I'd suppose I agree with this quote, but it does seem to be a little over-dramatic and inclusive. I see this as an argument for photography as an art form, a debate that comes and goes rather frequently. Photography certainly is an art, and I like that this quote suggests the emotional content that can go into a photograph. It kind of hints that a photo is half of what's in front of the camera, and half of what's behind it. That being said, this quote should not be all-encompassing, as I do think that some photography has purpose outside of art, such and news and event photography. I'm not saying that these forms can't be art, but the priority should be the story rather than making a deeper statement.
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera." - Lewis Hine
I think the biggest thing a camera brings to a story is the sense of an environment. When a story is told verbally, all concentration is given to the subject (for good reason) leaving many other important details out. The atmosphere of the photo is closely tied to the story's mood. I find it interesting that a story can be told in the mood of the teller's choosing, but a photograph gives that power to the audience themselves. In that light, I'd have to agree with the quote. I think photos are necessary in portraying the environment of grave events that one can't possibly understand outside of the situation, such as war or natural disasters. Words might be better left to more specific things, like that joke you heard from your uncle on your 12th birthday. These points definitely form a continuum, however, and the actual appropriateness of words vs. photograph most typically fall between.
No comments:
Post a Comment