• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

New essay: Of Cameras and Art

Mike Funnell

New member
I very much enjoyed the essay - both for content and the engaging presentation. Thank you.

It did give me pause for thought, however. (And I'm surprised it hasn't generated more comment here.)

And that thought is that, as regards the subject matter of the essay, photographers in some fields often work at cross-purposes with their colleagues in different fields. While some of this is due simply to different perceptions coming from different backgrounds and approaches to photography, some of this is also due to large dollops of self-interest hiding behind a desire not to confuse the "general public" about the purported nature of photography, which almost always seems to somehow suit the self-interest of the photographer concerned.

As Alain has so ably pointed out, the eventual fine-art print has substantial input from the photographer at every stage from the occurrence of the idea to the production of the print and the standard of presentation and framing it is supplied with. With all acknowledgment of the best of intentions, however, you must also acknowledge that the scene in front of the camera bears a substantial resemblence, in many regards, to any its appearence to anyone who happened to be there, photographer or not, and to any photo taken at that place and time, reproduced (well or badly) by means of more-or-less mechanical reproduction. If this weren't so, photography could hardly sustain its separation from painting as a form of art, which has been there from its inception. After all, if mechanical reproduction is nothing, and a pure representation of the artist's vision is all that need be there, then painting (and it's digital equivalents) are indeed a more pure form.

Conversely, there are those who wish to pretend the photographer has almost no role in the eventual print. This may sometimes be for genuinely professional reasons, but can also be for entirely self-interested ones). Photojournalists, police photographers and others would have it that the photograph is a neutral, perhaps even objective, document of things as they were or are in front of the lens, and the photographer is irrevelant or perhaps even an encumberance. After all, if the photographer has a great deal of influence on the eventual photograph, might it not be that the photographer uses this influence to push his or her own point of view? Perhaps a difficult and somewhat nuanced question: best to simply pretend that the photo is a mechanical and objective record. (This viewpoint, I think I can confidently predict, will be most heavily pushed by those who use the "artistic" side of photography to knowingly publish deliberate propaganda - while pretending it is simply nothing more or less than a depiction of reailty. They would take that view, now wouldn't they?)

And I think that's part of the problem Alain describes: people believe its the camera that "takes" the image, rather than the photographer who "makes" it, because many people (including photographers) have been telling them so, at length, implicitly or explicitly, all their lives. Their own experience with family snapshots may reinforce this: as technology has improved, snapshot cameras have taken "better" photos with no change in approach by the person using them. The actual processing from latent image (film or digital) through to final print is opaque to them, so someone who applies intelligence and judgement to these processes to achieve high-quality output will not be acknowledged as their work is unknown. Or, worse, they may be seen as being manipulators of a process that "should" be purely mechanical.

I think that's where much of the confusion Alain describes comes from: no matter what those making artistic use of the medium may tell them, other photographers are telling them that photography "is" or "should be" a matter of using the camera to record "what's there", relegating photography, at best, to a position of "found art" which many don't see as truly creative. In any dispute on the matter, its easy to understand why the general public gut-reaction is to side with the "objective record" view, and the view that its the camera that matters, because that accords with their own experiences using cameras.

...Mike
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Mike Funnell said:
I think that's where much of the confusion Alain describes comes from: no matter what those making artistic use of the medium may tell them, other photographers are telling them that photography "is" or "should be" a matter of using the camera to record "what's there", relegating photography, at best, to a position of "found art" which many don't see as truly creative. In any dispute on the matter, its easy to understand why the general public gut-reaction is to side with the "objective record" view, and the view that its the camera that matters, because that accords with their own experiences using cameras.
...Mike

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your comments. This essay is part 1 of a 3 parts series. Part 2 is titled "The Eye and the Camera" and Part 3 "Vision & Inspiration". I wil address the issues you mention, in regards to photographers who say that "they record what's there" and nothing else, in part 3.

Just a thought in a nutshell: many of those who say they photograph the world as it is ("what's there") also mention that this is their personal style... I don't know about you, but for me either I photograph "what's there" or I photograph it with my personal style... This is why I always make it clear that my photographs depict what I saw and felt and not necessarily what "is there". If I did otherwise, there would be a conflict between what I do and what I say.
 
I heard this tale somewhere...

An aspiring photographer was invited for a family dinner.
Naturally, he brought his portfolio with him and showed his work.
"How nice!", said the hostess, "You must have had a great camera!".

Soon the dinner was served and they proceeded to the dining room.
The meals were delicious, thoughtfully paired with the proper wines, the dessert was to die for.

When the guest was saying his good-buys, he turned to the hostess and said:
"Ma'am, I'd like to thank you for the wonderful dinner, you must have had a great set of pots and pans!"
 
Top