emotionally charged ~ a question
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 12:56PM ;)
Death in the ER ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggenI have posted this picture previously. I am doing so again, re: my recent entry, people ~ telling it like it is, because I have come to notice that, when I post a picture with what I consider to be a high emotional content (human condition wise), it rarely instigates any comment and that fact makes me very curious.
That said, I make pictures in all kinds of situations and environments. I always have a camera with me and if something catches my eye and/or attention, I am most likely going to make a picture of it. A family portrait next to my mother in her coffin, a cute little kid on the beach, me all wired up and ready to have my heart stopped and re-started - they are, in a sense, all the same to me, picture making opportunity wise. It's all part of life / living. It's also why the ex-wife made it a point to tell me - at her husband's wake - that she wanted no pictures made of him in his coffin.
However, I have come to notice that not all picture makers feel the same way. In particular, I have started to wonder about those picture makers who picture the landscape - nature, urban, or otherwise. What I have noticed about them is that they rarely make pictures with people in them. Humankind, in the guise of actual people, are remarkably absent.
I wonder why this seems to be so*.
Is it because, as a group, landscape picture makers are uneasy in dealing, lens-to-face, with other people - especially so, in highly charged emotional situations? Or is it simply because they do not wish to "intrude" in those situations**? Do landscape picture makers deliberately choose to make pictures of such nature/urban referents because of the somewhat cool and detached picture making gaze that is most evident in the making of their pictures?
I am very curious, re: this topic - do you have any thoughts on the subject? Have you ever made any emotionally charged pictures? If so, have you shared them with others? Would you share them with us?
*FYI, in viewing the websites / blogs of many of the followers of The Landscapist, I have yet to see an intimate, emotionally charged picture.
**Although, it could be stated that hiding behind such an "excuse" is a great way to avoid dealing with such situations, picture making wise and and on a more intimate personal level.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Craig Tanner wrote the longest comment ever made here on the The Landscapist. You can read it here.
Here's an excerpt: ... I will always shoot landscapes. Its my first love. But my life has been profoundly changed for the better over and over again by approaching people with my camera and I just can't say the same thing about the pure landscapes I have seen and photographed. There is almost no risk in shooting the average pure landscape shot and hence there is less chance for learning and reward. Most people would love to have a more meaningful and connected life but they don't want to be the ones who take the risks to get it ...
Reader Comments (10)
I'm not interested in portraits, but you didn't ask about portraits anyway. I don't want to give people the feeling of being spied after, they have it anyway. I seriously lack the balls of Bruce Gilden, and even if I had them, I think he crosses a line and I wouldn't want to be on the other side.
I feel photographing strangers is problematic on so many levels, it simply does not give me the thrill or the satisfaction to compensate for the hassle. Sure, sometimes there are people on my blog, I don't meticulously try to avoid them, but when they are not identifiable as the individuals who they are, I have no problem at all. To the contrary. They can become icons. You can put any story you like into "602 – The Day That Jackie Jumped The Jail". Having the person identifiable wouldn't have improved the image. To the contrary, I think.
Or take a more recent one. I could have taken the whole image and you would have seen two unrelated people, a man and a woman, waiting for the train, each reading Facebook (or something like that) on their mobiles. It would have bored me.
But yes, you're right, I've just browsed through the last year of images on my blog, and the number of images with people in them is very, very low.
Similar feelings here like the ones Andreas articulated. The concept of privacy in Europe is different than it is in many other parts of the world: here you can reasonably expect that no one includes you in an identifiable way in a photograph unless you agreed - even in public ground.
And as my feelings are similiar, i.E. I wouldn't like to be subject of a coincidental photograph, I only very rarely decide to intrude the privacy of others. In addition to this, in private situations in the family I am expected to act along even stricter rules, for example no publishing of photographs of our families' kids. The (almost) only ones I posted are those, where they don't show their faces, like here or here.
In terms of photography this obviously means a lot of missed opportunities, I know. Only when I am abroad, I sometimes act in the different local context (and ask before intruding the privacy of others), like in "Offloaded" or The Grave of Thinusika. But in spite of all drama, they surely don't fall into the category of emotionally charged moments.
