This is an analysis of Photography and Photography and Artistic-Photography by Zayas (De Zayas, 1913).
Summary
The principle argument that flows throughout the article is that there is a difference between an image that is intended purely to demonstrate physical form, and one that is intended to convey an emotion or a feeling that is evoked by looking at the form. Zayas’ argument is that an image created with feelings or emotions as its starting point will not likely truly show the form in its actual physical guise whereas an image that begins with form can then itself generate feelings or emotions but will be more accurate in showing its actual physical form. He states that starting with true form is Photography and that starting with emotions is Artistic-Photography.
Whilst the article itself is not solely concerned with landscape images, it is easy to draw an analogy of this concept with landscape paintings if one considers the differences seen in pictorialism images such as those of Constable which are closer to form than the impressionists such as Monet; of course the difference may be considerably more subtle in a photograph.
Zayas argues that only Photography, as opposed to Artistic-Photography can truly focus on form since it accurately captures what is in front of the camera.
I am not sure that I agree with Zayas since any image, whilst it may be an emotionless study, it is only emotionless according to the photographer and therefore unconscious bias is likely to already have played a part in the image captured. Even though an un-manipulated image is indeed an accurate representation of what was in front of the camera, there could be many other factors at play such as the framing, the deliberate exclusion of elements just outside the frame, the choice of lighting conditions, the weather, the time of day and many other aspects will all play a part, including the choice of even taking an image in the first place. I reach the conclusion that it is almost impossible to choose to capture an image without some form of emotion playing its part.
One possible exception to my conclusion is when some other factor has caused the photographer to capture the image. For example in David Wyatt’s series Sandford Hill (Wyatt, 2019), the images are recorded at specific GPS locations that were recorded in a caving archive, with no idea what was above ground, and not in any way intended to then dictate where photographic images should be taken. The resultant images are captured solely with reference to those data points and therefore not subject to a framing choice – although time of day, lighting etc could still have played their part.
Specific Points
“Art is the expression of the conception of an idea. Photography is the plastic verification of a fact” (De Zayas, 1913). To an extent I agree that the image is indeed the verification of the fact that was in front of the lens. However, the photographer will have made choices about the capture of the image and many of these choices will have had sufficient impact upon the image to alter the way the image is perceived when viewed. Whilst a photographer may feel that he or she has taken all steps to remove any bias, and simply to verify the fact, they will in the course of doing that make choices that impact the image in such a way as they perceive the ‘fact’ to be, and it is entirely possible that each different photographer could perceive the fact differently and therefore take steps to eliminate or exaggerate different aspects that they feel add to or subtract from the fact, but that for other photographers distort the image away from the fact.
“So long as Art only speculates with Form, it cannot produce a work which fully realizes the preconceived idea, because imagination always goes further than realization.” (ibid.). This I agree with, it is an area I have struggled with in my photography since starting my studies. I find that sometimes my images do not express a feeling as much as I want them to or they fail to depict the idea that I had in my head, instead they are pulled back to the Form itself.
When talking of Picasso Zayas says “He does not understand the difference between similar and identical, between that which is seen in dreams and that which happens in real life, between imagination and facts; and that is why he takes as facts the ideas inspired by impressions.” (ibid.). This is a key point of view for me because it cuts through my slightly philosophical debate about one’s ability to see form versus interpretation of form. The distinction between similar and identical seems to be important as it reinforces my view that a photographer could well intend to capture form but, through unconscious bias instead capture an interpretation.
I feel I should comment on the discussion around savages and state how the description provided in the text is simply unacceptable and inappropriate in today’s society and it is frankly shocking that anybody would ever have thought to apply the description in the way it is given, in whatever era it was written.
“In order to fully and correctly to appreciate the reality of Form, it is necessary to get into a state of perfect consciousness.” (ibid.). I partially agree with this statement. I agree in the sense that the more conscious one is, the more present in the moment, then the higher the chances are of capturing the Form of an object. But, I still think that the act of capturing the form is at risk of unconscious bias as the photographer’s attempts to eliminate everything but the form will themselves be driven by that photographer’s bias. In a landscape context, I might choose to frame an image specifically to avoid an unsightly power pylon on the edge of the frame, justifying my action on the basis that is not part of the natural habitat or form of the scene I am trying to capture. But surely that pylon’s presence is in fact part of the form of that scene now and my choice to eliminate it is in fact a choice to distort the form or the truth.
“The more we consider photography, the more we are convinced we are that it has come to draw away the veil of mystery with which Art enveloped represented form”. At a superficial level yes I agree, it is hard for a photographer to distort form in the same way that an impressionist painter would for example. However, for all the reasons I have stated, it is still more than possible for the photographer to distort the form. And perhaps, because this is less obvious than say, an impressionist painting i.e. we know when we look at a Monet that it is an impression, it is actually more difficult to understand what really is form and what is emotion, we are deceived.
Learning and Reflection
In relationship to my landscape photography
1. I need to make conscious choices of what I am trying to capture, is it the pure form in front of me or is it the emotions that the scene is evoking. If it is pure form, I need to stop and reflect upon how my emotions might be distorting that view.
2. I had not previously considered the notion of an image captured purely for form. I was aware of ‘straight photography’ but not understood it in the meaning described here. I had understood this term to mean straight on, not making use of any aesthetic considerations, for example lighting, and probably quite flat looking; essentially although straight, still characterised by its looks or a flat aesthetic, rather than the form the image shows. With this new learning, I will look at the landscape around me with a new eye, an eye on the beauty of the pure form in front of me, as described in this paper – but at the same time being conscious of my conclusion above that I do not think it is possible to look at anything without some form of unconscious bias at least.
Bibliography
De Zayas, M., 1913. Photography And Photography And Artistic-Photography. [article] Available at: <https://www.camramirez.com/pdf/DI_Week6_PhotoAndArt.pdf> [Accessed 30 October 2020].
Wyatt, D., 2019. David Wyatt – Sandford Hill. [online] Davewyatt.co.uk. Available at: <https://davewyatt.co.uk/sandford-hill> [Accessed 30 October 2020].