Frederick Roberts, 1st. Earl Roberts - Horse Guards Parade, London '13 #47

[Paul Abbott]

I found this shot lying around on my hard drive and kind of wondered how i'd lost it. I know why I photographed it but didn't think it was a strong enough image. Now, having not seen it in a long time, I kind of think otherwise.

The thing is, with documenting statues and monuments it can get a little boring and so i'm always after an angle. Also, I like to look for a third element and to combine it with that vision. I like to play with the statues and so photograph them accordingly. The look of them can dictate that...

Frederick Roberts, 1st. Earl Roberts - Horse Guards Parade, London '13 #47 - Paul Abbott
RICOH GR​

 

[Asher Kelman]

So here, the "3rd element" is the "caring for it", in the ongoing renovation. It does give a sense of the community actively respecting the Earl!

Frederick Roberts, 1st. Earl Roberts - Horse Guards Parade, London '13 #47 - Paul Abbott
RICOH GR​

Thanks, Paul, this image is a good lesson and I appreciate you sharing your journey to actually sharing it.

Asher

 

[Paul Abbott]

Asher, these were the frameworks for the seating areas, for those that were sat watching the Queen and her Horse Guards Parade.
I was interested in how I could give a little life to the horse by using it's pose in conjunction with the surrounding ironwork.
The ironwork surrounding the statue is for a film crew I believe, because it is televised.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, these were the frameworks for the seating areas, for those that were sat watching the Queen and her Horse Guards Parade.
I was interested in how I could give a little life to the horse by using it's pose in conjunction with the surrounding ironwork.
The ironwork surrounding the statue is for a film crew I believe, because it is televised.

This is helpful, Paul and adds an entirely new dimension to the photograph. What a change for me!

This makes sense too! The third factor was using the Earl as a a vantage point to see the Queen, a bit of a comedown, from his point of view. Still, it's illustrative of how it's sometimes so helpful to have introduction to photographs. Not all pictures adequately speak up for themselves!

There are exceptions: a humming bird, for example, hovering with it's beak deep in a flower is self explanatory as is a mother nursing an infant or the horrible picture of the bullet through the head of a captured Viet Cong prisoner. Still, a lot of folk insist that "Art must speak for itself". This, to me is a fallacy and misdirection to those who want to fully appreciate the artist's and his/her work.

Asher

 

[Paul Abbott]

No worries, Asher...

In regard to introductions, I think it was important in this case because a lot of people are not familiar with where i'm coming from and what interests me in taking a picture like this.
I know that people will say that all those great masters of photography didn't need no introduction to they're photos but i'm sure there was one, describing they're thought processes and vision overall. And of course they stayed true to that vision...so admittedly, they didn't need an introduction for every photograph.
I have seen HCB in documentaries talking about his singular photos and what interested him in taking the picture...and of course there are many a foreword and introduction written about many a great photographers' work in they're books. Some from the establishment and some from the artists themselves.
And so I think it is important to have an understanding and to connect with the photographer on a more personal level in this way.
For instance, photographers like Mark Power, I wanted to have an understanding of, by way of an introduction. Beyond what I saw was social documentary and ephemeral etc. (ala Martin Parr), I wanted a deeper understanding of his work and photographs, and of his thoughts and processes.

In essence, I like to read or hear about what a photographer has to say about his photography. If he has nothing to say or understand about it, then why should anyone else?!