not lost in translation

chris steele-perkins is physically not a large man....it is easy to imagine him gliding through the streets of Tokyo, or probably anywhere, literally being the "invisible street photographer"....slipping and sliding and tucked out of way...at least, that is what i imagine...stealth personified..

that is, unless he speaks....if chris says something, people listen....because chris has a resonant voice that would make him the perfect radio talk show host....and also  a  perfect past president  of  Magnum...it takes a powerful "voice" to keep the attention of all those photographers shifting in their chairs at our annual meeting , but when chris "boomed" for the meeting to start, the meeting started...

but chris' real "voice" is, of course, with his work...and now the man is literally shouting...currently with two books published  almost simultaneously, chris is demanding our attention .... and he has it....please read chris'  interviews on the Magnum blog regarding "Northern Exposures" , his black & white ode to upcountry England....chris chats intelligently about the relationship between his book shot in England and his new color work in Tokyo....very different motives, very different approach to both, even though the "time line" has much of the work shot simultaneous...

i am publishing here a few photographs from his most recent book "Tokyo Love Hello", because i think Tokyo is where chris' heart really lies....his passion, his love for more than 20 years....after all, chris met his wife miyako in Tokyo and a man in love  knows no bounds ...

chris always makes us think (see his book "Fuji" published in 2001)....and again here, he does not "spoon feed" us....we must work....for "straight" journalistic photographers the intention is the "dissemination of "information"...but steele-perkins cares not for being didactic in this book...while chris does shoot in a "documentary" style, the juxtaposition of imagery in his book layouts is an intended "mystery"...pieces of a puzzle...

now i ask you...are  "journalistic" photographers bound to answer questions and "explain" clearly or do you enjoy being "made to think"  and pursue a more complex reasoning???

Comments

[Chris Steele-Perkins]

Just saying hello to you people who seem to have a good exchange on this site. Thanks for your comments and thanks to Dave for his kind words.

I don't know how he keeps this going and gets out and does great work too. I just make the occasional post on the Magnum site and that is enough for me.

Glad Jason got his Parr's and his Perkins' sorted out in the end.

Regards

[Aga Luczakowska]

hello David...
i saw this pictures in IZ magazine (here in Turkey where i am now)... btw it's really nice magazine!!!

[Giancarlo A. Mori]

Jason, Bob,

That makes three of us loving SightWalk in this thread (not assuming anything about DAH, although I suspect he might love it too...)

It is indeed one of the books I own that I open most frequently for inspiration and study. Over and over again. BTW, interesting that Tarkovsky's name came up in this thread (thanks Dylan for mentioning one of my hero directors!) and now 3 of us mention Pinkhassov... It's all about synchronicity, I told you! :)

And for more synchronicity: Nostalghia was shot only 50 Km away from my hometown, Bob (Florence, Italy)

Cheers,

Giancarlo

[Harry]

OK that's my feeling stupid for the day it's Martin Parr who took pictrures of fat people on the beach should be more awake when I write

[Harry]

Personally I think a photojournalist should show who, what and why normally if I read a newspaper I want to be informed as much by the pictures as the words. There's plenty of room for taking thought provoking pictures but I don't think art and journalism are the same thing. If I'm looking at a magazine I have different criteria and again if I'm looking at a book or a picture on a wall. Does that make any sense?

I'm interested to see these pictures by CSP, my memory of his work is fat people at the seaside which I never liked perhaps I'll look at some of his more recent work.

[jason hobbs]

hi all,

well i have to agree with much of what's been said above. i love photography of all types, but the images i enjoy looking at most are those that don't lay it all on a plate - or attempt to provide answers. i love the images that take me away, encourage me to think and to dream. like bob, i to love SIGHTWALK, a truly amazing book, every time i look at those pictures i am immersed in the mood that they evoke. they communicate in a very subtle, powerful and personal way - each viewer engaging in their own way, enjoying their own experience. i think chris does the same in tokyo love hello and echos for that matter.

david, you're right about his voice to!

Jason.

