The Thing Itself
The fundamental principle of photography
________________________________________________________________
Bill Jay
For more than 30 years I have been deeply involved with the medium of
photography; for most of that time I have directed my lectures and writings at
young(er) photographers.
Hopefully my own attitudes to the medium will continue to evolve; certainly, they
have undergone continuous change. In looking back at the last three decades,
however, I have been aware that one fundamental attitude has remained at the
core of all my experiences in the medium. It is this "frame of reference" which I
would like to share with you in a single article.
I am not claiming that this principle of photography is radical, different or new.
On the contrary. I believe that it is familiar and basic - which means that it
deserves and demands constant repetition, in an age when principles are often
impugned, as if they no longer held relevance.
But like all fixed Rules, it must also be accompanied by flexible strategies,
accounting for individual images of insight and brilliance which, seemingly, ignore
the principle we will discuss. But it is there, and no less crucial for being hidden,
like the foundations of a building.
Perhaps the most obvious, and therefore the most contentious, issue of
photography is the medium's inseparable relationship to The Thing Itself.
Photography performs one function supremely well: it shows what something or
somebody looked like, under a particular set of conditions at a particular moment
in time. This specificity has been, and remains, photography's boon as well as
its bane.
It was not by chance that photography was born in the early 19 century when a
deterministic spirit was fueling the Victorian's fanaticism for facts. The camera,
along with the microscope and the telescope, became one of the primary
instruments for investigating the details of reality. Deeply and strongly rooted in
subject matter, the medium has had an uneasy and tenuous alliance with
authorship since its introduction. Therefore, what a photograph depicts has
generally taken precedence over what a photograph means.
The advantage inherent in this notion is that photography has become an
increasingly useful tool in our society for the transmission of information about
every conceivable aspect of life.
The "disadvantage," is that while a photograph is directing attention to its subject,
it is de-emphasizing the role of the individual who made it. Indeed, in the vast
majority of photographs, even those of extraordinary impact in our lives, we have
no knowledge of, or interest in, the author. Attempting to make individualized
(artistic) photographs in this environment is a bit like discussing metaphysics at a
football stadium during the Super Bowl. This does not mean that the attempt is
without value; it may indeed influence your neighbor. But it does mean that the
chances of being recognized by the public at large is less than likely.
The act of photography is a similarly private act, unlikely to be rewarded or even
noticed by society in general. The young photographer must come to terms with
this fact. A photographer with artistic aspirations has a very small audience -
one which is increasingly congregating within the faculty at colleges and
universities. These institutions have replaced the church and the princes as the
major patrons of the arts in our society. Indeed, about the only way it is possible
to earn a healthy living from being a photographic artist is to become an
academic. And this is the primary value in attending graduate school - to earn
the qualifications necessary to become employed as a college teacher/art
photographer. In this role, the artist has the freedom to expand his/her creative
potential.
I have mentioned the arts in academia in order to throw an oblique light onto a
previous assertion. It is this: most of the Great Names used in academia, for the
inspiration and edification of students, would not be eligible for graduate studies,
let alone as faculty members. Most of them were professional photographers,
earning their livings on assignment in journalism, industry, fashion, medicine, and
a host of other photographic applications. My point is that great (even artistic)
photography is not a function of environment or a prerogative of academia.
A corollary of this point is that you cannot be a photographer by aspiring to be
one, or by learning everything there is to be known about photography.
Photographers produce photographs. And many of them. Like every other skill,
photography is learned by continuous and dedicated practice.
One well known photographer came to stay at my home and shocked the local
photo-dealer by ordering 1,000 cassettes of 35mm film. I assure you that every
frame had been exposed within one year. That equals an average 100 frames
per day, seven days a week. Another photographer friend shoots a roll of film
every day "even when not photographing" because, he says, "it is essential to
keep the eye in training. " It is true that these two examples are of particular
types of photographers but nonetheless the principle remains: you do not
become good at anything unless you do it earnestly, regularly and, yes,
professionally.
The truth inexorably leads to a single, but usually ignored, matter of fact: in order
to photograph with any degree of continuous passion, you must have a
fascination for the subject, otherwise you cannot sustain an interest in the act of
creation for a long enough period of time in which to make any insightful or
original statement about it. In spite of its seemingly heretical slant (in this day
and age) what you photograph is usually more important than how you
photograph it.
