The photographers eye
This article gives an introduction to the premise of the book 'The Photographer's Eye'. In the article Szarkowski attempts to categorise the stages of photography as it has developed. The first stage is the introduction of photography, with the first photographers seeming to be at odds with their creativity as painters as they were now limited by the new technology which seemed to suck the thoughtfulness out of a project. These artists were not limited in their cultural expectations as they were not obliged to give credits as they simply had no one to look back on as a photographer. I think this is an over-simplification. Yes, artists were allowed to create new traditions, but they were not creating rules, in fact it was the opposite. Many photographers looked to painters to find what worked with composition and the formal elements and then made these decisions, just as photographers do today. The next period in the commercialisation of photography was when 'anyone' could be a photographer and as this article suggests, claimed to be, while the writer sees this a taking creativity from both photographers and their work. The next stage is how this has become an art form, through the meaning of what photography is and through the making of rules meant to be broken. i see this as an over-simplification as truly being an artist, especially a photographer, is innate and something that comes only from the way you look at the world not the way art is perceived and received by the producers of a machine.
The thing itself
This is about creating reality within a photo and the subject, and photo can become completely separated from each other. Szarkowski states that photographers may come to see the world through a frame seeing their perceived reality as it may seem more 'complete' just as a the second the photo was taken and the frame was filled it became complete.
the detail
Szarkowski claims that a photographer must choose how to photograph a subject by choosing what is consistent and relevant. I feel that inconsistency and irrelevance are important parts of many photos, however Szarkowski may see this differently as everything is always relative.
The frame
Szarkowski sees the frame as a crucial element as a photographer is able to create another level of absurd reality as they can eliminate, move and flatten the frame.
Vantage point
This can be changed dramatically and easily, something Szarkowski sees as a further distortion of space and the subject.
Time
Szarkowski places the photo at two extremes , the photo either rushes a moment and therefor alludes to another reality in which this story unfolds, or the photographer choses to freeze time and creates a fantastical area.
What is photography
I think thinking about what photography is is important to my work as it helps conceptualise a process as well as the outcome.
Why is photography important? Politically where photos provide evidence and give a voice to the voice-less through subject matter, providing a grounding in which thoughts and feelings can be projected through how the artist felt. This of course can delegitimise images. When looking at political images contexts the artist's experiences must be evaluated as voices such as the voice of white or middle class people that is often promoted can never truly capture the full severity of movements that effect marginalised groups, sometimes leading to the exploitation of these groups for artistic gain and a sense of false sincerity.
What are the different genres of photography? I don't think genre is important or should effect the production of photographs as they are not binary and often overlap. However I do think genre can help us understand photographs especially when a portrait is used as every subject has a story that may make the photo a documentary photo, a background that may make the photo a landscape or simply an idea that may make the photo conceptual.
What are the skills needed? I think the most important skill is about understanding a subject and being able to supply meaning, or a lack thereof. This can both help the process of taking the photo, as an understanding of the subject will help the photographer make decisions on composition and lighting, and the way we view photos. Any other skill is simply based on perspective. Of course some can help achieve an outcome but this lack of skill may help a photographer develop their process and outcome.
Why do people take photos? To project a feeling through the artistry of a photo and 'paint with light', to reflect on a moment whether that is after or during an image being taken which allows the artist to use and manipulate a subject, to preserve a moment that may be private or fleeting. This can be for personal reasons or to show the world the subject in the way you perceive it.
How does photography help us see the world? Photography helps us understand the world, each other and most important to my photography, ourselves. The nature of photography allows us to capture moments and as these perceptions can be both progressive and regressive. We can document change and process. My work has often helped me work through difficult concepts such as grief. My thoughts on this could be seen both through documenting my process and the final outcome where i focus on visibility, making sure my thoughts can be seen through composition, light and shape.
Can photographic images be trusted? Politically, where photos provide evidence and give a voice to the voice-less through subject matter, providing a grounding in which thoughts and feelings can be projected through how the artist felt. This of course can delegitimise images. When looking at political images contexts and the artist's experiences must be evaluated as voices such as the voice of white or middle class people that is often promoted can never truly capture the full severity of movement that affect marginalised groups, sometimes leading to the exploitation of these groups for artistic gain and a sense of false sincerity. Due to the nature of photography images can be manipulated causing them to hold power in the wrong persons hands. When talking on a personal level photographs can always be trusted as in some way they will always reveal the truth of someone's experience and thought, however this can sometimes be found by finding the lie, a doctored image can show insecurity, societal pressures or a plain lie.
What are the similarities and differences between photography and other types of visual art? I don't think there is much of a difference. I think many would argue that photography has to be a moment or real but I think photography can be fantastical and take time and develop just like art - I think it is just a different format .
When would it not be ok to take a photograph? Any time the subject is uncomfortable to the extent they feel violated. Of course some level of discomfort is natural as the act of permanently holding a moment is unnatural. Another time would be when it is not a shared experience or when you are not invited into a closed space. This is wrong as it is perverse in that it exploits and degrades the experience of others.
How do you know when you’ve taken a good photograph? I think this is uneffable i think its a personal relationship with a photo that makes the photo seem like it encompasses all your thoughts and feelings through the photo. Of course there are objectives and 'rules' but these will all seem to fall into place once you can develop an understanding of the subject and how the photo 'demands' to be taken.
Where is the best place to see photography? Anywhere. I don't think it matters although surroundings can of course have an influence on how
What frustrates you about photography? Everything , simply due to the fact that when iIproduce work I know i will never reach the stage of completion - my work will constantly underwhelm me and i will always be looking for a way to develop, change or destroy my work.