One of my passions is photography. Or perhaps I should clarify that: photographing. Rather than the former passive term, I use the active verb: the act of photographing. This may seem trivial, but it isn't really. The difference became apparent to me over the years of reading travel reports on the Internet, especially by motorcyclists. They all seem the same, to the point that I have stopped reading them. 

I remember my Dad, a free-lance photographer, telling me so long ago not to worry about 'how': how to set up the frame, how to arrange the 'elements', how to master the Zone, or Thirds. He told me to shoot what I saw in my mind's eye. And the rest will come together. It seems that so many photographs are almost copy cats of each other because everyone aims to conform to the same 'rules', like photographing by numbers (rather than paint by numbers). But what photography really is, is an interpretation of the world, of reality. As we see it. And sometimes, that might be outside of the box.

You might enjoy this excerpt by Graham Clarke from "The Photograph." (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997)

How Do We Read a Photograph?

Whenever we look at a photographic image we engage in a series of complex readings which relate as much to the expectations and assumptions that we bring to the image as to the photographic subject itself. Indeed, rather than the notion of looking, which suggests a passive act of recognition, we need to insist that we read a photograph, not as an image but as a text. That reading (any reading) involves a series of problematic, ambiguous, and often contradictory meanings and relationships between the reader and the image.

The photograph achieves meaning through what has been called a 'photographic discourse': a language of codes which involves its own grammar and syntax. It is, in its own way, as complex and as rich as any written language.

The photograph both mirrors and creates a discourse with the world, and is never, despite its often passive way with things, a neutral representation. Indeed, we might argue that at every level the photograph involves a saturated ideological context. Full of meanings, it is a dense text in which is written the terms of reference by which an ideology both constructs meaning and reflects that meaning as a stamp of power and authority. Far from being a 'mirror', the photograph is one of the most complex and most problematic forms of representation. Its ordinariness belies its ambivalence and implicit difficulty as a means of representation.

To read a photograph, then, is to enter into a series of relationships which are 'hidden', so to speak, by the illusory power of the image before our eyes. We need not only to see the image, but also to read it as the active play of a visual language. In this respect two aspects are basic. First, we must always remember that the photograph is itself the product of a photographer. It is always the reflection of a specific point of view, be it aesthetic, polemical, political, or ideological. One never 'takes' a photograph in any passive sense. To 'take' is active. The photographer imposes, steals, re-creates the scene/seen according to a cultural discourse. Secondly, however, the photograph encodes the terms of reference by which we shape and understand a three-dimensional world. It thus exists within a wider body of reference and relates to a series of wider histories, at once aesthetic, cultural, and social.

Every photograph is not only surrounded by a historical, aesthetic, and cultural frame of reference but also by an entire invisible set of relationships and meanings relating to the photographer and the point at which the image was made. The image is as much a reflection of the 'I' of the photographer as it is of the 'eye' of the camera.

Thus we can read a photograph within its own terms of reference, seeing it not so much as the reflection of a 'real' world as an interpretation of that world.

Labels: photographing