[Leica] Politics and photography

["Doug Richardson" <doug@meditor.demon.co.uk>]

Greg Locke <locke@straylight.ca> wrote:

>A quote from Phillip Jones Griffiths, Magnum.

>"...to me there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are
making
>some comment on the incongruities in life. That is what photography
is all
>about. It is the only reason for doing it."



... while Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:

>I cannot conceive of a truly apolitical life. This is bound to ooze
over into our photography.


Marc,
When I attacked these statements by yourself and Phillip Jones
Griffiths, I criticising not your beliefs, but the fact that these
were being presented as apparent dogma which apply to all
photographers and all acts of picture-taking.

However, it was rude of me to use the term "BS", so I will withdraw it
and apologise for having used it.

Instead, I will say that I believe the two statements to be
generalisations which fail to take into account the wide spectrum of
picture-making activities we can describe as "photography", the
motives which cause different people to take pictures, and the range
of what may or may not be considered politics.

For Mr Griffiths, the goal of picture-making may have been to make
"some comment on the incongruities in life", but for him to suggest
that this motive is the only valid reason for pressing the shutter
release is absurd. Did Mr Griffiths never take a few quick pictures
just to test a new lens or camera?  Or some snapshots to please
friends or relations?

It’s fair for you to say "I cannot conceive of a truly apolitical
life."  This view may well "ooze over" into your photography, or into
many people’s photography, but you phrased it as "our photography"
which in context I can only take as meaning photographers
collectively. This photographer is opting out of the collective.

I guess these whole issue is partly about what each of us - and by
implication each individual member of the LUG – regards as
"photography" and "politics".

Replying to a posting by "Gary D. Whalen" <whalen@whalentennis.com>,
Jim Hurtubise <jim@inap.com> commented that "For you maybe photography
is nothing but a hobby and pastime, but there are many
photojournalists and others on this list who want to make photographs
that have meaning and the power to move others emotionally." I hope he
’s not implying that having photography has "a hobby and pastime" is
somehow second-rate. If he is, how are we to classify photographers
who use the camera simply as a recording instrument - a ‘photocopier’
for the three-dimensional world? How about press photographers?
Wedding photographers? Or scientists who photograph atomic spectra,
starfields, or microscope specimens? Did the first-ever photo of the
planet Pluto have less significance for the human race than
"photographs that have meaning and the power to move others
emotionally"?

I’m a technical journalist, and many of the photos I take are simply
aide-memoires - I see a new product I’ll need to describe in an
article, so I pull out my Leica and take some photos of it, maybe a
front view, side view, a close-up of any interesting features, and a
general view which might to used to illustrate the final news story.
Most of these photos are just a way of reducing the amount of detailed
notes I need to make, and taking them is a mechanical task a bit like
using the office photocopier. OK, so I’ll take care to get the
exposure and focus right, and to avoid an cluttered background, but
these are just basic skills - the equivalent of making sure my
handwritten notes are legible. There’s no creativity or
self-expression involved, yet I still consider myself a photographer.

If the term "photographer" covers a wide range of skills and
activities, then the term "politics" is even harder to pin down. When
in Paris last summer on business I took a photo of one of the breed
winner at the main French dog show. I can’t see where there is any
political content to that picture, or "comment on the incongruities in
life". In my terms it’s an apolitical photo – little more than a
snapshot taken at the request of a friend. "Animal liberationists" who
disapprove of people owing pet animals would see it as a political
act.

So to return to your statement "I cannot conceive of a truly
apolitical life. This is bound to ooze over into our photography"– I’d
suggest that what you’re saying is that what you (and perhaps many
others) see as politics influences what you (and perhaps many others)
see as photography. With this thesis I have no quarrel, since it
allows the equally valid corollary that what I (and perhaps many
others) see as politics may have little or no influence on what I (and
perhaps many others) see as photography.


Regards,
Doug Richardson