View Full Version : The snapshot as an art form
Stephen S. Mack
08-04-2009, 19:16
Before I start on my opinions about the snapshot, I was wondering if there are any similar discussions in the archives. (I think that the snapshot *is* a legitimate art form,):eek: but I was wondering what had been written about it before on these forums.
Thanks to all who reply.
With best regards,
Stephen S. Mack
35mmdelux
08-04-2009, 20:49
I havent seen anything but I like the idea. Im in the process of taking occasional "snapshots" replete with a heavy dose of flash -- not from my Leica but from my p/s digicam.
Chris101
08-04-2009, 22:36
I don't know if it has been written about here, but a few years ago I saw two large exhibitions - one at San Diego's MoPA, and the other in LA's Getty, which featured many snapshots. One was arranged by subject, and the other chronologically. Both featured many anonymous photographers. Somebody thinks they are art!
My only answer is the Eggleston quote I pull out all the time:
I am afraid that there are more people than I can imagine who can go no further than appreciating a picture that is a rectangle with an object in the middle of it, which they can identify. They don't care what is around the object as long as nothing interferes with the object itself, right in the centre.
Even after the lessons of Winogrand and Friedlander, they don't get it. They respect their work because they are told by respectable institutions that they are important artists, but what they really want to see is a picture with a figure or an object in the middle of it. They want something obvious.
The blindness is apparent when someone lets slip the word 'snapshot'. Ignorance can always be covered by 'snapshot'. The word has never had any meaning. I am at war with the obvious.
Anything can be an art form. It only depends on the intent of the person doing/creating it.
Word "art' makes whole statement slippy.
Andrew Sowerby
08-05-2009, 09:21
That's an interesting quote, mhv.
Lately, I've been more inclined to have a obvious subject in my photos and put it in the middle (sorry Mr. Eggleston). I like photos that don't really call attention to themselves as photos but are about the people, things and places they depict. For that reason, I also stay away from black and white film, ultra-wide angle lenses, bokeh shots, etc.
Which is tot to say that I necessarily dislike photos with those features. It's just not what I'm interested in doing at the moment.
lawrence
08-05-2009, 12:00
Aperture published a book called "The Snapshot" in 1974. Here are a couple of quotes from it:
Paul Strand "I have always taken the position that the word snapshot doesn't really mean anything. To talk about it you almost have to begin by asking: When is a snapshot not a snapshot? When is a photograph not a snapshot?"
Lee Friedlander "The idea that the snapshot would be thought of as a cult or movement is very tiresome to me and, I'm sure, confusing to others....The pleasures of good photographs are the pleasures of good photographs, whatever the particulars of their makeup".
aperture64
08-05-2009, 12:01
Did Erwitt call his book "Snaps"?
That's an interesting quote, mhv.
Lately, I've been more inclined to have a obvious subject in my photos and put it in the middle (sorry Mr. Eggleston). I like photos that don't really call attention to themselves as photos but are about the people, things and places they depict. For that reason, I also stay away from black and white film, ultra-wide angle lenses, bokeh shots, etc.
Which is tot to say that I necessarily dislike photos with those features. It's just not what I'm interested in doing at the moment.
that's all well and good, but with all due respect, so what?
Do you really want us all to think you simply hold up your P&S and press the button when Pavlov's bell goes off? How do you even decide to take a picture?
I think we all get tired of pretentiousness. But when you start trying to brag about how unpretentious you are, you've gone overboard.
