REMEMBER: The aim of Part One is to help you engage in the debate about ‘photography and truth’.
A photograph of an event is no more reliable as a source of evidence of said event that took place than is our own memory or recollection of what took place. Just because the photograph has a physicality about it, does not mean that what it shows is the truth. At best we can say it is a version of a truth.
What we are presented with is just a snapshot of a moment in time, and not only this but a specific location within the timeframe.
That is to say, that the person taking the photograph will have had his own agenda, whether that be determined by his own political persuasion, or who he is working for, his own involvement within the ‘event’ or in basic terms what he whats his audience to believe. Prior to creating this snapshot, the photographer will decide on the general location, more specifically what will and won’t appear within the frame of the shot, the exact time at which the shutter is depressed, and what, if any, accompanying text there will be. The viewer will also be persuaded by the ‘mode of transport’ in which it appears. A good example of this would be whether a photograph of a Prime Minister was going to appear in a Labour publication or a Conservative publication. This example is very simplified, but in polarising it, make the understanding very clear.
Objectivity: A lack of bias and opinion, formed only of fact. Given that somebody has to operate a camera, the declaration of objectivity is fundamentally flawed from the onset. Even a placed camera with time lapse and remote shutter operation still has to be placed in position, by somebody with a reason to take photos.
With this in mind, photographs are only able to support evidence in court. A person cannot be convicted by a photograph as provided as evidence! This really puts into perspective the ‘strength’ (or lack) of what a photograph gives us as fact!
In the case of The Farm Security Administration (FSA), set up in the USA to try to help recovery from the Great Depression, the agency employed among others, Dorothea Lange. Even with her intentions for promoting the greater good, still was not able to see the distilled truth, believing in herself to take an unbiased image. She said “to know ahead of time what you’re looking for means you’re then only photographing your own preconceptions , which is very limiting” I think that because she saw that the work/employer that she was working for was a fundamentally good cause, then her bias should be overlooked.
Also in the case of photographer Lewis Hines, he believed that photography should be a vehicle for social reform. This is an identical situation to the one presented above.
We must maintain clarity of vision, and not allow it to be blurred by the thought of championing the force of ‘good’, as this will leave us with an image that is no more reliable or truthful than any image that has been constructed for whatever purpose.
Of Photojournalism: Susan Sontag raises the point of ‘Compassion fatigue’. This being that we are so used to horror and suffering, both as a result of war and social & political violence, that we become numbed to it. One could be forgiven for saying that the obvious is being stated here. However, I think that we (as human beings) have travelled so far down this road, and now, do we not only ‘not see the suffering’ but many (of the young) are not even aware of the suffering, as it hasn’t been passed down to them as knowledge, because we (the older), have forgotten about it because it hasn’t registered significantly on our conscience!
Of Aftermath and aesthetics: In the photo journalists search for ever more ways of attracting attention to their work, or an increase in the sales of the journal they work for, they have stumbled upon the technique of the quiet or contemplative image. The aftermath image. When the rockets and bullets have gone, what is the impact (Poignantly on us, or physically on the bricks and mortar). This could have led in part to the Compassion fatigue that Sontag talks of. As we thumb quickly through the newspaper whilst waiting for the train, if our eye isn’t caught by horror images then we move on by (ultimately to the sport section at the back!).
The flip side of this is that if images that are not horror based they can be produced and collectively shown in a gallery, then they are open to the masses, without fear of offence. This can lead to later contemplation, and registering of the accompanying horrors.
Of Reportage: reportage | ˌrɛpɔːˈtɑːʒ, rɪˈpɔːtɪdʒ | noun [mass noun] the reporting of news by the press and the broadcasting media: extensive reportage of elections. • the factual, journalistic presentation of an account in a book or other text: the area where fiction borders with reportage. ORIGIN early 17th century: French, from Old French reporter ‘carry back’ (see report).
So, even the Oxford English dictionary is unclear, to the point of contradiction! It tells us that it is factual (without quantifying). It then says that it shares a boundary with fiction.
Before I was even thinking seriously about photography, reportage suggested to me a more ‘feet on the ground’ style of journalism. Knowing what I do now, I think that to be an accurate interpretation. That said, it does imply (to me) that it is less factually based, due to the very nature of its spontaneity. In a nutshell, it is about reporting on what is happening right now, with no time to try to be mindfully objective, more based on intuition. In a way this is more truthful in delivery than anything premeditated, as it is a gut reaction.
Taking the photograph in a reportage ‘environment’ is one thing, but actually spotting the opportunity is a very different skill indeed. The reason that Nan Goldin was able to produce such a high volume of such style images was because she integrated to an extreme level, living as it were with her prey, and being ‘one of them’.
Martin Parr can still be classed as Great Britain’s vanguard when it comes to street photography. Parr, now in his late sixties is as active as he was almost fifty years ago when he first studied photography at Manchester Polytechnic. Currently working out of Bristol, he opened the Martin Parr Foundation in 2014, which houses his own constantly expanding body of works. Parr has also been a member of Magnum Photos since 1988, including being the president between the years of 2014-2017. That said, it hasn’t all been easy. When he applied for full membership of Magnum Photos back in 1994, he exceeded the minimum votes required by one!
