What's In a Photographer?

Well, you know the saying "What's in a photograph?". And there are many things in a photograph that one can examine. The skill/knowledge is called visual literacy and it basically is looking at the various layers of a photograph: the physical (the facts of the photo - it's a boy holding a red balloon, etc), the social, political, economic, etc, etc, so many different layers, and of course, the photographer's particular bent in life.

So, what's in a photographer? Because, really, you can engage in all the visual literacy mumbo jumbo that you want and it still comes down to who depresses the shutter button and when. It's what Henri Cartier-Bresson (considered somewhat the "father" of modern photography and definitely the father of candid photography) called "The Decisive Moment". From Wiki, - ""Photography is not like painting," Cartier-Bresson told the Washington Post in 1957. "There is a creative fraction of a second when you are taking a picture. Your eye must see a composition or an expression that life itself offers you, and you must know with intuition when to click the camera. That is the moment the photographer is creative," he said.""

It is the photographer who decides this moment and it is really, in my eyes, everything in photography. And through this, our perceptions can be "altered". I'll give you an example that has struck me so clearly about this moment in the media.

Hillary Clinton. Here's a woman whose face has been all over the media considering the current events of the country. Plenty of opportunities to snap her mug. I guess I didn't really notice this trend at first until the "crying incident" and a photo came out on Newsweek of her after that. Ah-ha. It became clear to me just how much the photographer (well, and the editor of said media) is responsible for manipulating what we take in. And mind you, I am neither making a case for her nor rejecting her, just using her as an example.

In the photos leading up to the "crying incident", Clinton was portrayed in a pretty awful light. And I don't mean just the lighting for photos. I mean everything you can possibly do to make a bad photo of someone. In fact, someone put together a site of "bad" Clinton photos. I gather they are not fond of her. Interesting enough, the site is called "The Really Truly Hillary Gallery", which I think is laughable, because it points to that concept we carry around Looks = Personality/Character.

Take this photo of Clinton running into a long time friend she has not seen in some time. She looks like she is going to consume her friend or is in some kind of fit of rage. Or who knows what. But I imagine that was not the first thing on her mind, to cause some destruction to her friend. Well, maybe if her friend was not so much of a friend and they had fallen out or some such. But from what I gathered, this friend was a good friend and Clinton was surprised and happy to see her. If you didn't have the caption that went along with this photo, what would you think of Clinton? I'm pretty sure you would not be thinking very positive thoughts about her and you'd be making some assumptions about the events of the photo. Framing, lighting, that decisive moment the shutter closed and opened... all of these controlled by the photographer. What if that photographer had chosen different framing, catching Clinton's smile after the gasp of surprise, or maybe included the friend's expression in some fashion. Different again. And, I will lay some blame on the editors of the media world as well because the photographer's next photo could have been her smile after the gasp but who ultimately chooses which photo is disseminated?

Then, the "crying incident" occurred. Yes, I say this with a bit of sarcasm. I really believe it got blown out of proportion by the media. But again, something happened. Before, awful photos. Almost immediately afterwards, this cover of Newsweek showed up. My, what a difference, eh? She is portrayed quite differently, looking out into the distance with a soft gaze and smile, well made up, good lighting, complementary pose. All because she got a little choked up and showed a "less cold" side of herself. And the media began portraying her in a different light. And suddenly there was a shift of public opinion as well. "Oh, Hillary" (rather than the previous referral as Clinton by most), "She's so human and feminine!", whatever and etc. It didn't really change who she might actually BE, did it. She still could be an axe murderer. I am not sure if she sat for this photo, meaning came in and sat down for an actual portrait session or if it is pulled out from some other instance and the background edited out. But I think it was one of the first very complimentary photos I'd really seen of her. Interesting, no?

Then, the major primary elections across most of the nation rolled through and Obama (whom I have rarely seen portrayed badly, interestingly enough, and now I wonder if this might not be a gender thing, a race thing or just a favoritism), began to take a lead in the race. This photo showed up, of Clinton giving a campaign talk at a high school, in their gym, I do believe. At this point, I was "on to them" as it were and I think I laughed out loud at the obvious absurdity of the framing. The photo of her ain't so hot either, bad lighting, bad angle, etc. Although I suppose I have to give some leeway because I imagine these situations are not conducive to the best lighting set ups. But still. There is some control the photographer has.

The photographer (and the editors) have a responsibility (in my eyes), to take note of their own "stuff" so that it does not leak into the Decisive Moment, to take photos as objectively as possible. I also believe, perhaps less so, that the viewer has a responsibility to moderate his/herself as well, to not lay upon the projected media various assumptions.

You know what they say about Assume, right. You make an Ass out of U and Me.