A Study in Documentary Style

I was on my way to my friend Laurie’s home where, among other things (preparing Halloween decorations), we were to stage documentary photographs, when I saw Bryan hitching south on SH 146. A woman alone, I drove past him, but as I studied him in my rearview mirror, I wondered if photos of a hitchhiker would be better than anything staged. I made the two u-turns and went back to inquire if he would oblige. Bryan and I talked about five minutes, as I explained the project from the safety of my truck, and he told me a small bit of his journey. His talkative cat, Princess RD (Road Dog), who I did not see until Bryan walked to the truck, decided she would enjoy the cool air inside with me.

Bryan and I agreed on the photograph as document. Unlike diCorcia’s “carefully contrived photographic tableaux” (Lowry), I attempted to remove signage from the frame to reduce the possibility of a commentary I was not trying to make. Winogrand “aggressively rejects any responsibility for his images and denies any relation between them and shared or public human meaning” (Rosler). Like Rosler, I disagree with Winogrand, to a point. The images are a social exchange between not only the photographer and subject, but also photographer and viewing public.

To study this, I’ve chosen two very different types of images. The first are the two individual images. These were chosen to represent the insider position. The image of Bryan from the back as he stands hitchhiking is an image only one in a similar position can make. Additionally, the close-up of Bryan and Princess RD invades their personal space, yet each subject appears at ease.

The second set of images negates my original intent to remove the social context that might be applied to images of a hitchhiker. Signage, automobiles, Bryan walking toward the camera, numerous images of him hitching to no avail: these were the images I included in this second set. Will the viewer interpret the two sets of images differently? They are the same subject, the same setting, the same “sitting.” With each set of images I include caption. However, the insider images contain only basic information in the caption, more of a straightforward commentary, whereas the social documentary set includes a narrative that is humanistic. Is the photographer, at least in part, responsible for his or her images? If the viewer comes away with a different reading between the two sets of images, or if the viewer comes away with a reading different than the one intended, how responsible am I as photographer for that meaning?

Let’s see.

Quote for the day: You’ve got to push yourself harder. You’ve got to start looking for pictures nobody else could take. You’ve got to take the tools you have and probe deeper. William Albert Allard