[Leica] Snap Happy

[Alex Brattell <alex@zetetic.co.uk>]

>	I appreciate your comments which, if they represent the true
>sentiment of all in the group, move me temper my objection.  Is it then that
>all photographs which please us are "happy-snaps?"  I sense that for many of
>us the intent in the phrase is to say that the quotidian records we keep of
>our lives and families are less worthy than other photographs.  I don't
>happen to think this is a considerate differentiation and that pictures of
>my children at play should be judged by the same criteria as seven foot men
>at play.  This is not to imply that there are no useful categories for
>photography; photojournalism, aerial photography, commercial photography, et
>cetera, are just and useful terms and, to me at least, do not imply that
>there is something less worthy about their sibling branches of the art.
>
>


I'm a bit surprised at the apparent ambiguity of the term 'happy snaps'.

As far as I understand and use the term, it is the output from the 'average'
camera, which, so I've heard, has less than 3 rolls a year pass through it,
and produces mainly eye level pictures of occasions - beach, sportsday,
wedding, leaving do, christmas tree. There's a foreground which is organic
- - known humans, family,  friends or workmates smiling, and a background
which is inorganic  - mona lisa, costa del sol, a room, church or bar. It is
a tradition of popular portraiture that is of its time and can sometimes be
revealing or interesting. There's also a lot of it - a quarter of all the
silver produced goes into photography.

These images are an automatic rendition of concensus reality, as much as the
forced and formal pictures of pioneer aviators (whilst the young Jacques
Henri Lartigue was running alongside the planes trying to put the power of
the moment in his wooden box). Happy snaps are images which have no
subjective intent, no awareness of composition or moment, they are of life
frozen, rather  than sampled, tasted or felt. 

I know people who make amazing images of the same subjects - parties,
friends, kids and pets. Images filled with life, irony, texture and
enthusiasm. They are not necessarily photographers, they may use a disc
camera or a small futuristic jobbie they bought at an airport, but they have
visual style, they enjoy looking at the world and trying to bring out the
best in what they see. 

Maybe this second type of picture should be called The Snapshot, said in an
arty tone, omitting the sneering use of 'happy'. These images give a lot of
pleasure, are visually articulate and encapsulate feelings and memories in a
powerful way. The most valuable images I've ever made are probably the few
that will make it through to being heirlooms, maybe a shitty little wedding
I hated photographing on a rainy Saturday in 1984. 

Content or price can rarely say much about the value of an image. Judging
the value of other peoples' work by the subjects that they photograph is a
dull device, and has nothing to do with this group, which is largely
populated by maniacs, experts and obsessives who are hardly likely to take
stupid cliched pictures with the heads chopped off using all that swanky gear.

Alex the snapper