Response to "Criticizing Photography" by Terry Barrett

Response to Chapter 7

Theories of photography bring to light many different branches of philosophy that question the nature of photography as art. Four general branches of photography; ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics. The ontology of photography, or the nature of existence of photography, asks "what is a photograph?". Is a photograph defined by convention or how realistic or how non-conventional it is? What kind of role does intent play in the photographic process? Intent could be one full or reason or seemingly no reason at all, but there is still some conscious and many times subconscious reason that comes to play in the photographic process. The thought process of photography is crucial. Many would say that it is the thought process that defines the photograph as art and the relevancy of the meaning behind the image. A photographic image is one that is very psychological despite the intent a photograph. The psychological response in the capture of an image is one step of many to creating an image that comprises of a genuine emotional and metaphysical attitude while creating a visually stimulating response.

Regarding epistemology in photography, or the investigation of the origin of the photograph, starts to question are photographs true? Well truth on every level is a subjective spectrum which comes down to a personal belief system. However, it is not about whether or not the image is true or false but more like is the theory applied to the photographic image accepted or denied. The methods of taking photographs, in a straight deadpan style versus fabrication in the directorial mode, or the post production process of editing are various practices that some say define the integrity of one image over another. But can one photograph really be truer than the other? No. The photographer is always creating the image; key word here is “creating”. It is not a replication process but rather a means of representation through visual media. It is more relevant to try to understand what kind of theories and practices the image maker undergoes in their creating process and what kind of truth, or theory, are they trying to achieve by it, and whether or not those methods help or hurt the intended response.

Photography aesthetics, or the emotional response to an image and the sense of beauty derived from it, may seem more subjective than most other categories. But is photography art? To many people today this would seem quite a silly question for photography seems to have such a well established home in the art world, this was not always the case. Photography is an art that seems to need a lot of defending for it is one of the newest forms of fine art. Painting and drawing are classic forms of fine art that are never questioned in the way that photography is. This comes down to skill, education, and the technology and availability of tools. Not everybody can pick up a paintbrush and paint something beautiful; there is a certain amount of skill necessary. However anyone can pick up a camera take a picture, but just like painting there is a certain amount of skill necessary to take a beautiful photograph, but the depreciation of photography is rapid since the process seems so automatic. The education of the image maker and the viewer make all the difference. People who learn visual arts are more qualified to make judgments on an image than a person who hasn’t studied the art, simply because it is something they have studied. There are more references and their eye is more visually sensitive, their knowledge is more in tune with what is relative feedback to the artist.

Photography’s relation to ethics, and the system of moral principles on which it is built off of, questions whether or not photographs are moral. This becomes more of a personal pursuit, for the photographer and the viewer. The photographer may decide to go against certain generally agreed upon morals for a desired reaction in the name of their art or cause, or in many cases the photography may even go against their morals and integrity as an artist for the paycheck. Of course morals are very personal and a based on a personal system of beliefs but there are also social and cultural morals to consider which are generally agreed by a mass population to consider. The viewer or public may make moral judgments on a photographer and their work because of the subject matter or by the means in which the image was captured. And based on this judgment and the extent of the reaction (whether good or bad) the success of the image may soar or sink.

Response to "Criticizing Photography" by Terry Barrett

Response to Chapters 4 & 5

Since the very beginning photography was an art to be categorized, sometime controversially. Traditionally photography was categorized between a science and an art. In the past on the art side of the spectrum there are two main subcategories referenced the pictorialists and the purists. Pictorialist mode is one that is a fabricated image, that is staged and in many cases looks like a painting. The purist mode maybe considered straight photography, found and not fabricated, documented from real life. But to simply split photography into these two categories and leave it at that wouldn't serve to justify the complexity of photography as an art.

