IN THEORY: A View on Posed vs. Unposed Photography

(1)

(2)

I have here two very distinct photographs that both focus on children. Now, disregarding the quality and any personal taste you might impose on the particular images, one cannot help but notice the very different attitudes and scenarios presented by these two separate images. (1) is, obviously, a posed shot, while (2) was most likely "candid," if you will. Although both are using the same category of subject, they make very different statements and relationships between the subject and their surroundings. Despite the fact that these two photographs might have had different intentions or purposes, the question arises about the legitimacy of studio photography and a more "natural" breed of images.

Photographer and author of The Photographer's Eye, John Szarkowski, defines photography in terms of something that is found, captured, rendered immortal, and held a certain unseen meaning, one that even the photographer might not know. Photographs hold the power to inform, to relate reality, and essentially make relationships between things in the world that might not have previously been there. Looking at studio photography in this light, there seems to be no value; the photographs are fostered out of the need for an image, not for a specific rendering of a scene to communicate a message.

However, this view is flawed in many aspects. Studio photography is just as much art as naturalistic photography is. Although the images may not suddenly happen upon the photographer, they must use their artistic vision to convey an idea in a limited amount of space, with the proper lighting, subject placement, and symbols. Though it is usually modernly used for advertising and fashion magazines, posed photographs can have just as important a function as those that are not posed, as they still must stay within the bounds of reality yet try to suggest something more meaningful or creative than what is in the frame.

Szarkowski would most definitely be a fan of (2) because the relationship formed between subject and foreground gives one the feeling of infinity and naive infancy. In my opinion, it is the stronger of the two images because it suggests things beyond the limits of the frame. Inclusion of the sky, the shadow, and the tire tracks are all key elements to understanding the child's presence on the beach. The child's form, as well, is important to the statement being made about the experience of being a child, of being a human child none-the-less. The most important thing to remember, however, is that these elements are perceived by viewers, even if the photographer wasn't aware or did not intend it at the time this was taken.