The Photographer's Intentions

[Shadowman]

"A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer". - Martin Parr


In a side note to Manfred's "Simplification" thread Simplification as a photographic technique would consider Martin Parr's commentary on "the Photographer's Intentions".

http://www.anothermag.com/art-photog...rs-last-resort

My thoughts are, the photographer should not have to vocally express his intentions but sometimes you might be forced to because viewers inflect either their own views into the image or imply or accuse the photographer of having specific intentions. Some of the images in Martin Parr's collection could be construed in multiple ways that may or may not truly reflect the photographer's intentions; your thoughts and also do you feel your images reflect your intentions, do you view any form of critique as an oversight of your vision.

[William W]

"A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer". - Martin Parr . ..

do you view any form of critique as an oversight of your vision.

No, I do not. I am interested in others' views: especially the "WHY" of their views.

Two points

1.
It would be arrogant to assume that my 'vision' is the only view: although it might appear counter intuitive, I think it is arguably more arrogant to assume that any other view (critique) implies an oversight in my vision. I see what I see at the time. As I mentioned in Manfred's thread (the one cited in Post #1) I lean towards the MOMENT being my main element of 'simplification' - if others see more complicated aspects in my work and get pleasure from those elements - then that's great.

Why would I want to interpret any other persons' greater gain, as my 'oversight' - I prefer to see it as their gain and I am thankful that they take the time and make the effort to share those other elements with me.

***

2.
If one has be taught rigidly, then for formal works an "Artists Statement" will likely accompany each Photograph which one displays.

The Artist's Statement makes it quite clear what is the intent: what is the Vision of the Photograph.

Any formal 'critique' will always (should always) be held within the parameters of that Artist's Statement.

WW

[JBW]

"A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer". - Martin Parr


In a side note to Manfred's "Simplification" thread Simplification as a photographic technique would consider Martin Parr's commentary on "the Photographer's Intentions".

http://www.anothermag.com/art-photog...rs-last-resort

My thoughts are, the photographer should not have to vocally express his intentions but sometimes you might be forced to because viewers inflect either their own views into the image or imply or accuse the photographer of having specific intentions. Some of the images in Martin Parr's collection could be construed in multiple ways that may or may not truly reflect the photographer's intentions; your thoughts and also do you feel your images reflect your intentions, do you view any form of critique as an oversight of your vision.

Critique as an oversight of my vision. Yes, it absolutely is. Which is not always a bad thing.

Some people would try to force another photographer to follow the norms they are slaves to. To only be creative within the walls they live within. Such people have their place but they stifle the creativity of others.

Some people look at another's work and try to help them move along the path they have found. They recognize that scientists don't need to reinvent the wheel but artists most assuredly do. Where the others stifle, these people enrich and encourage so that a person may find their own vision.

B.

[Donald]

Two quotes from Ansel Adams:-

“A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.”


“When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.”

[Manfred M]

First of all a photographer can have a vision, but that is often an internal view that is not necessarily shared with the viewers, outside of Bill's comments on the "Artist's Statement". The image may or may not have a title or accompanying description, so all the viewer is usually presented with is the image.

In the absence of any additional information about the image, critique is usually limited to technical issues with the image, organizations aspects of the image (such as composition) and a comment on the emotional impact that the image has on the viewer. These will be things that every viewer will consider, where this is conscious or subconscious.

If the viewer is provided with a title, description or intent statement, the viewer can has a little more information to work with. Here they can see how well the photographer has lived up to their "goal", at least from the viewer's perspective.

Finally, I do have a bone to pick with the whole concept of the "Artist's Statement". These are usually drafted as a final step and are really written as a rear-facing view of what the "artist" has accomplished, rather than a statement of intent that is written before the image making begins. A bit of a fraud, in my estimation. It would be far more important to have these created before the photographer heads out to take pictures. We could then see how well he or she managed to meet those creative goals and how much the reality of the shooting situation changed those initial goals.

[Donald]

Finally, I do have a bone to pick with the whole concept of the "Artist's Statement". These are usually drafted as a final step and are really written as a rear-facing view of what the "artist" has accomplished, rather than a statement of intent that is written before the image making begins. A bit of a fraud, in my estimation. It would be far more important to have these created before the photographer heads out to take pictures. We could then see how well he or she managed to meet those creative goals and how much the reality of the shooting situation changed those initial goals.

