Reflection on "The Photographer's Eye"

I thought the article was interesting; a sort of crash course through the history of photography. Especially with the idea that there is nothing to unlearn, rather, it is something to help one grow not only as a medium but as a person if taken seriously enough. I took a photo class in high school and one of the girls, Yoshi, would put her whole heart and soul into one photo. I remember a photo that she took of her sister just sitting next to a pool, but with all the care, effort, and time she put into it, it brought out a side of her sister that even she didn't know existed. I like how photography can sort of spread like a disease, once you get your first good experience with it, you can't get enough of it. I also thought it was interesting how Szarkowski explained that although scientists and painters discovered it, it was anyone but the like who furthered it.
One criticism I had towards the article was the idea of things considered artistic; who is to decide what is and what is not art? One man's trash is another man's treasure. Just because a picture of someone holding a flag means nothing to you does not mean that to someone else it doesn't represent everything they stand for. I do, however, enjoy the quote "there is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss".
When Szarkowski explained that photographers shot anything, without thinking, it made me realize how much freedom one has with a camera, just point, click , and you're done. But with painting, you have to take the time to really dedicate yourself to the artwork. I think that is why many photographers are not considered "real artists"; they don't take the time to put their whole soul and dedication into the work. Another thing I think may be lost with photography is that a photograph is what is really there, that someone can hold a photo up to its own subject and see almost an exact replica, whereas with painting and drawing, you get the artist's rendition of the subject; you get what the artist sees; how they see it, and how they want others to see it. Then again, now with photo shop and things of the like, it may as well be the same.
I also liked how he talked about how people of the 19Th century believed what they saw without question, as though just because it were an image, then it had to be true (apparently not much has changed). This again made me think of the use of photo alterations. I would honestly like to see a picture of someone for how ugly they really are every once in a while, not just assume it.
When discussing detail, he explained that the subject may have never before been seen correctly before it had been photographed, but at the same time may have been filled with undiscoveries; I think it is better to discover something for yourself rather than to discover it through someone else's eyes. In fact, upon all of his explanations of the key points of photography I kept thinking "the mess-ups are always worth the most".
I really enjoyed the point about the decisive moment and how once you think you have something, it may be the exact opposite of whats expected. I think this is a weak point in my own photographic adventures, I feel as if when I find the Decisive Moment, it turns out to be two moments too late. I also feel focus is a weak point, I can't decide on what I want the main focus to be on.
Also in my adventures, I would always be stuck in between taking too many pictures during a trip or vacation, or I would not take enough. I would either take the picture because I wanted to remember it, then forget about what the picture was of in the first place; rendering it meaningless, or I would choose to pass up the opportunity of a lifetime for an amazing picture simply because I didn't want to bother with a camera and enjoy the experience for myself for just a little bit longer.

Reflection on "The photographer’s Eye"

The thing that I thought was interesting about the reading the author broke down five problems that photographers faced and sometime still face. The two that really stuck out to me where “The thing Itself” and “Vantage Pont.” The reason that I really like these section’s are because it had me think about things that I had not realized. In “The Thing Itself” the part that got me thinking was how a photograph is thought about and why are you taking the picture, and also how people believed that the picture that they are looking at has to be true and the world you see with your eye can not be true because a picture never lies. And when thinking about this in today’s terms it is still true, when shown a picture of a celebrity they think that that person has to look that way and that is the way to look. Or when people see other images such as war or anything that people can change the image or the context people believe that image to be true even though it can be altered. When looking at the section called “Vantage Point” I thought it was interesting how the author had mentioned the photography has a kind of power on writers and painters. When looking at paintings over the years you can kind of tell how photography has had an effect on how the artists have changed the way they decide to lay things out on the canvas and the different brush strokes they use. There are many people who are able to get their hands on a camera now and can document a moment in time that they think is important. Some people will just take a picture and not think about why they want to take that exact image at that time. Photography is something that is something that has come a long way in the past 50 years and there are still artistic techniques that are being discovered. Even though there are new things that are coming out there is a lot that we can learn from the history of photographer’s.

Response to The Photographer's Eye

I enjoyed the part in the introduction, where Szarkowski states, "If photography was a new artistic proble, such men [non-artists recently discovering the camera] had the advantage of having nothing to unlearn." It must be great to be handed a medium with no history of it's own and no real precedents to uphold. Everything you could think to do with it could be considered ground-breaking.
It made me think how influenced I have been by the photographs, even films, that I have seen since I was born. From Orson Welles, tilting the camera up towards the ceiling in Citizen Kane, to David Bradford shooting stills from the driver seat of his New York City taxi, to family portraits and snapshots by friends and to the digitial airbrushing on magazine covers. We certainly are not the first generation to have to come to photography with something to unlearn.