The vast majority of my workshop participants (80 to 90%) identify approaching a stranger ("lens to face" quoting Mark) with their camera as their biggest photographic fear. Many of the other top fears of photographers who take my workshops have to do with other aspects of photographing people. Part of the reason I think this is true is because photography as a hobby tends to attract a lot of introverts. The camera acts as a shield between the photographer and the world but still gives the photographer a chance to connect with others after the fact with their pictures. The camera can make the world a more comfortable place for an introvert (like myself!). But I believe the main reason why photographers don't photograph people, especially if it is a socially charged situation or approaching and getting permission is involved has to do with something that is much more profound and universal. And that is the huge fear that most human beings have of experiencing being socially ostracized through rejection. This fear is especially huge if the photographer is working alone and is doing their work in a public place. There is an amazing article about the fear and pain of being ostracized in the January 2011 issue of Scientific American Mind. It explains a lot about why most human beings shy away from taking any social risks at all.
Most photographers who haven't done much or any photography of people (especially strangers) talk about protecting other people from themselves when they tell stories about the possibility of doing the work. I hear my workshop participants say over and over again they don't what to impose on other people with their camera. This is almost always just a projection that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with reality. The fear based stories we make up about the future mostly only serve to keep us from having a much more meaningful life. Its each person trying, not to protect their potential photographic subjects, but to protect their own (false) sense of security. In all of the workshops I have taught in the last twenty years the most personal growth I have seen among my workshop participants has come from photographers who have had the courage to go past their fear of photographing people ( a huge understatement). When we quit making up stories about the future and open ourselves up to the reality of connecting with others through our photography we get a chance to test our predictions about these exchanges and the truth (which is direct experience) is most often extremely different than what we projected. Doing this work opens our eyes to what is really behind the curtain of our limiting fears. This work helps to make us more courageous as photographers and can help us be more brave in all kinds of situations where we are faced with dealing with other people.
Andreas'(whose blog I love :)) reference of Bruce Gilden is on par with the dramatic, worst case stories that we make up about things that we find scary and about which we have little to no experience. To me Bruce's approach is extremely confrontational and sensational. {Its also his approach and his intention and he is welcome to it - he has to deal with the reactions of his portrait subjects - not me :)}. But there are many other ways to approach strangers. I almost never photograph people without their permission. Its pure BS that asking makes it impossible to get back to a place where people are relaxed in front of the camera. Anyone saying that hasn't done the work. Period. I know from the first hand experience of photographing hundreds of strangers that it is almost always (80 - 90% of the time) a scenario that is positive and life affirming and I also know that with practice you can quickly develop a rapport with people where they will forget about you as the photographer. Knowing that most people are receptive doesn't make my fear go away. It just makes me much more likely to push past the discomfort because the rewards of the exchanges I have with "strangers" far, far exceeds any discomfort I might feel just before I approach.
When I speak to big groups I will have photographers say I just don't get the point of street portraits which always makes me laugh. How can you possibly understand something you have never done and about which you have spent part of your life making up ridiculous worst case scenarios? I will always shoot landscapes. Its my first love. But my life has been profoundly changed for the better over and over again by approaching people with my camera and I just can't say the same thing about the pure landscapes I have seen and photographed. There is almost no risk in shooting the average pure landscape shot and hence there is less chance for learning and reward. Most people would love to have a more meaningful and connected life but they don't want to be the ones who take the risks to get it. When you as the photographer take the risk to open yourself up to the lives of other people they most often love you for it and share more of themselves than you could ever have imagined. Their lives and these kinds of exchanges are full of opportunities for learning, creativity, friendship and community.
As far as the challenging situations go its not my style or my area of interest as a photographer of people. As much as I love seeing documentary photography I have no interest in shooting in that style. When people are struggling I would rather lend them an ear than be behind my camera at that moment. Thankfully other photographers like Mark are comfortable or are motivated as picture makers by those moments because the pictures can be an important part of catharsis for the people who were experiencing the situation directly at the time of the picture. These pictures can also be cathartic for others who may be dealing with a similar situation in their own life.
