incomplete...

yesterday a brief discussion came up under "student work/workshops" that i thought might be interesting to bring up right here....herve brought it up, after seeing my India student essays,  with regard to what he described as a "trend" by workshop students in particular and many photographers in general to photograph what he described as "incomplete" or "not quite" photographs....photographs which could possibly require just too too much imagination on the viewers part...not enough "explanation" perhaps....

simply put, probably most would say the above picture to be rather "incomplete" and the photograph below sufficiently "straight"....or not??? i only use these two since i made them last week and they happen to be in my camera this minute and i promised herve this discussion...and i am either too lazy or too jetlagged or both to go searching for surely  better examples....

in any case, my answer back to herve's comment  was that i thought that what we are seeing today among serious photographers  is not what i would call a "trend" , but simply our evolution in seeing...artistic evolution/revolution  based on our intractable human nature and our most basic and eternal deepest desire to just "shake it up" .. my theory is that tastes obviously change from one generation to the next, or there are parallel and perhaps conflictive artistic developments within the same time frame...in any case, this is not a new discussion...but, we have not had it here....

so i ask you.....do you see a "trend" towards the non-literal in documentary photography???  if you answer "yes", do you think this is a positive or negative trend? if you say "no", do you see the positive  "norm" for photographs to be getting looser and looser with no end in sight ??

 

                                  

http://www.davidalanharvey.com.temp.livebooks.com/

Comments

[Chris Hinkle]

this is a good subject...I think there is definitely a trend in images outside of the box or "open" being made and being excepted...I can only imagine this trend to grow as well, due to the evolution of technology...if you think about it many people can now make pretty good "closed" images, literal images, with a DSLR and even a point-and-shoot for that matter...I think it is a reaction to the popularity of images, good images, and good cameras...

chris

ps...David, if you get the chance to check out my images after your recovery from being homeless and workshops that would be great...also your always welcome in Tucson! its nice and sunny : )

[david alan harvey]

CHRIS...

i did a few reviews today and will do more tomorrow...i will try to do yours....nice and sunny in tucson sounds pretty good....i think you are right about digi changing aesthetics for many many reasons...tech always changes more than just tech...

cheers, david

[Sean Cayton]

David,

Great question!

Williams Zinser, author of 'On Writing Well' sums up the principles of writing in a section of his book. And I've always thought Zinser's description of the craft of writing to be closely associated with photography in this regard.

Here's an apt metaphor for anyone (I think) who's trying to ply her craft. Substitute the word 'writing' for the word 'photography' in
this passage from his book:

"The point is that you have to strip your writing down before you can build it back up. You must know what the essential tools are and what job they were designed to do. Extending the metaphor of carpentry, it’s first necessary to be able to saw wood neatly and to drive nails. Later you can bevel the edges or add elegant finials, if that’s your taste. But you can never forget that you are practicing a craft that’s based on certain principles. If the nails are weak, your house will collapse. If your verbs are weak and your syntax is rickety, your sentences will fall apart.

I’ll admit that certain nonfiction writers, like Tom Wolfe and Norman Mailer, have built some remarkable houses. But these are writers who spent years learning their craft, and when at last they raised their fanciful turrets and hanging gardens, to the surprise of all of us who never dreamed of such ornamentation, they knew what they were doing. Nobody becomes Tom Wolfe overnight, not even Tom Wolfe." — William Zinser

From my point of view, no one can be David Alan Harvey overnight. And I take very seriously Zinser's advice in the same chapter as this passage "to take satisfaction in the plain strength" of my writing AND my photography.

There's nothing wrong with shooting loose, but we should all understand that it's not enough (over time) if you can't first make a photograph that stands on its own — solid and sturdy.

[Michael Kircher]

Love that Herve brought this up. I tend to agree.

I will say that with the advent of digital, with more and more to see online; more and more people get to see more and more styles. Styles that were not easily available for viewing in the past. And if Magnum and VII and Geographic are publishing or promoting particular "looks," human nature will dictate that some form of copying or experimental borrowing of ideas will occur. Nothing sinister here just trends.

The images in your first round of essays--the ones for the stipend--well, they do sort of go together...mostly. That may be because of your tastes, meaning they bubbled to the surface and your eye comfortably settled upon them or there was an overabundance of this "incomplete" style due to who you are and therefore who--again, mostly--is attracted to you and this site.

