Passage, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

This photograph is fairly derivative of the work of one of my photographic idols. His photographs are children were remarkably unsentimental and revolved around the mysteries and ambiguity of being a child. He frequently shot in attics, barns, and what were probably abandoned buildings. Anyone know who? (Not Tom! He knows!)

I don't know if he did any pinhole shooting, this was taken with a pinhole camera that takes 6x6 images on rollfilm.

And thinking about that, maybe it isn't all that different in certain respects from some of my photographs that are perceived as "random." This camera has no viewing mechanism, although I've figured it out reasonably well, but there is still always the possibility that no matter how well-planned, things can happen that weren't expected. Not all that different from real life, is it?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 24, 2000

Answers

This one grabs me...I don't know why...need to think about it. I'm a teacher and it seems to speak of the impatience of youth. I like the pinhole effect. You might want to use that more often...nice job. What camera did you use...there are a few models available. I'd like to get one.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 25, 2000.

I like it a lot. I like freaks and monsters. This is an effective setting to picture one, and the movement blur is very appropriate.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 25, 2000.

jeff, after following the display of some of your work on this forum, it is clear to me that you are a serious photographer with much talent. it is equally clear to me that you have forced me to struggle with many of the fundamental concepts upon which my appreciation of photography as art are based. for that i am grateful. however, the conclusions i have reached are certainly not in accord with what i perceive to be those which are exhibited by your images and your commentary. that is neither good nor bad, of course; it is merely a fact, and hopefully a basis for both you and i to learn more about ourselves in relation to our own art and to art in a broader, more generic sense. to be more specific, i find that you represent what i shall arbitrarily call the "creation school" of photography. that is, i think that you view the photographic process as something to be utilized as a tool with which you can create an image as a thing which represents a symbol of a larger subject: e.g., the picture above is for you representative of "the mysteries and ambiguity of being a child". for me, it is simply a vague, meaningless display of a blurred human figure surrounded by a flat, uninteresting background. again, i hasten to admit that such a statement is subjective, and judgmental. but it is not contemptuous. i am well aware that many other members of this forum (and indeed the entire number of serious photographers) may consider this piece to be insightful or stimulating. still, it is not art, nor is it an exceptional photograph in any fashion. as you observed in an earlier post, you must have thousands of "street shots"; your last offering was entitled "just another street shot". in my view, that is an absolutely accurate assessment of this sort of image. the only thing that makes the picture different from any other image taken in the same area is the fact that the horizon is tilted. one could take thousands of shots of thousands of different individuals walking in front of the same storefront; with one very important exception, they would all be the same, for me: very bland images of people walking in front of a cluttered background. i noted that, for me, there would be an exception. that is, if in 1962 you had captured a picture of marilyn monroe on her way to the corner grocery, or stopped julia roberts in mid stride, glaring (or glancing, surprised) into your lens...then you would have an image of some importance. for that matter, even if the individual pictured were unknown, or unattractive, or not unusual; still, if only they were *doing* something, or appeared unusual in some fashion that speaks to us *intrinsically*, without the need to tilt the camera: then you would have an image that deserves or even commands our attention. i suppose the key word for me is this: capture; for me, a photographer recognizes beauty, or fear, or love...any number of the limitless possibilities in human appearance, and *at the perfect time*, captures that image. he does not create the image, he captures the image. i fear that i shall be taken too literally, but that is the risk when one is in a phase of struggling with a new thought process. i know, for instance, that many of the photographs that i have seen on this forum are in some way, more or less, manipulated. tom meyer's wonderful post coital shot comes (poor word choice?) immediately to mind. but the camera wasn't jiggled, or the image intentionally made obviously blurry simply for "effect", or to make a statement about something else. the image spoke for itself, and its relative clarity reinforced what was communicated. it was a powerful moment. tom surely doesn't have "thousands" of similar photographs. oh, well, it's late, and i have had my say, or at least the beginnings thereof. time for a response, if you care to embark upon a brief trip that may make both of us think about where we are going with our cameras.

respectfully wayne harrison as you

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), August 25, 2000.

What camera did you use?

