There is no doubt that Stephen Shore is and should be one the celebrated photographers of our time. Not only is his work compelling, reaching out the mind and forcing new ways of thinking, but his book Nature of Photographs provides a simple, easy and beautifully presented understanding of the photograph functions. Having spent many an afternoon pouring over the contents of 'Nature of photographs' and marveling over it's simple, yet concise analogies there are certain images (and there explanations) that really catch my eye. When talking about Aaron Diskin's 'The Shadow' Shore says 'The frame corrals the content of the photograph all at once...the frame resonates of them and, in turn, draws the viewers attention to them.' you could argue that it is obvious that framing is a detrimental part of the image, but Shore alludes to the idea that the framing can be come the whole concept of the image, the defining factor, if you like. This theory can again be applied to William Eggleston's Untitled 1970 although the image contains children and a dog it is clear this is not the central focus. As Shore says 'for some pictures the frame acts passively,' it is a contributing factor taken into account to improve the image, but with Eggleston's image it is the defining factor. The road leads us to the pine woods beyond suggesting there is more to be seen outside the confines of the frame.
There is, for me, one sore point within these and this appears in the chapter The Depictive Level. Shore presents an image by Nicholas Nixon 'Friendly'. The image depicts a working class family in West Virginia, dirty and stern, as they eye the photographer in a defiant manner. Shore's caption reads, 'In bringing order to this situation, a photographer solves a picture.' This statement struck me as being callous, i understand that the book is aimed at discussion of Photographs as an object, but there is something about images of people, especially in the personal manner of Nixon's, that needs more time and tact. It seems cruel to objectify them in and restrict them to so few words. Something like dismissing their worth.
Stephen Shore The Nature of Photographs
www.egglestontrust.com
I was puzzled by Shore's comment on Nixon's photo. Since his work wasn't familiar to me and I liked that photo, I searched for more and found "The Brown Sisters", which was worthwhile. I think your negative comment about Shore's comment is reasonable. Will another viewer agree with my comment about your comment about Shore's comment? At the same time I picked up "The Nature of Photographs", I picked up "The Photographer's Vision" by Michael Freeman. I've just read half of the Shore book so far, but so far, Freeman's book, as far as I've read that one, leaves Shore's text far behind. Shore seems to be a minimalist in his words -- cogent and concise at best -- but often abstract and circular enough (and redundant) so there's not so much content there. Basically, I've learned very little from his words. Obvious and simplistic statements might help some inexperienced readers. But I also detect preciousness, both in his words and his photos. I got the book to possibly raise my appreciation of his work. So far, not so good. I admire what he did, but more text might have helped. I must finish the book and look it over carefully a few more times.
ReplyDelete