Project 3: Reading About Photography; Analyse an Essay.

Understanding a Photograph - John Berger.

In this exercise we are tasked with reading the essay at least twice; the first time just reading straight through and subsequent times making notes.  It is suggested that we summarise in one line the main point of each paragraph.

• For many years, although enthusiasts regard photography as fine art, the vast majority of people do not.
• Fortunately few museums have opened photographic departments, as photography cannot be considered as fine art.
• Painting and sculpture are fine art but are dying because all works of art merely become a valuable property.
• Photographs have little property value as they are infinitely reproducible and so cannot be considered to be art.
• A photograph is a record of an event the photographer decides is worth seeing.
• The difference between a good or bad photograph depends on the photographers skill to choose what is worth recording.
• Photography should not be compared to the compositions found in fine art as composition cannot enter into photography.
• If formal composition in a photograph explains nothing, what gives it meaning?
• The importance of a photograph is dependent on the moment of capturing the event.
• A photograph captures a single event or moment in time; a painting is an accumulation of many events.
• The only decision a photographer can make is what moment in time to capture, what is not shown is just as important as what is.
• A photograph is effective when the most truthful moment is captured.
• The minimal message of a photograph may not be as simple as it seems.
• We need to understand that photography is a weapon that we can use and which can be used against us.

In one sentence, what is Berger's argument?

Berger's argument is that photography should not be regarded as fine art as it is a recording of one moment in time, either more or less truthful, whereas fine art is an accumulation of many events.

John Berger is well-known for his socio-political stance.  How is this reflected in the argument that he presents in this essay?

Berger feels that all works of art become property, become valuable and perhaps he feels that they are the preserve of the favoured few; the wealthy.  In his view photography should not be regarded as fine art because it has no rarity value, as it is infinitely reproducible.  He feels that the value in photography lies in the photographer's decision on when to press the shutter as he captures a fraction of second in time - freezes motion in time (Ansel Adams) or captures the decisive moment (Henri Cartier-Bresson).  He finishes with the suggestion that photography is a weapon that we can use or can be used against us.  Perhaps that is why the British Government refused to allow Don McCullin to photograph the Falklands War!!

Are you convinced by Berger's argument?  If not, why not?

I agree with Berger when he argues that photography is all about capturing a moment in time.  That moment may be the one when the man's foot is hovering over a puddle in Cartier-Bresson's case, or it may be pressing the shutter when a cloud is in exactly the correct spot in a chosen view as with Ansel Adams and many other landscape photographers; or it may be the difference between capturing a scene when it is lit by a patch of light as in the image below that I took of Saltwick Nab on the Yorkshire coast last week.

In this image I waited for the sun to emerge from behind a patch of cloud so that it caught The Nab in the background.

I feel that his argument about photography is only partially true as, in my opinion, the rules of composition play a significant part in a photograph and sometimes they can be broken.  I took the image below last week as I was attracted to the pebbles and sea-glass.  Yes, I captured a moment in time and this time the moment was when the sun went behind the cloud to give softer lighting, but I also chose how to frame the photograph.  I could have placed the sea-glass in the centre of the frame but I chose to place on a junction of thirds.

I can see Berger's point that photography is not art because it has no property value because of it's lack of rarity, but if a gallery or museum chose to buy an image and also destroyed the negative or original digital file, then it would assume property value.  As it happens, since Berger wrote this article, most museums and galleries have set up photographic departments and photography is more widely regarded as art.

What is your opinion of Berger's writing style?

I found his style rather convoluted and difficult to follow on a first reading.  I needed to read through it several times to get a feel for the meaning.  The initial task in this exercise helped: that of summasising each paragraph into one line.