I use a Zero 2000. It is available in the US from Pinhole Resource, who use one of my photos (no people in it) to sell the camera. My favorite of the images I have created with this camera is here, although that is also a non-people image.

i think that you view the photographic process as something to be utilized as a tool with which you can create an image as a thing which represents a symbol of a larger subject:

Wayne, this is completely true. It's all about symbolism to me, although it is rooted in a rather surrealistic view of the creative process.

. tom surely doesn't have "thousands" of similar photographs.

I'm not sure about this, although I can in no way speak for Tom. My encounters with people who view photography as primarily an artistic outlet (as opposed to primarily a recording process) leads me to believe that they go back to the same subjects over and over and over. The image I reference above (the one I stated as a favorite of the pinhole work) resulted from repeated stoppings at roadside shrines created by people (typically from Mexico or Central America) for loved ones at the places they died alongside the road, usually in car accidents. I have many of these photographs, I had to go back over and over until I was able to connect the camera to the mind, or maybe just figure out why they affected me and translate that into a photograph.

, if you care to embark upon a brief trip that may make both of us think about where we are going with our cameras

We all have our own reasons for doing what we do with photography, and as long as we are thinking about it rather than going dogmatic, I think it will benefit us all.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 25, 2000.

. My encounters with people who view photography as primarily an artistic outlet (as opposed to primarily a recording process) leads me to believe that they go back to the same subjects over and over and over.

There are maybe 2 people I've met, whom I could spend the rest of my life doing nothing but chronicling them, and never photographing anyone else. I used to think Andrew Wyeth (sp?) was completed obsessed for creating the Helga series, but now I'm not so sure...or he was but "that's OK". By the way, I think this is a timeless photograph, Jeff, along with many of the others I've seen by you.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 25, 2000.

Jeff...the Zero 2000 is a beautifully handmade all wood MF pinhole camera at a great price. Your photo has convinced me to get one. Thanks. Todd

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 25, 2000.

ps...I feel like this photo today...half invisible, and small, in a monstrous maze of archaic architechure

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 25, 2000.

There are a number of places in Wayne's post where it's obvious that his assumptions and my assumption differ, but I think the following may be the most fundamental: "i suppose the key word for me is this: capture; for me, a photographer recognizes beauty, or fear, or love...any number of the limitless possibilities in human appearance, and *at the perfect time*, captures that image. he does not create the image, he captures the image." In my view, the photographer always creates the image rather than simply capturing it. Even in a "straight" photo--one with no jiggling, odd angles, or "special effects"--the photographer still decides where to point the camera, from where to shoot, which lens will provide an angle of view that includes an appropriate background, how great the depth of focus will be, what will be in sharp focus, which small fragment of time to capture, and which film to use (which affects tonality, grain, and possibly color tone and saturation), and how to develop that film. All of thes decisions will be based on experiences, personality, and goals of the person taking the photo. In other words, even a straight photo is an abstraction that reflects the personal biases of the creator. I don't see the basis (other than personal taste) on which we decide that "this level of abstraction is appropriate" but "that level of abstraction is not appropriate." Perhaps Wayne objects to overtly manipulating the subject or its environment. However, this can be a problematic standard as well. How do you judge whether the subject has been overtly manipulated? I have several photos which are completely candid that people suspect are posed. I also have some completely candid photos that utilize "special effects." The image below (Man and Ghost of a Woman) was shot in a bar with a long shutter speed. About halfway through the exposure, the woman moved. When she realized I had been taking a photo, she asked if she screwed it up. I told her no, that she just turned it into a different picture.

I'm not trying to argue that Wayne's opinions about Jeff's photography are invalid. But, from reading Wayne's post, I don't see a consistent (or philosophically solid) set of standards for judging good and bad. Further, most of Jeff's work that I've seen seems to meet most of Wayne's standards. In the spirit of expanding one's views about photography, I suggest that Wayne take a much closer look at what it is he doesn't like about Jeff's work, comparing each photo and the general body of work against his ideas of what a photo should be. Also, Wayne should compare the photos he does like against his standards--he might be surprised at the number of them that don't meet his standards. [Of course, I don't know that this will be the case. But I've yet to encounter any standard or rule that is capable of distinguishing a good photo from a bad one. I've seen people who decide that they don't like a certain photo because it violates some rule, but that generally says more about the person than the photo.]

