On 7/25/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm completely the opposite way around ! > > I maintain that a snapshot is totally about the methodology, and nothing > to do with what it is. The picture is a standalone item that is viewed > and appreciated (or not) but it is not possible for the viewer to decide > if it is a snap. > > Gotta love this list :-)
I gotta agree with you, Cotty. (the audience sits in stunned silence, unable to make sense of what they just heard) Here's a perfect example. We've already mentioned Doisneau's The Kiss here: http://www.ackland.org/art/exhibitions/seasonsofparis/lebaiserdutrattoir.jpg Here's another Parisian couple doing pretty much the same thing, except this time it's by HCB (one of my faves by him, BTW): http://tinyurl.com/7tjkn They both ~look~ like snapshots, so by Shel's way of looking at it (if I understand him correctly), they're both snaps. But, as we know by now, Doisneau found the couple smooching at a bar a couple of blocks away, paid them each a few francs to be his models, took them out to the street, and photographed them amongst the passersby. To me, that's not a snapshot. It was arranged and staged by the photographer. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful photograph, but it's not a snapshot, IMHO. The couple as photographed by HCB were either unaware of his presence, or chose to ignore him whilst they engaged in their lustful, smutty ways. As far as we know, HCB was simply walking by, saw them, snapped, and that was that. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a snapshot. So, Cotty, I agree with you that it's the process rather than the result that makes a snap a snap. FWIW... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