I think the 'confusion' arises from what the artist statement is.

When I was looking at an artists statement as something for myself, it was something that was prepared to explain what your vision, your approach, your philosophy was. It was something prepared independent of any group of images ot any individual image.

However, then I began to see 'Artist Statement' being used to define what an exhibition or group of pictures were about and why and, then, individual images.

I agree with Manfred. Writing them as a final step is not what I understood them to be at all. It should be done before the image-making begins, or at least when the artist realises he/she is starting to take this seriously and not just snapping away at any old thing.

PS - And it should primarily be for the artist him or herself. Or can be used bu him/her on an exhibition, on a website etc., to say what they're about as an artist.

[rpcrowe]

This seems to be a philosophical debate. To me it doesn't matter if the photographer planned a photo or just happened on it and had the skill to capture it.

Steve McCurry, speaking about his portrait of the green eyed Afghan girl, Shabat Gula, stated " “I didn’t think the photograph of the girl would be different from anything else I shot that day”



That portrait just happened to become the most recognizable picture of Afghanistan and is considered by many to have become the most recognizable portrait ever printed in National Geographic. It is so recognizable that all you have to do is a Google search with the parameters "Afghan girl" and you will get a plethora of hits leading to this picture.

He could have said, "I searched all over to find a green eyed Pashtun girl whose parents had been killed by the Russians and whose face symbolized the pain and hardship of the Afghan women." That would be B.S. but, wouldn't gallery curators eat it up?

Or I could say that I planned this shot to show the sibling love and the close connection between the two boxer puppies...



That wouldn't be true. I just happened to grab this shot when I was shooting the two pups.

I didn't even "see" this shot of the pup looking at her father with adoring eyes when I captured it



I was actually doing a shot to show the complications of shooting three dogs in a portrait and how you can control the dogs with show leads and clone out the leads That's why I inadvertently cut off the pup's foot!



Of course I will often carry preconceived ideas of the images I want to bring home when I am traveling. I wanted to bring home a shot of the young Chinese People's Army sentry in Tienanmen Square, backed by the immense portrait of Chairman Mao.



It didn't end up like I had planned. I didn't have enough time to shoot it. The tour was moving on and my wife was frantically screaming for me to come. I really had planned a close up of the young lad's face backed by Chairman Mao's portrait. I couldn't get close enough to the sentry to grab the shot I wanted with my 70-200mm lens. I actually would have needed to switch to my 1.4x TC for the shot I wanted but, I didn't have the time.

I had also planned to shoot the flag raising or lowering ceremony by the soldiers in the Square but, was never able to get there at the appropriate times. So much for the best laid plans of mice and men

[DanK]

I tend to agree with Richard. Sometimes one has a clear idea in advance. I think this is more often true of certain genres, where you can plan, such as landscapes and flower macros. In other cases, one may have a more general idea. For example, when I do urban night photography, I often have only a general intent and a target area in mind. I have no idea which areas--with their particular shapes, lighting, etc.--will be interesting. And sometimes, you are just lucky. There is a long way between these latter two and 'just snapping away at any old thing.'

For example, this shot I had more or less planned; I knew the fabric sculpture would be there, and I wanted to try night shots contrasting it with the surrounding buildings.



This next one was just luck. A friend had said that there are some interesting views from the south shore of the Charles, so I walked it with some friends one night. I saw this and then spent quite a while lining things up as I wanted.



And this last one, which I have posted before, was even more a stroke of luck. I had wandered the old port of Bergen with my wife, trying--unsuccessfully--to get interesting shots of the alleys, etc. When we left, we decided to walk out the back way, where virtually no tourists go. Just as we were leaving the area, I turned around and saw this through an iron fence. I stuck my little Lumix through the fence and got the only keeper of the whole bunch:

[FootLoose]

"A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer". - Martin Parr


In a side note to Manfred's "Simplification" thread Simplification as a photographic technique would consider Martin Parr's commentary on "the Photographer's Intentions".

http://www.anothermag.com/art-photog...rs-last-resort

My thoughts are, the photographer should not have to vocally express his intentions but sometimes you might be forced to because viewers inflect either their own views into the image or imply or accuse the photographer of having specific intentions. Some of the images in Martin Parr's collection could be construed in multiple ways that may or may not truly reflect the photographer's intentions; your thoughts and also do you feel your images reflect your intentions, do you view any form of critique as an oversight of your vision.

