What's Valid and What's Not, and Why?

Sam G. wrote: "For me, the more interesting idea is whether camping at a spot for hours on end removes the genuine serendipity. If you want a person to stand in a very specific spot in order to complete your composition, is it that much different to wait of hundreds of passers by to randomly walk through rather than just ask them to stand in the right spot? In both cases, you are imposing your vision on the scene rather than letting the scene present itself to you."

He was talking about Jeremy Paige, whose work I like (what little I've seen of it, in the video)—I didn't know of him before this. He comes off as the real deal. I'd like to see more of his work.

The issue of what's valid and what's not in getting a picture is interesting, although perhaps overblown in most cases. Of course it's a thorny thicket. It has has to do with psychology, status, and assumptions and expectations. It also seems to have a lot to do with Internet culture, which has a marked petty-and-vindictive streak. People can get criticized severely for almost anything, because...well, because they can, I guess.

What's okay and who says so? People can slammed for all sorts of alleged transgressions. A photographer once shot a project in the dark, using IR film and an opaque red filter. She put a bunch of nearly-nude friends in a room and shot away, discovering later what she had gotten. Were those not "her" photographs because she couldn't see through the viewfinder what she was shooting at the time the shutter fired? What about a guy who shot from the hip for weeks and then edited severely? I know of a very good photographer who shot that way for years, although I can't remember his name. Is it okay that Robert Frank exhaustively "worked" some of his pictures for The Americans to come up with a picture that looked like it was one quick and thoughtless snapshot? Robert Doisneau got Internet-shamed at the end of his life when people found out something that had long been known, which is that he wandered around Paris for several hours with the couple in Le Baiser de l’Hôtel de Ville, taking many pictures of them in different locations. A friend who knew him said he was very troubled by the harshness of the accusations, which he shouldn't have been, because the accusations were thoughtless, not to say mindless. How about setting up a camera with a motion detector to trip the shutter remotely when something happens in front of it? How about suspending a camera around a cat's neck and setting it to fire at intervals for a cat's eye view of the world?

All these things, which are all real examples by the way, have outraged somebody somewhere. Why? Who gave them the right to set the rules?

Jeremy Paige rediscovered Cartier-Bresson's method, which in many cases was to find a scene and plan and wait. I use that method sometimes, as with the paddleboarder shot. That doesn't mean the shot is staged. I didn't know a paddleboarder would come along. The thought hadn't crossed my mind until she came into view. (I was waiting for a canoe, which never came.) I didn't tell her to stand, or how to dress, or instruct her where to look.

Anyway, if staged pictures are somehow tainted, then pretty much all fashion photographs and all still lives are tainted. If posing is bad, then most portraits in history can't be good.

Is it inauthentic to take many shots of a scene to see what will work best? How about when a large-format photographer consults charts to find out when the sun will be in the right position, or finds a vantage point so she can exclude something intrusive? Is that dishonest? We were just talking about the San Francisco de Asis Mission Church in Ranchos de Taos, which John Camp photographed showing the parking lot and commercial buildings that surround it. Are all the photographs and paintings that omit those things somehow lying?

Lying is at the core of the real issues here, of course. We're mainly affronted or offended when we think someone was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Pretending something is one thing when it's another thing. Le Baiser de l’Hôtel de Ville looks like it was a snapshot, therefore people are critical when they find out it's not. Of course, not very many viewers have a very subtle knowledge of what's involved in making pictures, so the first thing that begs to be examined is their assumptions, not the pictures.

We all set our own rules. The real responsibility is to be considerate of viewers by acknowledging what is really going on.

And speaking of the paddleboarder shot, I'm interested in making a combination shot of that scene, one that includes both the geese and the paddleboarder. That was suggested by Ritchie Thomson in the comments. But of course, if I did, I would say, "this is combination photograph. The geese and the paddleboarder actually passed this spot about ten minutes apart." I suppose I should look up the time stamp on the two images and give the interval in exact minutes and seconds! Because you can never be too careful.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Benjamin Marks: "Outrage is tiresome, and useless if we are talking about making art. The Internet has fooled us into thinking outrage is useful, or that it matters. It doesn't. It is just a tribal marker, and folks must be pretty lonely and lost these days if they take such satisfaction in banding together in this cheap copy of community.

