building corner ~ Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggenEven though the wife gets very annoyed by comments that might be construed as encouragement to my proclivity for picturing "finished meals, the remains, gnawed bones, and shredded vegetables" (not to mention rotting food), on civilized ku # 1170 ~ Mike (no linked provided) stated/asked:
... 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 ... 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 ... 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.
To be honest, I am uncertain as to exactly what manner of "challenge" Mike has issued but I can certainly address his question(s) ....
Let me start by restating that I am primarily, but not exclusively, a fan of and practitioner of straight photography. That is, liking and making pictures which illustrate the "real" in as realistic a manner as the medium allows and as part of that picturing MO, it is my inclination to "tell it like it is" or to picture "nothing but the truth and the whole truth", so help me, Olympus.
That means I rarely, if ever, interfere with that which is before my picture making apparatus (mind, eyes, mind (again), and gear in that order). However, if I am to be considered guilty of "manipulation" in my picturing making, the accusation would be warranted by my inclination / obsession with creating "carefully framed" pictures of "disorder" - pictures which somewhat ironically appears to make order from disorder. Which, in turn, can cause my pictures to be viewed as "carefully framed order" which could make some wonder if I had a hand in arranging things when, in fact, I do not.
That said, I do not consider carefully considering and choosing a specific picture making POV (a point in time and space) in the cause of creating and enhancing a vision-backed POV (a timely point in the space inside your head) to be a form of manipulation. The fact of the matter is simple - the resultant picture is an accurate representation / illustration of the selected referent as viewed from that specific point in point space at that specific point in time. That assumes, of course, that the picture making apparatus is employed in a manner which maximizes the medium's inherent and inexorable characteristic of being a cohort of the real.
All of that said, and more to Mike's point, if one's intent is present his/her pictures as "what is", is interfering with that which is in front of one's picture making apparatus is a picture making sin. Many would opine any interference of any kind is a Mortal Sin, while others claim it to be merely a venial sin as long as the interference is of insignificant consequence. My opinion on the subject as stated, re; my eye and sensibilities, is to "tell it like it is" as honestly as the medium and its apparatus allow.
However, I am also willing to accept Susan Sontag's idea of “with time, many staged photographs turn back into historical evidence, albeit of an impure kind.” In the case of Walker Evans and his Let Us Now Praise Famous Men book, I would not classify moving a few piece of furnishings in the sharecropper's shack to have in any way negated his pictures' truth or accuracy, re: the illustration / illumination of the life of a specific sharecropper family at that time. The evidence may be imperfect (ever so slightly), but, on the hand, is anything actually "perfect".
IMO, the quest for perfection, while it may be a driving force, is ultimately a fool's errand. That's why, for me, a "bit of clutter, and those not-yet-washed-up dishes, and of course the bunch of sweaters I've piled on the chair," per se, do not bother me, picture making / picture viewing wise. IMO, they just are what is, but ...
... for me here's the caveat - I really do prefer to view and give appreciative preference to straight pictures of an imperfect world when the pictures themselves, that is the printed expression thereof, is "perfect".
To my eye and sensibilities, a "perfect" printed expression is a print which: 1) evidences accurate color appropriate to the depicted and the conditions under which the picture was created, 2) evidences tonal characteristics appropriate to the conditions under the picture was created, and, 3) evidences some semblance of deliberate visual organization of the 2-dimensional surface of the print (I readily admit to not being "able to put up with ... [just] any frame," of anything, order or disorder.
No matter the referent depicted (clutter and all), a "perfect" print thereof is extremely instrumental, to the point of being almost essential, in "sucking me in" to the life below the surface of a picture. Not that "imperfect" prints can not suck me in as well, but I always find a picture most rewarding when a beautiful object, i.e. - the print as an art object in and of itself (a beautiful illustration of a given referent), is coupled with an intellectually and emotionally involving vision of the real world. That is a vision which not only illustrates but also illuminates.
All of that said, and most definitely from my POV, eye and sensibilities wise, I would first say to Mike, if the urge to interfere with that which is in front of your picture making apparatus over takes you, get over it. If you employ the picture making apparatus (mind, eyes, mind (again), and gear in that order) to great effect (naturalistic) / affect (vision), I for one, don't give a damn about depicted clutter/disorder (William Eggleston's pictures come to mind).
If you can't get over it, well then, just interfere to your heart's content and let the chips fall whee they may. Essentially, what you'll be doing is staging, albeit minor staging, of quasi-straight (an oxymoron?) pictures. Pictures which, while they may be of "an impure kind" (relative to "pure" straight photography standards), they will, nevertheless, still most certainly illustrate (and hopefully, illuminate) the real world and what it means to be human therein.
Monday, November 7, 2011 at 11:49AM 
