urban ku # 166 ~ ice

Ice on trees • click to embiggenThe journal entry, ku # 449 ~ meaning, of a few days ago continues to draw interesting comments. The most recent from John Denniston is from the perspective of a retired photographer and a former editor at a daily newspaper.

John D. states; "After looking through the entire series of pictures I would say they are uneven. There are some very powerful pictures and there are some very dull and uninspired. Papo suffers from what I saw in many photographers when I was an editor at a daily newspaper, not understanding that the emotions felt when taking the picture don’t always translate to the print. Good photographers are also ruthless editors of their own work because they know that one bad picture in a series of 10 good pictures can destroy the impact of the other 9. So what’s the problem with some of Papo’s pictures? She just missed the moment and the tension is gone, the photograph has become a snapshot. The decisive moment may be a cliché but it’s also the difference between pictures that connect with a viewer who has no experience with what’s being photographed and those which only connect with family or friends."

I understand that, from the perspective of a newspaper editor who needs to fill a limited amount of page space with pictures that pack the most attention-getting wallop, Papo's body of work would need to be edited down to the most dramatic of the bunch. Such is the economic reality / restraint of any mass media - editorial content space is limited by ad revenues.

I also agree with John D.'s assessment that the body of work is 'uneven' in as much as it a mixed bag of powerful and dull pictures although, for me, that very mixture is a definite plus, imo. I see the entire body of work more as a 'diary' of sorts. One that tracks the highs and lows, the extraordinary and the ordinary, the 'decisive moments' as well as the quotidian ones. Or, simply put, the ebb and flow of life (albeit with assault rifles).

For me, a big part of the power of the complete series is the dichotomy between the decisive and quotidian moments. The playful teenage and dorm-life like 'buddy' pictures, which indeed seem like they would be more destined for personal albums (to 'connect with family or friends') than mass media publication, create the perfect 'humanizing' quality as a counterpoint to the more powerful decisive moment' pictures.

Without question, the 'decisive moment' pictures by themselves would make for a more compact and more immediately powerful presentation than the whole body of pictures. But, for me, the pictures of the 'mundane' add a Paul Harvey "and now for the rest of story"-ness that I find more satisfying.

Speaking of satisfying, check out John Denniston's Salt Spring Island - Clearings, Structures, Myth. One could say that the whole thing could be edited down to a single really powerful triptych, but, in fact, I like the unabridged edition.

My thanks to John D. for both the comments and his look at Salt Spring Island.

ku # 501 ~ real reality

The Jay Range • click to embiggenI'm confused.

One the one hand we are told, photography is a cohort with the real.

On the other hand we are also told, The time was, we thought of photographs as recorders of reality. Now we know they largely invent reality. At one stage or another, whether in shooting, developing, editing or placement, the pictures are manipulated, which means that we are manipulated.

Now, I have never confused a picture of a thing with the thing itself. I fully accept the idea that the picture is a 'trace', a 'representation', or a recorded 'memory' of the thing pictured. And, yes, I realize that making a picture of a thing not only rips the pictured moment from the fabric of the continuum of time but also allows the observer of the picture to see the pictured thing only from a single fixed POV - both of which are decidedly different experiences from observing the thing itself in real time.

And, of course, a photograph, by the intrinsic characteristic of its 'frame' (the edges of a photograph), can present only a small visual 'slice' of the actual world. This stands in contrast to what the human sees - while the human can only focus on a slice of its total field of view, human vision also includes a much broader, albeit 'soft', peripheral vision.

All of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In theory many of them can be considered to be 'manipulations' that 'distort' the observer's perception of the thing pictured. It should also be stated that much academic effort has been expended (and continues to be) and much academic blood has been spilled (and continues to be) creating, defining, arguing, and defending various concepts, ideas, and theories regarding the question of what is a photograph.

IMO, a photograph can be many things, which is why I have a high degree of discomfort with blanket statements like the above regarding 'invented reality' and 'manipulation'.

So, all of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In practice (leaving aside created scenes ala Wall, Hobson, Crewdson, Sherman, et al) I am not so certain how they apply, especially to those photographs that are the result of 'simple' observation.

For instance, even though I engaged in 'manipulation' while picturing this scene (choosing what to picture and how to picture it), today's picture very accurately depicts a real place, the Jay Range, under specific conditions, low level cloud cover, during a real event, an isolated snowfall.

I 'invented' nothing. I did create a print which, because it is a real object, is a new or invented reality of sorts that is, indeed, not the thing pictured and so, by its very nature, it is different kind of thing from the thing pictured. It is an object. As an object, the print has its own 'real' tactile qualities - thick vs thin, smooth vs coarse, little vs big, glossy vs matte, etc. These are 'real' qualities that help define the print's 'reality' as a physical thing.

Now, if the print itself is what is meant by an 'invented reality', I'm cool with that. But, in fact, I don't think that is the intended meaning.

Where I think my problem with the proposition resides with the idea of 'photographs as recorders of reality. I don't think that photographs record 'reality'. I think that what photographs record can be a very accurate 'trace', 'representation', and/or memory of a real thing ('thing' includes people, places, events, etc).

IMO, a real/actual thing is different from the perceived reality of the thing. Not to mention that there may be as many perceived realities of a thing as there are 'perceivers'. Furthermore, I see a photograph that is an accurate representation of a real thing as being essentially 'neutral'. Yes, the photographer has directed the observer's attention to a real thing and the fact that an observer may come to a new 'understanding' - a new/invented perceived reality - of the thing, does not mean that the photograph, in and of itself, has created an invented reality.

In the case of a photograph that is an accurate depiction of a real thing, the creation of an invented reality regarding that real thing is much more the province of the observer than it is of the photographer or the photograph.

And that's why I like photographs that don't function as propaganda for a photographer's perceived realities.