Whew, I'm not sure any of that is making sense, and I expect there may be some need for clarification...but yes I think I do see a trend. But, no I don't think it is bad. But I've personally grown a little bored with it. Like certain styles of popular music...some grows on you, some just grows tired.

[cathy scholl]

Welcome back David. Waiting to hear your take on India!

Yes, it's a trend. Personally I don't care for a lot of it...I'm a lot straighter than most, but you can't stop progress and I do think it's ineitable. To expand on what Chris said, once you get the basics you want to keep going... finding new ways to express yourself and push the boundaries.

My take on it is that a lot of these types of images are good "exercises," something you would see in a slide show from a photo workshop (as we have seen from yours) but not a "finished product." Incomplete was a good word choice by Herve.

An analogy that comes to mind is the work that is done is a ballet class vs a ballet performance...they are not the same thing.

Stretch yourself in a workshop (or on your own) but then go out and use elements of your "exercise" in a "finished" image that is a bit more "clear"...for lack of better words.

[cathy scholl]

ps Inevitable is what I meant to write.

I love how two others were posting at the same time I did, saying similar things.

Glad to have you back inspiring such great conversations!

[Glenn]

Perhaps the incomplete style can be a bit grating because fundamentaly a lot of it is derivative of someone elses work , and the imediacy of the media climate today is such that any influence or trend is replicated at great speed?
I say Yes to Daves question , but you better be able to pull it off intelectually otherwise it's just a picture of half a guys head.

[Preston]

Part of a photograph's power derives from what happens offstage--what is referenced in the frame but not seen. Photographers are always looking for unique perspectives and views. It's somewhat strange to see a person's head chopped off in a picture. If you leave the head on, you might be left with just a snapshot.

[Joni Karanka]

Yes, it seems going less literal. At least if anybody here saw The Genius of Photography, it really looks like the approach can be quite oblique in some cases. I find it sort of novelty and I don't see why different approaches shouldn't coexist. I would get very bored if everything suddenly was only large format colour work or only blurry grainy 35mm black and white.

[Glenn]

I agree Preston , like I said "You better be able to pull it off!!" , otherwise is it copying? do you slavishly imitate ? All I'm sayin is that a lot of the pictures I see being served up lateley - I've seen before!

[Rafal Pruszynski]

Hi David,

Ive been away for a long time on vacation and so had no time to write.

I personally like this \, to me it suggests that the photo isnt just a self contained world, cut out of reality by the borders of the frame but rather something small of a larger whole. It technically ends at the borders but we can imagine it spilling out beyond. Ofcourse theres a change from generation to generation, and thats good! While I love past work of masters like Klein or HCB I think there needs to be a new idea once in a while to refresh everything. It doesnt mean that we abandon all thats come before but it means we just step back, build upon whats come before but forge new ground.

We talked about the seer volume of photographs these days. Just check out Flickr. And you said you like that because the more photos there are the more good photos. You have to realize that the vast majority of new photogs are ones who havent gone through the kind of training that you older guys have. Infact we are figuring things out for ourelves, learning from books and from the web...and I think that has the potential for many new styles and trends to come out of it....most will be shit and crap but some will be brilliant.

[Beverly B]

I've been reading this blog for a few weeks and have enjoyed the discussions--I haven't participated yet but I'll just plunge in on this one. I like the "incompletes" alot--they are like "nano images"--just a small part of a story. When I look at them, there is a tension there that drives the imagination. Thanks for lots of interesting discussions.

[Paul Treacy]

Flickrization perhaps?

I'm on a proposal deadline tonight but will comment further later.

http://www.photohumorist.com

Over and out.

[Michael A Shapiro]

There have been a number of trends since, for instance, HCB's day: 50mm to 35mm, b&w to color, whole to incomplete. With each new trend, editors and art directors seem to like the snap that the new trend has.

I like the closer up incomplete shots to some extent, especially to convey that sense of seeing something fleeting or fleetingly.

What is kind of cool is that with the advent of the smaller sensor in digital cameras, you can get the "snap" of the wider angle lens, but still get the field of view of the longer lens.

BTW, I'm still making changes on my site, and I am excited by how things are looking, in case anyone is interested.

