a great way to start my day. As far as the comments, I don't take much credit for the wisdom that has been directed my way. I was just glad that I could in some small way contribute, because the exchanges on Pnet can be very useful and stimulating. It keeps me on my toes for sure.

 

As for the Princess, thanks for the bday wishes. She is, indeed, the apple of my eye.

She didn't know yet, but she will learn, I hope.

Cheers.

Bela