holyoutlaw

Singular Images: Essays on Remarkable Photographs
Edited and introduced by Sophie Howarth
aperture

Can you talk about a photograph for an hour? Is there enough there to see, to analyze? We have heavily image saturated eyes these days. There are images everywhere, newspapers, magazines, the web, television and movies. Another thing weighing against the single image is the increasing attention to the seriality of photography; that is, how easy it is to make a series of photographs at the expense of the single image.

Given this inundation, is it possible to look at a single photograph the way a skilled critic might analyze a painting, a piece of music, or work of literature?

Singular Images does just that, in eleven essays that span 170 years of photography. With the older photographs, the essayists can examine the historicity of the object: what gives it its provenance, how it has been recognized, forgotten, and recognized again, how the print itself has changed over the years. For the three 19th century photographs, I thought the essayists' opinions were balanced by the recorded history of the image. That history gave me more leeway to accept the opinions of the essayist.

The early 20th century images have slightly less of the weight of history, and therefore I felt a little more comfortable questioning the assertions of the writers. I didn't quite understand Dust Breeding (Man Ray), or A Snicket, Halifax (Bill Brandt). But even these essays added to the photograph for me, opened them a little even if I'm underwhelmed by them.

The essay on Jubilee Street Party, Elland, Yorkshire (Martin Parr) added quite a bit to the individual photograph, and I think opened Parr's photography for me in general. I also thought the essay on The Hug (Nan Goldin) added quite a bit to my understanding of a photographer whose work I do like.

The Nature of Photographs (a primer)
Stephen Shore
Phaidon, 2007

This book about photographs is probably the least verbal of any similar book that I have, yet it's also the most conceptually dense.

The upper left hand corner of each facing page contains a short paragraph or two, rarely more than a few dozen words. The right hand page contains a photograph illustrating that concept. The captions list only photographer, title, and year. I've easily written more words about this book (in my notes) than this book contains.

I kept having to remind myself to slow down when I read it. The writing was so succinct that there was no apparent trickiness of meaning that causes me to read something twice. I had to make myself reread sentences and paragraphs, to get the deeper meaning. And look longer at the photographs, and ask myself: Why this photograph next to these words? Why these two photographs next to each other? Particularly, why Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Still #21 next to a publicity shot of Joan Fontaine?

After a few pages, an effect came over me of sitting in a lecture hall while somebody quietly spoke a few words behind me, and then lingered over the next few slides, giving me time to absorb an image before moving on. I encouraged this feeling because it had me look at the images longer.

Even going as slowly as I did, The Nature of Photographs took less than an hour to read the first time. I felt infused with its voice, the questions it raised and the thoughts it stimulated. I curled up in bed and wondered what a photograph of me would look like, in that position, that location, under that light. Watching Julie comb her hair later, I thought of Willy Ronis.

I've read this book at least twice since the first time, finding specific discussions (for instance, time: frozen time, extrusive time, and still time) and trying to reabsorb it. Even on rereading I've looked up to think "this is a photograph" when pausing.

I read The Nature of Photographs immediately after Criticizing Photographs, so even though they're two vastly different books, they're related in my mind. Criticizing Photographs will have a deeper effect on how I articulate my reaction to and understanding of photographs, but The Nature of Photographs has deepened my understanding and awareness of my photography.

Criticizing Photographs: An Introduction to Understanding Images
by Terry Barrett
McGraw-Hill, 2006, 4th Ed.

In the introduction, Terry Barrett says his goal with this book is to help both beginning and advanced students to better appreciate and understand photographs.

To this end, he says there are four basic questions one can ask about a photograph (or any work of art): What is here? What is it about? How good is it? Is it art? These four basic questions reflect four basic activities of criticism: describe, interpret, evaluate, and theorize. These activities overlap and accentuate each other, as when a critic gives a general description of a photo in order to make an interpretation.

Has this book affected how I look at photographs? Not much yet, but I think the effect will increase over time. When I first started it, I thought it was written specifically with me in mind, that it was the most appropriate book I could be reading at the time.

Has this book affected how I look at photgography? Yes, for the better. I can see how curatorial and editorial decisions and critical commentary affect what is considered art photography, suitable subject matter, or worth collecting. For instance, one trend of postwar photography (street photography -- Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand) is the result of curatorial decisions by John Szarkowski. A different curator, making different decisions, could well have resulted in different photographers becoming as much the standard as those three.

Has this book affected how I understand photographic theory and criticism? Yes, again for the better. I can parse out what's happening in a review or critique better than before. Cogent, succinct criticism is more informative; dense, obscurantist criticism is more frustrating. Having read this book, I now want to reread The Photographer's Eye and Mirrors & Windows.

Has this book affected how I take photographs? I hope not. But maybe so. At first I was going to say "When you take a photograph is when you put theory aside," but it's not that simple. Theory might guide your eye to subject matter. Being aware of how and why other photographers approached particular subjects will affect my approach.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Profile

June 2017

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags