This is huge. Friedlander is describing the potent value of narrative inherent in our capture; the human element of concept, intended or otherwise. Post-modern thinking suggest that the single act of pointing a camera determines narrative value. This may be a piece of our answer.Oh but I can, but the words don't define photography, they are particular and they relate to particular examples and types of photography.
To quote Lee Friedlander: "I only wanted Uncle Vernon standing by his own car (a Hudson) on a clear day, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on the fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography. "
Photography is a medium - something you pour whatever you decide into it, with the hope that something comes out.
There is no limit to what form that photography can take. And it is unwise to try to pin it down with a particular set of rules or definitions.
Like JTK your main interest is a meta-argument against the question I'm trying to ask. Putting sticks in the spokes of the wheel. I'll categorize your response as "not interested" and move on.In erecting your normative schema, you overlook entirely that words can have different meanings in different contexts.
I agree totally, even when the viewer is the same as the maker.Physics, optics, mdchanics and chemistry, the vehicles for photography, have no meaning without a vision and a viewer.
Everywhere I look I see "photography is dead" proclamations and I think it is easy to suss out the reason for the death. There's the loss of veracity in journalism, there's a loss of human involvement in the process, there's simply "just more than any human can possibly consume in a lifetime" which like all commodifications heavily discounts the entire stocks.
It wasn't a fake image. It was two separate images juxtaposed against one another to make a point.Just last week TIME crapped in its own pants with another fake image.
I disagree. What is being repeatedly illuminated in this lengthly thread is the testing of the original query. It is easy to see these kinds of comments as detractive to the solution. On the contrary, establishment of the lexicon for this discussion is the route to solution.Like JTK your main interest is a meta-argument against the question I'm trying to ask. Putting sticks in the spokes of the wheel. I'll categorize your response as "not interested" and move on.
And this very thing, this presumption, distorts our efforts at solution. It is such a large factor that the holders of this presumption cannot see that it begs its own definition.So much of this discussion is fueled by a need on the part of some to segregate work deemed "less genuine" than "authentic" film-based photography
Well, I have not seen much of that here in this thread and that is never a part of my interest in discussing. With rare exception, I don't think there has been anyone in this thread attempting to diminish anyone based on their um, "kind of camera." I'd suggest a re-read of the thread. Otherwise this sounds like a defensive posture that's unfounded.So much of this discussion is fueled by a need on the part of some to segregate work deemed "less genuine" than "authentic" film-based photography:
Really? I thought we clearly understood and accepted that the dictionary use was limited and didn't cover such philosophical notions as "essence" related to photography, because those notions are subjective.On the contrary, establishment of the lexicon for this discussion is the route to solution.
Why not use the dictionary definition: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character." Doing so might eliminate "the power to change minds" from the essence ofphotography, so I can see how you might want to opt for something else.I feel right now as though "essence" is a foreign word to everyone.
Words can have both precise and broader meanings. I would say precisely, "photography" involves a direct connection between subject and formed image, and colloquially or perhaps broadly, "photography" involves making an image with light. I freely admit I normally take the broader approach, but since this was about the essence of photography I thought I needed to define the term stringently in the context of this particular discussion. Others may disagree and that's all there is to it.
It wasn't a fake image. It was two separate images juxtaposed against one another to make a point.
Or transparency film.Even by your "precise" definition, the only direct connection would be from the image to the latent image on the negative. All the processes one would do to get to a printed image are indirect - light is used but the the image is gone. By that definition, the closest that can qualify for "photography" would be a Polaroid where there is the shortest route from the image and the print.
It didn't look like one photo to me. It looked like two photos juxtaposed against one another.Yes. This is how TIME tried to thread the needle: "Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine."
Indeed - a "photo illustration" which just happens to look like a photo. For the public, the splicing of two photos into one like that, looks like intentional fraud. I laughed at their walk-back.
I already provided the dictionary definition of essence many, many posts ago. The intrinsic nature of any human activity will vary according to the human doing it. For me, the "intrinsic nature of photography is the power to change minds.' For you, it is light hitting a sensitive surface etc. Why are they different? Because we engage in the activity very differently at the human intention level.Why not use the dictionary definition: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character." Doing so might eliminate "the power to change minds" from the essence ofphotography, so I can see how you might want to opt for something else.
Not really. I sometimes make photographs to change minds. But not always. Which is why I don' think the power to change minds is the essence of photography. It is just one thing, among others, you can do with photography if you want to. If it is the essence of your photography, that's fine. Everyone should be allowed to pursue photography for their own purposes. But photography should not be limited, especially normatively, by one faction.The intrinsic nature of any human activity will vary according to the human doing it. For me, the "intrinsic nature of photography is the power to change minds.' For you, it is light hitting a sensitive surface etc. Why are they different? Because we engage in the activity very differently at the human intention level.
It can be both an intention on the part of the photographer and, if successful, an effect on the viewer. Like you, I do not think the essence of photography is the power to change minds for the reasons I have stated. ReginaldSmith disagrees.This speaks to AN effect of photography that can happen at the end of the process. I think it falls outside our "essence."
May I presume that you DO understand the answers to "what is the essence" are intended to be personal and individual? That's why I quoted famous photographers, to demonstrate that such answers varied widely.
I'm sorry to be pedantic, but it appears I must. We have dictionaries for establishing some universality of meaning in language. But dictionaries are not philosophical expositories. I'm not here trying to re-write dictionaries guys. I am asking about the human activity you regularly engage in called photography. If it has no essence to you beyond light striking a thing, then that's YOUR answer.
It can be both an intention on the part of the photographer and, if successful, an effect on the viewer. Like you, I do not think the essence of photography is the power to change minds for the reasons I have stated. ReginaldSmith disagrees.
I think you are unable to detach personalities from issues. I do see that you and faberryman both like to make your attacks on character issues and have a very hard time sticking with the old axiom, "play the ball not the man."I do think "pedantic" has it's place, but only if the pedant is consistent and respects his audience. That Reginald would assert that we photographers are not engaged with "essences" defines only him, nobody else. That he consistently asserts superiority, as in his speculations about how others see their photography tells a story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?