Kinda nice knowing David is back relatively where he belongs.

C'est tout
Michael

[Rob]

Literal/non-literal. At first I thought you going to approach the subject of students trying to shoot like their teachers, then I got to the part where you said the pix were yours.

I think it's a trend, actually I HOPE it's a trend, to create more oblique, less literal photographs, even in "documentary" environments. The more I look at pictures the more I believe that a single image is mute, or at least a blank slate for our interpretation, assumptions, and biases. What do we learn, what can we learn from a single image on the front page of The New York Times, in Time magazine, or in the National Geographic if the photo in question is stripped of its caption?

Even a well-designed picture story really only provides clues to the events at play within the frames. And of course none of those pictures provide any real clues about what was taking place beyond the frame.

I'm all for more oblique, more puzzling, more opaque imagery. Make people better readers of photography. We've been living in an image-based world for how long now? And people still believe that photographs represent objective truth. Don't promise an easy answer, raise a question.

[Rob]

Sean Cayton's Zinser analogy is excellent. Charles Harbutt used to hold photo workshops that essentially followed Zinser's model. He forced students day by day to break photography down to its basic elements, then rebuild it as something new and, ultimately, personal.

Maybe Paul Treacy has a joke up his sleeve, but until then, what's Flickr got to do with it?

[asher]

"do you see a "trend" towards the non-literal in documentary photography?"

No, and I don't think I've ever seen a truly literal photograph. Even a straight portrait against a monochromatic background can be interpreted many ways by different viewers. Are any photographs truly literal or factual depictions of reality?

[Sidney Atkins]

Herve, Chris, Cathy, Michael K, Sean, Glenn, Rob, Preston, Rafal etc etc

Finally, another interesting discussion has again crystallized on this forum after a long dry spell! And I find myself agreeing with things that each of you has said. Rather than be redundant, I'd say just go back and read what other people have written so far...

Except for one possible aside at this point... yes, looser, more opened up, more cryptic, more fragmentary, more 'stylized' are all certainly trends and a reaction to the almost ridiculous ease with which the great multitudes can now take 'technically' good but rather literal pictures. But there are still vast areas of more traditional photographic styles and approaches that I don't think have been by any means exhausted or even fully explored. One of the inevitable tyrannies of the young is to think their own current revolution is the only revolution, or that what is new is necessarily better than what is old. Sound curmudgeonly? I'm thinking in particular of two very, very literal photographs with complex but classical compositions and everything in focus and everything in the frame that transcend just about anything else I've ever seen in photography. One is a photo by Ruth Orkin of a young woman walking briskly down a sidewalk in Rome with maybe thirty or more Italian men oggling her, mocking her, joking among themselves about her, trying to get her attention. The other is by Jeff Wall, and it's a modern recreation of a famous Japanese woodblock print by Hokusai reset in the wastelands of suburban Vancouver where a guy with a pony tail but in business drag has his briefcase opened by the wind and papers and documents are being strewn across the marshes. You could imagine and write an entire novel from either of these photos. So 'literal', 'complete', 'in focus' or 'classically composed' does not have to mean that imagination and viewer participation are stifled. Yes, this is a dissenting opinion. But I too like the newer, looser, more fragmentary, blurred stuff when it works and when it resonates. But face it, a lot of it doesn't... it looks like someone is trying to look like Dave Harvey and not quite bringing it off.

Sidney

[Paul Treacy]

Frankly, I don't think those images up there are any good. They don't do anything for me. They neither entertain nor challenge me. Next?

[cathy scholl]

Paul,

Love the Victoria's Secret shot!

[mike]

When I hear "incomplete," I get a negative connotation... the picture doesn't work because something is missing. But, to me, every photograph is incomplete, there is always something left unseen, either squashed in the compression of dimensions or left outside the frame. Sometimes, when a photographer leaves out something intentionally, against my expectations, I see it more as an elision, a device that can at once stress what's missing (through its absence) and force me to look closer at what is there. In the photo above, I don't see the man's face (expectation) but I do see a gestural moment between the man and the dog, there is a rhythm and and neat mirroring (chiasmus) in the position of their limbs, and they're both wearing black "coats!"... I don't see this as loose shooting or incomplete, but rather a very tightly observed moment.