I guess that at some point, if I can't tell what the subject is then the photographer failed. And if the photographer feels they need to circle and underline the subject as well as title the shot for me, then perhaps I am looking at the work of a moron who needs that kind of explicit direction themselves. :)
Or, it's simply, "This is my new car/dog/house/etc." and not a shot intended for artistic consideration. And if I don't know the shooter, I'm not going to waste my time when they didn't invest any of theirs in the taking.
historicist
08-05-2009, 17:46
I'm a bit lazy so this is cut and pasted from wikipedia:
In 1908, the Austrian architectural critic Joseph August Lux wrote a book called Künstlerische Kodakgeheimnisse (Artistic Secrets of the Kodak) in which he championed the use of the camera for its cultural potential. Guided by a position that was influenced by the Catholic critique of modernity, he argued that the accessibility the camera provided for the amateur meant that people could photograph and document their surroundings and thus produce a type of stability in the ebb and flow of the modern world
I remember it being in 'Das neue Kunstgewerbe in Deutschland' rather than a book on its own but I could well be wrong. Im not sure if there's an English translation though there are a few articles that discuss it in English (one is referenced on the Wikipedia page). Its probably the earliest discussion of snapshot photography (it's not very clear from the title but he is specifically writing about casual snapshots of family life etc. rather than studio based/posed photography).
bobomoon
08-05-2009, 18:29
"To say that it looks like a snapshot needs a little refinement...I wanted them to look like the best snapshots. I printed them as snapshots, but with many snapshots there's a lot of visual convention. It's only every now and then we find a snapshot that has that quality of being free and spontaneous, and that's what I was after." --Stephen Shore.
bmattock
08-05-2009, 18:30
The term you're all groping towards is 'vernacular' photography, which is a bit more useful, since the term 'snapshot' is overloaded and emotionally-charged now, both amongst the intelligentsia and the plebes. I am actually rather fond of the British term, 'happy snaps'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular_photography
From my point of view, I admit to being rather confused as to what art is, anyway. So the concept of the vernacular photograph as art doesn't rattle my cage too much. Call it art, call it not-art, either is fine with me. I like vernacular photography, especially that of the USA. The one thing that it is not, which art normally is, is intentional (generally). Vernacular photography is by its nature a work product, not an art product. It is not intended, in the general sense, to be viewed as art, to be discovered as art, to be appreciated as art - not even family vacation photos of the Grand Canyon or the Stuckey's on Route 66 in New Mexico.
However, over time, vernacular photographs can come to have different meanings, and some of them approach or circle around the term 'art'. A social and historical document, they have meaning as statements of their zeitgeist, the frozen moment of bell-bottoms and platform shoes or post-WWII suburban growth, perhaps. An unvarnished look at who we are or who we were, it is unpretentious and unambiguous, even if we find some aspects to be laughable in a culture that never saw kids take vacations to visit 'dude ranches'.
Yes, I like snapshots, and sure, they're art - to me, at least. But I'm a Ruralist, so what do you expect?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/153064466_ffd53fac32.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/153064466/)
bmattock
08-05-2009, 18:51
Ha, ha. Fun ride.
Courtesy, too.
35mmdelux
08-05-2009, 19:03
HCB referred to his "snapshots" and the Leica as a "snapshot camera." I always though that was peculiar but that is the way HCB referred to his work.
Personally, I see a difference between quck shots and 'snapshots,' although both are generally taken quickly. My personal definition of snapshot is 'a photograph that is taken quickly with the only regard to composition being the inclusion of the predominant element inside the picture plane." In other words, no thought is given to composition other than "I want to take a shot of this group of friends," for example. A shot can certainly be taken quite rapidly with more thought to composition involved, and I wouldn't consider that a snapshot. I, personally, don't consider snapshots 'art,' just like I don't consider the painting of a wall with white paint art. The snapshot is taken from a perspective of utility, just as the painting of a wall is done from a perspective of utility. Taking a quick shot while considering composition is more artistic, in my opinion. Could the line be blurred between the two? Certainly. I may be speaking in generalities, but I am not speaking in absolutes.
That's an interesting quote, mhv.
Lately, I've been more inclined to have a obvious subject in my photos and put it in the middle (sorry Mr. Eggleston).
