john meehan

<i>The photograph by its very nature is a ruthlessly objective record of a moment</i><p>

 

Chris: Surely it is ruthlessly <i>subjective</i>?</p>

I'e had good experienes with www.savastore.com. Reliable and competitively priced.

I use a Hahnel as a back up to my Canon BP-511 in a 10D. I see absolutely no difference in performance. The Hahnel was exactly half the price of a Canon BP-511.

Apologies to Nachtwey for typo.

I am not sure what you mean by 'beauty' in this context. The strength of an image derives in part from the skilled and intelligent use of inherently photographic qualities to support the photographer's intended communication. IMO photography's limited range of such qualities (compared with other visual and literary arts) means we often see a commonality of photographic styles across disparate subjects which leads to the uneasy feeling that horrific subjects are being 'beautified' because the stylistic devices employed are associated with more pleasant subjects.

 

For example, the Nachteway image above is very reminiscent of some of HCB's Indian images in style. The formality and tranquility of the image for instance. Irving Penn springs to mind too. Yet the subject matter is unconnected. Steve McCurry's work has the same stylistic heritage.

 

It seems to me photogrpher's often appropriate visual language from one genre to depict another type of subject resulting in mixed messages for the viewer familiar with the chosen 'dialect'. I don't know if you are thinking specifically in structuralist terms, but perhaps this is an example connotive/denotive meanings clashing as well as complementing each other.

 

Is this a result of the photographer's personal taste? I would be interested to hear who Nachteways favourite's from the past are. I would put my money on Penn, Avedon, HCB being in there.

 

Good question.

Wim

 

I guess not! Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

 

I had PJ/Fashion/Documentary in mind and their need to appeal to a globalised media market, hadn't thought of weddings. Interesting insight though.

 

 

John

Kimmelman rambles as he struggles to make sense of the book.

 

For me he misses the point. Talk of 'contexts' when faced with images of individual human suffering (mostly innocents, some not) suggests the horrors might be excusable. Re-running the arguments that lead to the attrocities doesn't excuse them. There is no comfort in blame.

 

The power of the images is in connecting us to other human beings and so reaffirming our humanity by depicting how far from it we can stray.

I want the kit to be as anonymous as possible so I can concentrate on the aesthetics. So, cetral AF and partial metering is my favoured MO. Quick, consistent and less prone to errors (i.e. operator mistakes).

Triggered by a related thread....

 

I am aware of some of the differences in landscape traditions in

Europe/Japan/US, but what about other genre?

 

Are there similar, culturally influenced, differences in other genre

or does the fact they are more media oriented produce a more

homogenised 'international style'?

Ward

 

I'm intrigued. Do you have any examples online?

Maria

 

My apologies for misunderstanding your intent. I agree that our overlapping realities in "the sea of anarchy" throw up interesting questions about ethics, but i guess that is another debate.

 

I am more interested in what happened with your photograph though? Can we see the image too?

Maria

 

Isn't dismissing Kant out of hand, because he wasn't a Hindu or Chinese, precisely the kind of thinking you think you are highlighting with that comment? You ignore the other more culturally oriented approaches to ethics I mentioned.

My name tag says: "Hi, I'm Confused... what is an Artist?"

<p>This is a 'big ask' Jonathan, but for what it's worth:</p>

 

<p><i>1) I am not interested in being an artist. I don�t care if my images are art or not. What I would like to be is a critic � in the broad sense of �critically engaged�, not the narrow one of �someone who finds fault�. </i></p>

 

<p>A perfectly legitimate stance. Being a critic and artist are not mutually exclusive though. Further, I think some of the better critical writing is finely crafted (e.g. Andy Grundberg, Estelle Jussim, Nancy Newhall) and may be thought of as literary art.</p>

 

<p><i>(2) �Intelligent� or �clever� or �complex� are for me much more complimentary adjectives than �beautiful�. I regard formal beauty as a means to an end, not the end itself, and �beautiful� is not the same thing as �visually interesting�. In any case, great photographs themselves create the aesthetic criteria by which they should be judged. The career of Garry Winogrand is a good example of how this happens. </i></p>

 

<p>I think recent discussion here have established that beautification is not the sole criteria for judging photographs! I depart from you slightly regarding teh criteria we should use. I agree, original artists expand our vision/understanding of the medium and so require us to try to understand their work in their terms. However, we inevitably try to relate what we see to what has been seen/read before as a way of making sense of it (I am thinking in terms of Barrett's usful schema for critiquing photographs). Also, we all have our own frames of reference and so are limited in our ability to do this. </p>

 

<p><i>3) I don�t care about making an emotional connection with my human subjects. I�m not interested in them as individuals at all (and I have Walker Evans on my side here). Similarly, I don�t want to use photography to express myself (or at least my emotions � and again, Walker Evans is on my side). </i></p>

 

<p>"Photograph and be photographed" (Rodechenko). You can't escape the fact. If you accept that photography is a medium of communication how can you make a meaningful communication devoid of emotion. Passion is central to powerful photography. I understand (think I do) Walker Evans' position (Mellow's biography does a fine job elucidating it) but I equally find his imagery dry. Strand does a much more satisfying job with similar subjects (IMHO).

