Re: [Leica] It's baaaaaaaaaaaack--and frooooont

[Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>]

I know that several peole on this list probably think I should butt out of
this discussion after recent events, and Brian can decide, but since this
goes to the pure core of what I do I feel the need to respond.


on 5/25/01 7:40 AM, Donna-Lee Phillips at dlp@pacific.net wrote:


> I think Alan's comparison
> of the compulsive photographer as a 'territory marker' is close to the
> mark.

Why are we tagging street photographers as compulsive? This is just a silly
generalisation and doesn't bear scrutiny. There are as many reflective and
romantic SPs as there are 'compulsive' landscape photographers.
> 
> But even closer, IMHO, is the fact that photography requires placing a
> barrier--the camera--between the photographer and the event--or life. To
> me the usefulness of the Leica has always been that it interposed the
> least intrusive or distancing barrier, since at least as I used it
> putting the tool in front of my face wasn't usually required to make a
> photograph. Photographing often replaces seeing in the moment, as we can
> always look at what was there when we get home and develop the film.

This camera-as-barrier metaphor is getting pretty tired. As is the
photography-as-rape one. Photography isn't remotely like rape... or at least
it is no more like rape than it is like dancing or smiling or gardening...
just as a camera isn't a barrier unless you allow it to become one. A camera
can unite, it can transcend, it can penetrate, it can celebrate, it can
write poems, it can express love, hate... it can be a bullhorn, a magic
wand, a magnet, a key, a flag, a target. But clunk, no, it's a barrier.

I hope we can put this one to rest soon.
> 
> If you doubt me, trying taking a trip somewhere you are certain you will
> not ever be able to visit again, and going without a camera.
> Cold-turkey. It's an extremely interesting discipline.

Well, I do this all the time. I *certainly* don't feel any kind of cold
turkey being without a camera. As I said on another list where it turned out
most folks had a camera with them most of the time, a camera feels like a
millstone round my neck when I'm not in a photographing mode.

But this raises the very point of why one photographs in the first place. I
began photographing because it was the only way to communicate certain
things I saw and felt. Now, it sounds like you want me to deliberately NOT
communicate things I see and feel, just for the sake of it, in some kind of
strange puritan ritual. I don't get that. I certainly don't feel that I''m
*missing out* when I'm photographing. If anything I feel that I am living
more intensely, seeing things more deeply.
> 
> No doubt everyone has heard the old joke about the proud grandmother
> wheeling the pram who replies, when the neighbor says "Oh.... what a
> beautiful baby!"... "That's nothing. You should see his photograph."

What if Grandma was right? Transcendent moments in life are so rare that a
transcendent photograph can have a totemic power. We should respect that. I
can think of a hundred transcendent photographs of scenes that, had I been
standing next to the photographer, would have appeared merely mundane to me.
Real life is not always better than the photograph. Sometimes the photo is
better.
> 
> I have never been comfortable
> photographing strangers, as I have always felt that it was an invasion
> of their private space, although this was how photography was taught me.
> I realize that the legal argument about whether someone is likely to be
> newsworthy or not is where the line is drawn on photographing people in
> public places... 

No, it isn't. It just ISN'T. We are going back to the fake argument about
the PJ justification for photographing people in public spaces. News
schmooze. The bottom line is that it is okay. It is a freedom we have. Like
breathing or looking. It's good. We are NOT abusing it by photographing in
public spaces. 

Moreover, personal space is a social construct. You feel uncomfortable
invading it because you are culturally conditioned to do so. However, many
photographs draw their power from taking you inside someone's private space.
Under the velvet rope. It is like photographing from ground level or ten
feet up... another perspective. Does it harm anyone? Hurt anyone?

One last thing on this point: there seems to be a really odd idea that
because something might be considered impolite it is morally wrong.

First, just as an example, anyone who comes out shooting with me will
discover that I am not remotely rude, though I am occasionally cheeky. Check
your stereotypes at the door, guys! You have watched too many movies
featuring paparazzi.

Second, crossing cultural norms is okay. Really. Think about it.
> 
> In those 'primitive' cultures which resist being photographed because
> the image captures a piece of the subject's soul, there is an argument
> worth hearing, even though it is far too late to apply in most of the
> world.

In our culture the image has become so degraded that I rather like this
idea. 
> 
> For decades I, like most of you, required a camera to 'capture the
> moment'. When I could no longer use a camera--a situation which may
> change soon-- imagine my surprise when I discovered that the moments
> happened anyway?

Well I am as glad that you found that insight as I am sad that you lost that
ability. The point about taking photographs is that it allows those moments
to be shared. What disturbs me most about this entire thread is that it
threatens to encroach on my ability to share the things I feel most deeply
about the world.

I mean why the hell do people think I photograph on the streets? Because I'm
like a dog marking lamp-posts? Because I like running up to people and
tweaking their noses? Because I despise the human race? Because I'm a pig?

Or because I love the world and I will be sad to leave it. But when I do I
hope to have left behind some of the reasons I love it.

You figure it out.

- -- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com