It’s difficult to define a photograph. Clearly it is an image, a still shot, taken of something that is present in our daily lives. The image can contain strangers, friends, or even ones self. It can capture a moment, it can preserve history, or it can create a beautiful depiction of a singular subject. However, aside from these strong traits and characteristics, there is still so much more behind the definition and impression of the photographic image. In the Nature of the Photograph, an interview between Stephen Shore and Luc Sante, the two artists discuss the ideas that hide behind a single photograph and all the elements that can interpret and emphasize the photographer’s skills that truly create the artistic work.
In the first section of the interview, Shore takes note on some of the basics that make up the process of taking and developing a single photographic as a physical object. Shore breaks down the practice of photography in the essence that it can be considered a synthetic process like the creation of a painting, however in actuality it is truly an analytic procedure. A photograph does not consistently build off one core value; with an image presented in a photographic form it is an analytical representation because of the amount of precise thinking and anticipation of what attributes are needed to take the picture to create a clear and concrete composition, with proper framing seen not only through the view finder but via the mind of the photographer, but also to think so far ahead of how this image will look when it becomes the print, the physical object.
As the interview comes to a close, Shore expresses a key component of the art of photography when Sante and him begin to discuss the makeup of a photograph when they break it down to its simplest element, color. For me, the black and white image can never be replaced. It emphasizes the movement being captured in its purest form. You are given the ability to not be distracted by a range of colors. It also evokes one imagination. When viewing a black and white image, you can take it in for its grays, blacks and whites and how each one of those heavy handed colors creates a picture that can take away time and simply allow focus on the subject. However, after that examination of the image as a whole in a classic format you can begin to expand even further and place your own ideas into the image with its purest meaning, but also with what it would look like in your own mind. You can apply your own color scheme, then slowly the personality and sounds of the subject or people being featured. A black and white photograph, truly allows and exponential amount of growth in perception and interpretation that the photographer is providing for the viewer.
Shore makes the statement after referring to the distinct representation of “1970’s color,” and says that, “I believe that color carries cultural information – and that cultural information does date.” I agree with Shore with his analysis of color in photography. Color captures a time, just as black and white does. Color at certain points in time, for instance the 1960’s and 1970’s; clearly depict an era in a way that emphasizes the subjects that were representing that era. It provides almost a definition of what this time period was and did look like. Black and white has the power to not only provide and capture the purity of a more simplistic time period, before color was able to show a world that could only be seen through the eyes of the every day individual. But, the other component of a black and white image, no matter the time period, allows for a deeper and darker perception that creates a more personal and wider range of interpretation. A black and white image is pure, and when its presented on film, I believe it is truly the purest and truest most artistic representation of a photograph.
Digital photography as medium is also mentioned in this interview between Sante and Shore. As a photographer, I almost refuse to use a digital SLR camera. I find that whatever piece is produced within that medium is not a true depiction of the image that was being taken. It loses its core, its detail. For me an image on film, color or black and white, is much more beautiful and unique then an image that can be produced one hundred times over. Digital photography to me loses its originally and personality. I know I have to grow in the filed of photography, but when it comes to a negative, there is truly no more of a genuine, beautiful, photograph. To pull away from my bias of digital photograph compared the my film photography work, I used the discussions between Shore and Sante in the Nature of the Photograph to examine four of my black and white, 35mm, 400ASA, photos. The two portraits were taken last year and the wider images that contain one singular image with a wider perspective, that were taken last week, have truly proved to me that I have grown as a photographer and as an artists. I shoot people; my subjects will always be the human form. However, with this stranger’s assignment, I pulled myself back. I was able to continue with my love of the human form, the human facial expression and expand my vantage point. I realized that it is not the closeness of the singular human subject that can make or break a good photograph, if the surroundings, the environment that subject is in, are crucial to the representation of the subject, than they should be seen. The human and their environment can easily become one in a photograph, which I have realized, does not diminish the subject at all.