Barrett, Criticizing Photographs, Ch 8: Writing and Talking About Photographs, 3rd ed, 2000

Chinese version of the text

The book ends with a chapter of practical advice for the author’s students, the kind of guidelines you’d read in any introductory academic writing text:  read widely, take extensive notes, consider your audience, use a style guide, find a hook, provide examples to back up your assertions, be succinct.  Included are sample essays from some of Barrett’s previous students, as well as a list of suggestions for conducting a discussion of photographs:

• Describe what you see
• Consider subject matter
• Relate form to subject
• Create group interpretations
• Ask questions of the photograph
• Consider presentational environment
• Consider assumptions
• Be slow to judge
• Be honest

This wasn't the most inspirational text, but it did a good job delivering on its intention to introduce some of the basic concepts and approaches to critiquing photographic images. The writing style is simple yet not condescending and Barrett provides plenty of useful examples.  The books is suitable for a general audience with little background in photography or art criticism and is a good place for a beginner to start.

#

Clarke, The Photograph, Chapter 10: The Photograph Manipulated, 1997

Alvin Coburn - Ezra Pound vortograph 1917

Perhaps the most notable aspect of Clarke’s review of photographic manipulation is the absence of any discussion of computer technology.  The book was published in 1997, which means Clarke was probably writing as late as 1996, a bit before the boom in digital imaging and the rise of Photoshop and other editing software.  Just as well as we get an overview of what was possible in the days before mass computing, though Clarke confines his discussion to 20th century photography, omitting such 19th century manipulation such as combination prints or differential focus.  

What comes through clearly in this survey is that photo manipulation was a practice of those who had a point to make, of photographers or artists aware of their role as producers of images.  They were ideologically, philosophically, and/or politically motivated.  Not many, it seems, manipulated photos simply because the outcome was aesthetically pleasing.  There were perhaps a few - Rejlander’s combinations prints, Coborn’s vortographs, Man Ray’s Rayograms.  But for the most part those who manipulated did so in order to create images that knowingly mocked photographic and aesthetic convention, perhaps most clearly seen in the philosophy of ostranenie, or making strange.  Among the many schools or trends Clarke surveys are constructivism, surrealism, and satire.  Techniques included unusual perspective, use of mirrors, multiple exposure, collage/montage, and the photogram.  

#

Exercise 40: Symbols

This is a conceptual exercise that does not require the production of images.  We are asked to think of one symbol for each of the following concepts, with notes about how they might be used in photographs.  The purpose here, I believe, is to demonstrate how difficult it is to think of original ways of conveying such concepts as images.  Our visual thinking is as uninformed and cliched as our conceptual thinking.

Following are some ideas, along with a few photos scavenged from the web.

GROWTH

Clarke, The Photograph, Chapter 9: The Photograph as Fine Art, 1997

Having just finished Barrett’s chapter on Theory, I found much of this chapter repetitive.  Clarke takes a slightly narrower focus, largely ignoring postmodern ideas and arguments to present an overview of the Photograph as Art. He cites Stieglitz as the father of the movement to elevate the cultural value of the photograph, principally through his journals (291 and Camera Work) and his NYC gallery (located at 291 Fifth Avenue).  Clarke quotes Stieglitz’ description of the events surrounding one his better known images, The Steerage, to elaborate on how the photographer conceived his work.

Stieglitz speaks here as a formalist.  Indeed, the entire scene is described as a composition, “a picture of shapes” which bears no relationship to the scene itself.  The separate elements are reconstituted by the eye in terms of a planar geometry.  There is no interest in the particulars of the scene or the condition of the figures.  Rather, the whole is referred to an implied higher frame of reference which, ultimately, is centered in the photographer/artist;  what Stieglitz refers to as the “feeling” he “had about life.”  (p169)

Barrett, Criticizing Photographs, Ch 7 Theory: Is It Art?: Evaluating Photographs, 3rd ed, 2000

http://jonnicheatwood.com/

This chapter seeks to shine light on the assumptions underlying art criticism. It has to do with ideas about aesthetics, or definitions of art and the process of art. Barrett notes that from the earliest days photographers and critics argued about whether photography was art. Museums largely settled this issue by adding photographs to their collections, but by the 1980’s the question had shifted to whether some types of art - multimedia objects incorporating photographic images - could in fact be considered photography. Whereas much of photographic art theorizing typically took place among photographers, the late 20th century saw a number of outsiders join the discussion, most notably Susan Sontag, Roland Barthes, Rudolph Arnheim, and EH Gombrich. Among photographers writing on theory, Barrett notes Edward Weston, Paul Strand, and August Sander. The other important voice in aesthetic discussions is that of the museum and gallery curator, who through his decisions about what to buy or display influences the topic or tone of discussion. Barrett notes in particular John Szarkowski, Director of Photography at New York's Museum of Modern Art (1962-1991). In his survey of theoretical positions, Barrett reviews the following:

Do newspapers need photographers?

This was the title of a NYTimes blog post in reaction to yesterday's news out of Chicago, quoted below.  Could we ask the same question about writers?  Editors?  It doesn't seem freelancers with iPhones can so easily substitute for years of experience, local connections, extensive training, and commitment to community and professional ethics.

A Chicago journalist believes this may be management strategy to rid the company of the mostly unionized photographers, to be replaced in the not so distant future with cheaper part-timers or freelancers at a later date.

Review: Exposure Master workshop, Keylite Studio, Abu Dhabi, 31 May 2013

This 3-hour program promises to provide a reliable way of calculating proper exposure.  The description as it appears on Keylite's website is appended below.  Including a 15-minute break, the workshop lasted 4 hours and was composed of three parts.  The first was an explanation of how the camera typically processes light by producing an average.  This is not always an accurate representation of the subject as seen by the human eye, particularly in situations with high dynamic range.  The instructor defines optimal (or correct) exposure as the settings which capture and reproduce the maximal amount of data.  (In this regard, full-frame cameras capture more data than those with smaller senors).