Which is tot to say that I necessarily dislike photos with those features. It's just not what I'm interested in doing at the moment.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2460/3689368489_930e04ff25.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3553024880_ef6fce0edd.jpg
Sorry, but these are good photos with the 'subject' being well placed and meaningful, IMHO.:)
Look up info on Lisette Model, a snapshot type of photography has been her trademark, like this one, very well known:
http://media.timeoutnewyork.com/resizeImage/htdocs/export_images/629/629.x600.art.model.rev.jpg?
mfunnell
08-05-2009, 22:24
My personal definition of snapshot is 'a photograph that is taken quickly with the only regard to composition being the inclusion of the predominant element inside the picture plane." In other words, no thought is given to composition other than "I want to take a shot of this group of friends," for example.I'm not trying to pick a fight, or anything, but I do wonder about the utility of that definition. I don't think I ever take a photo without some regard to composition. Whenever I bring camera to eye I'm pretty sure that consciously or unconsciously I'm thinking on how I can make a "decent photo" (whatever that means) of the scene in front of me. Even when taking the most "snapshotty" of photographs.
Here's one that I took at a birthday BBQ for some friends' son last December, selected because its the only "family snap" shot I can think of that I have online (used as an illustration in a write-up I did (http://www.digi-darkroom.com/showthread.php?t=36735) on a new DSLR):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3205582738_15e849bf4b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/3205582738/)
While hardly "art" or the best-composed photo that's ever been made, I do recall that I thought, albiet very casually, about how how I might go about taking the photo: making decisions about where to stand, what focal length and aperture to set and timing the shutter release to have the three people in frame "all in a row".
I also wonder whether intent is the best guide to deciding "what sort of photo" a photograph may be. Shouldn't the photo itself (or, perhaps for some, its position or inclusion in a sequence of photos) determine that, rather than the stated or imputed intent of the photographer?
It's all a funny business really. I have a couple of photos taken during a trip (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157616209331713/) which I think are strong enough to "stand alone" as photos in themselves. Does that mean they aren't the happy-snap travel photos they "really were" taken as?
...Mike
Chriscrawfordphoto
08-05-2009, 22:37
Aren't most street photos just snapshots glorified with the respectability that comes with calling them art? hehe
mfunnell
08-05-2009, 23:16
Aren't most street photos just snapshots glorified with the respectability that comes with calling them art? heheWell, I'll laugh with you on that. My "technique" for taking photographs, such as it is, often consists of wandering around places I find congenial and simply taking photos of scenes I find visually interesting as I'm doing that. The resulting photos can be called "snapshots" (often, but not always, intended disparagingly), or "wildlife", or "travel" or "street" or whatever - often based (to my mind) on criteria of limited or no relevance such as the equipment used to take the photo.
I was once "accused" of engaging in "wildlife street photography" because I just wandered through the bush with a camera, taking photos of the (animal) inhabitants. (The "accusation" was, I think, intended as a compliment and I certainly took it as such in context.)
I even, quite frequently, choose similar content that ends up with different labels, such as mothers and children:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2097092734_2d30e635ec_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/2097092734/)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/219067635_a6eed1607d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/219067635/)
...Mike
nuckabean
08-06-2009, 01:48
I've been looking at a website called tinyvices recently, a sort of online gallery curated by Tim Barber. Many of the pictures there could be considered snapshots but that doesn't make them any less interesting to me.
The link is
http://tinyvices.com/portfolios.html
One portfolio that I particularly is Ryan McGinley's work from 2004
http://tinyvices.com/ryan_mcginley_1
As a warning, a fair amount of the pictures on this site are a lot racier than most of the things that get posted here, but if you're open to some nudity and uncomfortable images, there's a lot of great work there. Definitely not safe for work though.
This may have been mentioned before--but--didn't Roger and Frances write a book about snapshots?
Paul
I can add to my statement that anything can be an art form, and that it depends only on the intent of the person creating it: Anything can be an art form if art dealers can sell it, regardless of the intent of the person who created it.
It's really a pointless discussion without a particular context.
However, there is an inherent tension with photography used in an intentionally "artistic" context, as there's a social dimension which is bound to photography and its function(s) outside of the art world. (And vice-versa.) A lot of good work deals with that tension...some tries to avoid it...but none of it means anything without a particular example to discuss.
The "snapshot" in and of itself just doesn't exist, as many previous posters point out.