I do think that images or photography is evolving very quickly, but I've also noticed another trend: a rekindled appreciation for documentary photography of 30 years ago. Susan Meiselas "Carnival Strippers", Bill Burke "I Want To Take Picture", Henry Wessel, the Kalvar book, some examples... all newly or back in print!

[Herve]

Wow, absolutely brilliant, honest words from everyone above, I even sense some of us are both very open-minded, yet still ask that there must be meaning at the end of it all.

For me, It just can't be for the sake of doing things differently, or refreshing a craft (why? When yourself, David, says when visiting people's home, you are more taken over by the (family) snapshots pinned on the fridge or around the house). That, refreshing a craft, would be the result of taking shots a certain way, not the reason beforehand. I mean, ultimately, someone else, the viewer, the public if you want (all who see in this world), will find relevance in it, it's not enough that the shooter, a bunch of bloggers, or even a whole photo agency, decree a new way of "seeing". I mean, maybe, but we'll... see.

I am also not sure that way of "seeing" is so new. Many photographers, famous ones, have pursued that unachieveness in part of their craft, if not whole, that time and space ended not frozen (shot), but suspended, thrown as it is at the viewer. early Lartigue, or even Cartier-Bresson, whose decisive moments were often quite undecisive, narratively. Not to speak of cut limbs and rules broken as to the manner born, (even tinkering with the negative to challenge even seeing, just as Cage tinkered with the piano to challenge hearing), etc.... Here, though, geniuses as they were, meaning is unmistakable.

I am also afraid that instead of bringing a superb new blooming trend in photography, one just ends up monkeying MTV video type techniques and gimmicks, blurred, tilted, fast moving, super-short sequences, and etc... gee, we are even 25 years late on that account, no? And when you can pack up 30 such shots in one second of video, why pretend that one shot taken skewingly beats it all, when it probably would be unnoticeable in the 30 shots/sec of a video? Just asking...

My good friend Chris lent me the "9 days in the Kingdom" book. Well, here, I find them shots all too literal, very old way of seeing, nothing wrong with it, but much unexciting this time around, even a lot of expected, almost cliche-ed or hackneyed subjects (Nachtwey in the aids temple, ah but of course!). Where is the new way of seeing there, as in most of the glossy books lined up next to it in the stores (Mc Curry, Follmi, Bertrand, etc, all in "9 days" BTW...). My point has 2 sides: can we see anew one day (your pix above), and see as before, another day (your shot of the katoey in the girlie bar in "9 days")? What are the chances that someone finds relevance or strength of vision in your 2 shots above, and the likes of it, if his name is Joe Schmuk (or Herve, aha) and not DAH? Yet, they seem much less about the person who took them, and more about the possible new way of seeing by us all. Paradox, until we accept that you have dedicated your life to have the right, the craft and the authority to create photography anew, and that this will show to be built on a solid foundation and body of work that eschews all gratuitousness.

Because of that, I dare think that the very same 100% alike, "new seeing" shot, if taken by the both of us, are actually very different from each other, in the public eye, the profession's eye, and in its relevance. No shot is an island? :-)

So:

Doesn't it all come back to shoot as we want, see old, see new, but make sure we mean it to be exactly that we wish it to be, and that it reflects more than an idea of, more than a difference from, but coming from your very heart, or your guts. Then, a classic or a clean slate from the tradition, matter very little. As Asher implies so well, we've been arguing ever since Niepce about the literalness of photography or not. And indeed, it is an argument about what is seeing, too.

['Pong]

Thank David for picking our brains.

I can understand this 'incomplete' style could be interpreted a trend. Photography is growing as it has never been before on both sides of the camera. All sort of styles of images is easy to produce and share. The non-literal pictures are more and more available to view in the pool of million images.

Personally, they are more provoking than the 'complete' style. Did someone say a good image asked questions not answered ones? And people are more literate about it. That is a good thing that we are seeing the content of the photographs not just the aesthetics of them.

I hope I am making sense here.

[Panos Skoulidas]

DAVID A H or MUHAMMAD or BUDDHA or M.GANDHI or JACK NICHOLSON... would agree!...., and also,...ask:

"...so i ask you.....do you see a "trend" towards the non-literal in documentary photography??? if you answer "yes", do you think this is a positive or negative trend? if you say "no", do you see the positive "norm" for photographs to be getting looser and looser with no end in sight ??...