 

Consider why photographers such as Gene Smith, Steve McCurry, Reza, Salgado (etc., etc.),have such devoted fans. There work speaks with emotion.</p>

 

<p><i>4) Most PN photographers would agree with Robert Frank that a photo should �nullify explanation�, i.e. it should not require interpretation. Clarity is seen as a primary virtue. On the contrary, I like photos that are puzzles, that you have to work to solve, or that have more than one layer of meaning. </i></p>

 

<p>You start with a wild generalization. Each to their own. It is a democratic medium with many voices. Perhaps the development of this forum is bringing a different type of dialogue to PN?</p>

 

<p><i>5) Following on from the last point, there seems to be an assumption that a photo that relies on words to get its meaning across is somehow inadequate. Again, on the contrary, I think it�s interesting to create photos that interact with written text, and that are deliberately conceived as being �incomplete� without it. </i></p>

 

<p>This has been seen as a legitimate collaboration for decades. Though he refuted it, don't Walker Evans' images in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men gain additional power from their cohabitation with Agee's words? Other examples abound, a recent one being the combination of Faye Godwin's images with Ted Hughes poems. </p>

 

<p><i> 6) I don�t think that the individual print on the gallery wall is the ideal presentation format. I find photobooks and sequences more interesting. This follows on from the above points, that a photo does not have to be a self-contained, single statement. </i></p>

 

<p>Miles Orvell's American Photography argues persuasively that context is crucial to understanding images. Going back to your earlier point, we perhaps we also have to factor in the intentions of the artist in terms of how they wish their work to be viewed. A recent editorial in Lenswork made the point that commercial printing of photographic images is now of a standard that equals the original fine prints from a darkroom/lightroom and so suggests that books are in no way an inferior format for viewing images. </p>

 

<p>I agree with you on this.</p>

 

<p><i>7) The editors of Lenswork magazine frequently repeat the maxim, 'A good photograph is one that makes the viewer so aware of the subject that they are unaware of the print'. On the contrary, many great photographs thematize their own construction as photographic representations. Just think of the work of Lee Friedlander. The trick is to do this without being vulgar about it (e.g. using extreme wide-angle lenses, etc.). </i></p>

 

<p>The medium is Friedlander's subject (in part).</p>

 

This was a two-way street with more influence on surrealist painting than photography. The photographic work of Moholy-Nagy (photograms), Man Ray (rayographs/photgrams), and Alvin Langdon Coburn (vortographs)(to name a few of the many) was a direct influence on surrealist painting (Max Ernst, Wolfgang Paalen, Salvador Dali, Oscar Dominguez, Marcel Jean, are a few who directly sought to develop photographic qualities in their work - often developing specific techniques to do so, e.g. 'frottage', 'decalcomania' and 'fumage'.)

 

I think the surrealist influence on photography is more in terms of shaping the sensibility of photographers exposed to 1920s/30s Paris. Bill Brandt, Kertesz and Brassai could be added to HCB. Certainly Brandt and Kertesz have produced surrealist photographs(e.g. Kertesz's drooping tulip, Underwater Swimmer 1917, Distortion series of 1933, etc, similarly Brandt's beach nudes and much of his work throughout his life).

 

While the work noted above is 'out-of-the camera' imagery, the work of Pete Turner and Uelsman might be seen as modern surrealists though obviously using different techniques.

Shawn

 

I agree, this is a tremendous little book. As you say, he is very direct in his style and concentrates on what really matters - seeing. This book is a great antidote to anyone feeling they can't take great pictures because there are no interesting subjects to photograph in their locality. As he shows, you can take interesting images of anything if you bring some thought to the process.

 

The images are really good too!

 

This book was part of my inspiration for writing

<a href="http://www.photo.net/oped/meehan/col1.html">Engaging with Photography</a>

Sorry, what was film again?

Caveat: I believe the Art world (whatever you take that to be) is populated by sincere 'artists' (ditto for definition) and chancers of modest ability who attain fame through patronage/luck/gimmicks/shock value.

 

That said. My two cents worth..

