The St. Mary's Project of SMP is required of most graduating seniors at St. Mary's College of Maryland. I gladly display my essay here on "Truth And Meaning In The Photographic Print"

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

Many people ask me why I take photos. With a sigh, I usually say: “because every time you photograph something, in some way it is incrementally, but importantly different from the last time you photographed it. Each time you pull that shutter something has been shifted, the light, the sky, or the personality of the image itself.” Then I usually mention Monet’s paintings of the Rouen Cathedral that are made at different times of the day. Then I hear “Ah… I get it.” Like anything, my perspective on photography has changed. No longer is the sole purpose of my photography to represent things seen by our eyes, but also to represent things felt by our heart. Photography is different from moment to moment; but so are individuals, and it is photography that can reflect them like no other art form, through its provocative moods and elusive emotions.
 Being raised in San Francisco you inevitably see Ansel Adams’ work. It is almost impossible to escape it. For me it was an unusual experience having essentially lived where this legendary figure had created his works. To me it looked so different. When I looked at one of his prints, my eyes saw different things than when I looked at the actual place. I soon realized that even though photography can be a representation of what actually exists, that is usually only half the story. Adams successfully represented a place but he also evoked an intense presence of emotion in his work. When I look at his work not only do I appreciate the aesthetic value, but also almost more importantly, I appreciate the emotional response I get when I look at his work.
Photography is by nature representational, but to this day, photography remains one of the most elusive forms of art yet created. It was photography that was created for the sole purpose of representation. Early pioneers of photography such as Alfred Steiglitz and Walker Evans did not know the consequences such a simple thing, as a photo would have on the world. This simple art of representation would eventually become something much more to the viewer and the artist especially.
I begin this discussion of photography with the utmost joy. Photography has been a huge part of my existence for many years, but some caution is forewarned. Much of the language I am about to use is very general; it does not, nor will I pretend it does, apply to every case. There can be exceptions to every rule I attest. But I feel that within the realm of our culture conclusions can be reached without getting caught up in semantic paradoxes.
Photography is the art of representation; at least this was its intention at its conception. Even now though one cannot deny it the pure representative properties that photography has. Regardless of what an artist’s intention is, photos do represent, whether it be realistic or surrealistic. Most of this discussion will revolve around the realistic view of the world that photos are so good at portraying. If one agrees that some photographs are a good representation of the realistic world, what happens when an artist changes that realistic view of the world into something else, namely his of her own? To answer this question, one must first answer the question of what a photograph is.
What is a photograph? A photograph is something that can represent anything. It can represent something close to what we see with our eyes, or it can represent something closer to what one might imagine. Photographs can also represent something more internal. More specifically, they can represent that the eyes cannot see. (More on this later) Photographs can represent an accurate portrayal of the world, namely, represent close to what our eyes see. For many years after its conception, photography was not regarded as an art form. It was thought of as a tool for documentation. Over time, the world’s view of photography was eventually changed as was photography itself. Ansel Adams once defined a photograph as being twice removed from the scene or subject matter. In a way I can see where he is coming from. The photograph is once removed by the negative, and then once by the print. Even though this may be physically true, I by no means think that photography is removed from the scene. A photograph can be definitive; it can define a moment, a place, or even a person. Physically it may be removed from the subject, but in every other way it is inextricably connected, not only to what is in the scene but to the person behind the camera as well. But in some cases, it is not clear if photography can really be a good tool for representation.
Photography, as said earlier, was originally invented for documentation. Now however, the world being the complex and ever-changing place it is, photography has taken on new definitions. Art and artists alike have been witness to the change photography has gone through. Photography is no longer just a tool for accurate representation. In some cases it has taken upon itself to become one of the most surreal art forms of the last fifty years. The definition will undoubtedly continue to change, just as the face of the world has continued to change. But this still does not answer the question, is photography an accurate representation of the world, and if so what does this mean?
With the onset of digital technology, it is becoming easier for people to take photographs. It is also getting easier to make a more accurate representation of the world. By more accurate, I mean closer to what we actually see with the naked eye. (I will refer to this later as well) In the beginnings of photography it took ages to setup and take a shot compared with that of modern day digital “point and shoot” cameras. Nevertheless a snapshot can indeed be an accurate representation of the world. After all, that is what it is designed to do. This unmanipulated view is close to what one sees with his eyes. When I look at a photo of this type, I see what is trying to be represented.

Plate 1

Take for example Plate 1, a normal enough view of some sand dunes in Death Valley I took a few years ago. This is an accurate representation of what I was looking at on that day that has not been manipulated since it was taken. This photo by no means puts you in that place but it does reflect the place itself. As I recall, that morning was rather cold and the air seemed dense with the fear of the coming heat. The air seemed to make everything grey and the sand just reflected the bright white sun. This type of snapshot is what I will eventually refer to as a ‘Photorealistic View,’ meaning a photo that is purely made to accurately represent what is seen by the naked eye.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3