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 25, 2000.

in response to mike dixon: my primary complaint with jeff's approach to photography as art, represented specifically by this posting, is that it is so easy to do, and so lacking in impact. you get a pinhole camera, or any other camera, and you position a human being in front of some appropriately dire background, and direct him to move at the time of exposure. and by this image i am to be moved, or challenged, or inspired, or angered? obviously it doesn't work for me. on the other hand, observe the work of kertez, or cartier- bresson, or many others of similar style: the work is striking in its beauty, and obviously a matter of selecting the precise moment in time that forms speak to us in a musical vision, a unique moment, unstaged, devoid of artsy fartsy pretense. we see the truth about our own experiences in these images. blurred, canted, and mundane images without content or contrast are not the kind of photographs that i find possessed of value. in other words, give me one walker evans and you can have all the winogrands ever printed. as always, i trust that all participants recognize the fact that i have a great deal of respect for some of jeff's work, and mean no personal enmity. it's just that his style presents a marvelous point from which to enter a discussion of the nature of my understanding of what is art and what is not, photographically. s

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), August 25, 2000.

To answer your question, no I dont know who, but I am waiting to find out.

I am not adept enough to comment on the symbolism of your photography although I do find it interestingly engaging. The symbolism you intend surpasses me at times but I do spent time exploring the settings and in fact that, to me, is where my mind searches for clues within most photos. My interpretation of intended symbolism is just that mine, right or wrong, it needs not match what you wanted but at the very least the photo kept my attention for a while. Waynes take is different than mine (thankfully) and his assessments are rift with bias. His judgment of your purpose will never in a million years match yours; he is not you. I dont believe technique determines art. The viewer does. The effort of the photographer helps to determine art. The curator has a say, but time will ultimately decide. His comments on settings and content are irrelevant to the image; in fact I find them to slanted. I know what I enjoy though I lack the skill to verbalize it effectively. I do enjoy much of the work posted on this forum; it speaks volumes about the creator of those photos.

Thank you Jeff

-- larry szoke (lszoke@icom.ca), August 25, 2000.

Jeff,

Thank you for sending me your website address. Viewing a "body" of images gives greater insight into the artist's purpose. Your work is impressive (much more than stand-alone images), and I can see the threads within your photographs. I now have a much better appreciation for what you are trying to do. I love the pinhole. I must try that. Todd

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 25, 2000.

A few comments.

(Wayne) in response to mike dixon: my primary complaint with jeff's approach to photography as art, represented specifically by this posting, is that it is so easy to do

I don't think it's particularly easy to do. I visited the site of this photograph at least thirty times, and photographed at least ten of them. I have over 100 shots (taken mostly with a non-pinhole camera) at this location. I visited at every time of day, shot in the rain, in bright sunlight, and sometimes just walked around and absorbed the energy. It's a strange and trippy place, currently mostly abandoned and waiting for demolition.

For quite a while, I had envisioned the concept of the boy with head turning (not just from Meatyard's photos, also from the film Jacob's Ladder), it was something I wanted to do. I tried it at a number of abandoned buildings I visit without finding what I wanted.

When I purchased the pinhole camera, I realized it was the right vehicle for this shot. Putting the location, the boy, the camera, the movement together happened. This particular photograph, rather than being a casual experiment, took a long time to happen. Maybe you could do it very quickly, but I found it a long (and interesting) process.

(Wayne) observe the work of kertez, or cartier- bresson, or many others of similar style: the work is striking in its beauty, and obviously a matter of selecting the precise moment in time that forms speak to us in a musical vision, a unique moment, unstaged, devoid of artsy fartsy pretense

And this is where I really have problems with what Wayne is saying. "Precise moment" photography is simply one way of taking pictures. Many, many photographers don't work in "precise moment" mode. Many, many photographers stage shots. Does that make them all "artsy fartsy" and "pretentious?" Or do you just happen to not like mine (which would be much better, as far as I am concerned)?

(Larry) My interpretation of intended symbolism is just that mine, right or wrong, it needs not match what you wanted but at the very least the photo kept my attention for a while.

