Category Archives: Project 1 – Absence and signs of life

Project 1 – reflection point

For this piece of work, we are asked to consider the sentence below, with reference to the work of William Eggleston and Richard Wentworth:

The real location, found objects and characters, combined with technology and the photographer’s eye, come together to create a new world, one balanced loosely between recognition and art.

We are asked to answer the following questions:

  • Where does that leave the photographer? As story teller or history writer?
  • Do you tend towards fact or fiction?
  • How could you blend your approach?
  • Where is your departure from wanting/needing to depict reality?

The coursework suggests that, by removing the figure from an image, the viewer is encouraged/forced to make up his/her own story to explain what they are looking at. Hints and clues may be there, but it is the viewer who decides what they mean, not the photographer. The information also looks at William Eggleston’s series Memphis and explains that the lack of figures does not necessarily mean there is no information on the people who inhabit the spaces he photographs. Eggleston uses objects to hint at the people who use them, such as the tricycle shown in the coursework text.

Wentworth’s images of pieces of rubbish wedged into cracks in walls and domestic objects shown in a street context also hint at stories which the viewer must interpret. However, the question I would ask with both photographers is how much input they had into the scene they photograph. Clearly, some of Wentworth’s images are posed, although not all – see below. They utilise very mundane objects and make slightly jokey points about the incongruity of some of the things we see while going about our daily lives.

I am not so sure with Eggleston, although there is a very constructed feel about them. See below.

Both photographers appear to be using observation to collect together a series of images that say something about the place they are photographing and the characters of the people who live there. However, the individual stories are left up to us.

So, returning to the questions we are asked to consider, I would argue that these photographers are a little bit of both story teller and historian, but that these labels don’t really get to the heart of the subject matter. What the images really are is an invitation to think about how the objects got there, who did they belong to, and why, thus making us think outside the frame of the individual image to the place in which it was made. The story teller is really the viewer, not the photographer.

The second question asks whether I by nature tend towards fact or fiction in my photography. I would say probably 70% fact and 30% fiction, thinking about the work I have be making for my various courses. A conceptual element is creeping in nowadays, which probably means a move away from the simply factual. Others might disagree with this assessment though. I do feel that my work is moving away from simple reportage towards trying to visualise ideas, and this is something I intend to continue as the course goes on.

Conversely though, I have a strong aversion to making changes to the environment in which an image was made, in order to “improve” the composition. I prefer to leave things as I found them, and to work with what I see. An example of this is shown below, where nothing was added or taken away (apart from the photographer in the images, of course). The armchair and the panda bear really were exactly as we found them, in the derelict room.