Alexander Norton: July 2009

Monday 27 July 2009

Bronica ETRSi

My latest addition that I'm really exited to shoot with.

Field

I went to a field down near beggarwood, where I took some shots when it was thick snow. This was the snow result earlier this year

Wednesday 15 July 2009

Having read an essay written by German photographer Marco Bohr, on the topic of documentary photography and all its beautiful angles. It has made me question why someone took the picture and not made a stand there and then. An example could be that a starving child on a bed begging for water, when the photographer could potentially help that child, but they take the picture instead. Has the search for the documentary image come at a cost? I remember looking at a documentary image in a book once, and it had someone about to be shot. I thought to myself, ‘why didn’t that photographer make a stand and say no’, if there close enough to take a picture with a standard lenses, they must have some way of changing that situation so there is no need to document the horrible happening. What is worrying me is that, I am focusing on a career that is based (sometimes) on the unfortunate happenings of others, and I am potentially making my living off peoples misfortune. Further more, I am exposing possibly private information about these people as my career, not like a celebrity photographer, but the pictures I take could potentially be exposed to thousands of viewers. I am just the fly on the wall. I have no say in the disaster so in a way that makes my potential job very important to raise awareness, but as a young person, I need to grow up along with the people/events I photograph. I would not be old enough to experience the terror of war, but I want to show people through what I do best, photography. I look at images of starving people, and I gasp and it sometimes upsets you, but I do not act. I do not donate to my local charity which could help. I almost look away. But the scary thing is these images are beautiful, they are beautifully composed and visually beautiful but it is a horrible happening. I don’t think you should glorify war, or any tragedy. For most people, they don’t want to relive the terrible parts in their life, so why should I make my career and life earnings from peoples misfortune. What is a photographer but the people he photographs? I am the people I photograph because I have taken the time to take a look at these people and study them to create this ‘beautiful’ documentary. At first the documentary image to my mind was a reportage image. But as I have read and talked to people, its the context that really matters. You could have a terrible image, but if it was taken second before a major event it is a documentary photograph. But it isn’t a photographer’s job to produce bad images, it is their job to consider exposure, depth of field, composition to almost create a piece of art. So perhaps the problem is the fact people are not acting from these images, and they need to. The article has made me think hard about what kind of photographer I aspire to be, and to consider the story from their side before I start shooting their misfortune. Photography is a brilliant way to expose certain issues; an issue I am very interested in is black cultures and especially the UK grime scene and people inspired by this music. Where these people live, what they do and where they want to go. You see, i don’t see photographing them as taking advantage of their misfortune because my photography has the potential to help these people and show the world who they are and what mark they want to make in the world. If I photograph a starving child, I am effectively the hierarchy and I am abusing that power. Although the world needs to understand horrible things happen in the world, and photography and film is the only way of providing proof I believe the photographer should always consider what is best for the subject and how that photograph could change their situation. Photography is a blessing, but at the same time it can be seen as a curse. I agree with Marco Bohr that:

Although I consider photography being a form of art the product of a documentary photograph may never be reduced to a piece of art. As soon as documentary photography resolves in beautiful pictures, assuming that art is what is presented as beautiful, we have a nice picture of a horrible situation, which reduces the importance of that situation. – Marco Bohr

I also agree that the documentary image is a saw area for the people involved and shouldn’t be taken lightly.

http://www.macobo.com/ <--- see for article which inspired me to write this.

15^th July 2009 23:55

documentary photography - thoughts

I am a little stuck as I like the documentary image, but I feel there is a fundamental difference between the documentary image and the photojournalism image, correct me if I’m wrong. but people like Robert Frank, are not necessarily showing the photojournalism image but a photo with a narrative or message which is put through with artistic use of the camera, where as photojournalism seems to be as it is, although carefully composed but its more about the content as apposed to the message behind the parts of the photographs...

just a thought.

On thinking of the documentary image, I have concluded the documentary image is somewhat biased to that photographers certain opinions on the subject he is photographing. This could be down to how the photographer has to get the shot, it is not just a snap of a fleeting moment, or decisive moment in the world of today but it is a reflection of the photographer, who they are and what kind of person they are. If the subjects appear to be open toward the camera, you would expect the photographer to be a friendly character, thus perhaps taking the element of truth from the photograph. If the photographer likes what they are capturing they are more likely to create an image made up in their mind of what they believe would represent the subject. When approaching a photojournalistic image, there is not emotional attachment between the subjects as it is just a fleeting moment in time, made possible by the situation. The documentary photographer has to be there at the right time for the fleeting moment, where as a photojournalist, traditionally as a news photographer, is presented with the opportunity to get that moment in time as it is their job to share that moment with the world. Photographers like Robert Frank, Richard Billingham and Diane Arbus had to create their own fleeting moments through people who wouldn’t necessarily attract a news photojournalist. The photographs printed in ‘the times’ or ‘the independent’ are designed to sum up the story, however the documentary photographer needs the photograph to speak louder than perhaps the article in the newspaper as the image in their work is the dominant purpose of that person. The emotional attachment to that photograph for the documentary photographer is greater, perhaps, than a photojournalist that has been sent off to get the shot for a salary. In my opinion, the documentary image is vague, which is what makes it so appealing, it is a clean canvas for you to photograph who ever you like in anyway that suits them, however the journalistic image is much more clean cut, the subject has been decided for them and they are there to record the events, to be a fly on the wall. As I know it, the documentary image and the journalistic image are the same, they both capture the truth, however when thinking about it, I discovered a big difference between the likes of the opinionated photographers of the fifties, such as Robert Frank who are out to shoot for a purpose, something that they feel represents them. In a way it is a look at the photographer at times. I find it difficult to decide what aspect of this genre I find most appealing, as I am inspired by both sides. Although Photojournalism has more money and job opportunities, the documentary image is something done off your own back, you do the planning and you get your work out there for publishing. It could be seen as a personal mission as apposed to being sent to a certain location to capture Obama’s speech in Washington. Both sides of the genre are appealing and both have opportunity to travel, I just see it a shame to discard some of the aesthetics to create a truthful image. I am not too inspired by images with no hidden meaning or contextual truth behind them; instead I am inspired by hard hitting, truthful images of the aesthetic sort. There is certainly a market for photojournalists out there, as everyday something monumental happens in our world and people are needed to capture those moments. There is not an urgency to capture the ordinary, or a lifestyle, only in the niche magazines. A prime example of this is William Eggleston, his work on the ordinary aspects of the American lifestyle have helped capture the truth in a beautiful way using beautiful colours. Whether or not the truth is biased is difficult to say, whether the photographer has created an idea in his head that he is basing his project on, shooting to a similar context.

I feel to capture the truth; you need to approach the situation with a neutral standing point, knowing enough about the subject but not too much so much so you are creating the image which sums up the personality and nature of the subject of the photograph instead of telling the truth. Knowing too much could cloud your judgement. However I don’t like that idea, I think getting to know your subject makes the images all that more rewarding.

TIME: 3:21am 9^th May 09