Finder said:
The "original" idea of the camera was to simply make a mechanical reproduction of "reality." It had no artistic or creative qualities. That I assume is NOT your position.
Finder said:
Wrong. That IS what I meant with the "original idea of a camera". And the "reality"
on the photo will always be the photog's perception of the reality. Old story.Even if this reality is relative to the photog you can't take it outta the process of photographing by saying subjects do not matter.
If subject does not matter your "reality" does not matter either and what for do you photograph then ?
But you do not believe that the camera can only make a mechnaical reproduction of "reality." As you state, the photographer can add his idea to that reproduction, so the camera becomes an expressive tool. That was not the cameras original function and why photography was not thought of as an art for so long.
Photography will be what it is regardless of what people say about it. It would also be false to assume a photographer can make "true" statements about what they do or believe their art to be.
I don't know what "true" could mean here. The photog I quoted has explained very clearly and unambigous his Credo ad what his personal approach to photography is.
There is no room for interpretation and thinking about what he could have meant
is the wrong way to deal with his statement IMO. I have to assume that he ment what he said.Otherwise the whole discussion would not make sense.
I am saying that the photographer's comments are simply a word game. A subjective expression of what he feels he is doing. They are not "true" statements as they only apply to his perception of what photography is. Unlike the statement that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458m/s which can be tested. If I say photography is about having expensive gear, that statement is meaningless as it cannot be proven or falsified. Even Ansel Adams who had a good handling of technical matters invented the word "previsualization" when he should have known better. Artists can say silly things. The photographer in question has also made a statement that is meaningless. I would not dwell on the words.
As far as a subject being secondary, that is easy to understand. If I like to photograph that strikes me as beautiful, then the subject is simply the "vehicle" for the expression of beauty and it has no importance in and of itself.
Does that mean your choice of the "vehicle" is arbitrary and has no meaning ?
I suppose your answer is no. But exactly this would is the consequence of the "does not matter" statement.
Why do objects in an image have to have "meaning"? A beautiful sunset is as much about light than anything else. Maybe I just like red. Would you say a Jackson Pollock painting has a subject? And does that subject have meaning? Why can't I have an intuitive approach to picture taking where I need no conscious reason based on subject or meaning. Can't I make a picture which is so abstract that the subject cannot be recognized?
Your reason for the need of "meaning" and "subject" seem personal and have nothing to do with photography in general.
The only thing I see is that your assumptions about photography does not fit his assumptions about photography.
Say "understanding" instead of "assumption" and I agree.
However, is there anything about his photographs you do not like?
Yes there is anything, and this concerns all other photogs with the same approach and understanding too.
I first found their photos often amazingly well done in the technical sense of the word, the 8X10 contacts have a unique quality and the printing is very well done too. After a while thoI felt increasingly bored and I could not identify the reason for it, excepted the fact that all the work is extremely static. Static is not necessarily boring tho .
First when I read the interview and understood his personal approach I realized that it is the arbitrary choice of the subject was shining through the knowledgable craft and that is what makes them lifeless and boring. Not all of them, btw, maybe he was just lucky in picking the right "tool" sometimes.
So sometimes he is successful and sometimes not. At least for you. So his approach is not exactly pointless.
I've seen other portfolios of photogs who obviously have the same understanding of photography, mostly LF and MF shooters, who have managed to spoil their work completely with boredom, and the less fine the craft is the more brutal the boredom appears.The craft is just the icing .
Maybe it is one of the traps of the large format photography you can step in , overwhelmed by it's technical quality you put technical quality in the center of your interests and forget the rest? And maybe it is the LF too which lets people lean much too much to the side of darkoon and craft ?
Watching AA's photos or Weston's work I never feel bored , must have to do
with the fact that they both always have chosen very carefullly the subjects of "their reality" .
bertram
Well, since great photographs and photographers are few and far between, it is a little harsh to compare everything to the top of the heap. But you seem to have a predudice against equipment or technique. I don't think the generalization works as there a photographers using all formats that work on their craft. Most do not produce amazing images. Which comes down to an awful "fact," that most photographs are not "interesting."
But some people like the technical qualities equipment can produce, whether is be an 8x10, Holga, or Leica. They spend a great deal of time on becoming technically proficient. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If someone finds beauty in the process of photography, that is as valid approach as any. Certainly Jerry Ueslmann built a solid reputation by playing in the darkroom. He admitted himself that there is no meaning in his images; he just likes to have fun.
