I watched the above video of photographer, Gary Winogrand, as he shared his thoughts on the truth of street photography. I made some notes of his points below:
- Photographing something changes it.
- There is not a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability - any of them.
- Photographs are mute. They cannot tell you what is happening. They do not tell stories. They tell you what something looks like to a camera.
- The minute you relate this thing [an image] to what was photographed, it's a lie.
I do wonder about his point that photographs do not have a narrative ability. I am curious about what Winogrand would make of conceptual photography. In this genre images are often specifically made to convey a narrative message. I'm thinking here of photographers like Jeff Wall.
I think that because Winogrand is specifically speaking about street photography he is conflating narrative with truth. In his view the actual narrative events taking place in reality can be misrepresented by an image - a slice of time that is frozen can easily be used to deceive. In that sense he is right. But I do not think it is true that all photographs (I'm thinking of constructed images here) are without narrative ability.
Although it is also true that the reader of an image will add much more in a narrative sense to an image than may be there in truth or reality. The viewer can add many levels of denotation or even connotation and take the reading in a completely different or oppositional direction. In this respect Winogrand is right.
'All images are mute. They tell you what something looks like to a camera.'
It is only through reading the Semiotic signs and symbols correctly, based on mutual cultural assumptions, that an image creator can hope to convey an intended message.
No comments:
Post a Comment