To achieve his style of ultra intense colour images, he uses a combination of cheap film (Fuji ISO400 Superior) and a ring flash to increase saturation and decrease shadow (on close-up work). This way of working enhances Parr’s ‘Ironic eye’ and enables him to force us to see the dichotomies and juxtapositions that exist especially within our ‘Englishness’, and American excess. The image below clearly depicts somebody who’s posture and choice of attire portrays an air of confidence and self importance, clearly feeling that he looks good. What we see is something very different, brash, flash and gross.
Martin Parr, Common Sense (1995–1999)
Again below, we see another one of his themes that work so well with the cheap film and ring flash. Blind to our own gluttony we see morbidly obese people ramming disgustingly saturated food into their mouth. The irony being that the very thing that gives them pleasure is the same thing that makes them miserable when they look in the mirror. The saturated colours that Parr’s style brings out in his images mirrors that of the saturated food he is photographing.
GB. ENGLAND. New British. Ramsgate. 1996. by Martin Parr, Real Food. London: Phaidon, 2016.
Having desaturated the coloured image (and tweaked the contrast & brightness to give some structure) your eye finds nothing to focus on, whereas in the coloured original version, the eye has a definite journey. The colour image also conveys or suggests much more. It suggests grease, oil, saturation and general unhealthiness. Martin Parr’s work is extremely clever, and encapsulates and stimulates our senses. The images shout at you, treating you like you are stupid (If I shout louder, surely you’ll understand!), forcing you to look, then dragging your eye forcibly from one assault to the next.
Obviously, chronologically, black & white photos came before colour, and therefore there is an inherent association of age with B&W images, almost a patina (B&W images produced today are not usually associated with age). Martin Parr’s use of colour reflects the age we now live in where everything is loud and gaudy to attract attention. What he is doing is amplifying what he sees daily. To me he is showing us the seven deadly sins; Pride, Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and Sloth.
The way Parr’s work comes across is the antithesis of earlier black & white street photography. Yes there is often a central subject matter, but there are usually many subtleties that reward those that care to read the black & white images with intent.
Regarding my 30 colour & 30 B&W images. As an ensemble, the images all come together to give a feel of having covered ‘what the street is about’, which under the given circumstances is really what ‘reportage’ style photography would provide. There is no incident or activity which needs to be covered, no truth to be told!
On recollection the B&W images were a lot harder to get and required much more thought , planning, and a keener eye. When they were successful, they were more rewarding than the colour ones. However, the colour images felt much more like I was ‘shooting from the hip’ and when I got my eye in was able to raise and shoot without worrying too much. I think the images themselves show that I had more fun taking them, and the reward came from having spotted the things that would ordinarily have gone unnoticed in an already colourful town.
Overall I think that the B&W images show a ‘grimier’ side of Minehead, whereas the colour ones give it a more lighthearted feel. When prepping for the colour ones, I had it in my mind to look for the Martin Parr type of shot, and I feel as though I did achieve this. With the colour images, they were easier to find and frame given the style I had in mind.
Regarding Sarah Pickering’s work:
With no introduction, the first image we see is Denton Underground Station, 2003. I don’t think that Pickering is trying to lead us on a journey of discovery or realisation. It is clear from the onset that these images, solely based on the first image, are not of a ‘real’ place. However there is a less obvious journey to be had, and it is that of working out why they are not real. With each image I could not help but play some strange ‘Spot the Difference’.
Having grown up through the seventies, I was constantly reminded of the Northern Ireland conflict. With each image, names and places came back to me; Bogside, Falls Road, Sinn Fein, Shankill Road, Bloody Sunday, Rev. Ian Paisley, Martin McGuinness. The list is endless. The whole series also awoke memories of feelings! Having grown up in a suburban/rural environment, I remember the feeling of seeing these youths apparently having fun, and daring their elders (the militia) to chase them, taunting them by throwing projectiles at them. The young me (up to the age of about 13) yearned for this thrill seeking life, running down dark alleys, jumping over walls at the end of blind alleys. It was the natural progression from climbing trees & scrumping apples. All of these images have a foreboding feel to them. This may be brought about by the absence of people. These images set the mind to wander and explore the potential scenarios that may be played out on these streets. As I now look back over N. Ireland images forty years on, I see our history with adult eyes, as a parent.
Peter Marlow/Magnum
Riots in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Property of Empire Publications
Property of Getty Images
Is Public Order an effective use of documentary or is it misleading?
In many ways Pickering’s work is reminiscent of Paul Seawright’s work.
We can look at documentary images as art, but can we look at art as documentary? No, it is a one way street. This helps us to get closer to the root/crux of the question. If this work has been exhibited at the Tate Modern, does it make it art, within something else to say, or does it say more about the Tate? Is the Tate just about art? Where do they draw the line, and is the line straight?