According to the information on the site you linked to, The Last Resort propelled Parr to success. Further discussing the various receptions of that work, it says "While The Last Resort was interpreted by some as a cruel sociopolitical commentary, Parr claims that this was never his intention." So, ironically perhaps, it could be argued that by Parr's own criteria - "A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer" - the series failed.

I think you are straying into the area of the Intentional Fallacy and the highly contested notions of transparency and objectivity. The artist, be s/he painter, writer, cinematographer, et al, cannot control the meanings in the text s/he produces. Every reader/viewer/ observer will bring their own cultural baggage to it and interpret it according to their own perspective. And that is good. The reception of any photograph or other work of art should not be restricted by the photographer's/artist's intentions.

[Shadowman]

Even though I may not response to every comment I have read them all and found each very interesting. My responses will partially be related to my purpose in starting the thread, mainly photographer’s intention in taking/exhibiting the image, and viewer’s/critic’s reaction to the image and how it might make the photographer feel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1HjfW53hPg&t=201s
The situation in the video link has to be the most direct commentary on a photographer’s intentions and was stated by a photographer whose wife is also a model. The wife explains her reasoning for having the response and I’ve experienced either the same accusations or have had my intentions questioned as the viewer felt my street photography contained only women. I have a friend who likes to see my images when I return from my travels and made the comment about “women only” and when I showed her images of men captured during the same trip she stated that those captures of males were an anomaly. My friend would often question why I took a particular image and when I stated once that it was merely to test the camera and lens combo she didn’t believe me.
I also see a disparity in viewers commentary on a photographer’s intentions sometimes based on the age, the sex, and sometimes the decade in which a particular set of photograph were taken. Take for instance Dorothea Lange or Walker Evans, both photographers who spent a period of their careers photographing the lifestyles of the less fortunate or perhaps someone in a less than desirable occupation. Martin Parr photographed similar lifestyles and yet his intentions are questioned. I’m not defending his intentions; just saying that sometimes the viewer accepts a given intent or deduces their own regarding the photographer’s intention.

[William W]

. . . Finally, I do have a bone to pick with the whole concept of the "Artist's Statement". These are usually drafted as a final step and are really written as a rear-facing view of what the "artist" has accomplished, rather than a statement of intent that is written before the image making begins. A bit of a fraud, in my estimation. It would be far more important to have these created before the photographer heads out to take pictures. We could then see how well he or she managed to meet those creative goals and how much the reality of the shooting situation changed those initial goals.

(As per Donald’s comments …)

That is neither what I was taught; nor what I have taught.

The Artist’s Statement is certainly preliminary to the exercise of beginning the work proper and is structured descriptive of both the Vision and the Execution and usually will include a framework of the Methodology

If you’re (or others) are reading what purports to be an Artist’s Statement, and such was scribed after the fact then that is not acceptable and certainly would be tolerated in any structured environment such as a Certificate or Matriculation: as only one example, High School Students here have three Terms (about 10 week each term and holiday in between – total about 35 weeks) to submit their Final Work to be assessed for their Matriculation/HSCertificate consideration: the completed Artist’s Statement is due at around the end of Week 4 or beginning of Week 5. There are no variations or additions allowed to it, after that time.

I guess that various exhibits and galleries would allow a procedure such as Manfred describes: and I agree that is not correct and is fraudulent in a broad sense of the meaning.

But, in my opinion, that does not mean you should have a bone to pick with the concept of the Artist’s Statement, but rather I think you have a bone to pick with folk who have created the adulteration of it.

WW

[Shadowman]

No, I do not. I am interested in others' views: especially the "WHY" of their views.

Two points

1.
It would be arrogant to assume that my 'vision' is the only view: although it might appear counter intuitive, I think it is arguably more arrogant to assume that any other view (critique) implies an oversight in my vision. I see what I see at the time. As I mentioned in Manfred's thread (the one cited in Post #1) I lean towards the MOMENT being my main element of 'simplification' - if others see more complicated aspects in my work and get pleasure from those elements - then that's great.

Why would I want to interpret any other persons' greater gain, as my 'oversight' - I prefer to see it as their gain and I am thankful that they take the time and make the effort to share those other elements with me.

