The joy of photography

nikos79 · Monday at 1:29 PM

The more photographers I discover, the more I begin to realise something crucial. You can often spot those who are desperately trying to make “good” photographs—relying on cheap tricks, flashy effects, or overly staged compositions just to impress. I won’t name names, but if you’ve seen my previous posts, you might get the idea.

And then, there are the photographers who shoot out of pure joy. For the love of it. With the innocence and adventurous spirit of a child. No one embodies this more for me than Lartigue.

These are the photographers who win my appreciation—not because every photo is “great,” but because you can feel the joy behind the image. Even when they try and fail, it’s inspiring. Because it’s real.

Don_ih · Monday at 1:38 PM

I got nothing. Nope.

nikos79 · Monday at 1:40 PM

Don_ih said:
I got nothing. Nope.

That’s what I told myself after looking at my contact sheet too

Don_ih · Monday at 1:51 PM

I don't know. I just don't see any reason to prop up the value of some photography and knock down the value of other photography - and photographers - just on the basis of some vague notion of "joy". Why did you jump over the "sublime"? That's where I thought you were headed with the early 19th century aesthetics you were propounding. I guess you wanted it moved a bit away from theology.

Watching Three's Company brought many joy. It wasn't exactly sublime, though.

nikos79 · Monday at 2:18 PM

Totally fair — I wasn’t trying to create a photography caste system based on 'joy levels' or anything! It’s just that sometimes I get this gut feeling when looking at certain photos… like the photographer was really in it, having fun, chasing something honest. Lartigue gives me that big kid-on-a-bike energy, and I love it.

As for the sublime — you caught me! I took a detour. Maybe I swerved away from theology and landed straight into whimsy. Whoops.

And listen, if Three’s Company brought joy, maybe it was sublime in its own wonderfully absurd way. Long live Jack Tripper and the aesthetics of slapstick!

Don_ih · Monday at 3:18 PM

nikos79 said:
I wasn’t trying to create a photography caste system based on 'joy levels' or anything! It’s just that sometimes I get this gut feeling when looking at certain photos… like the photographer was really in it,

Then it would suit the purpose better to not preface that claim with a debasing of

nikos79 said:
those who are ... relying on cheap tricks, flashy effects, or overly staged compositions just to impress

- which is itself heavily relying on supposition.

Photographers, for the most part, pursue their own interest or what will make them money (just like everyone else - also, just like everyone else, it's nice when those things coincide). That you find their photos joyful and come to conclude that the photographer was "in it" at that moment is a judgment that cannot reliably extend beyond your own understanding of that photo and really has nothing to do with other photographers at all and whether or not their work is of value. There are numerous valid sources of valuation. Yours is valid. But it doesn't withstand such generalization. You have a habit of generalizing your insight into a universal truth - one that precludes the possibility of other interpretations.

nikos79 · Monday at 3:39 PM

I see what you mean, and you're absolutely right that we all bring our own interpretation to an image — which is part of what makes photography so rich. But I’d still draw a line between photographers working to express something personal and those whose priority is to meet a client’s expectations. Of course, commercial photographers can love what they do and make beautiful work, but I feel like their primary creative compass is guided by external needs, not internal ones. That doesn’t make it bad — just different. I guess I’m simply more drawn to work where the 'voice' feels unfiltered, even if that voice cracks now and then. I probably do generalize more than I should — it’s part of the excitement of trying to grasp what moves me!

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 4:29 PM

nikos79 said:
I’d still draw a line between photographers working to express something personal and those whose priority is to meet a client’s expectations. Of course, commercial photographers can love what they do and make beautiful work, but I feel like their primary creative compass is guided by external needs, not internal ones. That doesn’t make it bad — just different. I guess I’m simply more drawn to work where the 'voice' feels unfiltered, even if that voice cracks now and then. I probably do generalize more than I should — it’s part of the excitement of trying to grasp what moves me!

I'd start finding different ways to grasp. Or changing my grasping grid.

That you don't dig fashion or portrait photography is fine. To each his own.

But judging that all the great photographers — Irving Penn, Arnold Newman, Richard Avedon, Margaret Bourke-White, Gordon Parks, Peter Lindberg, and countliess others — who shot for Life Magazine, Vogue or Harper's Bazaar had their "primary creative compass... guided by external needs," well, that's way above your pay grade.

What you are missing — or not grasping — is precisely these photographers' ability to express something personal while meeting a client's expectation. Fulfilling a commission in no way prevents shooting for, and expressing, pure joy.

Arnold Newman proved it many times. To wit:

cliveh · Monday at 4:39 PM

I have always experienced joy in photography. At about the age of 5 or 6, I can remember my grandfather photographing our family in the back garden with a box camera. What is that I thought and how does it work. The joy of exploring photography has never stopped.

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 4:40 PM

Don_ih said:
Watching Three's Company brought many joy. It wasn't exactly sublime, though.

They abandoned any pretention to that effect when they replaced Norman Fell by Don Knotts. Any hope of reaching the sublime vanished once Suzanne Summers left.

