“Photography investigates no deeper relief than surfaces. It is superficial, in the first sense of the word; it studies the shape and skin of things, that which can be seen.” – Tod Papageorge. Taken from ‘Core Curriculum: Writings on photography.’ ISBN 159711724. The essay was originally published in The Snapshot, a special issue of Aperture magazine (1974. Volume 19, number 1).
This is but a short excerpt from a larger passage, and it is important in its understanding that it is not taken out of context. Taken in isolation it is a statement of fact so obvious as to do a disservice to the writer. So to put it into context we need to have read what has gone before. The opening line declares “On Christmas morning my father was a photographer”. He goes on to describe the setting up and paraphernalia involved with creating a ‘informal snap’ (great big studio lights and all). What his father was creating was snapshots. This is galvanised by the line …. “for what the camera returned was always a surprise and a perfect gift ….”. He is telling us right here that his father, no matter how meticulous with his setting up, was relying on luck much more than technical knowledge born of experience. The snaps, when returned from the developer (some weeks/months later) would be customarily stuck into an album and put away for prosperity. It is conducted with the same spirit and non importance with which the images were taken in the first place. The word ‘snapshot’ in some ways sits in juxtaposition with the act of taking the image. The family snapshots are normally quite formal and organised “You stand there, and you stand next to him. A little this way, so as not to hide the tree”.
This is followed by a transitional sentence: “…..snapshots, but for photographers, they are like lightning or wild strawberries, sense affairs that strike but do not hold.” Having put forward the understanding of the snapshot, and how it holds an intimacy for the persons related to the particular images, this cannot transcend to that which the ‘photographer’ captures. Strip away the emotions of the related, and we start to get to the heart of what Papageorge is saying. He goes on to tell us that the fundamental difference is the photographers ‘sight and discipline’.
He goes on to mention Evans & ‘even’ Weston being ‘purer’ than the likes of Kertesz & HCB (Henri Cartier-Bresson). Ignoring Weston for the moment, I can only read into this that Papageorge puts Evans higher up the ‘Serious photographer’ hierarchy based on the content of his images. That is to say, they are much more of a record of things than an image composed and designed to provide pleasure (going back to the snapshot/album photographer). Reading between the lines, he sees Weston’s work as artistic, yet disciplined and tight, a sort of stepping stone towards HCB & Kertesz’ more lose and artistically driven images (a style brought about and driven by the invention/production of the small and lightweight, revolutionary Leica cameras).
“They point, they render, and defy the photographer who hopes.” Although not directly connected to what this essay is about, I feel this statement cuts to the chase. The camera is a machine that is created by and produces, according to the laws of science. Therefore, the photographer that ‘shoots and hopes’ will almost always be disappointed (Later he does briefly say “happy accidents do happen”) . The true reward is reaped by the professional who is able to produce the exact effect he wants by the application of earned knowledge and due diligence.
His very next sentence can be regarded as a dichotomy of the first. “It is superficial, in the first sense of the word; It studies the shape and skin of things, that which can be seen.” Now we get to the nub of it! Bearing in mind all that has gone before, no matter how brilliant, how observant or technically gifted a photographer is, what the camera produces as an end result is a two-dimensional image, picture, or pattern if you please. Look at any photograph you care to choose (3 dimensional, i.e. not a photo of a sheet of paper or a blank wall). You cannot see what is hidden, or what is round the corner or even beyond the thing ‘in the way’. The viewing of photographs, and the pleasure gained has a lot to do with the viewer’s imagination and the intimation crafted/created to imply, into the image by the photographer. The irony herein is what separates the results of the album photographer and the professional photographer, the difference between genius and madness (e.g. Dali or possibly Picasso) is a papers width.
Almost as a footnote he does mention, what climbers would call ‘being in the zone’. This can be likened to an out-of-body experience, whereby intuition takes over and thought and the mechanised processes fall away, leaving the mind free of the psychological impedance which would normally restrict or hold back the climber.
His final sentence brings us full circle with the age-old predicament of ‘form over content (or visa versa)’?
https://www.scribd.com/document/77729021/Core-Curriculum-by-Tod-Papa-George
I see! 