Commentary vs. Content
I’m not exactly sure how ideas become lucid, but today I woke up with a question in my mind about whether or not my photography, and by implication, all photography, should be considered content or commentary.
The concept of content vs. commentary first entered my mind yesterday while watching a documentary discussing the subject of journalism in this current generation. Most discussion on the web is simple regurgitation of previously existing information. A blog sees that this group or that has discovered some piece of news, and then a hundred thousand bloggers will recite that news, sometimes quite similar to the original, and sometimes with either a very different spin or their own opinions on the subject.
Photography, however, is a strange beast. Unlike painting, it begins with a scene already in place and works backwards. Creating a photo simply records an event that already existed, but I’m not sure that it’s that simple. The editorial process of choosing what photos to show, creating a color palette, and even basic post-processing decisions can drastically alter a viewers perception of the photo, and thus of the topics and discussions that surround it. This can, at times, be a very overt decision, choosing to make the photos represent very specific agendas, and other times are not so clear.
To cite my own work as an example, the photo displayed here is in once sense simply recording an event and passing it along to the world. Granted, it’s posed in the sense that I told Abby where to stand relative to the lights or the backdrop, but I don’t meticulously pose my subjects, and so it takes on a candid undertone as well.
But the process of choosing that photo out of the 75 other options from Abby’s shoot is reflective of my own views of photography, of life, of Abby, of women in general, of color or contrast, and any number of possible interpretations. In fact, in the circles I am in that know Abby, the topic of my selection has been an issue of a certain amount of discussion, because everyone agrees, including myself, that the photo I displayed of her is not consistent with how most people view Abby. She is very loud, excitable, energetic, and so on. The photo I selected was not contrived in that I told her to look distracted, if not somewhat tired, but neither was it arbitrary.
There are thousands of other examples to take into this. So much of celebrity photography, whether studio, press line, or paparazzi, could serve either as content, that is to say simply sharing a concept with whatever viewing audience sees it, or commentary, which is to elaborate on existing concepts with the photographers opinion.
What do you think?
8. January 2008 um 10:52
Could it possibly be commentary on content? With Abby, for example, the content is essentially set – Abby. However, your choice of that specific picture could be seen as your commentary on, like you said, her, women, whatever. Photography can almost slide between the two, I guess. Sometimes it is just content – effects, or shock, or whatever. But we all know that a photo can “speak” just as loudly as a block of type…