Andrew Sowerby
08-06-2009, 11:24
Do you really want us all to think you simply hold up your P&S and press the button when Pavlov's bell goes off? How do you even decide to take a picture?
Not sure what this has to do with what I wrote:
Lately, I've been more inclined to have a obvious subject in my photos and put it in the middle (sorry Mr. Eggleston). I like photos that don't really call attention to themselves as photos but are about the people, things and places they depict.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
No, I don't expect you to think that.
I decide to take a picture when I see something that I find interesting.
mickallen
08-06-2009, 11:33
It's funny but I was going to post asking the question "What defines a snapshot" as a relative newcomer to photography (18 months) I have struggled understanding what a snapshot is, as everything you seem to read indicates that snapshots are a bad thing and I was wanting to make sure that I wasn't unwittingly taking them.
I had come to the conclusion a snapshot must be any photograph other than ones that had been pre-planned, so you new beforehand what you wanted to achieve in terms of subject, lighting, composition etc.
But really what this thread has highlighted to me is that one mans/womans snapshot could be anothers art, which as a newcomer is very reassuring, in my avoidance of taking "snapshots" I was trying to plan everything before actually taking the camera out of the bag. I was thinking how do most people here take such good photgraphs, with the constraint of all this forethought.
So really what I am trying to say is the word snapshot is very confusing to a newcomer as everything seems to point to snapshot = badshot to be avoided at all costs.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, or anything, but I do wonder about the utility of that definition. I don't think I ever take a photo without some regard to composition. Whenever I bring camera to eye I'm pretty sure that consciously or unconsciously I'm thinking on how I can make a "decent photo" (whatever that means) of the scene in front of me. Even when taking the most "snapshotty" of photographs.
Here's one that I took at a birthday BBQ for some friends' son last December, selected because its the only "family snap" shot I can think of that I have online (used as an illustration in a write-up I did (http://www.digi-darkroom.com/showthread.php?t=36735) on a new DSLR):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3205582738_15e849bf4b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/3205582738/)
While hardly "art" or the best-composed photo that's ever been made, I do recall that I thought, albiet very casually, about how how I might go about taking the photo: making decisions about where to stand, what focal length and aperture to set and timing the shutter release to have the three people in frame "all in a row".
I also wonder whether intent is the best guide to deciding "what sort of photo" a photograph may be. Shouldn't the photo itself (or, perhaps for some, its position or inclusion in a sequence of photos) determine that, rather than the stated or imputed intent of the photographer?
It's all a funny business really. I have a couple of photos taken during a trip (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157616209331713/) which I think are strong enough to "stand alone" as photos in themselves. Does that mean they aren't the happy-snap travel photos they "really were" taken as?
...Mike
According to my definition, I wouldn't consider that a snapshot. To me, snapshot doesn't refer to the measurable speed with which the photo was taken, but the amount of thought that went in to the photo. I would say that if you never just shoot without thinking of composition, you never take snapshots. Like I said though, there is certainly plenty of room for fuzziness in my attempt at a definition. I really dig that unicyclist shot, btw. Good stuff.
lawrence
08-06-2009, 11:40
Look up info on Lisette Model, a snapshot type of photography has been her trademark, like this one, very well known:
http://media.timeoutnewyork.com/resizeImage/htdocs/export_images/629/629.x600.art.model.rev.jpg?
"I am a passionate lover of the snapshot, because of all photographic images it comes closest to the truth. The snapshot is a specific spiritual moment. It cannot be willed or desired or achieved. It simply happens, to certain people and not to others. Some people may never take a snapshot in their lives, though they take many pictures.
Snapshots can be made on any camera - old cameras, new cameras, box cameras, Instamatics and Nikons. But what really makes them occur is a specific state of mind. A snapshot is not a performance. It has no pretence or ambition. It is something that happens to the taker rather than his performing it. Innocence is the quintessence of the snapshot. I wish to distinguish between innocence and ignorance. Innocence is one of the highest forms of being and ignorance is one of the lowest."
