RE: [Leica] Formalism vs. narrative

["Khoffberg" <khoffberg@email.msn.com>]

Jim H wrote:

My own feelings are that a truly great
narrative photograph must also include some aspects of formalism. Some of
Gene
Smith's work was on exhibit here in Chicago about two years ago and one of
the
most powerful photographs I have ever seen is his Minamata image of the
mother
with her deformed child in the tub. In the recent book on Smith's work the
writer wrote about this image asking how can a photograph with such
horrifying
content be so beautiful at the same time. I think the answer lies in the
formalist aspects of the image, and that is what I believe to be one of the
most difficult tasks in photography, combining form AND content.


Jim

Thanks for your comment.  I think your anecdote and thoughts put down
something I've been thinking about for awhile now.  The pictures I've taken
over the last year that I go back to over and over again are the ones that
do both.  Perhaps it is also suggestive of the need to parse your image to
the elements that are truly necessary to do both so that what is suggestive
is in balance with what is objective, what is implicit is in balance with
what is explicit.  Your photo of the father and sun and the cascading water
are a wonderful example of just that.

I recently saw some of Paul Strand's photos in a Time Life 1973 photo year
book.  There was an image of a broken umbrella and another object that's
slipping my mind on a sidewalk in front of an old masonry wall.  The form
was wonderful - very graphical.  The story was there to be read by anyone
with an imagination.  Why was the umbrella there?  Why was it broken?  Could
the owner not afford better?  Had it just been abandoned?  Was it the best
umbrella in some poor town and therefore an object of envy?

Love to hear other comments on this one.

Cheers

Kevin Hoffberg