PANOS... ALL LIGHTS UP... REALLY....!!

PEOPLE:
...The poor (or "rich" guy ), i mean DAH even gave you the answer... ???!!!!
my... (not really, that!!!, idiots-except Joni K. & of course couple more).......( BobB please interfere... here.. i beg you...!)

First of all, DAVID... your good friend ( or ,...who gives a shit!) , Paolo P.,
said that he prefers the "unfinished pictures"...,o.k, all he wanted to say is that his photos ... are cool,... or , the "coolest" out there, regarding ..." war-danger involved" documentary work...

the answer to DAH's question ...is "NO"... but....ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE... THE LOOSER AND LOOSER AND LOOSER AND LOOSER... hold on... , i'm rollin g a joint... right now... my "bong" ,from venice is broken,... hold on...
...LOOSER and LOOSER.... to infinity... as the new M8 Leica upgrade... suggests... but who gives a shit about " white balance " perfection...
You still need the "false" feeling ... biatchhhh... or your lies are as..... as the....

so:..."... POSITIVE NORM... POSITIVE NORM... POSITIVE NORM....
welcome ... to almost... 3000 idiots!!!!!!!
I'm tired... really tired ... from allllll of you...
"Wrobert, Alkos, , Giancarlo , JoniK , and many more friends out there ready to turn shit upside down.. even the little bitch .."Marcin or alias"...are welcome...
I see you all as the "evolution"...., i dont know about that " revolution thing..." but why not...???

So, as always... "NO"..., positively NOT...

peace out
peace...

IDIOTS.

['Pong]

I agree with you on '9 Days in the Kingdom', Herve. I believe that the photo editors are very old school. But that fits the aim of the book. You can even feel the bureaucracy in it.

[Rafal Pruszynski]

I understood absolutely nothing of what Panos said....All I got was someting about M8 WB problems which Im sure will bring up the memories of a certain french guy David met in Seoul with those very problems. Any word from our friend, David?

I didnt realize the two photos were yours David, just saw that. I like the first, I think its a good example of what you are trying to say. Not a fan of the 2nd, I wouldnt say thats a good example of this style of shooting.

[Panos Skoulidas]

and when i say "IDIOTS", i'm happy to admit...
... that i really MEAN IT...."

... but:..... "Wrongbert , Alkos, , Giancarlo , JoniK , and many more friends out there ready to turn shit upside down.. even the little bitch .."Marcin or alias"...are welcome...

i believe in you guys( above mentioned!).... i do....
peace

[Rafal Pruszynski]

Nope, still nothing Panos......

[Anna Boyiazis]

"coming from your very heart, or your gut"

you hit the bullseye, herve.

i hone in. it's how i see. how i intuitively interact w/ the subject. if i were forced to make pictures differently, it'd be insincere.

that said, there's a whole slew of others who navigate with the opposite tack. that's what makes this so interesting.

[Panos Skoulidas]

IDIOT'S FIRST RECKLESS RESPONSE:

"..Nope, still nothing Panos......

Posted by: Rafal Pruszynski | January 31, 2008 at 02:13 AM"

... RAFAAAAAAL , once again... welcome back from your vacations... i can't believe you even admit it...

, and now... once again... really, once again:" go DO yourself"...

did you read what i said you "UNINSPIRED LITTLE SPIDER...?... back from vacations... my ass!...
...back from the "therapist" you mean,... biatch !
Peace

[Panos Skoulidas]

RAFAAAAL SAID TO DAVID:

"...Any word from our friend, David?

PANOS SAYS:....".. THATS "GAY", TO THE "GAYEST" DEGREE!!! ..."

peace

[Panos Skoulidas]

...I have to admit though... that i agree with little rafaaaal, and i vote the first photo as my favorite....
peace

[Liam Lynch]

;-)

The title of this blog suits Panos' stream of conciousness quite nicely...

Looser looser looser...

If I am ever in LA I am going to have to do rush hour with him, just to see how he does it.

L.

