all photos (embiggenable)
“Because of the resolution of working with an 8X10 camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer’s face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of a larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewer’s relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little rectangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.” ~ STEPHEN SHORE
TO MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, THE IDEA THAT, WHEN making pictures, a photographer should “simplify”––that is, in framing a segment of the real world, one should eliminate all “distractions” which might direct attention away from “something interesting”––is simple minded. iMo, that edict, taken directly from the traditional canon of photography, can be accurately interpreted to simply (kinda a pun) mean to, dumb it down. Ya know, cuz simpletons need simple ideas cuz they have simple minds…
… to which I call balderdash!!! In my experience, say, when interacting with viewers of my photographs––which no one would consider to be shining examples of “framing one thing”––that they seem to be eminently capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And, if my memory serves, I can recall only one instance of a viewer having to be revived from an attack of complexity derangement after viewing one of my pictures––fortunately, the gallery had a medic standing by for just such an emergency cuz, apparently, every now and then a simpleton did manage to sneak in the door.
All that written, I am totally down with Stephen Shore’s idea of making little rectangular worlds––albeit, in my case, (primarily) little square worlds. But, that stated, I am also sympathetic to the idea suggested by the Irish poet Peter Kavanagh:
“There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*.”
*don’t know what Kavanagh had against policemen.