"Here's my two cents. As long as no one is getting hurt in the making, all bets are off when art is being created. Plan, stage, pay, tech-up, tech-down, stalk, hide, buy gear, paint your belly with blue woad and howl. With the above proviso, all that matters is what the viewer of the art feels. There isn't a 'sin' listed in your post, Mike, that would keep me from being moved by a beautiful image."

Alan Wieder: "This is a very thoughtful post. Your examples are great and my thinking is that critics should make pictures of their own authenticity rather than condemning what other photographers do."

Kristine Hinrichs: "Your inspiration was that couple in a canoe. Even if they were paddling, it’s likely a much 'lazier' scene than the paddleboard which (to me) exudes a different physicality."

Niels: "I love the light and detail/texture of the photo on Flickr."

Sam G. [the OP —Ed.]: "To be clear, I wasn't passing judgement on the validity of a photograph. A staged photograph is not any better or worse than a serendipitous photograph as long as, as you said, the photographer is honest about what they are doing. I like Jeremy's work. It is incredible! I just thought it was interesting how some of his photographs seemed to push the limits of what it means to be serendipitous.

"An attempt at an analogy...if you pick a number at random from the phone book, and happen to call your old friend from high school that you haven't talked to in years, that's serendipity. But if you continuously call random numbers from the phone book until you ring your old friend, that's brute force."

Comments

[Robert Roaldi]

In some cases it sounds like the "criticism" amounts to walking vs standing still? Seems a little arbitrary.

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

Certainly an issue I have found myself grappling with as a photographer and as a viewer of photographs. I think, for me, it is mostly the honesty piece as you say. I think that Steve McCurry's images are incredible, whether they are staged or not. BUT, they are in fact very different things that require different skills and I do appreciate knowing the honest way in which they were made.

I recall reading Sally Mann's book "Immediate Family" and I absolutely love the images. I was a bit disappointed when I read how staged many of them were, with "The Last Time Emmet Modeled Nude" not only staged, but staged many times on many days to get THE shot. I love the image either way. But there was a magic in believing that she was out walking in the shallow water with her son with a camera in hand and captured that image. I wanted to believe that was how it was made.

With many of the examples you mentioned, the unique idea of how to capture an image from a new perspective is certainly valid and often breaks new ground.

I personally find the most joy and challenge in making photographs where I don't impose anything on the scene or the subjects to change what was organically happening. My goal is to capture a moment that was real, in a way that is visually compelling. If someone looks at my camera on their own and an image results, I view that as a genuine moment. If I ask them to look at the camera, I am making a portrait. Very different things - to me.

[Frank Gorga]

The first rule of art making... there are no rules. (As long as no one get hurt, I guess.)

I'm pushing 70 year old and still, for the life of me, cannot figure out why people get so bent out of shape when other folks don't follow their "rules".

I say "live and let live" as long as your living does not cause harm to others.

This applies to all areas of existence. Human behavior is just strange.

[The older I get, the stranger I find it to be. --Mike]

[Omer]

Mike wrote... "The real responsibility is to be considerate of viewers by acknowledging what is really going on."

It's a choice, not a responsibility.

[louis mccullagh]

There is a whole world of controversy in Nature photography.
There is now a big business dedicated to organising Nature photography which involves 'providing' opportunities to photograph animals.

This may be in 'reserves', the animals may be fed by the organisers, there may be permanent huts etc. to photograph from. Define animals 'in the wild'.

This is certainly far removed from the serendipity and discomfort I would associate with 'real' nature photography yet it is passed off as such.

It is the deceit of the above I dislike. I acknowledge that it is probably fun for the photography groups who do this and it also gives them an opportunity to see animals close up.

[Dave_lumb]

I've stopped trying to make 'art' or 'great photographs' or whatever you want to call them.

Now I prefer to record what I see around me, the everyday and unremarkable, because, having aged, I realise it might well be gone tomorrow or next week (as might I).

It feels a more useful reason for an amateur/hobbyist owning a camera than making attempts at art that will be appreciated by a handful of similar photographers.

This approach does require the pictures to be made retrievable. Which is where DIY zine and book publishing comes in handy. Which is a whole other topic.

[Sam Pieter]

“Outrage … is just a tribal marker”
Thank you Benjamin Marks!

[Dan]

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from Garry Winogrand:

D: There is another photograph that has an arm coming in from that edge, in almost Sistine Chapel fashion. That arm and the hand on the end of it are feeding the trunk of an elephant.

