Staged or not?
For most photographers, you feel and know that they “just” took the picture, right? Even the most talented. Though hey had to decide many things (the cam adjustments, the frame, the moment), they took the picture. And I love that, from Eggleston who looks like he’s a magic-eyed kid trying to gather shells, to Shore who “resolves” a picture, inventing a perfect moment with the light and how he structures what he catches.
So yes, I admit there’s pleasure, in photography, in the movement of my brain trying “to find what the photographer wants”.
For example, Paul Graham‘s picture (the man with the lawnmower) is a great photography (the light, the rain, the atmosphere, the lucky tee-shirt/road sign correspondances) in itself, I learned that it was also a part of series of photos, showed in a certain order, which brought another dimension.
Working in series is interesting : you again think on what “is showed here”. A juxtaposition? A process? What’s the link : time, drama, correspondances, random?
…questioning what photography can say, be, or look like.
What do you question in your Art? In poetry or marketing, teaching or composing, fashion or decoration, blogging?
Again, again : Is it smart to make your audience think – and be aware of what’s happening (in your work/in your head/in their head), or do you prefer bring them in a dream, as usual?
Is reality simple or complex? Where is inadequation?
Thanks for reading!