The photographer is, first and foremost, a selector of subjects. The
photographer makes a conscious choice from the myriad of possible subjects in
the world and states: I find this interesting, significant, beautiful or of value. The
photographer walks through life pointing at people and objects; the aimed
camera shouts "look at that!" The photographer produces pictures in order that
his or her interest in a subject can be communicated to others. Each time a
viewer looks at a print, the photographer is slaying "I found this subject to
be more interesting or significant than thousands of other objects I could have
captured; I want you to appreciate it too. "
This immediate emotional or intellectual response to the subject matter is at the
core of photography. Its periphery is the photographer's manipulation of
framing, focus, exposure, lighting, and all the other variables, in order that a
bland record is invested with depth through the production of an intriguing image.
I have stressed the importance of subject matter because it is the fundamental
principle of photography - and, paradoxically, the least discussed area of the
medium, especially to young photographers. I can understand this reluctance.
We all have grandiose aspirations for, and expectations from, photography and
this leads to a plethora of concepts, as well as aesthetic and critical theories
which, when heaped on the back of photography, bring the medium to its knees,
not in homage but in defeat. The fact of the matter is that photography cannot
bear the intellectual weight with which it is fashionable to burden it. Photography
is not an intellectual game but an emotional response to charged living.
After a critical essay of mine appeared in print, Ralph Steiner would often write
me a funny, provocative and stimulating letter. But he would end with the words:
"but you still have not told me in which direction to point the camera - and this is
what matters. " And he is right.
However, giving specific advice on what to photography would not be
appreciated even if it was possible. The answer is provided by a question: What
are you really interested in? In other words: What is it that can sustain your
enthusiasm for a long time? I advise young photographers to be overly pragmatic
in answering such questions. First, list all those subjects which fascinate you -
without regard to photography, i. e. what would you be doing if there was no
such thing as a camera. After the list is made, you then start cutting it down.
Eliminate those subjects which are not particularly visual. For example,
existential philosophy can be deleted. Then cut out those subjects which are
impractical, for one reason or another. For example, I have always been
fascinated by Patagonia but, as I live in Arizona, it is not a subject which I can
shoot at available hours and weekends. The subject must not only be practical
but also accessible. Also eliminate those subjects about which you are ignorant,
at least until you have conducted a good deal of research into the issue. For
example, you are not making any statement about urban poverty by wandering
back streets and grabbing shots of derelicts in doorways. That's exploitation not
exploration.
Continue similar reductions in your list of interests until two or three subjects
remains, all of which a.) fire your enthusiasm b.) lend themselves to images,
as opposed to words c.) are continuously accessible.
Let me give you an example. As a teacher I encounter a great number of
photographic students who are active in college life, naturally emotional about
many aspects of education, and who spend the greater part of their waking life
on campus. But in the past 15 years, and over 1,000 students later, I have
never seen a photographic project based on what it is like to be a college
student. In fact, it is rare indeed to see a photographic student carrying
a camera.
Instead, they select subjects which they assume their professors (or the art
community at large) expect from a photographer and wonder why they cannot
sustain any interest in making pictures. Photography has become a gradeproducing
chore and the thrill of visually confronting the world has lost its sharp
edge of discovery, the original reason, perhaps, why the student became a
photographer.
But back to the list. . . with some hesitancy, I admit, I would recommend one
further elimination process. It is this. When you have two or three visually
possible and accessible subjects, all of which interest you equally, it is no
compromise to select the subject which others are more interested in viewing.
The state of being human dictates that some things are visually more interesting
than others.
As a lecturer, I am well aware that, it is difficult to transmit information to a
disinterested, bored audience. You must engage and hold the audience's
attention before the content can flow. It is the same with images. Just be
aware that some subjects are more accessible and interesting to the lay person
than others - and it is deliberately perverse to ignore this consideration. There is
a very fine line between pandering to popular appeal and a respectful
consideration of viewers’ interests, and only the integrity of the photographer will
hold the balance.
All this talk about emphasizing subject matter might indicate that I am only
advocating a strict, straight recording of objects. But this is not so. I have been
talking about starting points. I do believe that the narrower and more clearly
defined the subject matter, the more scope there is for a continuing evolution of
complexity and, hence, the greater the latitude for personal interpretation. An
analogy might help to explain my point.