Lisette Model
A quick and rough definition of snapshot for me is - a photograph taken simply to record a subject or event without consideration of artistic/aesthetic merit of the outcome. No effort is expended to consider composition, background, lighting, timing, etc.
It's funny but I was going to post asking the question "What defines a snapshot" as a relative newcomer to photography (18 months) I have struggled understanding what a snapshot is, as everything you seem to read indicates that snapshots are a bad thing and I was wanting to make sure that I wasn't unwittingly taking them.
I had come to the conclusion a snapshot must be any photograph other than ones that had been pre-planned, so you new beforehand what you wanted to achieve in terms of subject, lighting, composition etc.
But really what this thread has highlighted to me is that one mans/womans snapshot could be anothers art, which as a newcomer is very reassuring, in my avoidance of taking "snapshots" I was trying to plan everything before actually taking the camera out of the bag. I was thinking how do most people here take such good photgraphs, with the constraint of all this forethought.
So really what I am trying to say is the word snapshot is very confusing to a newcomer as everything seems to point to snapshot = badshot to be avoided at all costs.
Even if you are thinking fast, the key is thinking about your shots. It took me years before I could take a decent photo in a short amount of time. I spent years with my camera always on a tripod, adjusting this and that, making sure that my compositions were just so. Since I got those years of practice in, I can now do those things in the blink of an eye, freehand. Here is an example of a shot I had essentially no time in which to grab:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3775738885_02bcda206d.jpg
I am not 100 percent pleased with my composition here, but in the span of a couple of seconds I was able to do a bit more than just put the fox in the middle and trip the shutter. It is just a matter of practice, muscle memory, and teaching your brain to intuit compositional tricks. IMHO, the best thing you can do as a pretty new photographer is to keep planning everything out, keep being methodical, and don't get sloppy until the shots that might take you ten minutes to get right currently get to the point where you can pretty much get them automatically. I am of the opinion that photographers need to walk on five legs before they learn to walk on two.
Spider67
08-06-2009, 11:54
I remember that word was sometimes used to take value off a certain photo: A guy made some nudes and also took pix when the model was not posing - refreshingly spontaneous ones. But when some pole saw them together they used derogatory to discern from the "correctly posed" nudes.
So for me snap shot would mean a photo that was not posed. As I remember that moes of the family pics were carefully arranged snapshots did stand out. Whereas the later when we shot away in BW "snapshotesque" photography was the standard.
HCB was a hunter and as much as I know ("One hour photo" also cites that) "snapshot is a hunting term.
Andrew Sowerby
08-06-2009, 11:55
"Intent" is sometimes used as a definition
I'm inclined to go with intent too. Then determining whether something is art is some other schmoe's problem.
A quick and rough definition of snapshot for me is - a photograph taken simply to record a subject or event without consideration of artistic/aesthetic merit of the outcome. No effort is expended to consider composition, background, lighting, timing, etc.
Better than quick and rough.. I think it's a jolly good definition. Certainly worth to keep in mind.
Oh, and it's precisely why I find snapshots have such tremendous charm. They're often about the very things people care about and they provide better insight into what was on the photographer's -or should I say snapshooter's- mind than a lot of ostentatiously deep impersonal artistic hoopla.
Not sure what this has to do with what I wrote:
Anyway, to answer your questions:
No, I don't expect you to think that.
I decide to take a picture when I see something that I find interesting.
personally, I'm with you. I guess what I am getting at is that, as has been stated already, "intent" is a big portion of how we separate "art" from "not art."
I'm just saying it really seems like you are purposely refusing to put an effort into things out of a perverse "FU" to anyone who might look at your shots. And that's too bad.
Even if you are thinking fast, the key is thinking about your shots. It took me years before I could take a decent photo in a short amount of time. I spent years with my camera always on a tripod, adjusting this and that, making sure that my compositions were just so. Since I got those years of practice in, I can now do those things in the blink of an eye, freehand. Here is an example of a shot I had essentially no time in which to grab:
...