Don_ih · Monday at 4:49 PM

I was going to bring in the New Topographics photographers, but deleted what I said. I'll bring it back. Here's a photo from Robert Adams.

I wouldn't say there's anything that relates to joy about that photo. However, it is a significant entry in a rather important document from a particular point in history. It's not replicable, it's not staged. It utilizes no tricks and plays to no emotions, but it is still art. The composition was carefully chosen. The photo was skilfully executed. It's not to everyone's taste. It doesn't "speak" to a lot of people. But anyone with a bit of an understanding of both realism in art and the idealism of the postwar notion of "progress" can find irony in images like this.

I like photos like that, far more than anything I've seen by Lartigue. But I don't want to diminish what he accomplished when I try to appreciate something different - and I don't have a monopoly on taste or insight. I am open to being persuaded. (Not many people attempt to persuade anyone of anything, though.)

So you can celebrate the joy of joyful photographers. I think that's great.

Don_ih · Monday at 4:51 PM

Alex Benjamin said:
They abandoned any pretention to that effect when they replaced Norman Fell by Don Knotts. Any hope of reaching the sublime vanished once Suzanne Summers left.

That's true. There was a certain amount of restrained violent pathos in Norman Fell's character. Don Knotts was simply a buffoon.

nikos79 · Monday at 5:07 PM

Don_ih said:
I was going to bring in the New Topographics photographers, but deleted what I said. I'll bring it back. Here's a photo from Robert Adams.

View attachment 395804

I wouldn't say there's anything that relates to joy about that photo. However, it is a significant entry in a rather important document from a particular point in history. It's not replicable, it's not staged. It utilizes no tricks and plays to no emotions, but it is still art. The composition was carefully chosen. The photo was skilfully executed. It's not to everyone's taste. It doesn't "speak" to a lot of people. But anyone with a bit of an understanding of both realism in art and the idealism of the postwar notion of "progress" can find irony in images like this.

I like photos like that, far more than anything I've seen by Lartigue. But I don't want to diminish what he accomplished when I try to appreciate something different - and I don't have a monopoly on taste or insight. I am open to being persuaded. (Not many people attempt to persuade anyone of anything, though.)

So you can celebrate the joy of joyful photographers. I think that's great.

Lartigue wasn't just 'joyful'—he was joyfully brilliant. Calling him merely joyful is like saying Mozart was just a guy who liked to hum. The man was composing photographic symphonies before most of us could tie our shoes. At age six, he was outshooting some of today's most celebrated photographers… and probably doing it while giggling on roller skates.

Alex Benjamin said:
I'd start finding different ways to grasp. Or changing my grasping grid.

That you don't dig fashion or portrait photography is fine. To each his own.

But judging that all the great photographers — Irving Penn, Arnold Newman, Richard Avedon, Margaret Bourke-White, Gordon Parks, Peter Lindberg, and countliess others — who shot for Life Magazine, Vogue or Harper's Bazaar had their "primary creative compass... guided by external needs," well, that's way above your pay grade.

What you are missing — or not grasping — is precisely these photographers' ability to express something personal while meeting a client's expectation. Fulfilling a commission in no way prevents shooting for, and expressing, pure joy.

Arnold Newman proved it many times. To wit:

Arnold Newman and perhaps George Hoyningen-Huene? Absolutely — exceptions that prove the rule. They danced circles around most, even within the limits of commission. But let’s be honest: even they knew they weren’t out there reinventing art history — they were crafting exceptionally beautiful assignments. Like haute couture for the soul… but still, couture.

They elevated commercial work, no doubt — but I suspect if you asked them straight-up whether it was “art” in the wild, uncompromising sense, they might give you a knowing smile and politely change the subject.

nikos79 · Monday at 5:12 PM

cliveh said:
I have always experienced joy in photography. At about the age of 5 or 6, I can remember my grandfather photographing our family in the back garden with a box camera. What is that I thought and how does it work. The joy of exploring photography has never stopped.

Then you, Clive, are one of the lucky ones — truly! Because in the work of many so-called “successful” photographers today, the joy has been vacuum-sealed and replaced with mechanical perfection and a desperate thirst for validation. It’s like watching someone dance beautifully… but only because they were told there’s a gold medal at the end.

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 5:22 PM

nikos79 said:
exceptions that prove the rule

No they don't. They only prove that someone made up a rule and decided to use an example that doesn't fit in order to prove himself right about his rule.

nikos79 said:
but I suspect if you asked them straight-up whether it was “art” in the wild, uncompromising sense, they might give you a knowing smile and politely change the subject.

You'll have to explain to me how an imaginary scene invented entirely by a combination of whishful thinking and the conviction that you are right is in any way an argument in favour of your position. Either we're writing a novel or we're having a serious discussion. Not both.

Don_ih said:
That's true. There was a certain amount of restrained violent pathos in Norman Fell's character. Don Knotts was simply a buffoon.

Good thing we still had M*A*S*H*. Now THAT had both depth and joy.

And I did find Major Houlihan sublime...

Don_ih · Monday at 5:30 PM

nikos79 said:
Calling him merely joyful is like saying...

nikos79 said:
There are the photographers who shoot out of pure joy. ... No one embodies this more for me than Lartigue.

So, you're arguing against yourself?

Because you didn't level any argument at me. That's fine.

Don_ih · Monday at 5:35 PM

Alex Benjamin said:
Good thing we still had M*A*S*H*.

But they replaced Trapper John with BJ. And they replaced Frank Burns with Winchester. And they replaced Henry Blake with Colonel Potter. Oh, the humanity...

Oh, I forgot about Radar and Klinger....

GregY · Monday at 6:33 PM

Don_ih said:
But they replaced Trapper John with BJ. And they replaced Frank Burns with Winchester. And they replaced Henry Blake with Colonel Potter. Oh, the humanity...

Oh, I forgot about Radar and Klinger....

Alex Benjamin said:
I'd start finding different ways to grasp. Or changing my grasping grid.

That you don't dig fashion or portrait photography is fine. To each his own.

But judging that all the great photographers — Irving Penn, Arnold Newman, Richard Avedon, Margaret Bourke-White, Gordon Parks, Peter Lindberg, and countliess others — who shot for Life Magazine, Vogue or Harper's Bazaar had their "primary creative compass... guided by external needs," well, that's way above your pay grade.

What you are missing — or not grasping — is precisely these photographers' ability to express something personal while meeting a client's expectation. Fulfilling a commission in no way prevents shooting for, and expressing, pure joy.

Arnold Newman proved it many times. To wit:

Yes, MASH aside.... photographers like Elliott Erwitt, Robert Doisneau often evoke joy w their photographs. And personally i see it in the far out photos of Philippe Halsman.

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 7:03 PM

GregY said:
photographers like Elliott Erwitt, Robert Doisneau often evoke joy w their photographs.

If this is it, then I'm not sure I understood OP. Are we talking about evoking joy in the photograph itself, or the joy of photography (or photographing) somehow emanating from the image?

I'd be sad if it's the first case, because it would exclude photographers such as Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Gordon Parks, Dorothea Lange, Gene Smith, Larry Burrows, Don McCullin, Larry Towell, Eugene Richards and countless others who made a point of capturing and revealing the miseries of life and war.

No joy there. But that too, is real.

GregY · Monday at 7:13 PM

Alex Benjamin said:
If this is it, then I'm not sure I understood OP. Are we talking about evoking joy in the photograph itself, or the joy of photography (or photographing) somehow emanating from the image?

I'd be sad if it's the first case, because it would exclude photographers such as Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Gordon Parks, Dorothea Lange, Gene Smith, Larry Burrows, Don McCullin, Larry Towell, Eugene Richards and countless others who made a point of capturing and revealing the miseries of life and war.

No joy there. But that too, is real.

Well i'm not sure either what the borders of photographic joy are, but the OP mentioned Lartigue whose images IMO are similar to those of Elliott & Doisneau et al.

I can't see how any photographer of war and human suffering experiences joy at what they're doing. Clearly what drove Lee Miller for example was something else....& affected the rest of her life.

Sirius Glass · Monday at 7:38 PM

I derive joy just looking around where ever I am looking for compositions and acting to capture them.

nikos79 · Monday at 7:50 PM

Alex Benjamin said:
If this is it, then I'm not sure I understood OP. Are we talking about evoking joy in the photograph itself, or the joy of photography (or photographing) somehow emanating from the image?

I'd be sad if it's the first case, because it would exclude photographers such as Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Gordon Parks, Dorothea Lange, Gene Smith, Larry Burrows, Don McCullin, Larry Towell, Eugene Richards and countless others who made a point of capturing and revealing the miseries of life and war.

Ah, the miseries of life and war? Are we talking about Salgado here? Because, with all respect, I don’t really see “misery” in the work of Larry Towell or Cartier-Bresson. I think we might just read photography through very different lenses — which is totally fine, of course. For me, art isn’t about diving into despair, but rather about finding what lifts us — even in the darkest places. That’s where I feel photography does its magic.

Alex Benjamin said:
No joy there. But that too, is real.

I’d actually argue that photography centered on misery isn’t really art at all — at least not in the way I understand it. In the best case, it’s honest journalism, like Robert Capa’s raw portrayals from the front lines. In the worst case, it becomes a stylized, almost romanticized rendering of suffering — something I often feel when looking at Salgado’s work. There’s a fine line between bearing witness and aestheticizing pain, and once that line is crossed, the work feels less like art and more like manipulation dressed in monochrome.

Don_ih · Monday at 8:32 PM

nikos79 said:
I’d actually argue that photography centered on misery isn’t really art

Not art by that criterion? Because that actually has nothing to do with whether or not something is art. This:

is definitely art.

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 8:42 PM

As is this:

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 8:50 PM

nikos79 said:
’d actually argue that photography centered on misery isn’t really art at all

Well, you can argue all you want, problem is, you don't get to decide.

The joy of photography

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency