Some time ago, Rolfe Horn gave me a copy of Bill Jay’s treatise on contemporary photography entitled Occam’s Razor. And only now have I begun to read it in earnest. I would be embarrassed that it’s taken me years, plural, to crack the cover, but I am a charter member of the “Better Late Than Never” club and will ease any chagrin I might have felt at coming to Bill Jay’s party so late after the initial invitation with the knowledge I might not have been ready until now.
The tenets of what he has written, what I have read that is, have to a certain extent, rung true with me in years past, especially the following passage:
“The fact of the matter is photography cannot bear the intellectual weight with which it is fashionable to burden it. Photography is not an intellectual game, but an emotional response to charged living.”
An emotional response to charged living.
There are only so few moments when I feel more charged at life than when I’m out taking pictures. Lives being born, joined, and celebrated in memory to name a very select few, and so I’ve felt what Jay has said, and greatly admire the way he’s said it.
But it’s his view on subject matter vs. the “self” that’s taken me 38 years to finally grasp. His argument rings so true, much in the way a bell first struck fills the void of the silence that preceded the act. There I was, happy in the silent pursuit on who I was as a photographer, thinking the word “I” was the thing that mattered. And all along I had the sentence incorrect. It should read, “What am I as a photographer?” Key word being, “what.”
I wish I could sum up his take on this issue as neatly as I did with the part about photography being a response to charged living, but this concept of self vs subject, at least to me, is just too big for a simple paragraph, and so I highly suggest picking up a copy of the book, published by Nazraeli Press. You can order the book on Amazon, but it’d be so much more fun to go this route.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Beautiful image, Garrison.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Beautiful photo Garrison! Interesting words too - I always enjoy Bill Jay’s articles at the end of each lenswork magazine - he’s a funny guy. I may check out his book after reading your blog - it has an eastern philosphical taste to it.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:04 am
the parsimony of ‘what’ obscures ‘I’ [and in your image], is that ‘what’ lodged in the crack between cause and effect? I’m not sure but i’ve been thinking much the same thing, and your ‘what’ has me fumbling an understanding as though its introduced me to my thoughts.
may i offer this as a concurrent thought:
“The night, the sex, the wandering… and the need to photograph it all,
not so much the perceived act but more like a simple exposure to common and even extreme experiences..
It is an inseparable part of photographic practice, in a certain sense, to grasp at existence or risk,
desire, the unconsciousness and chance, all of which continue to be essential elements.
No moral posturing, no judgement, simply the principle of affirmation,
necessary to explore certain universes, to go deep inside, without any care.” Antoine d’Agata, 2004
this is not so much a red herring as both your words and his had me thinking along similar lines and though my thoughts are as ever haphazard I’m very much drawn to that ‘what’. Thanks for the book link. thanks for the thoughts
January 18th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Garrison, both Alek’s and your thoughts have certainly got me thinking but not in any coherent manner. As I read I have opinions and thoughts but the enormity of writing a response is overwhelming. Thank you both. I will seek out the book but worry at my age there aren’t enough years to grasp it….but I guess the fun is in the trying. The shot is a beauty in it’s simplicity and in many ways reminds me of the photos of Andre Kertesz.