***

2.
If one has be taught rigidly, then for formal works an "Artists Statement" will likely accompany each Photograph which one displays.

The Artist's Statement makes it quite clear what is the intent: what is the Vision of the Photograph.

Any formal 'critique' will always (should always) be held within the parameters of that Artist's Statement.

WW

Bill,

I've seen negative comments about a particular image merely because the photographer (usually new to the field) used a technique (selective color, HDR) considered overused or not imaginative. I often use selective coloring just because I like the look I created and although the processing might not be inventive, hopefully some other part of the composition reflected my pursuit of improving the capture portion of photography. When the special processing used by the photographer receives the brunt of the criticism I feel the photographer's vision has been slightly overlooked. I will say that when I have received negative comments about the processing I often hear comments that say the extra editing wasn't necessary to present an effective image.

[Shadowman]

Two quotes from Ansel Adams:-

“A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.”


“When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.”

Another quote: "my paintings should be seen, not read about". Balthasar Klossowski de Rola known as Balthus.

[Shadowman]

According to the information on the site you linked to, The Last Resort propelled Parr to success. Further discussing the various receptions of that work, it says "While The Last Resort was interpreted by some as a cruel sociopolitical commentary, Parr claims that this was never his intention." So, ironically perhaps, it could be argued that by Parr's own criteria - "A photograph should clearly show the intention of the photographer" - the series failed.

I think you are straying into the area of the Intentional Fallacy and the highly contested notions of transparency and objectivity. The artist, be s/he painter, writer, cinematographer, et al, cannot control the meanings in the text s/he produces. Every reader/viewer/ observer will bring their own cultural baggage to it and interpret it according to their own perspective. And that is good. The reception of any photograph or other work of art should not be restricted by the photographer's/artist's intentions.

I like where your thoughts are going regarding the artist, painter, writer and I sometimes want my photos to be viewed as a short story, while every image may or may not have a theme I sometimes wonder what the viewer feels when seeing whatever elements (shape, color, lines) I have included in my image and how it might lead the viewer to a particular viewpoint. In my comments in post #10, the friends who view my street photography might see my intentions as purely reveling in physical beauty when often the "physical beauty" is just an element used to perfect my technique.

[Manfred M]

Bill,

I've seen negative comments about a particular image merely because the photographer (usually new to the field) used a technique (selective color, HDR) considered overused or not imaginative. I often use selective coloring just because I like the look I created and although the processing might not be inventive, hopefully some other part of the composition reflected my pursuit of improving the capture portion of photography. When the special processing used by the photographer receives the brunt of the criticism I feel the photographer's vision has been slightly overlooked. I will say that when I have received negative comments about the processing I often hear comments that say the extra editing wasn't necessary to present an effective image.

John - I was judging a print competition last night at one of the local camera clubs and one of the images was an HDR and one of the images used partial decolourization.

One scored poorly, not because of the technique used, but because the technique did not work well nor was the image itself particularly strong. It would likely had scored slightly higher as a pure B&W image, but still not particularly well due to organizational issues with it.

In the other case, the image scored quite well and was an award winner, even though it lost a point for how the technique was executed (noticeable halos in parts of the image).

A strong image is exactly that, regardless of the techniques that were used in post-processing. There are people who tend to "see red" the moment a non-standard technique is applied, but that is just personal taste.

As for over-processing an image, that is often something I hear from commercial photographers. For them it is a time is money "issue and their ultimate goal is to produce a result that is acceptable to their client for as little effort on their part in post as possible. That is not a criterion amateurs should be held to, so when I work along side "pros", I understand where they are coming from, but won't necessarily agree with them.

[Shadowman]

Manfred,

In post#15 the HDR image, wondering if the halos were visible from close viewing or just glaringly apparent in the work; also if only a point was lost was it simply because the judges felt the halos were overlooked as part of the photographer's corrections or simply missed altogether?

Regarding the decolorized image, had you seen any of the photographer's other images, wondering if organizational issues were a recurring theme in their work?

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

In post#15 the HDR image, wondering if the halos were visible from close viewing or just glaringly apparent in the work; also if only a point was lost was it simply because the judges felt the halos were overlooked as part of the photographer's corrections or simply missed altogether?

Regarding the decolorized image, had you seen any of the photographer's other images, wondering if organizational issues were a recurring theme in their work?

