Rafael
Mandlerian
I don't think that Hurn really argues that photography transmits the "photographer's truth about a particular subject." On p. 28, He argues that "photography is only a tool, a vehicle for expressing or transmitting a passion in something else." I take his assertions about the need to learn about your subject simply to mean that you can't really have a passion for something about which you know very little.
Certainly, photographers can get lucky and take a powerful or beautiful photograph. But Hurn is making an argument about how to take such photographs consistently. And, it seems to me, that many of the great photographs that might appear as "lucky grabs" were actually the product of a deliberate process along the lines of that described by Hurn.
Take, for example, Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of the sailor kissing the nurse. I read an interview with Eisenstaedt in which he said that he noticed this sailor walking through the crowd kissing every woman he passed. Eisenstaedt noticed the nurse in the sailor's path and chose a position that would allow him to photograph the kiss that he knew was coming.
The photograph captures a feeling that many people were able to relate to. But Eisenstaedt didn't just get lucky. He knew to be in Times Square and had very good reason to believe that the sailor would kiss that particular nurse long before they met in the crowd.
All that said, I can see how Hurn's argument is geared primarily at reportage photographers. And I agree with you that photography can be simply about capturing something beatiful or visually arresting. Personally, I am drawn to the reportage style of photography. So, Hurn's argument really resonated with me. Reflecting upon my own experience, I would say that the vast majority of the good photographs I have taken in my life have been of subjects about which I knew a great deal and for which I did have a passion of some kind.
Certainly, photographers can get lucky and take a powerful or beautiful photograph. But Hurn is making an argument about how to take such photographs consistently. And, it seems to me, that many of the great photographs that might appear as "lucky grabs" were actually the product of a deliberate process along the lines of that described by Hurn.
Take, for example, Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of the sailor kissing the nurse. I read an interview with Eisenstaedt in which he said that he noticed this sailor walking through the crowd kissing every woman he passed. Eisenstaedt noticed the nurse in the sailor's path and chose a position that would allow him to photograph the kiss that he knew was coming.
The photograph captures a feeling that many people were able to relate to. But Eisenstaedt didn't just get lucky. He knew to be in Times Square and had very good reason to believe that the sailor would kiss that particular nurse long before they met in the crowd.
All that said, I can see how Hurn's argument is geared primarily at reportage photographers. And I agree with you that photography can be simply about capturing something beatiful or visually arresting. Personally, I am drawn to the reportage style of photography. So, Hurn's argument really resonated with me. Reflecting upon my own experience, I would say that the vast majority of the good photographs I have taken in my life have been of subjects about which I knew a great deal and for which I did have a passion of some kind.
Last edited: