Camera Lucida

Camera Lucida

Roland Barthes

How to define photography? 

• ·      Empirical – amateur or professional
• ·      Rhetorical – landscape, objects, nudes, portraits, etc
• ·      Aesthetic – realism or pastoralism

I would add

• ·      Process – digital, film, lens less

Barthes states that because of all of the variations photography becomes unclassifiable.  Currently there is an obsession with classification, mainly fueled by the digital versus film debate, but this is then overcomplicated by the added sub-cultures of SLR versus medium format, resolution versus bit depth, Nikon versus Canon, and so on.

“Photography always leads the corpus I need back to the body I see”.  Photography is a record of an event that can never be repeated, which Barthes says, is never transcended for the sake of something else.  Photography is not a plural but an individual – the photograph not photography.  The photograph can communicate or cause a reaction but it is still ‘ a photograph’.

Barthes initially states that the photograph is never distinguished from its referent, from what it represents.  But unlike other media this this is not necessarily true.  Many would state that a photograph is a signifier when a secondary action, such as reflection, is added.  So a Kevin Carters shot of the child and the vulture is no longer an image of a bird and child but is a statement about the state of South Africa at the time, is a statement on hopelessness, or is a statement on the callousness of the photographer.  So is a photograph what he terms as ‘laminated objects’?  Can the referent exist without the signifier, or would removing one destroy the other?

The signifier has traditionally been the emotional, or indeed subjective, response promoted in the viewer.  This could be like Kevin Carter’s shot outrage, or in someone like Lachapple envy or desire.  Currently there appears to be a new response developing, one that has always been present but is now more prevalent, the technical quality.  The image has become a signifier for the equipment that you use thus removing the emotional element from the photograph.

Because of all of these variables Barthes concludes that you cannot really classify photography.

Barthes identifies three practices within a photograph.

• ·      The operator – the photographer
• ·      The spectator – the viewer
• ·      The target – the subject of the photograph.

Each has their own perspective on the process, separate from the mechanical or chemical reactions in the physical process.

Excluding the incidents of being photograph without one’s knowledge, each photograph of a person involves a pose.  The pose determines how the target wishes to be interpreted, both interpretation and pose being determined by cultural and environmental factors.

He suggests that there are four ‘repertoires’ in portrait photography.

• ·      The one that I am
• ·      The one I want others to think I am
• ·      The one the photographer thinks I am
• ·      The one that the photographer makes use of to exhibit their art.

Barthes view of photography, as a non-photographer, excludes many of the additional factors involved in the dissemination of information about the target.  The fashion and lifestyle press add their own repertoire, the manipulated image.  This is not a new element; Cecil Beaton for example used seemingly unsubtle manipulations with paint and ink on his large prints.  Once reduced to a magazine page these broad strokes seemed life like.  Current digitally manipulated images continue this practice, as models features are smoother ad stretched to fit the current cultural expectations.  Is this a fifth repertoire, the one that the art director sees?

Studium and Punctum

A Latin term that does not directly relate to study but is used to represent the interest aroused by the subject of a photograph.  This can be the cultural content, the juxtaposition of elements to create a tension, or simply asking your self why in relation to the narrative presented to you.  The Punctum he classes as the surprise that leaps out of the photograph at you, it translates as sting, speck, little hole.

Many photographs exist without a punctum as they please you without creating more than a ‘polite’ interest.  The studium must be present for you to look at the photograph, studium relates to like, not love.  The punctum may not be a physical element within the image, but may be time.  The memories and emotions created when looking at an old photograph.

William Klien famously responded to Brathes inclusion, and interpretation, of two of his images by presenting what he regarded as him studium and punctum.  The important thing to remember is interpretation of images is an opinion not a fact.

Barthes, R. (1984) Camera Lucida. London: (Fontana).

Michael Kenna

Michael Kenna

“what impresses you most when you look through his very vast series of landscape pictures is the extraordinary intactness of the luminous atmosphere.”

Ferdinando Scianna from Images of the Seventh Day, Skirra Photography

I must admit to skimming over Michael Kennas work for a few years, never really looking into it until I eventually looked at is website.  This details 73 publications, reams of solo and group exhibitions and a staggering amount of gallery representations.  Add to this a raft of blue chip companies that he has produced black and white commercial work for and it seems I have missed one of the leading forces in contemporary landscape photography.

Scianna describes Kenna’s work as ‘post-documentary’ and ‘neo-pictorialist’.  Post-documentary – from reading an essay by Martha Rossler my understanding of this term is at total odds with its use as a descriptor for Kenna’s images.  Rosler would define post-documentary as being free from the aesthetics that influence the viewers interpretation, and free from manipulation.  Kenna chooses the viewpoint to carefully edit the vista to fit his compositional style.  He may not be post processing images in Photoshop most of the time, but the severely extended exposure times, and the refinements made during the darkroom process, are every bit a manipulation of the image as others would carry out digitally.

My understanding of neo-pictorialism is that it defines images created by the likes of Jeff Wall and Gregory Crewdson – the manufactured tableaux style image.  Possibly Kenna could be described this way, his images are certainly constructed in that he is using time – long exposures – as the method of modifying the images and creating the artificial tableaux in the same manner that Crewdson would use filmic devices.

The early work shows a prevalent influence of Brandt, even to the point of homage.  This developed into a much more Atget type style, the long exposures removing the human presence from the scene.  Topiaries in misty parks with deserted gravel paths clearly demonstrate the Atget influence.  Over a thirty year span Kenna’s style as varied, along with subject matter, but the long exposures appears to have remained a constant (along with the square format).  Here has been a brief flirtation with still lives and a series on cooling towers, which would seem to be an influence on photographers such as Ian Bramham.  The more recent images show the influence of Japanese photographers.

The current extreme exposures that remove all tonal detail from water and sky are the closest to the neo-pictorialist ideal.  The scene is a fabrication in that the majority of the tones are a creation, in the same manner that Crewdson manipulates the scene using theatrical lighting and post production techniques, or Wall will compile the scene from separate image files.

So where do Kenna’s images fit this research?  Like Cooper he is photographing the remains of man’s activities on the landscape.  This may be a subtle as a fence post protruding from the snow, or as blatant as a city.  Man is not the subject, it is his relationship with the landscape, the ritualistic activity.  Unlike Cooper his work is brighter, more optimistic.  He portrays the activity as a symbiotic relationship, a coexistence.  In Kenna’s images man is just another aspect to the landscape, he is often less important than the natural subject matter, a tree will be treated with more reverence than a structure.  I would place Kenna as being diametrically opposed to Cooper and Hill in that they both emphasise the passing of man.  This could be a remnant of a building for Cooper, or an intersection of pathways on a hillside for Hill, but both acknowledge man as having an active part in the landscape.  I often feel that Kenna sees man as much more transient, a traveller passing through soon to be forgotten.

Three Perspectives on Photography - Thomas Joshua Cooper

Three Perspectives on Photography

Atonements – Photographs 1976 – 1979

A meditation on meaning within my own work.  -  Thomas Joshua Cooper.

“I am fascinated by, and drawn towards aspects of ritual and ceremony as they, in their most pristine forms, indicate areas and awarenesses of human activity that I prefer to call sacred.  It is around such ‘ritual areas’, which abound in Britain, that both the conceptual ad the formal basis of my work occurs.”

Thomas Cooper describes how he feels at home in the environments that he classes as ritualistic.  These locations are often the remains of quarrying, mining or forestry.  When I work in similar locations I must admit to also feeling a sense of belonging, of feeling at home.  Is this a link to the past, or maybe a sense or harmony existing within these now deserted and dilapidated structures?  The once quite dangerous and hazardous environments are now softened by time, elements and nature.  Possibly this softening of the harshness makes the locations more inviting.  The resonances of past industry are present in every aspect of the vista, from hand hewn rocks to crumbling buildings, from rusting steel ware to tramways invaded by bracken.  John Blakemore talked about the spirit of the place, Cooper discusses working towards the ‘Myth of Recollection’.  The two are probably one and the same, the link that you form with the past through the environment.

Both Blakemore and Cooper acknowledge that the process is a contemplative one, being ‘indrawn and introspective’.  I was once encouraged by John Blakemore to meditate before shooting, Cooper describes his approach as reflective and medative, both I believe are primarily slowing down and allowing the full experience of the location to enter the creative process.  The sounds, smells and atmospheric conditions all influence how we interpret the scene before our lens.  We take these remnants of rituals and use them to develop our own ritual, the creation of our images.  Once captured on light sensitive devices, digital or film, we then add to our interpretation by adjusting the palette, tuning the contrast.  Once this vision is formulated we then choose paper, surfaces, inks, developers, all of which further remove the image from the record of the subject.  The process is no longer a chemical reaction producing a visible image, but is now a product and creation of an emotional response to an unnatural environment, incorporating the influences on our emotional condition. 

“It is the lyric stance that marks me deeply as it comes from the Heart.  Revelation becomes the creative source.  For me, photography must always be a function and process of Heart.”

Three Perspectives on Photography - Paul Hill

Three Perspectives on Photography

Photographic truth, metaphor and individual expression – Paul Hill.

“It is my contention that the metaphoric use of the camera to mirror the personal experiences and feelings of the photographer is its most exciting application’.

Paul Hill – Three Perspectives on Photography

Paul explains how he sees every photograph as a metaphor, that a person, or a tree, become symbols on a piece of paper.  He states that in his experience people rarely think about the process, the science behind the image.  They do not think about the chemical process, the silver and the coloured dyes reacting to light.  This essay was published in 1979 when photography was reliant on the dark room, on the skills and experience of the printer.  Images were changed and manipulated by skilled practitioners who were seen by the majority as craftsmen to be revered.  Today the digital process has become more process orientated than creatively led.  If a person asks about a camera they are more likely to ask about the resolution than the optical quality.  When viewing a print they are more likely to comment on the Photoshop techniques used rather than the creative vision of the photographer.  I would argue that now Paul’s statement has thoughts of photography in 1979 have been superseded by the diametrically opposed view that the majority of viewers now see the process more than the image.

Paul goes on to state that a photograph is “an object that you can hold and feel”, but how many photographs today make it to print?  Our view of photography was often restricted by the process, which tried to match colour and contrast of the image to a ‘true’ world.  The majority of images were shot on colour negative film with a neutral contrast and slightly desaturated spectrum, and printed on silver or dye based paper processed to be viewed at a short viewing distance.  When shooting an image the photographer had firstly the option of colour or black and white.  This was seen as the difference between serious photography, black and white, and amateur photography, colour negative.  Photographers, such as William Eggleston, successfully challenged and changed this view.  If colour was the chosen path then the serious photographer would use colour transparency film and print it using Cibachrome.  This was often criticized because the colours were rich and vibrant with the highly glossy surface helping to give a contrast, punchy feel to the image.  The less acceptable face of photographic reproduction now appears to be the norm.  The overwhelming percentages of images are now viewed solely on monitors.  These transmitted images are more often than not on uncaibrated monitors that are overly right and over saturated.  The idea of photographs as being tactile now seems to becoming a thing of the past.

Paul uses Oscar Rejlader’s image The Dream as an example of an image with Freudian overtones.  He states that the  British public prefer objectivism to ‘all that self expression stuff’.  He states that

“the photograph can, and should, tell you more about the photographer than the ‘real’ world.”

He goes on to say

“When Rejlander died in 1875, a writer remarked: ‘He saw things unconventionally, which is what few photographers do; he did not weary us with insisting on detail were it was not needed”.  How little things have changed in the last 100 years of photography.”

Over the 33 years since the ‘Three Perspectives’ this could be said to have moved further from the Rejlander ideal.  When using film photographers where quite happy to accept that fine detail would be degraded by the physical composition of the recording medium.  Today with ever expanding pixel counts we find that there is an obsession with increased sharpness.  I recently watched an interview with the landscape photographer Julian Calverly.  In this he describes how the person who does his large format prints successfully sharpens his images.  Calverly shoots on an Alpa medium format camera with a Schneider lens onto an IQ180 back.  This must surely be one of the sharpest camera/back combinations available, and yet he feels that his large, very atmospheric landscapes need further sharpening.  He does, however, manage to present an impression of himself in his work.  You form an opinion of the photographer by his consistency both in subject matter and tonal qualities; this is despite the attention to fine detail.  By the use of viewpoint, exposure and filtration Calverly is presenting his interpretation of the world, he is interpreting and creating not recording.  This forces me to as – have we reached a point where technical excellence and emotive imagery have become happy bedfellows?

Hill introduces Eugene Atget who’s photographs, as with Calverly’s, transcends record making.  He suggests that Atget’s often deserted, more often surreal images are more self-portraits than records.  Is this not true of any photographer who strives to develop any considered series of photographs?  Photography is an emotional reaction to a subject; otherwise we would be no better that speed cameras reacting to external stimuli.  Every time we isolate a scene through the viewfinder, editing the world in front of us, we are making a statement about our selves.  When we then add that image to a series that we have processed either in the darkroom or in Photoshop we are exposing part of our soul to the world for its judgment.  When a photographer creates a documentary photograph they are editing the world in the same manner, they are taking a frame from the motion picture that is our world.  Added to this our socio-economic and ethic influences colour our view of the subject.  The next influential factor when interpreting images is the viewer’s standpoint.  Are they a documentarian or a self-expressionist?  Are they a technician or an artist?  So whom should the photographer be aiming to produce images for?  The answer is simple, themselves.  Firstly you must create images that satisfy your needs; weather that is to express some inner feeling or right a social injustice, you must be happy with your product.

I would like to suggest that there is a third category of photographer, the intellectual practitioner.  Hill talks about “Ivory Towers” as being very middle class.  This may or may not be accurate, but the intellectual would appear to dominate the tallest of these structures.  There is a section of photography that relies as much, if not more, on the written explanation than the visual creation.  This dependence on ‘art speak’ would appear to be a defense mechanism to avoid the ever more accessible arena of photography from encroaching on their lofty positions.  They would have us sneer at the self-expressionists and condemn the documentarians as mere recorders.  Often these practitioners are using none original, or harvested, images from other sources and create a mystique around their practice to elevate the activity.  I do not condemn the activity outright.  Photographers, or artists, such as John Baldassari have undoubtedly helped to expand the boundaries of acceptable photographic art.  I do criticize all of those who have taken his ideas and diluted them by weak imitations.

So what is my personal stance?  Photography is a product of your development from childhood, not just your educated years.  You take these early influences ad add them to the stimuli and flavourings produced by others and develop your individual response to a subject.  The emphasis should always be on your response.  The intellectual exercise is primarily aimed at acceptance into a clique or tribe; if you have not produced the work for yourself then that acceptance will be short lived.