Why do we need to say something – anything – about our images? A few weeks ago I was in Chicago looking at a display of student work at Moody Bible Institute. There were two different exhibitions: one with very nice photographs, printed on canvas and beautifully displayed. The other area featured a series of page layouts, combining words and text, printed, laminated to foam core and nicely presented, complete with registration marks from the printed page.
I found myself drawn to these images more – even without reading the text.
There’s something about the combination of images and text that resonates with my aesthetic – though it’s difficult to explain what, precisely. Maybe it’s the graphic designer in me desiring some presentation of context. While the photographer in me longs to have images stand on their own, open to interpretation by whomever, to whatever end.
I’ve found it liberating, returning to wet printing in the darkroom; being freed in a sense.
Letting go of the should’s; the trap and rigidity of expectation and simply experimenting, free to fail, free to succeed. Free to create.
Photography is an interesting art form. It relies on science to work. Light, measurement, interpreting facts and figures to produce an aesthetic. But it’s so easy to disappear down the rabbit hole of numbers and figures and that same science, becoming trapped in propriety to the extent one loses sight of the aesthetic leading them to stop and appreciate the scene in the first place. We get so wrapped up in numbers we can lose sight of the art.
To be truly free to create again is to have learned the rules, thanked them, put them aside, and begin asking what if.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading again. Edward Weston’s Day Book no.1, Mexico. In it he’s having a discussion with another photographer about what the camera “should” be used for:
E.W. "Photography has certain inherent qualities which are only possible with photography - one being the delineation of detail - so why not take advantage of this attribute? Why limit yourself to what your eyes see when you have such an opportunity to extend your vision?"
Johan: "If in a certain mood, why should I not interpret that state through my picture and not merely photograph what's before me?"
E.W.: "it would prevent you from telling the truth about the life towards which your lens is pointing - if you wish to interpret why not use a medium better suited to interpretation or subjective expression - or let someone else do it. Photography is an objective means to an end - and as such is unequaled - it comes finally to the question: for what purpose should (my emphasis) the camera be used?"
I do see his point, regarding the camera’s unique ability to precisely record detail. And facts. But what a pompous ass; suggesting a camera should only be used for one thing. It’s absurd. From this moment forward I’m removing the words “should” and “shouldn’t” from my vocabulary as pertaining to art.
I do realize I’m questioning Edward Weston. And I do realize the audacity of such an act.