 

Who says Art (big A) and Artists have any responsibility toward the general public? The use of taxpayers dollars to fund Art buys the public the right to a viewpoint. However, a civilised society should support artistic endeavour in practical ways even if the work of 'Artists' is at odds with public taste. I would go further and say that it is more important to support Art that challenges public taste. Why? Because tolerance of dissent is the essence of a free society.

 

My personal dislike of what I see on some gallery walls doesn't diminish my willingness to see tax dollars supporting Art.

 

Many posts here seem to equate Art Galleries with Art per se. Isn't what goes on private and public gallery walls merely reflecting a loose consensus among curators as to what constitutes Art. Any institional 'agreements' about what constitutes 'Art' are no more than a socio-historic consensus, periodically redrawn in the name of 'progress' or 'praxis' (depending on your inclinations) by the current generation to reflect contemporary concerns.

 

Is it Art that the public distrusts? I think not. Maybe they are a little suspicious of what they don't fully understand. NOT because they are dumb, but because the concerns of Art are far removed from their usual frames of reference.

 

To allow that suspicion to descend into ridicule and, worse, censorship (via law or funding) puts us on a slippery slope as democratic societies.

 

On a lighter note:

 

This discussion reminds me of my first visit to the Tate Gallery in Liverpool.

 

Two old ladies were bemused by a cast iron scuplture and asked the attendant: "Where is the label explaining this one?" "It has no label love, it's a radiator", he laughed.

 

On my way out I saw them again staring at a large Rothko painting (large purple square with minor colour change on one edge): "That lad's laughing all the way to the bank." one said.

 

Who says the 'unwashed masses' are dumb!

Sorry....

 

I mean the Elan 7 and 10D sharing AF/Exposure systems naturally!

 

John

In the time it took me to log in, Gerry had said it for me!

 

I second what he has said. I bought a used Elan 7 as backup to 10D, one roll through it in 3 months. As Gerry said, all wide angles.

 

Given the use the backup won't get and the fact it will live in your bag most of the time is durability really an issue?

 

More pragmatically, the benefits of the two bodies sharing exposure and AF systems might be more significant in switching between the two.

 

If you still own another film camera, is this getting much use?

Andrew

 

In thinking about how photographers challenge established ethical norms, I missed that they also reinforce them.

 

As you suggest, there is a code of beautification operating among most landscape photographers (one of my favourite codes by the way).

 

I guess ethical codes exist in areas such as fashion, advertising, corporate sectors (for example).

 

(Please don't interpret this post as in any way a criticism of anyone earning their livelihood in these fields. I take my hat off to all of you - I have seen at close hand how hard it can be.)

David: I guess the circumstances you outline would be in the first category. Whether or not a photographer has the right to disregard the "rules" (however dumb) others are expected to abide by in the interests of getting a shot would (IMHO) depend on how I felt about the importance of recording the moment. Purely for beauty sake or for other less selfish reasons (a crime being commited for example)?

 

Bill: I agree 100% that a photographers desire for images shouldn't override some other person's right to privacy. I am sure there are exceptions though.

Wim

 

Having just spent a small fortune on a new system, I can sympathise (I am suffering post-purchase guilt - a little).

 

However, aren't you referring to the ethics of the "consumer society" rather than ethics in the medium of photography?

While ethical discussions are fraught with philosophical difficulty

surrounding appropriate definitions of �ethics�

(utilitarianism/rights/morals/relativism/ Kantian imperatives, etc)

we nonetheless have some sort of understanding of what the word means.

 

In considering the role of ethics in photography, it seems (to me at

least) that it can be reduced to two related dimensions. These are:

 

1. The responsibilities of the photographer operating in a given

social and historical context.

 

This takes different forms. For example, the photojournalist�s

dilemma when confronted with an ethically challenging (to them)

subject : shoot or intervene? Alternatively, there is the role

photographers play in deliberately challenging particular ethical

positions or social mores by photographing controversial subject

matter as a challenge to their wider society (Mapplethorpe, Jacob

Riis, etc).

 

2. The role of the social and historical context in legitimising or

discounting particular imagery.

 

There are many examples where the legitimacy of particular types of

images changes as a consequence of prevailing ethical preferences.

Edward Weston�s image of his son Neil naked. Joel Meyerwitz�s nude of

a young girl in Cape Light. August Sander�s project to catalogue

social types might be deemed inappropriate now.

 

Naturally, these are two sides of the same coin. Photography is

conditioned by, and has a role in questioning, prevailing ethical

norms.

 

Are there other ethical dimensions to photography?

Some <a href="http://www.aaronsiskind.org/images.html">Aaron Siskind<a/>.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.peachgallery.com/artistWork.asp?artist=89">Peter Felllows<a/>, who (in this selection) looks a lot like Chip Hooper.