SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
(I read stuff for university, made notes about my associations and elaborated them a little...)
an object, or artefact, or subject even, is always a product. right?
a product on both ends; where it came from and by whom it is perceived.
an object always has multiple sides. also, an object can appear bigger or smaller from a certain side compared to another.
which side, or, preferrably: sideS, one contemplates is retroactively essential for the constitution of this product, thus for the 'reality' of the given object.
because our perception and the efforts to describe and understand it are the only reality we have. (and I assume that the process of settling for it usually takes longer than a human life's time.)
while a writer or rather 'linguistic mediator' is granted the constraint, to start describing a thing at some point and to continue chronologically in one way or another, the documentary photographer suffers the luxury of being able to depict a view on the 'whole' thing (but not its complete entity of course) at once.
photography is just a language without grammar. although, compared to our generic spoken/written language, it is simpler for it to be complicated. or just complex.
the flexible 'pronunciation' of the photographic language, compared to our generic spoken/written language, is more important for its communication and understanding than syntax or grammar in general (which, as stated above, probably doesn't exist out of this reason.)
these doggerel but grammatically more or less correct lines of mine probably just underlined my point.
based loosely on Ute Daniel: whoever feels bored by it nonetheless, can just go look at something else instead of shooting him- or herself.
an object, or artefact, or subject even, is always a product. right?
a product on both ends; where it came from and by whom it is perceived.
an object always has multiple sides. also, an object can appear bigger or smaller from a certain side compared to another.
which side, or, preferrably: sideS, one contemplates is retroactively essential for the constitution of this product, thus for the 'reality' of the given object.
because our perception and the efforts to describe and understand it are the only reality we have. (and I assume that the process of settling for it usually takes longer than a human life's time.)
while a writer or rather 'linguistic mediator' is granted the constraint, to start describing a thing at some point and to continue chronologically in one way or another, the documentary photographer suffers the luxury of being able to depict a view on the 'whole' thing (but not its complete entity of course) at once.
photography is just a language without grammar. although, compared to our generic spoken/written language, it is simpler for it to be complicated. or just complex.
the flexible 'pronunciation' of the photographic language, compared to our generic spoken/written language, is more important for its communication and understanding than syntax or grammar in general (which, as stated above, probably doesn't exist out of this reason.)
these doggerel but grammatically more or less correct lines of mine probably just underlined my point.
based loosely on Ute Daniel: whoever feels bored by it nonetheless, can just go look at something else instead of shooting him- or herself.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Take a break from your studies right now. Walk away from the texts, go out and drink some beer, and talk with people. 
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
Take a break from your studies right now. Walk away from the texts, go out and drink some beer, and talk with people.
that's exactly my plan.
FrankS
Registered User
Good. Get yourself out of that headspace you are in. Too deep to be healthy. Those were the thoughts of a madman, a MADMAN, I tell you!
ebino
Well-known
Is it possible to "document" life with a camera and preserve as photographs?
Imo the answer is a big no. Photographs are two dimensional, mute and framed subjectively. A photograph is not a document, its a description of what the subject(s) looked like to a camera at certain light condition.
Imo the answer is a big no. Photographs are two dimensional, mute and framed subjectively. A photograph is not a document, its a description of what the subject(s) looked like to a camera at certain light condition.
JayGannon
Well-known
That struck me as something one would compose while under the infuence of certain substances, if not then your in waaay too deep =)
JayGannon
Well-known
Well I'm sure docu,entary photographers would disagree, photography has been used to document the last century by millions of people. And photos can speak volumes as to the athmosphere and the feeling of a place a person or anything that it captures at a moment in time.
ebino
Well-known
Simonsawsunlight is German, he comes from that philosophical tradition. They have a much higher standard of education there in Germany.
So give the kid a break, a thinking photographer is always a better photographer.
So give the kid a break, a thinking photographer is always a better photographer.
wgerrard
Veteran
A photograph is a representation of space at a single moment in time. It may be evocative of the whole thing, but that comes down to the photographer attempting to control and manipulate the thoughts and emotions of the viewer, much the same as a writer tries to control and manipulate the thoughts of a reader.
I think we often forget about time in photography.
Lilserenity
Well-known
Last time I had thoughts that deep I was grinding my teeth. That was a while ago. How things have changed
That said, I have been penning my book introduction and of the capturing of a moment, time, history, then-present and future, and this is how I see it:
"I do differ though, because unlike Smith, I have no particular message (aside from this city – that is not by statute at least yet a city – is not what many Britons understand it to be; but we will touch on this at the end) about the human condition per se, more this is the what is, is. There are circumstances and forces behind everything in life but the photograph still remains as a stateless statement to me, it has no inherent history in itself beyond its given frame, it has no prescribed future. But it is a firm statement about how I saw that moment that was the present at one time. There may be hints of the sequences leading up to a photograph’s given moment in time which can convey meaning (such by ordering photographs), but this is endowed by the photographer and actors in the frame alone in my view. I cannot make a photograph have a history by just laying that photograph down and making you look at it. Like most things in life you will need to come to your own conclusion on what you see put forward here, make your own meaning, surmise your own history, calculate the forces upon the once-present and consider the next logical progression."