There are many approaches to photography to be considered; straight, formalistic, and documentary. The straight approach is one in which the camera records the exact image with rich texture and great detail. These photographs have something to interpret about man and nature. This approach never looses contact with reality. The formalistic approach organizes and isolates form for it's own sake, without the use of a camera and without concern for the photograph. The documentary approach records without intrusion of the photographer. Its goal is to inform honestly and accurately. These approaches are yet another way to further categorize photography.

There are other conceptual ways to categorize photography, like Szarkowski's process. Szarkowski embraces photography from both the science and the art perspective. In his book The Photographer's Eye, he discusses five characteristics that are exclusive to photography. First is that photography deals with the actual, second he explains that photography embodies detail and is tied to the fact of things. The third unique characteristic is the choice of frame, it is a choice and is selected not conceived. The fourth attribute that is distinctive is the timed exposures that describes a certain piece of time. And lastly, the vantage point, the ability to view the world in new ways. Szarkowski also explains his interesting continuum of mirrors and windows by which he uses to categorize photography. According to this method photographs fit into one of the two distinct groups, either mirrors or windows. Mirrors represent the more romantic tradition and expresses the view of the world as being dependent on our own personal understanding. Mirrors explain more about the artist through formal elegance and suggestions. Windows on the other hand represent the realist tradition and that the world exists independent of human attention. Through this the photographer reveals patterns and intrinsic meanings while expressing how the artist is joined to a larger intelligence- the universe. Windows explain more about the world through description and evidence of a specific time and/or place. Szarkowski dichotomy of mirrors and windows is indeed interesting and challenges the viewer to see more about the intent of the image when viewed this way.

Furthermore, there are even more possible categories to be acknowledged. The six newer categories recognized aim to help the viewer think about the photograph and interpret them. The six categories are descriptive, explanatory, interpretive, ethically evaluative, aesthetically evaluative, and theoretical. It is generally up to the viewer to figure out which category or categories the image best belongs. In most cases it is important to interpret the photograph before we categorize it, there must be a logical explanation that can be supported by fact or visual evidence as to why a photograph fits best into a certain category. It seems as though to interpret, categorize, and then reinterpret process. For once the image is categorized the viewer takes on a greater of understanding of what the photograph is about. The descriptive category is one where the photograph shows evidence of attempting to accurately record subject matter, many photographs do this, but best represented in the medical field also art that is a reproduction of other "original" art. Photographs that fit into the explanatory category represent a visual explanation of a question. These explanations are generally verifiable in scientific grounds, some, but definitely not all, press photography is an example of this. The interpretive category is also explanatory, but is not scientific. Usually is an explanation of personal and subjective interpretations, this is many times expressed through the directorial mode. This category is more like "mirrors" as it says more about the photographer. Photographs that belong in the ethically evaluative canon describe ethical judgments, these may be scientific or personal and can translate as both positive and negative. The aesthetically evaluative category makes judgmental about aesthetic issues. These are photographs considered to be worthy of aesthetic observation and contemplation. Barrett explains it as "beautiful things photographed in beautiful ways". This type of photography is generally the most recognized, it is trite and portray images in ways that most people have seen before. The most common is photography still life, nudes, and landscapes. Theoretical photographs are photographs about photography. Making comments on art and art making, the politics of art and the modes of representation. This category is art about art.

In most cases the viewer must have a certain amount of prior knowledge about the photograph before they can properly categorize it. They may need to know who made it, when, where, and for what purpose. It is important to know the context of the image to properly interpret it. Contextual information can be broken down into three categories, internal, original, and external. The internal context refers to what is descriptively evident within the photographs, this includes subject matter, form, and medium. The original context is the knowledge of what was psychologically present to the photographer at the time the exposure was made. This context considers the photographer and the social times as well as the intent. This is a context that is also based on the past. This would include knowledge of other work by the photographer, as well as social, art and individual photographer's history. The external context is based on the how the photograph is presented or found. The meaning of the photograph is highly dependent on the means in which it is presented. interpreting a photograph is a matter of building a reasonable understanding based on demonstrative evidence.