The real and the digital’
Well, Liz. (2009) Photography: Critical Introduction (4th Edition). Abingdon: Routledge, pp.73-75.
Does digital technology change how we see photography as truth?
Why has it taken until now for us to seriously address the issues of what a photograph actually is. As we know, photographs have been manipulated since just after the dawn of photography itself! Photography has never been purveyor of truth, yet it has taken us one hundred and sixty years to really get to grips with the basic questions that we have ignored. In our defence, it is no different from musing as to why the motor vehicle of the 1930’s looked the way it did; surely it would be obvious that streamlining would give it an improved top speed, not to mention an aesthetic beauty. Literally, we cannot run before we can walk! We have to go through a process of learning and understanding one natural step at a time. In the 1980’s & 90’s, tabloids such as Sunday Sport regularly front paged headlines such as ‘Bus found buried at South pole’ & ‘World War 2 Bomber found on Moon’.
Clearly these were meant as tongue in cheek fake news. Yet it has taken us another 15-20 years to question where these extrapolated circumstances have lead us to. Just because these images were clearly not truths, surely at that point we should have seen where technology was leading us, and the questions it was going to provoke. Nevertheless, just because the lid of Pandora’s box is officially open, this does not erase what has gone before, the credibility of photography should still remain. We are often guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and this is a very good example. When it became common knowledge that models curves had been enhanced, the world started to say ‘if that, then what else. What can we believe?’. What it has meant is that we now have to think for our selves and interpret what we are confronted with when we open a newspaper or go online. There is no harm in this surely. In fact being self trained to be more skeptical of what we see and read is surely a giant leap forward in the growth of man. As a linear process, what is happening is that man has accrued enough information about photography to now have an overview of a much fuller landscape and therefore more datum points from which we can set standards and create frameworks for putting into perspective what has gone before and what will come to pass. I think that we have always known that a photograph is only a moment in time, and that what is presented is, intentionally or not, subjectively, it cannot be anything but. These facts are fundamental and the route to arriving at them is not a complex one. Once this is accepted then the way in which we view all images is much clearer.
Sunday Sport was not trying to dupe anybody, and so the masses were happy with that. Did the man on the street take umbrage at the fact that the model he then looked at on the next page has had her curves ‘enhanced’ or her blemishes and wrinkles removed? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody was out of pocket, and nobody’s life was compromised. If, on the next page an article is then written and supported with images, and this article is intended to mislead, dupe or con, does this change the overall view of the newspaper itself? Quite possibly. Finally, if a photograph is presented in a competition and has had the exposure increased by a step or two, to bring out the detail better, Is this acceptable? As small an adjustment as it is, if it is within the rules of the competition then yes it is accepted & acceptable. Fundamentally it is the attempts to deceive that rankle with us, and because of the advances is in technology (and therefore greater and easier duplicity) we now have to be on our guard much more.
Thanks to the writings of John Berger, John Szarkowski, Susan Sontag and Roland Barthes, to name but a few, we have been given the tools to see through the smoke and mirrors and are better equipped to read images more accurately.
I read Sontag’s On Photography about eight years ago, and either disagreed with or didn’t understand almost everything that was said. Having reread it recently, everything is so much clearer. Barthes’ works are still quite a challenge, but do give a solid platform from which to try to understand photography, in particular ‘documentary’ photography. I used to think that the ‘art’ of it was to capture all of the important information within the four sides of the image, and where this wasn’t possible then, within the series of images. Now that I understand that all images are just a version of the truth, seen through the lens of one persons camera, I also see that good journalism should leave us asking more questions than have been answered. Not only that, but also the supporting narrative should explain the wider circumstances and what is happening beyond the picture presented.
There are many styles or forms of photography, and as we move forward, each generation is seeking to ‘discover’ the ‘new’ style. I think that we are at the stage of style development whereby to generate something new and eye-catching or original, we are just filling in the gaps! Take wedding photos; once upon a time it was enough to have ‘wedding photos’, now, the quest for a unique style has meant that this has bled into reportage wedding style, documentary wedding style and goodness knows what else. My point is; There are no longer any definitive genres, every genre bleeds into and distorts another.
If we go back, there was a time when we could clearly define styles or genres. Documentary had clear objectives, which were to present and inform on a factual basis. Usually in black and white, we think of wars and significant events in history. Reportage photography is really a first generation deviation from Documentary. It seeks to record events but presents them in a much more relaxed style. Reportage images give off a feeling of time and planning, and have much more artistic content. Photojournalism, as the name suggests, is closely tied to the world of news, and so can be said to sit somewhere between documentary and reportage. It has the seriousness of documentary, but the artistic slants of reportage. Finally Art photography is the errant sibling, the wild child that is free to go and explore, push the boundaries and demonstrate how to “Have no limitations as your limitations” (Bruce Lee). The more structured and controlled images are often deemed to be in the subcategory of Fine art.
I see! 