I was feeling quite proud of my mumbo jumbo above until I read yours
Vicky
That said, I have been penning my book introduction and of the capturing of a moment, time, history, then-present and future, and this is how I see it:
"I do differ though, because unlike Smith, I have no particular message (aside from this city – that is not by statute at least yet a city – is not what many Britons understand it to be; but we will touch on this at the end) about the human condition per se, more this is the what is, is. There are circumstances and forces behind everything in life but the photograph still remains as a stateless statement to me, it has no inherent history in itself beyond its given frame, it has no prescribed future. But it is a firm statement about how I saw that moment that was the present at one time. There may be hints of the sequences leading up to a photograph’s given moment in time which can convey meaning (such by ordering photographs), but this is endowed by the photographer and actors in the frame alone in my view. I cannot make a photograph have a history by just laying that photograph down and making you look at it. Like most things in life you will need to come to your own conclusion on what you see put forward here, make your own meaning, surmise your own history, calculate the forces upon the once-present and consider the next logical progression."
I was feeling quite proud of my mumbo jumbo above until I read yours
Vicky
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
really nice pics
ebino
Well-known
The moment you start thinking photographs are "honest" and you're honestly documenting life with it, you're on your way to the rabbit hole of contradictions, misconceptions, and subjective self indulgence.
Photography is an extremely clumsy and crud method of basic visual communication. Therefore, It should be treated as such and never raised to some level which its not worthy of, because then it loses its charm.
The best example is the so called documentary photographer replying to the comment that his pictures are boring by saying that, "you don't get it"... And he continues in that lost world thinking his misunderstood and people are too thick to "get" his pictures.
Photography is an extremely clumsy and crud method of basic visual communication. Therefore, It should be treated as such and never raised to some level which its not worthy of, because then it loses its charm.
The best example is the so called documentary photographer replying to the comment that his pictures are boring by saying that, "you don't get it"... And he continues in that lost world thinking his misunderstood and people are too thick to "get" his pictures.
retnull
Well-known
Simon, check out Vilém Flusser's "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" (1983). Really brilliant. Flusser has a unique account of the history of the relation of text and image, and an explanation for the special significance that seems to adhere to images. (He does not mention rangefinders, unfortunately.)
JayGannon
Well-known
But by whos measure is it?
Certainly not mine and that of every other photographer who does it for a living?
What are the criteria for something to be a document of a time or an age?
JayGannon
Well-known
Anyone can feel free to respond to the question:
Are there criteria for a documentary, and is photography a suitable medium in which to communicate the present to the future.
EDIT: For confused people I was responding to a now deleted post so ignore the 1st part.
Are there criteria for a documentary, and is photography a suitable medium in which to communicate the present to the future.
EDIT: For confused people I was responding to a now deleted post so ignore the 1st part.
Last edited:
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I agree! "a view of the whole thing" would have been better.
ha! I like you.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I don't think it's clumsy. but neither do I think it is 'honest', just as any other language is never absolutely 'objective' or neutral, because it is human media. but unfortunately, no knowledge without media
some photojournalists or PJ networks try to be less un-neutral than others though. but magnum, for example, never wanted to be neutral, they want to be biased and support the people who they feel need help.
some photojournalists or PJ networks try to be less un-neutral than others though. but magnum, for example, never wanted to be neutral, they want to be biased and support the people who they feel need help.
Last edited:
ebino
Well-known
I don't think it's clumsy. but neither do I think it is 'honest', just as any other language is never absolutely 'objective' or neutral, because it is human media. but unfortunately, no knowledge without media
some photojournalists or PJ networks try to be less un-neutral than others though. but magnum, for example, never wanted to be neutral, they want to be biased and support the people who they feel need help.
The only objective photography is crime scene photography, and passport photos, even there the photographer's biases influences the outcome.
But going one step further, the crime photos, and the passport photo are useless unless one is not part of a police report and the other not part of an identity document called a passport... In other words you always need context with photos, especially if its documentary-style (i always use documentary-style, i think that's a more appropriate term than documentary).
Photography is clumsy, its all about surfaces, it says nothing about whats happening beneath it all. Even magnum photographer with their humanist baises can get it wrong, Martin Parr and Bruce Gilden, not to mention Alec Soth... No matter what those guys say, I think their work is cynical and contrary to magnum's tradition. But due to market reality they were allowed to become members... But even there one comes face to face with another contradiction of photography and that is, why its not "permitted" for one to be cynical?
Keep thinking, its good for your photos. Photography unlike painting is the domain of thinkers.
ebino
Well-known
Switzerland.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
hm. I would furiously disagree if it weren't such an interesting and sometimes good thing to have different opinions and share them. so I just disagree without the fury, but let's discuss that another time.