Mark Selinger (MS) was joined by Martin Schoeller (MSch), Photographer, and Matthew Modine (MM), Actor and Director, for this programme. I noted points of interest (to me) that occurred throughout the programme and then considered them later. I find that so much is talked about in this sort of programme that there is a tendency to miss the import of particular statements that have occurred in general conversation.
MM made the comment about simplicity of an image. He argued that by looking at the work of a photographer over that person's lifetime it is possible to detect a reduction of things within the images arguing that the aim is to get it down to the simplest gesture - the thing that best portrays the message that the photographer wishes to convey. He further suggested that the less things you have the greater the possibilities of what you put on the paper. On closer examination this statement appears paradoxical - most photographers include more than they think they will need in order to capture the essence they are seeking and have room to compose the picture in development. Equally what is a 'thing' is not necessarily something upon which all would agree.
During the programme a close up photograph of the actor Jack Nicholson was shown. Essentially it was just the actor's face so, at one level, there was only one 'thing'. At another level there was the individual elements of a face (eyes, nose, mouth) but as we drilled down into the picture individual bristles, wrinkles and skin blemishes became important. The number of 'things' increased to be almost innumerable yet each was important to the overall impact. As often the case in human portraiture the eyes were the part that conveyed the greater part of the message. It was the detail within the eyes that provided that impact and there condition and appearance offered us many clues about the person. Within a relatively small part of the overall image there was a multitude of 'things' that provided us with clues. It was far from 'simple' although at first glance it was just a face.
It is worth asking the question whether my interpretation of the image was influenced by my limited knowledge of the subject. I recognised the person immediately from having seen him in films, television programmes and reading about him in the media. Was this prior knowledge a 'filter' through which I saw the image and by which I attempted to fit what I saw with what I knew? Later in the programme a photograph of Richard Altman was shown and MS described as being "a picture of a troubled soul." I have only the vaguest idea of who is Richard Altman. I have no idea whether he is a troubled soul or not and certainly this was not the message I received from what I saw. What we see is a product of what we see when presented with an image and the prior knowledge we have about the subject matter. We will always attempt to fit the image into a schema even if we are unsure of the subject matter. There is no such thing as a virgin view.
Knowing the subject matter can be a barrier to us seeing what it is the photographer intended us to see. Equally knowing who the photographer is can be a barrier to seeing what is actually in the photograph.
In the programme MM talked about how the photographer creates an illusion by where the camera is pointed. When taking a photograph we ask ourselves - What is the story I wish to convey? Having decided the next question is - Where do I point the camera to 'grab' the detail/atmosphere that best portrays that story? Whilst I agree that this is a very positive way to approach photography what cannot be controlled is how the viewer interprets that image. What is within the frame of the photograph provides the opening chapter of a story that the viewer creates for herself. We create an imaginary world that lies outside the frame. For example in street photography we create a story for each of the characters that we see - why is the child crying; why is the man laughing; what are they saying to each other. Whatever the intention of the photographer that intention is unlikely to be understood by others in the way he wished.
No comments:
Post a Comment