Blog Response #16, 17, & 18

“Photography can only represent the present. Once photographed, the subject becomes part of the past.” Berenice Abbott

Like the best quotes, Abbott's statement rings simple but true. I'd suppose by definition a photograph represents the past, but if you look at it through a new light, it's radically different from the scene itself. The quote argues that as a physical product, a photograph will always be in the present. The moment it caught and conveys, however, can never be retrieved, it is locked in the past forever. Take a photograph in a conversation: people can talk about the piece with visual queues they presently see (see what I did there?). Without a photograph, a memory could still be talked about, but it's not really there. The people have to use their minds to remember, in which much of the information probably becomes distorted through their imagination. But let me ask you, what happens if you take a photograph of a photograph? Is the original photograph now a part of the past, or did split into multiple entities? It's a concept of little educational integrity, but it kind of makes my head hurt.

“Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer—and often the supreme disappointment.” ~Ansel Adams

I think this quote can be compared the the first Duane Michals quote offered in the blog. Ansel Adams is probably one of the best and most famous landscape photographers, but think of the countless failures that never even managed to leave the darkroom. The fact of the matter is, landscapes are boring. We can't escape them. Whether in a rural area or a city scape, we have become so jaded that we barely stop to take a real look at them. This is where the test comes into landscape photography. The artist has to find a way to twist the typical outlook of a landscape. There are many ways to do this, whether exposure, vantage point etc., but finding the right combination to make a successful switch on the typical, dreary landscape is the tricky part. And, depending on your standards, anything else is a failure.

“I believe in the imagination. What I cannot see is infinitely more important than what I can see.” Duane Michals

What an imaginative quote. At first I was having trouble relating this to photography. Photography is so literal, it's nearly impossible to break into the imagination when the subject really has to exist (I know collages and composites are the exceptions). But after a little thought, I realized how wrong I was. There is much to be imagined in a photograph if done correctly. For example, a chaotic aftermath would leave viewers wondering and imagining what could have caused the damage. Where this really interests me in portraiture. A portrait is definitely not just a picture of a person. It's a picture of their personality, their intentions, even their secrets. The amount of it that a photographer would like the share or withhold from the viewer can make or break a truly dynamic photograph.