The Role of Photography

I have always looked upon photography as having three purposes. Firstly to record history as accurately as possible, unpleasantness and beauty. Secondly as an artistic medium, to evoke feelings in the viewer that transend the mundane present. Thirdly as an enjoyable experience for the photographer, if I didn't enjoy photography I would not do it.
Why do we find it enjoyable, do we crave recognition of our skill? Is it the constant search for "the shot"? Or do we use it in cojuncntion with another passion?, landscape, wildlife, birds, trains, the body beautiful?
Or is it just work, a job, and can such a person be good at it?

I experience photography as science, craft, art, history (documentation) and during the last ten years as meditation within nature. When I was a Kodak Stockhouse retailer in the now ancient seventies I supplied film, paper and chemistry to a local professional forensics photographer who photographed crime scenes, evidence and cadavers in various stages of autopsy. That use of photography opened my eyes to his photographic world. He said that unfortunately, he never had the time or desire to point his camera at "pleasant" subjects.

The role ofthe photogrpaher is simple: make photographs. Anything else is subjective freight the photogrpaher or viewer ( usually both with differing intent ) loads on the resulting photographs.

If you are a photojournalist or documentary photographer your job is to use photography to bear witness to what you see and sometimes how you think about what you are seeing.

if you are an "art" photographer your task is to entertain your patrons.

If you are a commercial photographer (including portrait & wedding photographers ) of any stripe your assignment is to help sell your clients their ideas about themselves, , as well as the possible services and goods the client wants to promote and sell, even if they are relying on the way you see those things.

Initially it was human memory that stored life's experiences. An inaccurate device, much of history was selective. As an example, when early humans painted on cave walls more than likely these were wishes of success in hunting and a hope for that number of prey.

Writing things down is still inaccurate. Filming them is. Photographing them is. They all rely on interpretation and agenda, and the lack of a common experience between the person doing the recording and the person looking at the results. Missing context, differing languages (both written and visual).

And believe me, when it comes to using art to symbolize the expectation of certain results (like a hunt), nothing has changed.

Expectations are strong for a beautiful world to be "captured" on film to the extent that photographers find themselves before dawn or near dark exposing film to capture pleasing lighting.

It is still valid to ask how photography can unchain itself from a mandate to render a beautiful world?

I would suggest that the paradigm you decry is only one you've setup for yourself. If you look at the work of numerous photographers, you will see the the camera used to explore the world rather than rendering it as a utopian place of untouched beauty.

The reasons to photograph are numerous, and personal.

I can only speak for myself, but my reasons are (1) record my life, and the lives of those in my life (2) make pretty and ugly pictures depicting a certain asthetic, message, or evocation of feelings; positive and negative, and (3) create art. And (4), to document happenstances.

I don't know of a more meaningful, important and compelling thing to do then to photograph. And this is true on many levels, and for many reasons.

And Robert, you wrote "the modern world photography is bond by the pictorial standards of painting." IMHO this has not been true since the early 20th century. Google Alfred Steiglitz, straight photography and pictorialism, or rather, it's "death" in photography. Pictorial has been out of vogue since the 1900's.

All photographs capture the exact same thing...they capture what they capture...whether it is Christmas morning in Des Moines or a beautiful model in New York...or a third world death in Iran....it is a capture......We capture what is in front of us...Jim

Every good and interesting photo takes you on a journey. That can be a journey to the place (well, not in a literal sense), a journey into the photographers mind and more often than not a journey into your own mind. That's the whole beauty of it.

The problem is that, especially since the last decade, we've become inundated with mediocre images so it's harder to find them. More of a problem is that mediocrity in many fields seems to have grown into an accepted standard and that's why so many good photographers struggle.

There's a sad analogy. Instead of a fine and tasty meal that takes hours to prepare we've grown accustomed (and come to expect) a microwave meal that's ready for instant consumption. A lot of what we see now is nothing more than microwave photography. Our own fault really, we want it all and we want it now and there has been a growing (and marketed) sense that everyone can do it themselves.

as someone that loves to look at photography, it's role for me is to freeze a moment or idea so that i can explore it. like a meditation. i can take my time to enjoy a beautiful colour or texture or the simplicity of an abstract form or concept. to be moved by the emotive qualities of an image, or find a new perspective, to find the hidden layers in our everyday landscapes. it's a quiet contemplation.

