I am finding that one of the most educational things one can do is sort through someone's old photos, deciding which are keepers and which are losers. This is what I have been doing recently with my father's old photos (colour slides and black-and-white) from the 50s and 60s (I'm gradually putting a few up on this site for those interested). Some were thrown out without a second glance. The first to go were all those animal photos taken with a telephoto lens. Next went all those flower closeups. We see so much of that stuff done so well that such photos have to be exceptional to be of interest once the memory of the particular outing has faded. Next went a large number of holiday photos. A few were kept if they a/ included an interesting portrait of a family member or b/ reflected their times in an interesting way. The ones we instantly decided to keep fell mainly into two categories a/ a few informal family portraits that we all agreed were particularly successful b/ a group that fell within the rough category of photojournalism or historical record. I intend to have fairly large prints made and put them in an album (I love the fact that one can now get enlargements from slides relatively cheaply, especially since I much prefer to look at an A4 than at a 10x15 cm print, and who has time for slide shows?). Not one would I frame and put on my wall.
It is partly for this reason that I am suspicious of the current cry to simplify! simplify! ones composition as if that will finally create photography as art that will last far into the future, because what interests me so often in these old photos is context, and all that stuff going on in the background. I can't help thinking of some puzzled person in the future looking through someone's slides of closeups of perfectly focussed vegetables and feathers (on tasteful black backgrounds), and landscapes featuring a dark blue sky, turquoise sea, no more than one palm tree and one perfectly placed, but totally anonymous, boat.
Bored by Photography
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted
I am finding that one of the most educational things one can do is sort through someone's old photos, deciding which are keepers and which are losers. This is what I have been doing recently with my father's old photos (colour slides and black-and-white) from the 50s and 60s (I'm gradually putting a few up on this site for those interested). Some were thrown out without a second glance. The first to go were all those animal photos taken with a telephoto lens. Next went all those flower closeups. We see so much of that stuff done so well that such photos have to be exceptional to be of interest once the memory of the particular outing has faded. Next went a large number of holiday photos. A few were kept if they a/ included an interesting portrait of a family member or b/ reflected their times in an interesting way. The ones we instantly decided to keep fell mainly into two categories a/ a few informal family portraits that we all agreed were particularly successful b/ a group that fell within the rough category of photojournalism or historical record. I intend to have fairly large prints made and put them in an album (I love the fact that one can now get enlargements from slides relatively cheaply, especially since I much prefer to look at an A4 than at a 10x15 cm print, and who has time for slide shows?). Not one would I frame and put on my wall.
It is partly for this reason that I am suspicious of the current cry to simplify! simplify! ones composition as if that will finally create photography as art that will last far into the future, because what interests me so often in these old photos is context, and all that stuff going on in the background. I can't help thinking of some puzzled person in the future looking through someone's slides of closeups of perfectly focussed vegetables and feathers (on tasteful black backgrounds), and landscapes featuring a dark blue sky, turquoise sea, no more than one palm tree and one perfectly placed, but totally anonymous, boat.