Tuesday
Nov012011
This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..
>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.
Reader Comments (1)
I've been following your photos and comments with appreciation for a while, not saying much, but mulling it all over. Now here's the thing: in Errol Morris's recent book, in part of which he considered whether or not Walker Evans had moved this or that minor piece of furnishing. Very minor, but still, maybe, significant? Or not.
So I apply some of that same critique to myself and my attempts to photograph my domestic life, and I have your exemplar before me. Which leads to...
I find myself wanting to clear this bit of clutter, and those not-yet-washed-up dishes, and of course the bunch of sweaters I've piled on the chair before I stash them. Only then, it seems to me in my least naturalistic photo frame of mind, can I snap with great sharp focus this particularly evocative scene from everyday life.
On the other hand. I love this photo of your morning light. I'm ready to move in. I love it. MOREOVER I love your finished meals, the remains, the gnawed bones, the shredded vegetables. So I'm happy with the one, and with the other.
BUT. Is there nothing in between? Can a photo show something of a mess, a room almost OK but not quite, a table with something misplaced? Or would we not know where we were if we did? If photos are naturalistic, then we should be able to put up with any degree, any frame, of disorder. But we seem to only get by with carefully framed order, or carefully framed disorder.
I put this to you as a question, and a challenge. (But I am planning to stop by for breakfast when I can scrape together the transatlantic airfare.)
best wishes
Michael