This reading also reminded me heavily of the text by Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: the extensions of man. Szarkowski mentions the possible influence of the use of frame in photography on late-nineteenth century painters and the West's appreciation of Japanese and Chinese arts, particularly printing. This is one way in which McLuhan would talk about the medium of photography being the message. It is not the subjects any particular photographs, but the underlying nature of the form photographs take, which created this influence. This is just related to the aspect of the frame, completely aside from the effect the ability to make instant images had.

I also found the statement, "If photographys could not be read as stories, they could be read as symbols," interesting in the context of documentary photography. I think this was in some ways evident in the images we talked about on Monday. We were able to create narratives around the images; we were reading into them, rather than from them. In this way, they acted as symbols. Symbols of struggle, of solitude, adventure, ostracization, celebration, but never accounts or recollections of them- that is, unless we were there when it was happening.

I am a camera...

“I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking. Recording the man shaving at the window opposite and the woman in her kimono washing her hair. Someday, all this will have to be developed, carefully printed, fixed.”

-Christopher Isherwood (Goodbye to Berlin)



In his introduction to the catalog of the exhibition, The Photographer’s Eye, John Szarkowski talks about the history of photography, and photography in the present day. Szarkowski says that “ The invention of photography provided a radically new picture-making process --a process based not on synthesis but on selection” he says that “paintings were made—constructed from a storehouse of traditional schemes and skills and attitudes—but photographs, as the man on the street put it, were taken.” When photography first came about, it radically changed the art world. A creative issue of a new order was raised; “how could this mechanical and mindless process be made to produce pictures meaningful in human terms – pictures with clarity and coherence and a point of view?” How could photography be art? As photography grew and technology advanced, this question became even more important. With the creation of dry plate photography, snapshot photography, and much later the digital camera, photography became available to everyone, artist or not.

Everyone takes photographs (most people have a digital camera on their phone), so what makes a photograph art? Is a photograph art? I do believe that photography can be a fine art. Anyone can take a picture, but not everyone can take a good picture. Not everyone can create art with a camera. It is the photographers that pay attention to the thing they are photographing, the detail, the frame, time, and vantage point, that make art. It is the photographers who do not merely document the physical, but also the emotional and metaphysical, that create not just photographs, but art. Anyone can take a picture by pressing a button, but not everyone can be Richard Avedon, Annie Leibowitz, Christopher Makos, or Terry Richardson.

My goal in this class is to not simply just observe the physical and capture it with my camera. My goal is to be the camera, to be constantly observing, tuning into not just the physical presence of the subject of my photograph, but also into the very essence of the subject. I want to capture not only the outer beauty of my subject, but also the inner. I do not want to just point and click.

"The Photographer's Eye" (Blog 1)

The Photographer's Eye

John Szarkowski

The article entitled, The Photographer’s Eye" truly gives the reader a wide array of what it means to be a photographer. The author does a nice job of referencing photographers from the earlier years, when photography was in its earliest stages. I found this to be quite refreshing. A little bit of my background is in order.

I was born in 1989, digital photography hadn't quite hit the market yet. When I was young I was into expeditions of taking pictures, I had a point and shoot type of camera. As I grew older I was aloud to use my families instant camera. At the time my brain could not have imagined technology and the advancements that would be made in my lifetime and many at that before I turned 16 years old. It wasn't until I was a freshman in high school, when I was in my first photography class, I had my first experience with a digital camera. The entire concept was so foreign to me. I found a liking to it. Lots of research later and with the help of my photography teacher, I purchased my very own digital camera. Soon, I was finding myself being excused from class to take pictures for the high school’s yearbook and I wasn't even in Photojournalism class. My innocence of being a child and early adulthood brings me to precisely my point which I see in the article.

Technology is continuing to be developed everyday. There is always something better than the last on the market. However, the things that do not change is history. History does not necessarily repeat itself as it does in other matters. History however is one thing we as photographers can cherish for a lifetime. The beautiful thing about photography is a photograph if preserved correctly, it can last a lifetime. Art in itself is also beautiful, but its so time consuming and not everyone can draw or have time to draw. A camera and developing is inexpensive these days. This is why so many people have picked up a camera and began shooting pictures. Surely there is a big difference between an amateur and professional but the memories of the picture attained will be preserved forever. A picture is more than an illusion as the past consensus says in the article. The photograph is real. Photograph's can, "...only record it as he found it" (Szarkowski 3) and in doing so whether on accident or purposively it creates a piece of art.

KT

THOUGHTS

Any thoughts on this...? What do you think the title is?

This image was made by the artist Dean Kessmann
2005, digital pigment print, 34 x 24 inches, edition: 2

WELCOME

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the ODU Art and Design Photography blog, a central hub for thought, ideas, images, stories, questions, concerns, and any other important information that may need to be shared. Please use openly.

For Art 116 students, please remember that Monday project one will be due with final contact sheets of your first roll. We will begin our discussions about the history of photography and documentation as art. Project 2 along with your first theory reading will be handed out.

For Wednesday you will need your first roll for in class technical demonstrations.