Tuesday1stMay07

With the ever looming inevitability that someone someday is going to ask the question; why do you take photographs? and the routine answer containing something about loving it, will not be good enough, has got me thinking;

What is it that drives people to take photographs?

One possibility that I have been particularly dwelling on, is that of photography as a tool to prove existence. Is it even viable?

People here are obsessed with taking photos, even more-so than myself. But these are a different kind of photo. Almost as a rule, they aim to capture themselves, or their accompanying friends within the frame. Even if that means sacrificing the thing that has brought them to this place, and only a smidgen is visible, it doesn't matter. I have even seen a few friends determined not to waste the time waiting on a bus staring into space as is generally customary, but instead perfecting their poses. Taken from slightly above eye level so that they are looking up with a slightly doe-eyed look, the pout, the lightly cocked head. It all had to be perfect.

But surely by so prolifically 'proving' you were there, you lose the essence of the true you in the photo. The 'you' that is captured is practised and fake, not the 'you' that people see every day.

I do not like to be in front of the camera, and being around this sort of behaviour has made me like it even less. Which unfortunately means that there is little, to no evidence to back up my word that I am actually here.

However, this kind of proof is surely far from trustworthy. The common truism that the camera never lies was, in my opinion, a misconception from the start. Even more so nowadays with the regular use of photoshop. But the illusion starts way before the image reaches the darkroom, be it traditional or electronic, no, the camera itself is the guilty party. It adds it's own perspective to the world, manipulated by its user to show what he or she sees. What results is the camera's perception of the world with a dash of the photographer thrown in for good measure.

In Gustav Janouch's 'Conversations with Kafka,' Kafka makes a very interesting point:

“Photography concentrates one's eye on the superficial. For that reason it obscures the hidden life which glimmers through the outlines of things like a play of light and shade. One can't catch that even with the sharpest lens. One has to grope for it by feeling... This automatic camera doesn't multiply men's eyes but only gives a fantastically simplified fly eye's view.”

This in effect, is part of my problem; the camera shows only an illusion, a representation of something that is there (all be it a fascinating one.) It can never replace the experience of actually living in our world, in which there are so many treasures to be found if we only take the time to look.

So does photography that 'proves existence' actually do the opposite? Proving that yes you were there, but you ever actually experienced that moment because you were too busy trying to capture it. And however special a thing that might be, can it ever match up to the magic of just experiencing because you can? Those hidden moments you share with the world that don't have to be held accountable to anything or anyone.