[wrobertangell]

I think you can be discriptive in a loose way, Nan Golden, Eggleston, Winnograd, Frank, and the list goes on...and I dont think its due to photography being any easier because of the digi revolution, but thats not to say I like digital photography, I dont. I think peole just want to be noted for something different, or unique and there are a lot of folks out there who just point their cameras in a really boring way. A hell of a lot of people. also there are boat loads of people with cameras that all produce a homoginized style of photography, and when people constantly tilt their cameras and try and add a sense of mystery or magic with cheap tricks, I think its just a product of that homoginization.
I personally do not own a digital camera. so there. not even cell phone camera. I dont like them. I think they remove your own personal touch and your work just ends up looking like all the other useless mugs out there who do not understand how to use a film camera.
so go ahead robots, go buy your stamped out cameras and tilt them in the most bizarre ways, or shoot them dead-pan style, or what ever cliche it is...who cares, the hungry suckers just lap it up anyway.

[Liam Lynch]

Quick question, here and on the other blog:

Are any of those that post here headed for the Olso workshop?

L.

[wrobertangell]

FUCK!!

sandwiched between Liams useless comments..

[jay nowakowski]

i think photos are meaningful because they resonate with the viewer and if you look at people's photos you can learn a lot about the people who took them. before i look at a photo i ask why did the photographer take it and what is he trying to say? the back of the guy with the front of the dog in the photo above mean/say nothing to me but to the guy and his dog it may be a tender moment and end up in the family photo album. it does have a certain stylistic approach, to me seems trendy and that's well....that's up to the viewer. but phots that are able to elicit an emotional response from many viewers, that is, reflect a common sentiment among a vast number of people are the ones that live on after the polyester fades. to me it's the emotional component and not the stlye.

[Rene Braun]

Trend? For who? We seem to be forgetting history only to focus on our generation as the most pivotal time. I would agree that a 'personal' evolution of seeing and enjoying.

I know plenty of photography enthusiasts who started liking the literal photographs and as they explored more they slowly moved into the blurry, abstract photographs. I also know many friends who went the opposite way and there are those who are totally loose and open to just settle on anything as long as it fits their eye.

These are just pictures. Something to see. It's like sitting on a train and looking out the window. If you like the pictures when the train stopped or when it's moving you look when you want and when your eye is engaged.

There are no rules. There can't be rules.

[Michael Kircher]

Rene...yes, there are no "rules." But there are styles. And as in any art form they come and go. They are critiqued and discussed and trashed and praised and copied and ignored... Trends sometimes do occur.

[bobblack]

Aritstole wrote:

"A mistake enriches the mere truth once you see it as that..."

"Ask the eye to see its own eyelashes..."-Chinese Proverb....

It's a terrific discussion and Herve's question, or assertion, raised under the India Workshop post is a challenging one and one that seems to come up often, particularly around those prides of photographers whose work can, for lack of nuance, described as "documentary/journalistic/reporting". I'd wanted to weigh in there, but was distracted the last 2 days: that'd be spending quality time with Mrs. B and Mr. B jr. :))...

Much of my own sentiments and perspective can be chewed upon above, and I feel very close to what many of the other folks have written above, so if I can on a just-begun nibble of morning tea, try to turn the general-philosophic into the specific personal with regard to incompleteness and the life of an image....

I am incomplete and as a photographer, let alone a person, this has been the star around which my entire work and idea and balance has pivoted. You see, I am blind, legally and literally blind. I have written extensively about this at LS and other places and working through this in a book at the moment, but it has defined me as person, for good and ill, and acutely demarks the celestial navigation by which I seem to speak upon things, the swaying and the shiftin, with my photographs. I cannot see in my right eye and i have absolutely no (obviously) peripheral vision and my depth perception also is challengingly reduced, though I've learned to adapt, first by using cues and marks and signs (thank you Barthes and my high school driving teacher) to negotiation first sports and then driving girls to a park for beer and kisses and later painting and photography. You see, I actively must work in order to see, particularly all that which passes upon the arc and wall of my sleepy, dark right-hemisphere....but i digress...

