Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On May 29, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Robert Baron wrote: > An interesting point of view, Jayanand, and to be honest not one I had > really considered before you raised it. Maybe that is because her > photographs ring true to me as depictions of the culture I am part of, but > I'll need to think about that some more. > > Even the photographs she made of cultures I am not familiar with have the > ring of truth to them, in my opinion, and I now think about the war zone > photographs of shooters like James Nachtwey and wonder if they need > captions and if not why not? Would you think Salgado's famous photographs > of the gold mine or of the train station need text? An argument can be > made that some things should allow for use of the viewer's imagination - or > sense of investigation if the viewer wants to learn more about the subject. > > Educators trying to teach students (or trial lawyers like me trying to > teach a jury) will say you should not spoon feed every bit of information > to the audience but leave some for the audience to figure out; it is better > learned and retained that way. Should that maxim also apply to > documentary/documenting photography? > > Again: you raise an interesting point and I'm going to think about it. > ===On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at > gmail.com >> wrote: > >> Bob, >> Interesting. TFS. >> >> What struck me is that most of the pictures have no emotional impact for >> me, like the girls in the gang on the street, without her narration, as I >> am not steeped in the nitty gritties of US culture. Goes against what Kyle >> says that one of her tenets was, about not having a caption. I think that >> is valid when you have a mono cultural, homogenous viewership for your >> work, but once you have a cross cultural audience, a little explanation, >> like a caption, is invaluable to create the emotional impact! Of course, >> this observation is for the sort of photographs that she took, and >> obviously would apply to a much lesser extent for nature/wildlife and that >> sort of thing, but even there, giving the frame "a local habitation and a >> name" does help in pulling the viewer emotionally into the frame. >> >> My two bits! A few points: Watching still photographs appear and disappear with audio narration and subtitles will have a totally different effect on my "emotional" response than holding a print in my hands or standing in front of a framed photograph in a gallery or museum; or even on a computer screen. Seeing any of her "essays" in book or magazine form also creates an entirely different "emotional" response ? in me. One must also have enough interest and time to look and allow a work of art to work on our emotions. In these days when we look at hundreds of photographs per day, as well as videos, films, etc. Do we really give the works the time they may deserve? Then there is, of course, which subjects may or may not interest us, personally. In many ways I have more interest in her "Body of Work" and personal style, than any one image. Although there certainly are more than a few singular images which to reach the high water mark of "iconic." Though which reach this mark will always vary from viewer to viewer? with some overlap. Regards, George Lottermoser http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist