Fireworkby
odriewComment by ubique: On Low-Fidelity Photographs:
Iâm a dedicated fan of low-fidelity photographs, and this one is especially wonderful. Itâs a bold gesture to offer this up as your best of 2010, because it will be dismissed with barely a thought by many of the voters, and youâll likely be finishing down in the DPC dungeon with me I suppose. But you clearly know that already.
My love of photographs like this one of yours is driven by two opposed but connected impulses.
First, digital photography has reached the point where almost anyone can make an impressive image by buying the equipment and then slavishly copying the style and techniques of already popular photographers. You see it in the forums all the time ⦠âHow can I get this look?â etc. There's often even a bloody
'action' to be downloaded to guarantee the outcome! The resulting photographs of course all appear much the same, and are a triumph of style over substance. They may indeed look impressive but individually most are ephemeral and ultimately of no artistic or even photographic consequence whatsoever.
Second, I prefer in any case photographs that make some demands, that require the viewer to get inside the picture and experience it from there; from within. Within both self and image. Only a photograph that is in some sense unfinished â or at least only partly realised â by the photographer is capable of achieving that, at least to my satisfaction. That means photographs that donât conform to the tedious bloody rules, photographs that leave bits of the story outside the frame, and that render whatâs
inside the frame with some degree of considered negligence. With a lack of fidelity, in other words.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the difference is that mine is right.
Ah, you want proof? Consider this: Look at almost any ribbon-winning image. Everything it has to offer is right there, unequivocal and complete. All of the potential experience of the image has already been had on your behalf, by the photographer; your job as its viewer is not to experience it at all, but simply to admire it. Thatâs all thatâs been left for you.
Now look at this image, âFireworkâ, again. One could (and should) look at it a dozen times, and have a different experience each time. Thatâs because some of the photograph is indistinct, uncertain, ambiguous or even missing, and the job of the viewer is to add the incompletely articulated or missing stuff. And not just once; as many times and in as many ways as the photograph will allow.
Thatâs why I love low-fidelity photography, and itâs why this wondrous example of it is in my top two picks for the Best of 2010. Thank you.
Photographer found comment helpful.