I have recently relandscaped my front yard and now need to plant trees. I could
have an "instant" tree by collecting an assortment of trunks, branches, twigs and
leaves and assembling the parts. But the tree would be dead. The starting
point for a living, growing tree is a seed or a sapling. Then by careful nurturing,
and a good deal of patience, a tree will grow - often into a form which could not
have been foreseen.
It is the same with a body of work, of any merit, in photography. The greatest
scope for deep-rooted, organic growth begins with the most simple premise.
The alternative is a frantic grasping for instant gratification which merely leads to
works displaying visual pyrotechnics but of dubious depth and resonance. This
is the fallacy of form. Young photographers are often pressured into an
emphasis on individual style, a search for distinction, a quest for newness and
differentness. Yet the truth of the matter is that a unique style is a byproduct of
visual exploration, not its goal. Personal vision only comes from not aiming for
it. In dim light, objects emerge from the gloom when not looking at them. It is
the same with style; paradoxically, it is a natural, inevitable result of emphasizing
subject, not self.
And this principle brings up an equally important correlation between subject and
self. If it is perceived to be important that the self should be ultimately revealed,
the question arises: What is the nature of this "self"? If the self is shallow, narrow
and inconsequential, so will be the resultant photographs. It seems an
extraordinary presumption that every photographer has a depth of character
which demands revelation!
Inevitably, most photographers would do the world a favor by diminishing, not
augmenting, the role of self and, as much as possible, emphasizing subject
alone. This is not meant to be facetious. Such photographers would be
members of an august group - the majority of photographers throughout the
medium's history, most of whom remain unknown as personalities. However,
the emphasis today is on a cult of personality and individualism, and I presume
that the majority of young photographers who encounter these words are anxious
to assert self. Like all noble aims, however, it is not achieved without varying
degrees of responsibility and hard work. The young photographer must develop
a photographic conscience.
What I mean by this term is this: If the subject of the photograph is the vehicle for
profounder issues, then it is the photographer's responsibility to think and feel
more deeply about those issues. That sounds self-evident. But how is it
achieved? By a seriousness of spirit. And how is that achieved? By engaging on
a quest for self-knowledge which invests the act of living with greater energy and
commitment. I am well aware that this sounds very nebulous. You cannot
wake up one morning and assert: today I will be aware and more alive. It starts
like self-expression, with a concentration of focus - on the subject matter. It
presumes that the subject deserves not only looking, but also thinking, reading,
writing, talking as well as photographing - earnestly and energetically.
I once watched a television interview with a great violinist. The interviewer
asked him to describe a typical day. The musician said he read scores over
breakfast, then composed music in the morning, thought about music during a
walk, practiced the violin in the afternoon, played in a concert in the evening, met
with musician friends to play together, then went to bed dreaming of the violin.
The interviewer was aghast - it seemed such a narrow life. "Yes," said the
violinist, "Initially my life was becoming narrower and narrower in focus. But
then something extraordinary happened. It is as though my music passed
through the tiny hole in an hour glass and it has since become broader and
broader. Now my music is making connections with every aspect of life. "
In this sense photographers are photographers one hundred per cent of the time,
even when washing dishes. The ultimate aim is an oscillation between self and
subject with the image being a physical manifestation of this supercharged
interface between the spirit and the world.
It demands reiteration: this conscience of the photographer is not learned, not
appropriated, not discovered, not acquired quickly or without effort. It is a
function of the photographer's life. And it begins with an intense examination of
The Thing Itself.
If this presumes too much, I make no apologies. The young photographer,
unwilling to develop such a conscience, can always move on to some other
activity, without failure or shame, or join the army of hobbyists who derive great
pleasure from their images, or employ the medium in its honorable role of
documentation without artistic presumption. My concern is with those who
engage in artistic posturing and shallow assumptions, using photography as if it
was a clever trick and employing stylistic devices in a sleight of hand which
deceives the eye.
An earnest and honest appreciation of subject matter is the genesis of a clearer,
deeper vision. Photography is rooted in The Thing Itself.
This article has been reproduced more often than any other piece I have written. I think it was firstpublished in Newsletter, Daytona Beach Community College, in 1988 - but it is still being used by and copied for college students at the time of posting, 2006.
