The camera as shield

[purplehaze]

From a provocative article about Paul Strand:

Photography draws us closer to human experience by creating images that distance us from that very experience. The photographer gets to look closely at people and things in the world by staring into a little box of reflections. Paul Strand the man was an especially good candidate for being a great photographer. He was fascinated by people and could barely stand to get near them.

More here.

What do you think? Does the device always distance? If this a true characterization of Strand and his work, can you think of examples of great photographers whose work does the opposite?

[Donald]

There is so much about that article with which I fundamentally disagree. A prime example is the very last paragraph:-
"That is, perhaps, the final paradox of Paul Strand’s art. He was able to capture meaningful and sometimes profound images by committing himself to the surface, going skin-deep every time."

Now it might be a matter of language and different meaning in different societies, but to me 'skin deep' means superficial and at surface level only; i.e. 'doesn't get beneath the skin'. I could not disagree more about the work of Paul Strand. And especially so in relation to the Strand images that include people that are used to illustrate the article. I have, for a long time, thought that 'The Family, Luzzara' is one of the greatest pictures ever made. On that the author and I seem to agree. But on the point of to what extent the artist 'connected' with his subjects and portrayed their life, their character as opposed to just their appearance, I disagree.

I think what Meis is doing in this article is proposing a hypothesis. He offers no evidence to support his central contention. I can understand and recognise the hypothesis he is proposing, because I am not always comfortable photographing people. But for me, the give-away line ion the article is, " I suspect that all people who truly love to take photographs find some satisfaction, some relief, in the way that the camera acts as a buffer between self and world."

Suspect? If this is someone claiming to be writing an authoritative article on Paul Strand and making statements about the person he was and how he worked, then I think you need to do a hell of a lot more than 'suspect'. That's the word that weakens this whole article for me.

So, I'm afraid I take this article with one very large dose of salt. I'm happy to read a well-researched, academic piece of work that offers theories on how what a camera means for many of us in terms of engaging with the world. What I don't want to read are someone's ideas and personal views dressed up as an authoritative quasi-academic paper.

[Shadowman]

I've been accused of not being in the experience while on vacation, mainly because I'd rather photograph the dancers (or some other activity) rather than get out there and dance. I think war photographers are the opposite and do get themselves into the human experience; difference with war photography is that most of us (luckily) never have this particular experience.

[tbob]

It is difficult for me to see my camera as a tool enhancing my human interaction or conversely shielding me from people. Because I don't use it to interact with people except in passive presenter/viewer interactions. As for acting as a buffer between me and the world; it is the exact opposite. I use it to more deeply and intimately interact with reality around me by forcing me to live outside my head and experience the world around me. Maybe that is why I am averse to street photography (not the genre, but the idea of my doing it). I would have to intimately engage with the people I am shooting. I would rather drive red hot nails into my feet.

I agree with Donald. This is one person's view of the subject. Possibly true or more probably false. Definitely an alien thought to me.

[rpcrowe]

When I first read this title, I took it in a totally different context; thinking that a "physical shield" was the meaning. I am not particularly philosophically inclined.

I do know however, that it is sometimes difficult to do the job of a cameraman and divorce yourself from the sufferings of the people you are shooting. But, a news cameraman doesn't get paid for helping people. He/she gets paid for bringing back footage or images...

[flashback]

From the author: “I suspect that all people who truly love to take photographs find some satisfaction, some relief, in the way that the camera acts as a buffer between self and world.” Talk about painting with a broad brush (and no small amount of BS). If a person were looking for a buffer between themselves and the world, going out with a camera is likely the last thing they would do. Especially street photography. As it’s not landscape, portraiture, BIF or macro, street photography requires you to get out and mix it up. And at some point, some time, there will come an interaction between photographer and subject as to what you’re doing, why and a ’What are you gonna do with that?’ moment. No, a camera isn’t going to shield you from people, it’s much more likely to pull you into dealing with people.

I can walk the streets of NYC on my way to a specific destination and be mostly annoyed with slow-walking-picture-taking-skyscraper-gawking tourists, concerned with subway schedules, lack of taxis when it rains and walk lights. But I’m still observing, at least in the sense of situational awareness. Put a camera in my hand and my SA becomes stronger. I’m am more aware, more tuned in and more connected to the city and to the people around me. So in effect the camera draws me closer to, rather than shielding me from, people.

There are a couple of photographs I’ve taken that still, for lack of a better word, haunt me. Because in having taken the photographs I captured something of the person. A fraction of a second of that person’s life now resides on my hard drive and every time I see those photos I wish I knew more of that person, their life, that moment. Rather than the camera being a shield, it instead draws me in, wanting to talk and know more of that person. [There is a photographer I read about, a young guy (20’s?) who introduces himself to people, asks to photograph them and then interviews them to find out who they are. He then posts the images and interviews on his blog, and has become a very successful photographer. Ironically, I don‘t remember his name.]

So if the article (accidentally) serves any purpose, perhaps it’s to make us examine our own reasons for shooting what we shoot. Or not. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

[purplehaze]

"Buffer" is the word I was looking for, but all my tired brain could latch on to was "shield". Thanks for finding it for me, and for your thoughts. There was much in the article that struck me as utterly facile, so I was curious to know your reactions.

Trevor, I really identify with what you said about photography helping you to interact more intimately with the reality around you. I'm confident that, if we could all shed the weight around our necks and record reproducible stills and moving pictures with our naked eyes, we would.

In addition to all the things you all have mentioned, one of the things that bothered me about the article was this comment about Strand's Blind:

Strand is held at a distance from the woman by the very apparatus he is using to see her. Looking at her in the image on the other side of the camera, the blind woman has already become for Strand a visual specimen to be studied and analyzed. This feeling is enhanced by the medallion with the vendor’s number around the woman’s neck. She is being numbered and catalogued. Blind Woman, number 2622.

As if it was Strand who numbered her and catalogued her, rather than the State! On the contrary, his very title suggests that he is trying to represent something about the woman's status, rather than just the woman herself, which to me is evidence of Strand's humanism. If he didn't like some humans, well, I am guilty of the same and I can forgive him that.