W: Oh, you mean the cover of the animal book. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about now. It's just that I carry an arm around with me, you know. I wouldn't be caught dead without that arm!

(from http://towery.lehman.edu/photohistory/PhotoReadings/GarryWinograndInterview.html and I believe the excerpt refers to https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.001/id15481/article_1064x.jpg)

[Keith Cartmell]

Well, that was brilliant. The Bryan Birks video on Jeremy Paige. Thank you for pointing it out.

One of the rules I was taught for when trying to mediate a dispute is that if everyone is upset afterward, then you've probably arrived in a place that's actually fair to all involved.

But now people get outraged by nothing at all. On Canada Day I was out with a small film camera for some street photography. Where I was actually composing a photo of a person, I'd point to them, then the camera, and smile. Most were fine with having their photo done. One guy gave me a stony head shake, I gave hime a smile and thumbs up, and moved on. I watched one photographer get yelled at just for asking if they could take the photo. Sheesh.

[Brian]

I waited for 4 years to get a shot of the morman barn at grand tetons i knew it was an iconic landmark so wanted somwthing special.

we frequently toured that way in our rv so could be patient. anyway one paricular year there was a forest fire east of the barn and there was also a breeze from the east. so up at 4 am and drove to the barn from our campsite at west yellow stone for sunrise. i was not disapointed. tetons lit wit bright orange and the valley behind the barn filled with smoke. a distater for sure but a very scenic capture which i treasure

apparently hcb used to wait for people things to fill his scene rather than arbiterally expect a thing to happen straight away.

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

And speaking specifically to the Sam G. Comment at top, I think there is a massive difference between IMPOSING your vision setting it up vs waiting for the right moment to come together in a scene. I see no gray area between the two scenarios he presents - they are black and white.

To extend his example to an editing analogy, it would be like saying of a landscape: "well if the photographer waits for days for the perfect light that he/she envisions, isn't that the same as using Photoshop to simulate the light and sky he/she envisioned? No, they are completely different things. The end-result print may look beautiful both ways, but they are not at all the same. And like many photographers, I guess there is an underlying frustration that many see a true gray area here!

And now the ability for AI to generate completely fake images adds an entirely new side of this debate.

[James Weekes]

I'm sorry, but any of those people who criticized Robert Doisneau or his methodology lose relevance with me. I don't need to know how he made that picture. Yours is lovely by the way.

[Kenneth Wajda]

I find the coincidences of Jeremy's photos exhausting after a very short time. I accept that he's working and waiting and making the shots, I just don't see the people on the street as people, merely props for his clever compositions. I prefer human stories that reveal character more than just as graphic elements. That is my taste and doesn't make me right, just right for me. My background is in photojournalism which certainly affects my tastes.

He says he wants to be original but I've seen many people doing the juxtaposition timing thing that it comes off as trite. Good for an IG like though for sure.

[SteveW]

I talk about the gods; I am an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth.

The only truth I can understand or express is, logically defined, a lie. Psychologically defined, a symbol. Aesthetically defined, a metaphor.

-Ursula K. Le Guin

[darlene]

Who gave them the right to set the rules?

I perceive it as a specific character trait. Individuals who consider themselves self-proclaimed experts often exhibit controlling tendencies, believing they must correct others. For reasons that might not always be clear, they seem to lack an appreciation for the freedom of expression, assuming that their knowledge or intentions are superior or more beneficial.

While such behavior might be understandable in a commercial context, it tends to be irritating when encountered on a personal level or in a learning environment.

The educator in me has a strong aversion to these personality types, as I've witnessed the way some students respond to them.

Photography has always been my personal medium for freedom of expression, and I truly don't care about others' opinions on it.

My artist's skin is thick, but my heart for fellow photographers will always be deep.

[Christopher Perez]

I think the problem you're describing is the fragility of (some) people's psyche and the constant looking outside of themselves for validation.

If you're up for it, have a read through Conservative columnist David Brooks' "Hey, America, Grow Up!" and see if it rings true for how this might relate to photography and online "critics. It should still be on the NYTimes site.

[John Camp]

I don't know who the photographer is, but I found intriguing a whole series of shots he made (I think) in a station at the Paris Metro, shooting what amounted to portraits of people in passing trains. Not stopped trains, but trains that were passing through, shot with a high-speed shutter to freeze the motion. So the shot was totally set up in terms of lighting, focus, shutter speed, etc., but because the trains were moving so fast, he had no idea of what he was getting. What he got was pretty interesting.

