The Modern Eye
06/08/07 21:20 Filed in: Photography
I don't
think I have what the hip young snappers call a modern eye. I came
to realise this after buying a level for my camera's hotshoe
because a few too many of my recent horizon lines had been canted
crazily.
Of course, canted horizon lines, wildly forced perspective and dramatically narrow depth of focus are all characteristics of this style of photography and you can find lots of examples of it on websites like Flickr.
Now I'm not stodgy enough to dismiss these photos as the collection of tics and forced stylistic conventions that they sometimes seem to be. I've seen many photographs that use these techniques well, even if I can't always shake the feeling that they look a bit like ads for some kind of topical genital cream. Oh, that must sound pretty stodgy.
The problem with being in the business for three decades is that you begin to see these things in cycles, starting in the late seventies with Garry Winogrand and in the late eighties with Max Vadukul. When it's done well, it can result in remarkable photos. Many of Winogrand's photos are a remarkable document of their time and of the photographer's prodigious capacity for shooting. On Winogrand's death, a cache of more than 2,500 unprocessed rolls of film was discovered to be part of his legacy.
I think the difference is a matter of perspective, not of style. When I began shooting, the cost of a roll of film, processing and printing was a hefty levy on a beginning photographer's budget, so you thought before you shot. Today's digital capture and high-capacity memory cards make it possible to shoot first and think through the cameras later.
I really don't ascribe any special merit to where the thinking goes. Winogrand, for instance, often said that he photographed things to see what they looked like photographed. What I think is useful, is that there be some thinking somewhere in the process. That's what really makes for a great body of work.
Of course, canted horizon lines, wildly forced perspective and dramatically narrow depth of focus are all characteristics of this style of photography and you can find lots of examples of it on websites like Flickr.
Now I'm not stodgy enough to dismiss these photos as the collection of tics and forced stylistic conventions that they sometimes seem to be. I've seen many photographs that use these techniques well, even if I can't always shake the feeling that they look a bit like ads for some kind of topical genital cream. Oh, that must sound pretty stodgy.
The problem with being in the business for three decades is that you begin to see these things in cycles, starting in the late seventies with Garry Winogrand and in the late eighties with Max Vadukul. When it's done well, it can result in remarkable photos. Many of Winogrand's photos are a remarkable document of their time and of the photographer's prodigious capacity for shooting. On Winogrand's death, a cache of more than 2,500 unprocessed rolls of film was discovered to be part of his legacy.
I think the difference is a matter of perspective, not of style. When I began shooting, the cost of a roll of film, processing and printing was a hefty levy on a beginning photographer's budget, so you thought before you shot. Today's digital capture and high-capacity memory cards make it possible to shoot first and think through the cameras later.
I really don't ascribe any special merit to where the thinking goes. Winogrand, for instance, often said that he photographed things to see what they looked like photographed. What I think is useful, is that there be some thinking somewhere in the process. That's what really makes for a great body of work.
|
