First of all, I'm avoiding the RNC on the media. I can't stand the circus and the insanity of it all. I can't watch it anymore, and I'm disgusted that the political process has been reduced to meaningless sound bites and hallow propaganda. Pure theater, as A says.
But back to Salt. Today we debated documentary photography, and whether Shelby Lee Adams' work is "true" documentary. The discussion after the video was lively, but few seemed to understand the simple fact that this is art, with an artist showing his perspective. Yes, it's documentary in nature, but it can not be true documentary only. There really is no such thing. I may start some fires by saying this, but I firmly believe that you can not be present in a situation to document it (either by digital, film or audio), and not influence the situation with your mere presence. For that reason, it is not and can not be "true". You change the situation as soon as you show up to document. So why not create something beautiful out of it?
In one scene, the photographer asked his subject - a boy - to stand a certain way for a portrait. People seemed to have issue with this, as if it was too manipulative, but I understood why he was doing it - to better frame the shot. Would the boy have stood that way on his own with out the prompting of the photographer? Maybe not. Does this make this photograph "untrue"? Absolutely not. Is it staged? Isn't every portrait?
I realize it's hard for non-photographers to understand the art of directing your subject for a photo, but it's in the interest of a well composed (and lit) photo, and therefore more compelling. Shelby Lee Adams is absolutely a documentary photographer (and so is Mary Ellen Mark, who was also in this film, Modern Appalachia), but he is also a portraitist, and a fine art photographer. Here is a link to some of the work he showed in the movie: http://shelby-lee-adams-napier.blogspot.com/.
Photo: The Hog Killing 1990, by Shelby Lee Adams
No comments:
Post a Comment