[Was it John Slaytor's "Lost in Transit" series? --Mike]

[Mark Sampson]

Pablo Picasso is reported to have said "Art is a lie that tells the truth".
An interesting idea, even if not said first by a famous artist.

[Mitch Krupp]

It seems that virtually everything has its gate keeper's today. People judging whether or not you meet the bar they set. I think it's always been that way but the internet just makes it so much easier for the intolerant/ignorant to dump on those that don't measure up.

[robert e]

Well said, Mike and commenters. Kibbitzers gonna kibbitz. Just keep working.

[Phil]

I would just like to second Benjamim Marks' comment. And I would add: Isn't the job of art to make us feel something? All the talk about the method the artist used to give us that feeling (the wonder of their skill or the outrage that they didn't achieve it the way we would like them to have achieved it) is not about the art itself. It's about those feelings that the art has just triggered and, ultimately, about ourselves as we view the art. The art already did its job.

[Flavio Morais]

I’ve been meditating deeply over the last couple of weeks about photography and the reasons why one is photographing. In the end nobody owns anything. Buying a property for example, it simply gives someone the legal rights of living there. The land itself doesn’t belong to anybody. How many insects, birds and other animals are living in that property as well? Does nature have an owner? We are merely wonderers and observers. A photograph is how someone looks at something/someone. The person owns that vision, but owns nothing seen by those eyes. What’s the difference between imagining a scenario and painting it or photographing it? Do imagination and creativity have any rules? And then when it comes down to the internet, specially social media, people are mostly sharing their opinions. We rarely see real engagement and real communication. Communication is to think together, make questions and create understanding. However what we usually see is two different opinions crashing against each other because they’re going in different directions. Someone will always criticise something. I’m saying all that just to get to the point that we should photograph firstly for ourselves. The photograph is about the photographer’s personal experience. Art is about expression, connection and identification. Someone likes Led Zeppelin or Michael Jackson because they identify with it. There is no rule or recipe to like one or the other. The same way there is no recipe to compose Stairway to Heaven or Smooth Criminal.

[Jeff1000]

I don't have a philosophy.
I have a camera.
I look into the camera and take pictures.

--Saul Leiter

[c.d.embrey]

I make photos NOT take photos. Therefore I can do whatever is needed to to do the the job. Satisfying the c)ient is what's important. Simple as that.

[Chris Bertram]

To paraphrase Waylon Jennings, Are you sure Henri done it this way?

[Regularly, but doubtless not always. He describes it in various interviews about various pictures. --Mike]

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Thinking about what photos I like, and thinking about what photos of my own I like, and about what photos I want to take, all leads rather directly to having Positions about Photography. I mean, it doesn't absolutely have to; but it pretty naturally does. Discussing these things, with other photographers, leads even more to that.

As to the Saul Leiter quote—I just don't believe him. I don't believe that anybody who spends that much time looking into a camera and taking pictures, and shows them to people and in fact sells and exhibits them, hasn't thought about the subject. He probably would admit to some general ideas, and would probably distinguish that from having "a philosophy", I suppose. I don't see much real difference.

Maybe it only counts as a Philosophy if it makes you do things you know are artistically wrong?

[Bob Johnston]

Someone was once supposed to have said "the camera never lies". The camera always lies and always will. The very act of choosing a composition (an abstraction of reality) and a time makes the picture a lie, if that's your sort of thing. What exactly is reality? There is no way of capturing reality. I don't understand why people get upset about this. They want photography to be something that it can never be.

[psu]

I mostly agree with the general sentiment in the comments.

I would add my personal peeve about people who seem to think that there is something exceptional about taking pictures with as few frames as possible. If I could get get one good picture per frame I'd shoot even more to get as many good ones as possible. 🙂

[Dave]

If I took a photo with a 180-degree angle of view lens, someone would complain that the various details were too small to see. Not to mention the horizon limits what can be shown in one photograph.

Who would sit through a viewing of a video or film of the entire surface of planet Earth?

People would still complain because something may have changed position between the start and the end of the film/video.

It all comes down to the old saying, "You can't please everybody". (Nowadays, at least on the internet, "You can't please hardly anybody".)