It's interesting to me, having come from a background in poetry and painting, that photography and photographers often still seem content to ghettoize, categorize their particular form of art and story-telling. Having "trained" as a painter, the notion that a particular "form" of expression represents a devaluation of expression, or that a particular style or focus or aesthetic or principle represents an unholly blanket on the art itself seems ridiculously pedestrian. Which is not to say that certain aesthetics and morals and styles and notions aren't rejected, cursed upon in other art forms: those madmen and madwomen the Impressionists were villified, and not how quaint their paintings seem to my son, cubists, fauvist, realists, dadaist, supremists, expressionists, neo/geo/con/pro/no/go...HEY HO, LET'S GO!...all, without termdity, scaled the arch of our human telling...and just 2 days ago, i posted at LS a reference to John Cage's extraordinary and magnificent (and one of the most important artistic songs that's impacted my own life) 4' 33"..and had a bit of both the chill and the laughter to see what came about from it...

The truth is that photography is simply another language, a language, increasingly, more people feel comfortable to swing and tingle, to scan out against the maddening ways and negotiated days of their lives. In truth, the grammar and sytax of language is actually a deeply individual and spiritual orientation, and so do how we negotiate things with images. That, very often, photography remains disdainful of the "questioning" of the image, of the story, of the moment, of the form is just another indication to me how young it still really is. All images are incomplete and yet, because of the very specific and special properties of a specific kind of photography (documentary), we tend to see any rendering or subterfuge as a weekness or a copying, a mimicing or a laziness. The truth is the camera is an apperatus through which we, initially, believe could complete our own visual and sensorial incompleteness. The camera allowed us to stop time, to arrange the environment in such a way that we and others (viewers) could "understand" the story, the moment, the people the place inside that frame....the lie upon which we've learned much, indeed...

but, we've come to understand that this "sophisticated" understanding is just as deceitful. We've learned to trust less, we've learned that story has often less to do then what is in front of the eye, but the environment around which the eye and all it records clashes and rashes. The collision, the encircling of things, mediated but not defined by the point of focus, at that moment, ourselves. Think for a moment how we "see" when we walk. We "sense" we take in the entire world, all that collides, and this becomes our negotiation, but in truth, we're selective, simply because the orbit of our eye is limited: WE SEE ONLY WHAT IT IS WE SEE, and that is usually only that is directly within our sight patterns...thust the "traditional" framing is that which mimics, in truth, the subjectivity of our own wandering, but this is not the seeing of all things, or the seeing of a story at all...

for many, as Preston pointed out, what happened off frame, away from the camera, just out of reach is infact just as interesting: in fact, On-camera events can often be made more tense by that which it suggests is occuring off camera, and vice versa: so that what we see is just a portal toward that and those events which take place out of the camera's frame. I'll give u an example. my first photo on David's new website is a close up picture of a girl listening to her friend tell a very sad and dramatic story about her mother. She (the story teller) started to cry, intensely, about canada, korea, stress, trying to help her mom. Her friend's reaction (the woman i photographed) started to change and in that expression of her eyes, came (for me) the more interesting challenge: though that 1st portrait is a photo of a particular woman, it is in truth also a portrait of the girl who is not in the frame...is this obvious to the viewer, probably not, and it's not important either, for that photo is my story and was my photo for both those girls, a rhyming of things...that the viewer has to work more has never been a condemnation, for 9at least for me) i like to be challenged by things: stories, novels, poems, photos, moments, drama: im a hungering person who doesnt want to be told something, but suggest to look instead...

and the technology of the cameras and the negotiation of this has changed our predilection for imagery...just as certain aesthetics/principles (look at the trend/obsession with hyper realistic images, pointed lighting, intense closeups (dusseldorf school), grainy, out-of-focus, med format, holga, film obsession, digital obsession, crisper lenses, plastic lenses...each time one things of a new "trend" one quickly realizes that there is not one, that in truth is an alphabet of appetities....

let the camera be a part of your body, like the swaying of breath....

for the language by which we choose to speak and spell out things will be understood and not understood anyway...that yes, in the end, any style, whether it's the truncated limbs we see now (give me Ackerman's reaching arms and Paolo P's cloven shoulders anyday) or the backs of heads, or the unframmed framed, in the end, for me it doesn't matter, it's still a question of this:

do the photographs compell, challenge, speak upon something that stirs....

i am incomplete...i see very differently, i struggle with the darkness that makes up the entirety of the right hemisphere of my life and in that negotiation arrives an algebra, a morphology and syntax of expression...

let people copy, let others denude, it's a part of us all...