One of the things I tell myself as a photographer and musician is to reframe my fear. Instead of giving in to it by being informed by the stories it tells I test it with truth which is direct experience and compare my notes of what actually happened vs. the stories I made up about what would happen. I also realize that just a few trials aren't enough. The first time I try anything I will be a beginner and not very likely to be nearly as effective as I could be with some practice. In other words if I am going to do something for the first time I have to be willing to do it poorly and learn from my mistakes. Rome wasn't built in a day and no one became a great cold approach artist or street portrait artist in a day either.The other way I reframe my own fear is to realize that the discomfort I feel before I have a new experience is the heightened state of awareness I have always experienced just before I allow myself to have a real life…where I am open to reality instead of trying to protect myself from it.
Thanks Mark for all you do here. I am constantly inspired by your photography.
What an inspiring topic! And excellent comments.
I started to think about this, and the result was much too long for a comment, so I put up a posting about this, titled Photographs stealing souls.
I like people photography -- as a viewer and a photographer. Preferably candids (or casually posed) rather than formal poses.
I often photograph my friends when we are out and about doing stuff (bushwalking, a social outing of some description).
People are generally very self-conscious, but it is possible to take a flattering - or at least interesting - image of most people IMHO. I think deep down, people would like to see a good photograph of themselves, and I like to think that one day I might deliver that image.
And I know that in a group of friends, one person likes to see a good photo of another person in the group.
So, in some ways, I see people photography as a way to improve the self esteem of people.
I rarely photograph strangers, unless travelling. I've never photographed a "highly charged" situation, mainly because I very rarely find myself in (or near) one!
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/04/is-this-photo-ethical/
Eric Kim's blog has a number of discussions re street photography that people may find relevant (and links to other info).
BTW, I think Eric has a way to go in terms of being a good street photographer but he's doing a good job of documenting his journey. Also note that I often shoot in a street-style (so have some insight) but make no claims to any great talent!
Man, you created a bit of a stir around the blogosphere with this one. Lots of interesting responses. Craig's is especially good. Juha's (on his own site) was also interesting, but baffling. I didn't quite get the connection between "selling" and images containing people. And I read it a few times.
Like many others, I don't post a lot of "people" pictures. That's a weakness, I suppose. The most powerful images I've ever seen almost always contain people. They are also, as you put it, "emotionally charged". National Geographic, I think, is especially good at this kind of photography. We look at these images not to see what Tanzania looks like, but to see what the people of Tanzania look like. How they compare to us. What they do that we don't. How they live. People pictures force us to make comparisons.
What I've found is that when I include people (or make them the primary subject), it's because I've seen something I don't like. So my comparisons tend to be just a little on the negative side. When we took a raft ride down the Colorado River last fall, I took a number of pictures of people who were also there. But only of the "annoying" ones. I also took some pictures of the dreaded "bus people". Especially when the bus in question pulled up next to me and blocked me from getting back onto the road. Again, just a bit annoying. But photographically interesting for some reason.
Now, I understand that if you like to travel things like this are going to happen. I also understand that you also get to meet a lot of wonderful and interesting people. Especially other photographers. I have no problem engaging these individuals in conversation. But for some reason I have no interest in photographing them. But I will certainly consider raising the camera if somebody else pisses me off. Which happens from time to time.
Landscapes, of course, pose no such problem. There is no personality to deal with. There is only subject matter, light, and composition. Rarely, if ever, annoying.
Again, I view this point of view as a weakness. As I said, the "great" photographs of the world are of people, not things. Something to work on, I guess.......
to paul:
i feel better now that gravitas almost never photographs me.
Interesting. Maybe that's why I almost never photograph my wife, either.
I've given myself a couple of days to think this one through. I very rarely take pictures of anyone. That includes my wife, 3 daughters and a son never mind strangers. I own hardly any pictures in any form about people in my past either. Outside of my work life I'm quite private, a loner, don't like parties and am a 'prefer to sit on a rock in a wild place' sort of person. Occasionally people do feature in my pictures but I don't usually feel comfortable about publishing them to the world. Often, these pictures just get deleted of my hard drive. It's something I have thought about in the past and I've even debated whether I should move out of my photographic comfort zone. However, photography is my hobby and a form of escapism; when I "get in the groove" and "feel the flow" whilst taking pictures I am in my own world. I get more than enough emotional challenges in other areas of my life.