And I couldn't agree more. I don't necessarily think anyone should interpret my photos the way I do. For me, they're all wrapped up in certain internal visions and I doubt anyone else has exactly the same ones. I feel I've succeeded if I can generate some reaction.

I think Mike's work is quite wonderful, valuable and worth seeing. I'm not sure if he has a website, I have seen quite a few of his photos and highly recommend them.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 26, 2000.

One more thing, unrelated to the last post.

I find it very interesting that this discussion, which would be expected on the Philosophy of Photography forum, happens here. I think it's because photos can drive a conversation about photography far more effectively than just words. This forum has been much more productive because of that, I think, than any of the word-based forums in which photographs rarely figure.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 26, 2000.

Wayne: I think you've done a good job of explaining what you don't like about Jeff's photography. If you were just presenting your views, I think that would be sufficient. However, you asked that others re-evaluate their views (about Jeff's photos in particular and photography in general) based on your views and assertions of what constitutes photographic art. When someone else requests that I reconsider my views, I expect them to a.) present new evidence that makes my views less coherent, and/or b.) point out some flaw in the way I currently think about the subject. In my view, you've done neither--you've presented your opinion quite effectively, but you haven't presented any compelling explanation of why your opinion is in any way superior to mine. And I'm far too lazy to reevaluate my views every time someone disagrees with me. I'm not trying to be combative here; I just want you to understand why I don't find your arguments compelling.

Jeff: Thanks for the kind words. My website is currently aimed at potential wedding/portrait customers, is in serious need of an overhaul, and would not be of particular interest to most people here. I hope to have it completely redesigned and updated soon, but so far, simply hoping hasn't been especially productive. The best place on the web to see my current work is at photocritique.net.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 26, 2000.

Wayne

I understand Wayne's position though I don't agree with it at all. I too used to look at, in my case street photography, and question it's validity. Boy did I question it! Some of you may remember my motto. Landscapes and stillifes forever, amen! Because I, maybe like Wayne, looked at it from my own viewpoint. My own space in appreciation/creation. I didn't appreciate Jeff's creations at first because I didn't see them from his perspective and his environment. Now I understand them and can appreciate them for the creations they are. I can like them or not. But they are still valid. I surfed all my life and I was what you might call a "stylist" in my approach. I didn't think much of noseriders or gliders. When short boards came out I thought they were awful. "This isn't surfing". I was wrong and as I have grown in my photography, I have learned that I am not an island. My views are mine and not the centrally accepted viewpoint of anybody but me. I may not be moved to look longer than 1/2 sec at some images but they are as valid as anything by HBC, Adams(kneeling down and genuflecting), Evans, or Sexton(again kneeling and making the sign of the double A). Wayne, I know there are some here who would gag if they saw my images. They're good images, but they won't move them and that's ok because they will "accept" them. They have matured. Just as you will some day. Bless you my son. (nodding head he again makes the sign of the double A.) James

-- lumberj...er...James (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), August 29, 2000.

This discussion is an interesting extension of the other one, in which I feel compelled to quote myself out of some misguided urge toward efficiency... So here goes:

Relevant to Wayne's exploration of new perspectives This is because you are a photographer (or currently a photography critic) at the expense of other experience. Quit looking at it like it is an object to be dissected according to photographic rules... and look at it like a human being... without all that "photographer" baggage we photographers drag with us every damned place we go (can you hear your wife, brother, son, mother, dog whining at you "how long is this going to take?????) Drop all that referential, comparative, reductionist, academic thinking and just take in the information offered by a photograph instead of analyzing it into 50 other things that are kinda like it but not close enough to justify it as something worth considering or worthy of comparing it to, not that I like that stuff but at least Szarkowski liked it so it must be significant enought to become so famous that nobody can ever do anything like it ever again without making every photographer with a "regard" for photographic history point and say "Shit, man...he's just rippin' off Meatyard!

That "regard" for photographic history can be an anchor around your neck. Make pictures the way you want,regardless of photographic history, 'cause some expert will always... always find a way to show that it's been done before... So ****ing what?... So... what.

So much for efficiency... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 26, 2000.

Nice shot Mike... Jeff, make sure this one's in the book.

and wayne... I love the way you disagree, it's so respectful and rare. Thank you for the opportunity to carry on, so... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 26, 2000.