"The role of the photographer is simple: make photographs"
I think that the camera invention and development ,enabled to enrich human being possibilities to experience the wide phenomenon of human life, from birth till death, and all the in between. Past( history) and present, the ugliness of wars and conflict and beauty of nature creation, human actions, inventions like medicine and science etc. and of course the passage of time.

The camera as a tool became accessible nearly to everyone, and each individual will use it according to his aims and skills,some with more skills than others. Some as a hobby and others as living means.
It can be "nothing more than microwave photography" and it can be a much more invested mission and art .We have the possibility to choose.

I'm glad Pnina spoke of the role of the photographer than the role of photography. I like to think human beings have roles. Frankly I just like to take pictures and play with them. It's just an extension of the joy I have looking at the world. My only message is "Hey, isn't this interesting to look at?" Fortunately, I have no intention of influencing anyone. I do enjoy people saying nice things about an image, and I love to see the images others are making. I do not call myself a photographer.

Show us a beautiful world and our ageless selves. Humanity wants to see the TRUTH but not in an unpalatable way. But images of war and the atrocities of those conflicts have brought just that; an unpalatable image. World conflicts have exaggerated the need for beauty and photography is the Pandora's Box here in the modern world.
The world is full of both 'palatable' and 'unpalatable' events, places, people and so on. If we are to document all that is within it we must remain true to that documentation for future generations. I think photography is an important an instrument of documentation as any other.
On a more fictional level, photography has also provided an new and exciting graphical medium with which "art" can live and be expressed. It seems to me that photography is well on its way to being entrenched as a form of human expression in much the same way as a painting, drawing, a poem or a piece of music.

Ransford Pyle: You bring up a valid point. Humans play out a role. However, it is on a small stage we humans perform. I am attempting a relationship to a larger sphere and its connection to photography.

The role of photography is something subjective to whoever happens to be operating a camera. As has been mentioned I feel it is the role of the photographer that needs to be more closely examined. The camera allows us to freeze a moment and document a part of this transient world. I disagree that an 'unpalatable image has exaggerated the need for beauty and photography'. In the western world I would say there is an ignorance to the truth. Main stream media would never usually show photographs showing the true horrors of todays conflicts and humanitarian crises. The ubiquity of the camera in recent times has led to some of the most interesting photographs. I recall the photographs of the prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. Here we saw shocking scenes of abuse but it was in the kind of place no professional photograph would ever have seen. Those shots were taken on mobile phone cameras by the guards who were completely unaware of the significance of what they were doing. The publics reaction was one of outrage when the photographs were circulated in the media. The photographs were so powerful that they threatened the position of US secretary for defense Donald Rumsfeld.
With regards to the photographs relationship with time here's some clips I saw recently where it's brought up if anyones interested: Steven Shore: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5flmLiEDA and William Klein: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5iGIcRH4ecg

The role of photography is something subjective to whoever happens to be operating a camera. As has been mentioned I feel it is the role of the photographer that needs to be more closely examined. The camera allows us to freeze a moment and document a part of this transient world. I disagree that an 'unpalatable image has exaggerated the need for beauty and photography'. In the western world I would say there is an ignorance to the truth. Main stream media would never usually show photographs showing the true horrors of todays conflicts and humanitarian crises. The ubiquity of the camera in recent times has led to some of the most interesting photographs. I recall the photographs of the prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. Here we saw shocking scenes of abuse but it was in the kind of place no professional photograph would ever have seen. Those shots were taken on mobile phone cameras by the guards who were completely unaware of the significance of what they were doing. The publics reaction was one of outrage when the photographs were circulated in the media. The photographs were so powerful that they threatened the position of US secretary for defense Donald Rumsfeld.
With regards to the photographs relationship with time here's some clips I saw recently where it's brought up if anyones interested: Steven Shore: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5flmLiEDA and William Klein: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5iGIcRH4ecg

My late father wrote a diary - I take photographs. Both are an account of experience.

Looking and seeing.

Documentation and misrepresentation.

Seeking truth and telling lies.

Extracting meaning and striking visual chords.

Conveying of narratives, enhancing narratives, and defying them.

Framing with a camera imposes order on a chaotic world and can create confusion where there was clarity.

The harmonization and the cacophony of sight and mind, vision and imagination.

Possibilities.

To answer directly the OP, Beauty (not to be confused with palatability) has long been a quest. Probably Beauty's most significant aspect from a philosophical perspective is longing. I think it likely transcends any era's conflicts and relates more to resolving some of the conflicts that are inherent in what it is to be human.