Response to "The Directorial Mode" by A.D. Coleman

The Directorial Mode: Notes Toward a Definition

How do we see what we see? and why? This is not only a question pertaining only to personal bias and past experience in response to an image in front of us, but also about how the artist's chose to portray an image through devices within their control. Buckminster Fuller said, "Seeing-is-believing is a blind spot in man's vision." I couldn't agree more. Photography has a controversial history when it comes to be recognized as a fine art rather than just a documentary medium. Back in the day Steiglitz lead a fine art revolution of sorts, he was determined that photography should be recognized as High Art. This would require people to acknowledge that photography isn't simply documentary but that the image is a direct result of decisions made by the artist. This is not so much a problem anymore, photography has been acknowledged in the more recent years as a high art within the visual canon. It is not so much about the dispute of whether or not it is a fine art but how best to accomplish an image that is considered fine art. All most go into the thinking process of a photograph, and sometimes that process might have to be changed to read an image correctly.

After all when asked "what is this?" when presenting an image of a chair most people respond "a chair"...but it isn't a chair, the image is only a two dimensional representation of a chair. A picture of a chair, not a chair. This may seem obvious but it is important to note. For a photograph always has a point of view, a direction or angle, a film speed/ISO, shutter speed, depth of field, etc. And to ignore all of these conscious decisions of a photographer is blindness, to see without thinking about how the nature of that photograph came to be. Much is manipulated and controlled in what appears to be the most "straight forward" photograph. Photographs carry a certain amount of weight in the viewer's eyes. A photograph is a representation of something in the real world. Whether the subject matter is acted out or uncontrolled there is a certain sense of reality that is undeniable in a photograph. This is a parallel aware between all modes of photography.

Every mode of the photography has controlled aspects, the differences only by the nature of what is in front of the camera. There are three main modes; representational, responsive and directorial. Documentary, pure, straightforward are all deceptive words when describing a mode of photography. As much as one may think that an image of an event is unbiased since the photographer just stood there and took photographs of what is taking place, with no interference, there will always be a bias and a certain perspective. The photographer will consistently wait for the right moment to take a shot while trying to find the best angle to capture a compositionally strong image, and along with other mechanical choices in camera, and during process and printing of an image there are many choices to be made. All of these choices effect the outcome of a singular image, so even though there is a certain amount of spontaneity happening in front of the camera there is an overwhelmingly amount of control going on in and behind the camera. Responsive mode is a hybrid mode. This mode is based on a personal understanding and feeling that translates from photographer to image. There maybe a strong connection between the photographer and what they are shooting that is translated through the photograph. It is apparent in images of a photographer's home and loved ones, and of personal struggles that they themselves maybe going through. These images are a responsive type of photographing, interacting with subject and feeling. These photographs are controlled somewhat by subject matter and the response of the artist and therefore point of view becomes more of a focus. The last mode is directorial mode, this the mode of fabrication. The photographer takes a stronger hand of control with these images, not only are the mechanics of the camera, film/digital processing, printing and point of view controlled but also some or all that happens in front of the camera. Creating an image is apparent throughout the entire process. The artist may interact and direct what is going on with the subjects, choose to create the set in which the subject shall take place, makeup, costumes, lighting etc. all become factors of creating the image. The directorial mode is a very involved process. So what is the best mode for expressing one's creative outlet? It would seem that is another choice to be made.

Response to "Criticizing Photography" by Terry Barrett

Response to Chapters 1-3

Rene Ricard asked, “Why give publicity to something you hate?” this is a great question that makes way for a valid point, in other words why would a critic spend the time contemplating, analyzing, and writing about a piece of work that they hate…no critic “hates” the work they criticize for otherwise they wouldn’t waste their time. Rather a critic loves all the work they criticize not based on aesthetic opinion but because the work they criticize awakened their passion in some way. This is not to get confused with personal opinion on the piece but that the work stirred them up emotionally and they wanted to publicize and express it to the world.