I photograph, myself, in the only way i know how: to as best as i can, speak with the language that seems to mine, a language that bits and unstucks in others trapped-roof-mouths as well...

that we purport to speak of moments is quite, either, heroic or foolish and deluded, and this too is a result...let cameras lift and dilt the way our gait lifts and dilts: those, to me, pictures often look more real to the shadows and broken limbs and incomplete faces that cross the lens of my own seeing and unseeing world....

to negotiate sight from blindness, this is our human aim, and while it shall never become complete, it is, for each of us, our efforts toward sight that lend that incompleteness its rich and varying completeness...

i can hope that i can see...

running
bob

[mike]

I do think there are definite, fundamental rules: Make the picture undeniable. Have a point. Don't bore. Transgressible, sure, but then... why?

[Joni Karanka]

@Panos: get that bong fixed soon so we can understand your writing :o)

@wrobertangell: "I think you can be discriptive in a loose way, Nan Golden, Eggleston, Winnograd, Frank, and the list goes on..."

... damn, that's a hell of a list already...

[Rene Braun]

I hate to write when I'm rushed as I did in the previous post. Michael, I think I do understand what you're saying. I said, Trends? For whom? For Hard Core Photography Flickerites? For Magnumites? For Army Core engineers? For Taipei publishers? There are countless microcosms.

[Rafal Pruszynski]

Panos,

you have a photo of a guy beating his woman. Heres my question: do you feel like the tiniest little coward? I ask this because instead of helping her you hid like a little chickensh... and did nothing?

[Rene Braun]

@Bob Black - Alphabet of apetites! Precisely!

[Partha Pal]

Hi David,
Its a tough question whether this trend is better or not good.......its a must for any creative work to do something new, to experiment, to describe the same thing in a different manner.........
The world is changing fast in every aspect.........may be it a digital technology, may be it the a culture, lifestyle of a nation, may be it the environment of the world..........
So the passion or emotion of the photographers must undergone a change in his deep inner core area......

BUT every new works are not good and every old works are not bad either......The evaluation will done in due course......so by standing in this present scenario it is difficult to make a decision that "trend" towards the non-literal in documentary photography??? is good or bad........time will decide who will remain and who will wash out.......

[Yan]

Well, I am not sure that this so called "trend" is a brand new way of doing in the world of photography, many photographs have been taken this way and way before the digital era... Maybe big names started showing up with the style, people get inspired and start shooting the same way, this is why we might call it a "trend", something seasonal maybe... Like a sleeping way of framing which come back for time to time... Same could apply to strobists and so on...

[bobblack]

Rene :))))...indeed, indeed! :))

cheers,
running
b

[bobblack]

ps.:

everyone, remember Moiyama's Shashin yo Sayonara (Bye, Bye, Photography)....a book composes almost entirely of Incompleteness (beginning and ending of film rolls)...

one of the books that helped me realize I wasnt a freak ;))))

http://photobookreview.blogspot.com/2005/04/bye-bye-photography-dear-by-daido.html

http://www.vincentborrelli.com/cgi-bin/vbb/102263

[Sherman]

Hi David,

This is an interesting discussion but I don't think it's that complicated. I think it comes down to purpose and intent. If you're doing a shoot for NatGeo, as a professional, you will tend to be more literal because NatGeo has a broad range of readers, many who have never heard of HCB or Capa or even DAH. And you work is going to be tightly married to a story. So you're not going to submit a bunch of "artistic" photographs that are part of some experiment that attempts to take a cubist approach to photography.

On the flip side if you're shooting for yourself, or if you have a client who has given you such license, then you experiment and play, you try new angles, and lack of focus and "incomplete" photographs.

I think the digital age has given a generation the license to be more trendy. More hip. "Screw the old dudes, just click man." To take a thousand pictures and see what "sticks".

Personally as a digital shooter, I get more satisfying photography when I lean back on the "rules" of photography. The tried and true methods and foundation. When I find that my pictures suck, I stop and go back to the basics.

-Just my 2 cents.

PS: I have to say it's easier to read this blog and communicate with others when there is no crazy rambling or psuedo-personal attacks. I would really like if this did not turn into the 10-million-other-forums on the internet.

-Sherman