I am not 100 percent pleased with my composition here, but in the span of a couple of seconds I was able to do a bit more than just put the fox in the middle and trip the shutter. It is just a matter of practice, muscle memory, and teaching your brain to intuit compositional tricks. IMHO, the best thing you can do as a pretty new photographer is to keep planning everything out, keep being methodical, and don't get sloppy until the shots that might take you ten minutes to get right currently get to the point where you can pretty much get them automatically. I am of the opinion that photographers need to walk on five legs before they learn to walk on two.
Nice shot.
I agree with your ends. I disagree that a person needs to use a tripod and be slow and methodical to learn what you are talking about, but that's a minor point. I DO agree that the end goal is to be able to take a "snapshot" that looks methodical and carefully composed. I think we agree on more than we disagree on :D
I'm not carrying a tripod because that's not the kind of pictures I take. That may be the kind of pictures I hang on my wall, but whatever :) I do practice holding a camera steady in my hands, and learn what postures make that easy. I find that is conducive to taking the good off-hand shot :)
Recent handheld example with slow film in fading light, where handheld experience was quite valuable:
http://lakespc.com/pics/BlackAndWhite/Bobs/Scan2358.jpg
lorriman
08-07-2009, 01:13
Aperture published a book called "The Snapshot" in 1974. Here are a couple of quotes from it:
Paul Strand "I have always taken the position that the word snapshot doesn't really mean anything. To talk about it you almost have to begin by asking: When is a snapshot not a snapshot? When is a photograph not a snapshot?"
Lee Friedlander "The idea that the snapshot would be thought of as a cult or movement is very tiresome to me and, I'm sure, confusing to others....The pleasures of good photographs are the pleasures of good photographs, whatever the particulars of their makeup".
These chaps brians are absolutely fried.
NathanJD
08-07-2009, 04:10
This seems to be another discussion about semantics.
What is a snapshot? Well, the question I would ask is what would define a snapshot – the picture it’s self or the intention of the photographer? And also can someone with technical knowledge produce a ‘snapshot’? Would you need to ask him if he intended to take a snapshot? If so is a snapshot a concept or a state of mind?
The way I feel about it is that my mother takes snapshots because she has no knowledge of the technicalities of photography and her photos of a people in their environment involve someone looking at the camera very far away smack in the middle of a picture of a scene. My partner’s parents take snapshots when they take a portrait of someone again in the middle of the frame in a landscape orientation when what is to either side of the subject is of no consequence, then blow this up and put it on their mantle piece.
Is it to do with a lack of technical knowledge, not so much breaking the rules just because you can but because you don’t see the downfalls of an image and consider it a ‘good photo’ nonetheless?
I don’t feel that any picture I take now I consider myself a student of photography could be a snapshot because I unintentionally consider many variables when photographing something/someone before pressing the shutter button. If I didn’t then I would be intending to take a snapshot so in fact it could not be a snapshot in the first place.
After all of this is said then, can a snapshot be art? Why not? A white wall can be, if for example it’s a wall inside the British museum, being an architectural marvel or a 300 year old whitewashed cottage in rural England. Art is how something man made makes you feel.
Andrew Sowerby
08-07-2009, 05:31
In response to the OP, I don't recall any particular discussion on RFF about snapshot as art, but I'm sure it's come up a number of times. I did a quick search and didn't find any threads exactly on point.
That said, with the success of Eggleston, Parr, and many others (I particularly like Jeff Mermelstein and I notice that Anna Fox has a new book out), the snapshot aesthetic in photography is well established.
Share your thoughts if you care to.
lawrence
08-07-2009, 07:28
These chaps brians are absolutely fried.
And they taste delicious ;)
Ha, ha. Fun ride.
Courtesy, too.
LOL.....great "Snapshot" :D
I'm not trying to pick a fight, or anything, but I do wonder about the utility of that definition. I don't think I ever take a photo without some regard to composition. Whenever I bring camera to eye I'm pretty sure that consciously or unconsciously I'm thinking on how I can make a "decent photo" (whatever that means) of the scene in front of me. Even when taking the most "snapshotty" of photographs.
Here's one that I took at a birthday BBQ for some friends' son last December, selected because its the only "family snap" shot I can think of that I have online (used as an illustration in a write-up I did (http://www.digi-darkroom.com/showthread.php?t=36735) on a new DSLR):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3205582738_15e849bf4b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/3205582738/)
While hardly "art" or the best-composed photo that's ever been made, I do recall that I thought, albiet very casually, about how how I might go about taking the photo: making decisions about where to stand, what focal length and aperture to set and timing the shutter release to have the three people in frame "all in a row".
I also wonder whether intent is the best guide to deciding "what sort of photo" a photograph may be. Shouldn't the photo itself (or, perhaps for some, its position or inclusion in a sequence of photos) determine that, rather than the stated or imputed intent of the photographer?
It's all a funny business really. I have a couple of photos taken during a trip (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157616209331713/) which I think are strong enough to "stand alone" as photos in themselves. Does that mean they aren't the happy-snap travel photos they "really were" taken as?
...Mike
I think that is a great snapshot....Who says a snapshot is a mindless act?
It may not be a museum quality photo, but a snapshot can be thought through and executed well, the above example illustrates quite well. :)
One of my favorite photo books:
http://www.gestalten.com/books/detail?id=402881820693dcee010693dd0db3002b
All snapshots, great book if you're in the right state of mind.
mackigator
08-11-2009, 17:30
Two years ago the National Gallery in Washington DC ran an exhibit called the "Art of the American Snapshot" and there is a pretty good photo book of that exhibit. I saw the exhibit and I liked it in that not-going-to-drive-long-distance-but-still-good kind of way. I was reminded of it when I recently passed over the book in an independent book store. The book is also pretty good and I bet some will really like it.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-American-Snapshot-1888-1978/dp/0691133689/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1250040438&sr=8-2
Warning: a good bit of history of the snapshot, in words, is in that book + the photos.
There have been many photo books published on the snapshot as a legitimate form of "art", and many exhibitions have been done on this subject. I think the reason why this hasn't come up lately, is the abundance of imagery that is being produced digitally - cameras, cellphones. etc.. As a matter of fact there have been books and exhibitions on the latter.
charjohncarter
08-11-2009, 18:11
Aren't most street photos just snapshots glorified with the respectability that comes with calling them art? hehe
Maybe, but here is one by the worst photographer in the world, my Dad. I think that time has something to do with 'snaps.' He took this and it isn't of my Mom or anyone that I know. But still, for once, he did a good "snap.'
about 1939-40:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3642730918_6baaec82e2.jpg
fingerprint and all.
Chriscrawfordphoto
08-11-2009, 18:17
Maybe, but here is one by the worst photographer in the world, my Dad. I think that time has something to do with 'snaps.' He took this and it isn't of my Mom or anyone that I know. But still, for once, he did a good "snap.'
about 1939-40:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3642730918_6baaec82e2.jpg
fingerprint and all.
That's actually a pretty damn cool snapshot!
Spider67
08-13-2009, 12:07
Maybe, but here is one by the worst photographer in the world, my Dad. I think that time has something to do with 'snaps.' He took this and it isn't of my Mom or anyone that I know. But still, for once, he did a good "snap.'
about 1939-40:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3642730918_6baaec82e2.jpg
fingerprint and all.
I wonder what the reaction of his friends or your family was. Usually photo like that provoked (among my friends etc.) the question: "What did you make that for?!"
There was a horror of seeing privately made photos that showed anything else but groups, portraits of newly"borns" or .-weds and flowers...oh yes and the "Me&Ma in front of....(fill in tourist attraction).
Note: the problem was not about this kind of photos mentiones above but of the rigid discipline not to shoot anything else.
hence the snapshot as the first step to freedom.
Chris101
08-13-2009, 13:40
Cool pic Carter! I love seeing the odd photos my parents and grandparents took. They give my past some validity that their stories just hint at.
My own definition of a snapshot is broader than most I've read here. It is a spontaneous photograph. Ss's don't involve any set-up, but may have the cooperation of the subject(s) or not. The skill of composition or setting the camera is immaterial.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.