Recently been hospitalised following a heart scare that rather put a dampener on active photography. However it did give me a chance to read the above book [Thames and Hudson 1981]. The book illustrates the problems faced by anyone who attempts to explain the history of photography by selecting those photographers who are seen to represent a particular area of photography or a particular approach or even trying to place a photographer as being of a particular type. There necessarily has to be a selection that supports the view that is being put forward and, by definition, selection ignores/rejects other examples of a particular photographer's work that don't quite fit.
Photography is subjective and selective from the start. What is 'seen' and photographed and what is excluded is solely at the discretion of the photographer even where there is an agreed assignment. What is submitted for publication is a further selection and what is published is a final selection. To emphasise this selective process what is seen and understood by the viewer may be far from that intended originally. For example on p 183 of the book there is the image by Kersetz of his entitled "On the Quais Paris" that was published in Day of Paris (New York 1945).For me it is a simple composition that illustrates the difference in the style of dress between the man in the bowler hat and the two men walking towards us in flat caps. I do not 'see' any fear in the man with the bowler hat at the approach of the other two men and yet in the narrative the author writes
"Some of his subjects are prey to passing fears: a bowler-hatted gent grasps a stout stick behind his back against two approaching cloth caps on a Paris quai in 1926." [ p 182]
Either interpretation or hundreds of others may be correct but the narrative suggests that the author makes his interpretation purely on his view of class - the bowler-hatted man is a "gent" but the other two men are just "cloth caps"as though they are of a sub-human species that are prone to attacking others. From this observation he reaches the conclusion that some of the subjects of Kersetz's photography are prey to a passing fear. The reader is guided towards a particular view that, I would, suggest, is poorly supported.
I found the book uneven in its approach and was more indicative of the author's views than an objective study of the history of photography. It was an interesting insight into the thinking of the author but I am not sure why I needed to know that.
No comments:
Post a Comment