Communication & The Art Of Photography
by William Lulow
Most people today are communicating with smartphones and tablets as well as with laptop computers and plain old desktops. And, for most, seeing images on small screens is enough to satisfy their need for pictures. Photography, as we have come to know it since the 1800s, should not be just about fleeting and blurry images captured on video surveillance cameras all around the world. There are cameras everywhere. Even the news media are constantly asking viewers to share their photos and video so that they can broaden their coverage.
But PHOTOGRAPHY as an art form and as a means of self-expression should be quality driven. That is, we should seek to obtain the very best images possible for any given situation. We should be stopped by arresting images. We should dwell on them and discuss them. We should analyze how they were made and talk about their impact. They should be thought of as carefully crafted pictures worthy of intense scrutiny, designed to make a point – to sell something or someone, to make us look deeply into something or someone and/or to reveal something about the subject. One cannot accomplish this with “video capture.” Even in the case of the Boston bombings, I found myself wishing that the images were somehow clearer and gave a broader picture of the surroundings. Obviously, they were enough for law enforcement to make positive identifications and eventually bring the perpetrators to justice. But this is not what photography is all about. It’s only a part of it.
Henri Cartier-Bresson, the famous French photojournalist believed that in order to capture a certain reality, he had to become almost invisible inside the scene. He raised this notion to the level of art. He used quiet cameras (Leicas – rangefinder cameras with no noisy mirrors). He used black camera bodies (or put black tape on them) so that they wouldn’t be shiny. He sometimes sat in one place for hours waiting for just the right elements to come together to make a perfect image.
Philippe Halsman, the famous portrait photographer, used a relationship between himself and his famous subjects, as well as a good bit of psychology, to elicit responses that became iconographic images.
Richard Avedon, the famous fashion photographer, used his studio’s plain white background to set his subjects apart and force the viewer’s eye to concentrate on the clothes.
Lee Friedlander, the famous art photographer, used perfect compositions to document the everyday world of his travels.
Walker Evens, the famous documentary photographer, used his camera, (a view camera), to record in exquisite detail, images of the Oklahoma dustbowl of the 1930s.
One of the things that sets the work of these photographers apart from a simple recording of an event or person, is the thought and skill involved in making their images. When a surveillance camera records something or someone, there is no thought involved. The only thought is where they should be placed. If you place a camera on a street corner and turn it on, you will capture what happens at that street corner. There will be no thought as to lighting, angles, shadows, people or person-to-person interaction. That may be enough to let us know about that corner and to keep and “eye” on it, but nothing more.
So, my point to all this is that photography should be at least a step above plain, old surveillance. When we aim our camera-phones at someone or something, we are basically recording only what happens. If we put our loved ones in front of the Statue of Liberty, we aren’t really saying anything more than “I was there.” True, artistic, self-expressionistic photographs should be way more than that.
This is a wedding image actually shot with an iPhone. But, it was enhanced in Photoshop with an eye for creating a blurry, stylized image that said more than just “I was there.”