In looking at the discussion between Paul and Ellis, I would also have to agree that true documentation cannot interpret. Doing so would only "taint" the image with subjective qualities.
I remember a photography student at the university who tried to deal with such issues in his work. In trying to use the camera as a "tool to document", he had set up a system for determining what location to photograph, when to photograph and which direction to photograph. The determining factor to photograph a location was made by a small piece of paper that was dropped from standing height and would randomly flake down onto a large gridded city-map on the floor. Where the paper fell determined the coordinates where he would photograph next. Using his city as his subject, he would always photograph at the same time of day, using the same camera, same tripod height, same film, and at first, with the same exposure. His system was quite complex, standardizing the entire procedure and after a series of hundreds of 16x20 prints, it was quite interesting to see what had been captured by his camera. Sometimes things where totally out of frame, with cars or people moving into or out of the image.
Initially, he had standardized the exposure to only one setting, but after a series of shots, it became evident that innappropriate exposures began to interfere with the project.
Although he couldn't eliminate all the decision making processes, as the system itself was a decision, he had brought photography to the most objective level he could think of, removing most of the subjective aesthetic choices in everday photography. Interesting.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks