The myth of the perfect photo
(and its refutation through the book "Depth of Field")
The beginning of the myth
From the book "Depth of Field", by Panos Kasimis: Many of us were raised on the mythology of the one, the great photograph or image that "changed the world", the image that is "worth a thousand words". Even today, many, new to the world of photography, "chase" the one, the "good" photo, every time they raise the camera to their eye. Perhaps because they are not taught ways to connect their photos to form a single sentence. Maybe because they believe in the myth of the "One" photo, as we once did. I believe it is time to abandon this mythology and stop reproducing it.
While individual photographs have their place, more and more I find that photography, as an ethical and aesthetic practice motivated by empathy, is hindered by singular and spectacular images. And while we will always enjoy individual good photographs, there is an equally immense pleasure in a body of photographic work. Either it will be a series of photographs, presenting the personal vision in synergy with the theme.
I think of it as the difference between a perfectly cooked recipe and an unforgettable meal. The latter not only contains many dishes, but is also associated with the company, the environment, the date (time) it took place and the mood. This means that the concept of clarity, objective honesty or importance of a particular photograph. Or even of a given series of photos, in some cases) is probably overrated.
It has almost always been convenient for those who are "socialized," who belong to groups and collectives, to think that they—both the group and themselves—are "separate" and "special" and to insist on this purity, while all the others are simply playing the game of finding artistic identity.
The idea and nature of photography
As we see in the book, the idea seems to be that a photograph (or type of photograph or photographic style) supported by a group of people has a better chance of being included in the artistic firmament than a group of photos supported by one person. And everyone can keep up the good work. Or at least try to. Photography is by its very nature an interventionist medium and its end result – the photographic image – is also a residue of social conventions and activities. A certain person, in a certain place, with certain equipment, at a certain time, photographs certain other people or landscapes or stories. All this information is silent in the image.
They usually hint. They are often too silent. It is possible, perhaps even desirable, for the implied, the indirect, to become a little clearer, but in artistic ways. And these ways are not the extensive texts next to the presented photograph, but the development of the photographic discourse through the connection of the photographs, both with each other and with the photographer himself.
"Explanations" cannot be sent by telegram. Also the raison d'être of the photo doesn't have to be justified just by writing a text or a caption. (Though, actually, sometimes a caption isn't what's needed. Sometimes what's needed is a window or a river or a lighter.)
Knowing the answer to the most common questions – who created the photo or where it was taken – is perhaps the smallest piece of information that can possibly lead to further contact and, why not, enjoyment of the photographic image/work. But it certainly doesn't end there. That's where it starts. "One" photo is just a start. There are other photos, just as there are other texts, other poems, and other thoughts. To see and come into real and meaningful contact with the world through photography, abandoning "imperial" attitudes is everyone's responsibility. There is no view from anywhere.
Panos Kasimis
Author – Professor of Photography (Depth of Field book)