When judging we know nothing about the photographer or the image; no information is given about the image either (not even the title). The only thing we know is the topic and that the images are pre-screened to ensure that they are "on topic". The images were placed on a stand and we were 7 - 8 ft feet away and were not allowed to get any closer to inspect the images. We were in a darkened room and there was a direct light to illuminate them without any glare. There are specs for both the ambient light and the viewing lights.

The halos were obvious and detracted from certain aspects of the image in the HDRI. They were not noticeable in all parts of the image. As for the partial decolourized one, so again no recurring theme and there was only one shown in any of the four categories that we were judging. The only recurrence we saw is that one of the photographers used a fish-eye lens in a number of images, which were stylistically similar enough for us to suspect it was the same photographer who made them all.

[William W]

. . . I've seen negative comments about a particular image merely because the photographer (usually new to the field) used a technique (selective color, HDR) considered overused or not imaginative . . . etc.

I understand. I have read negative comments like that too, all too often: I’d encourage the recipients to read those not as ‘critique’ but, but rather as opinion, and opinion usually not well founded.

I think ‘critique’ requires both reasonable premise (I mean a premise within and related to the Image (artwork) and also reasonable explanation pertaining to the image (artwork).

For example (I don’t like using the word “negative” to describe ‘critique’ – but in this situation I think it is relevant):


“After the Concert” Subway Carriage - Vienna, Austria, 2014 (Fuji X100s, Available Light)

1. (Negative) Opinion: “You were too close to the Subjects either get back further, or zoom wider”

2. (Negative) Critique: "The triangle captured between the three girls works really well, it is disappointing that the exclusion of the boy is not enhanced by the image having a bit more negative space into which he can gaze."

Personally, I'd dismiss the first comment but note and also appreciate the second.

WW

[Manfred M]

For example (I don’t like using the word “negative” to describe ‘critique’ – but in this situation I think it is relevant) :

https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17760851-orig.jpg
“After the Concert” Subway Carriage - Vienna, Austria, 2014 (Fuji X100s, Available Light)

1. (Negative) Opinion: “You were too close to the Subjects either get back further, or zoom wider”

2. (Negative) Critique: The triangle captured between the three girls works really well, it is disappointing that the exclusion of the boy is not enhanced by the image having a bt more negative space into which he can gaze.

Exactly!

When critiquing an image, we are writing about what the photographer did in the image, as per point 2, not what he or she could have done differently.

Item 1 does have its place when it comes to training / pedgological work where different approaches to improve the image are a valid approach. Many of the comments that are made about images on CiC have a bit of both approaches.

[Shadowman]

When judging we know nothing about the photographer or the image; no information is given about the image either (not even the title). The only thing we know is the topic and that the images are pre-screened to ensure that they are "on topic". The images were placed on a stand and we were 7 - 8 ft feet away and were not allowed to get any closer to inspect the images. We were in a darkened room and there was a direct light to illuminate them without any glare. There are specs for both the ambient light and the viewing lights.

The halos were obvious and detracted from certain aspects of the image in the HDRI. They were not noticeable in all parts of the image. As for the partial decolourized one, so again no recurring theme and there was only one shown in any of the four categories that we were judging. The only recurrence we saw is that one of the photographers used a fish-eye lens in a number of images, which were stylistically similar enough for us to suspect it was the same photographer who made them all.

Interesting exhibit format, I like that viewers/judges are limited in how close they are to the images but obviously close enough to spot glaring flaws that would not be there had the effect not been used. When I critically review an image the photographer's use of special editing is sometimes used to add points to an image, I would never grade the image solely on the effect. I wonder how many of us choose to use special editing before we begin our workflow or after and why? I typically don't start out my work flow with the intention of using a particular technique, but I might use a particular lens such as I did in my week 12 print entry because I know how it will impact my particular image. Use of a fish-eye lens can sometimes fall under the overused style (much like selective color, HDR) while an WA lens or B & W imagery might be an accepted norm for street photography. I find it also interesting that (subdued HDR and WA views at least 35-60mm) are seen as comparable to how humans typically see a scene and (selective coloring, fish-eye effect, and B & W) are seen as abnormal for some humans; I say abnormal only in that there might be a small percentage of humans who have disabilities that limit or alter how they see the world.