A critic has a crucial role in the art world. Critics, well some critics, are deemed as appropriate figures to raise questions and give opinions on work. Critics are not reporters, they don’t simply document a gallery opening or a specific piece of work, and they challenge the artist and themselves about the emotional and aesthetic value of the art. They are authoritative figures that are knowledgeable; they can draw connections between the work and art history, current artist’s work, different genres of work, cultural significance etc. Many photographers use history and previous art to inspire their photographs, such as Jeff Wall's "Dead Troops Talk" (http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/rm8_dead_troops_lrg.jpg) This image directly references the Iraq war so the critic now has a direct reference to work from as well as their own connections to refer. Proper critics don’t make unwarranted pronouncements based solely on opinion and bias; they raise questions and make defendable arguments. Critics may ask questions that they themselves are still unsure or maybe having a strong opinion they want others to contemplate and come to their own conclusion. Critics use past knowledge and descriptive text to defend arguments they have made but must always be within the context of the image. A critic’s argument should be supported by internal information within the image and external sources beyond the image, therefore the argument should be convincing.

Accuracy is very important in art criticism, for what is documented today will eventually become a part of art history. Accuracy in description and references are essential to a critique. A critic must then contemplate how they wish to address the artist (photographer), what is the relationship? One must be weary of becoming too close for it may sway what is or isn’t criticized about the work, but then again by not including the artist’s input as research material the critic can miss out on many valid arguments and perspectives. The relationship between the artist and the critic will always be one in the grey zone. It comes down to how the critic wishes to carry out the relationship and how much is revealed or concealed within the critique.

However, this is not to say that a critic’s argument should always be un-bias. In fact it is the opposite. The argument will always be bias, based on the personal experiences of that critic, everything is cumulative. Often description and opinion of work are laced together. Some critics keep the description and opinion separate within the critique. What is the most convincing? This is hard to say, in the end it all comes down to even more personal opinion and how the critic wishes to address their point, and what they believe to be most convincing.

Criticism and art are inseparable. As long as there is art and an interested audience, whether art that appeals or not appeals to an audience there will always be people to judge it. Personally I find criticism valuable, in all art related situations, there is something to be gained from both negative and positive feedback. In a school setting an artist is faced with a mutual criticism from peers, one that is aimed at benefiting the work and work to come. Criticism in a school setting also promotes the development of a language that can best articulate the viewer’s thoughts on a particular piece. Criticism on a larger scale is one that does not aim at a mutual goal, rather becomes a more occupational and personal mission.

Criticism, whether positive or negative, is always beneficial to an artist and the artistic community. For starters, on a very elementary level criticism is the acknowledgment of work; to be distinguished from all other’s is to be considered worth the time to analyze it, this is fundamental. An artist’s work essentially strives to reach the viewer on some emotional level, when a critic of any sort acknowledges a work/body of work they admit to some kind of metaphysical stimulation. Whether the critic is stimulated in a good or bad way is irrelevant, the fact is the artist achieved in creating a sensation that transcended the physical attributes of the piece and enabled the viewer to contemplate their own emotional response. In any case this is no doubt a victory.

With this in mind it seems a bit trivial to breakdown the categories of criticism, however once passed the point of satisfaction of reaching viewer’s emotionally it is important to analyze the critique. Undertaking the responsibility to examine the audience’s response is crucial for artists, after all it is their creation that spawned their reaction the work, and an artist should be aware of how the masses relate to their work as a whole. An artist should analyze what the critics have analyzed from their work. This may have awakened a new realization in the artist that could have been unintentional and/or subconscious but enhance or even detract from what the artist was trying to portray. In some cases the audience may have perceived and entirely different message and the impact could be phenomenal or miniscule, in either case it the artist’s responsibility to know how their work is affecting the masses. An artist should examine criticism as a way of achieving their technique, style, aesthetic, etc. and creating a more effective way of purposely representing the artist’s direct or ambiguous point of view.