ACCIDENT OR INTENTION?
In 1968 the Museum of Modern Art of New York City published a monograph about the work of the photographer Gyula Halász, better known as Brassaï (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassaï) In the introductory essay written by Lawrence Durrell after an interview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Durrell) Brassaï reveals to Durrell some fascinating facts about his modus operandi.
Writes Durrell, “The tenor of his [Brassaï’s] discourse was roughly as follows: ‘…I only take one or two or three pictures of a subject, unless I get carried away; I find it concentrates one more to shoot less.
Of course it’s chancy; when you shoot a lot you stand a better chance, but then you are subjecting yourself to the law of accident – if accident is a law. I prefer to try and if necessary fail. When I succeed, however, I am much happier than I would be if I shot a million pictures on the off chance. I feel that I have really made it myself, that picture, not won it in a lottery.”
Which got me thinking about chance vs. intention. Film vs. digital. Shooting something to death vs. one or two captures. When I was still shooting film (mostly black & white) – up until 6 or 7 years ago – I would take the exposed rolls to the best processors in Washington DC. The same people who processed many of the DC press corps’ films. It cost me a friggin fortune – even when I went the contact sheet route first. And I was not shooting more than one or two shots of the same subject (I have a low patience threshold).
Ratio of success/satisfaction? Maybe 1 in every 15-20 shots on a good outing.
Then along came digital. Once I’d sorted out the technicals, I began getting results every bit as good as film. And, interestingly, I was still shooting only one or two, maybe three images of the same subject/object while the ratio of success/satisfaction remained about the same as film. And man was I ever happy about the cost vs. film.
I’ve read and heard all the arguments that digital makes people lazy or sloppy. That it costs nothing (other than camera wear) to grab dozens, even hundreds of the same shot. Leave aside, of course, the purely commercial situations where the reflection in the car’s wing mirror or expression on the model’s face or prevailing light has to be just so. Gotta love pedants and clients.
No, I’m primarily talking about what is called ‘fine art’ photography.
IMHO: the way you shoot is the way you shoot. You’re stuck with your habits good or bad. Film or digital. Doesn’t matter if you’re a machine gunner or a sniper.
But here’s the thing: if your favourite or most successful image ever was the result of a million shots or one, accident or intention, does it matter? Is the Brassaï approach better than, say, Irving Penn’s?
Let me know what you think, please leave your comments below…
Fred Shively
Lanjáron
Granada
Andalucia
2.18.2010
