(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
IT IS MY FIRM AND CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, in the straight photography world, a picture can be viewed as “a window through which one may better know the world” (Szarkowski). Although, Winogrand might state that a picture can be viewed as a window through which one may better know “what something will look like photographed”. Szarkowski most likely would not have disagreed with Winogrand inasmuch as he also stated that … “the factuality of a picture, no matter how convincing and unarguable, is a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality is filtered out in the static…image, and some of it is exhibited with an unusual clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture are not the same thing”.
All of that written, one could be led to the question of what exactly is a photograph? There are many possible answers to that question but most “serious” photographers-according to Szarkowski-tend to cluster around one of two possibilities; a photograph is either “a window through which to better know the world (an exploration)”, or, a photograph is “a mirror reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it (a self expression)”. However….
…iMo, the very best photographs are both a window and a mirror. That’s cuz a photograph that exhibits a high degree of convincing and unarguable factulality is able to help us better know the world when the captured image is the result of a picture maker’s unique manner of seeing, aka-his / her vision (literally and figuratively). That written, and to clarify my thoughts on the matter, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, The best photographs-as described above-are those that stand on their own two visual feet, AKA-their appeal to the visual senses.
Too many picture makers try way too hard to imbue their photographs with meaning. “Artistic” techniques / effects and accompanying artspeak are the primary evidence thereof. A picture never be just a picture. I.E. a thing that gives pleasure to the eye, what Sontag called the erotics of art.
In order to be “understood”, the purveyors of such pictures seem to insist that their pictures must be viewed as stand-ins for something else; a symbol, a metaphor, or a sign that reveals a hidden and invariably “deep” meaning. Ya know, like an apple for instance…is it a symbol for love, ecstasy, fertility and abundance, or, if your mind is of a certain bent, an apple core sliced in half represents the vulva. Take your pick. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that an art theorist / historian / MFA / critic and the like will have a zillion other possibilities.
In any event, all that decipher- the-meaning stuff requires thinking. And, just as the advice goes, re: don’t think when making a photograph, I apply the don’t-think idea when viewing photographs. That’s simply cuz I want to see and feel what a photograph has to offer, aka: what the photographer saw as he / she sees it. Inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, I want my eyes to do the investigating, not my intellect.
Call me simple-minded, but that’s how I see it.