[bobblack]

david:

p.s:

by first picture i mean the tree with lights and the boy with red flash :))))...anxious to see Chris' entire book, he most be THRILLED with Jakob as a nominee (as am I! :))))) )....

cheers,
bob

[bobblack]

only, only ever questions...never answers, anywhere......

love the 1st image very much, will take a hunt for the book this weekend...strangely, the first picture reminds me of one of my favorite books of photography: SIGHTWALK! :))))))))))))))

and to add to the Tarkovsky discussion :)))...something from Nostalgia:

1+1=1

:))

running,
cheers,
bob

[david alan harvey]

dylan

many thanks for "chiming"...and for the most appropriate quote from tarkovsky...by the way, you possess one of the great names in the "art" world....the two "other dylans" i know of followed their own hearts as well...

david

[Dylan]

Hi David,

I've been reading your blog for so long now, and although I've never chimed, I want to express to you my gratitude for your overwhelming generosity to your students and beyond. I find your blog very inspiring, heartfelt, and informative. Thank you.

I also agree with Giancarlo and Austin, but thought a little Tarkovsky would be a healthy addition to their thoughtful responses. Here paraphrasing the great film director/artist on interpreting film, you could also apply it to photography. I personally believe we should never "dumb down" the audience. As Tarkovsky says:

"The artist cannot, and has no right too, lower himself to some abstract, standardised level for the sake of a misconstrued notion of greater accessibility and understanding. If he did, it could only lead to the decline of art...and we expect art to flourish, we believe that the artist still has untapped resources to discover, and at the same time we believe that audiences will make ever more serious demands...At any rate, that is what we want to believe.

Marx said, 'If you want to enjoy art, you must be artistically educated.' The artist cannot make a specific aim of being understandable...it would be quite as absurd as its opposite: trying to be incomprehensible.

The artist, his product and his public are an indivisible entity, like a single organism linked by the same bloodstream. If conflict occurs between the parts of the organism, then it requires expert treatment and careful handling. Nothing could be more deleterious in its effect than the leveling down of commercial cinema for the production-line standards of television; these corrupt the public to an unforgivable degree, denying them the experience of true art."

And again:

"A director cannot be equally well understood by everyone, but is entitled to his own...more or less numerous...following among cinema-goers; this is the normal condition of existence for an individual artist, and of the evolution of cultural tradition in society. Of course each of us wants to find the maximum number of kindred spirits, who will appreciate and need us; but we cannot calculate our own success, and we are powerless to select our working principles in such a way as to ensure it. As soon as one begins to cater expressly for the auditorium, then we're talking of the entertainment industry, show business, the masses, or what have you, but certainly not of art which necessarily obeys its own immanent laws of development whether we like it or not."

When I shoot assignments for the newspaper, its different, as my caption is factual and explanatory for obvious reasons. If you and I read the same novel, did we really read the same book? Ten people, ten different books. We bring our own backgrounds and experiences and prejudices, our whole emotional make-up to the photographs we're viewing, so the answer is: "made to think" or rather "make us think" all the way. Cheers.

And thanks again David.

~Dylan

[Mike Berube]

David,

I think as journalists it is our job to raise questions rather than answer them. But having some mystery to it is always good as well. It forces people to think and react to an image rather than pass it by.

[Giancarlo A. Mori]

David,

I have actually leafed through CSP's "Tokyo Love Hello" just a few days ago in a bookstore: it made a very strong impression on me. So much so, that I felt compelled to watch his essay by the same title at Magnum in Motion, and to peruse a lot of his other images at Magnum.com and on the Net. It is a beautiful piece of work that will remain with me for quite some time. The same way Pinkhassov's "Sightwalk" did years ago...

Your question though is about approach... should photojournalism be "illustrative" or "provocative"? (My words, not yours.) I can see both methods work (I guess the success of each one, depending by how a particular photographer works and thinks) but I tend to prefer being "made to think"; find that photographic work that can generate a process of reflection is more lasting and powerful that the one that tries to provides a definite point of view, an idea, an answer. The world is too complex for that, there are too many angles, to many layers to expose and I find that, for my own sensibilities, illustrative work tends to feel "simpler" and less satisfying, some times even pedantic, on both an emotional and intellectual level. We -- all of us -- don't have absolute answers, why should a photographer be any different? I guess though that is the difference a great photographer brings to their project...

Good question again, David.

- Giancarlo

[Austin]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and ask, is it always necessary for the photographer to make an effort to "explain" or "disseminate" something? I'd like to think there's still room to capture interesting images for the sake of capturing interesting images. This is how I feel when I see Erwitt's images, for example. Viewers can make of then what they want, but perhaps it's not always necessary to come to some profound conclusion as to what they represent. Just a thought...