"Beauty" is not always "pretty." Reducing wrinkles is not beautifying. At most it is making pretty and even that is debatable. There is beauty in character, there is beauty in flaws, and there is often beauty in a weathered face. That weathered face can also be just a superficial experience of character and Beauty, both deeper concepts than we often give them credit for.

In being about time, photography may be as much about moments as about history.

The role of photography is something subjective to whoever happens to be operating a camera. As has been mentioned I feel it is the role of the photographer that needs to be more closely examined, why do we take photographs? The camera allows us to freeze a moment and document a part of this transient world. I disagree that an 'unpalatable image has exaggerated the need for beauty and photography'. In the western world I would say there is an ignorance to the truth. Main stream media would never usually show photographs showing the true horrors of todays conflicts and humanitarian crises. The ubiquity of the camera in recent times has led to some of the most interesting photographs. I recall the photographs of the prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. Here we saw shocking scenes of abuse but it was in the kind of place no professional photograph would ever have seen. Those shots were taken on mobile phone cameras by the guards who were completely unaware of the significance of what they were doing. The publics reaction was one of outrage when the photographs were circulated in the media. The photographs were so powerful that they threatened the position of US secretary for defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The photography has a role as private research instrument in subconscious nature of man and society.

"The problem is that, especially since the last decade, we've become inundated with mediocre images so it's harder to find them."
Well, this is superficially true but not very enlightening. When hardly anyone could read and write there weren't many books written. Whether the overall standard of those that were was uniformly high is another question. There are more books written and published today than ever before. A vast proportion are probably less than brilliant (depending on the criterion applied) but I'd say that there have never been so many worthwhile books published. I suspect the same is true of photographs, but the volume is overwhelming. Of course writing almost anything takes a lot more effort than using a digital camera.
Roy

For me, a photo is really not about beauty at all. It's about showing how a sliver of the world appears to the photographer. The job of the photographer is to get people to actually -see- the things they walk/drive by every day, and to see them in a new way. Some things are beautiful; some are not. I find that I am frequently drawn to the decaying abandoned buildings so prevalent on the Northern Plains, and even the macabre.
Kent in SD

"To this end, what is the role and responsibility of photography"

Why would it have a role or responsibility? It is an innate process not a magical entity with a mind of its own.

The end and the beginning is what the individual photographer decides, it’s really that simple. Of course we can wax lyrical about it with poetic platitudes, but what does that achieve?

Perhaps our own little song which sounds good to our ears.

For me, photography is a love story. One in which the love between us has died, sadly... At least in the strange version of reality that we call life. And yet the love lives on, somehow, in my memories and my imagination.

She's like the wind through my tree
She rides the night next to me
She leads me through moonlight
Only to burn me with the sun
She's taken my heart
But she doesn't know what she's done...

I look in the mirror and all I see
Is a young old man with only a dream
Am I just fooling myself
That she'll stop the pain...?
Living without her
I'd go insane...

Feel her breath on my face
Her body close to me
Can't look in her eyes
She's out of my league
Just a fool to believe
I have anything she needs
She's like the wind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHALMffPqYU

Photography is mostly a market for Chinese goods.

You mention TRUTH as a role of photography, and far more than unpalatable images I see a larger problem with the concept of TRUTH in photography. I view this from what I learned in J-school, which is that photography should convey a basic sense of truth about the world; and from what I have learned afterward, that very very few outlets for photography offer a true sense of objectivity, regardless of their claims to the contrary.
Lets take, for example, one recent photograph. I don't remember the photographer but I am sure the majority of readers will know, immediately, the photo I am talking about. From the recent Georgian war there was a photograph of a heavy set woman sitting, as if dumbfounded, in the ruins of a building. The first time I was this photo if was used to convey the TRUTH of Georgian artilitary attacks upon South Ossetia, this was prior to any accusation of Russian involvement or bombing. A few days later the very same photo was used with a different caption to convey a new TRUTH, that of Russian agression against the sovereign nation of Georgia. I will leave to the reader to determine which TRUTH to take from this photograph, which I found immensely powerful. But, no one can deny that the TRUTH expressed by one of these uses of this photo must be remarkably and horrifically wrong when compared to the actuality of the subject's situation.
So, we can see, even apart from an era of photoshop and easy digital information, photographs can convey TRUTH or they can just as easily purport to do so, while actually doing the opposite. Add into the fray the ability to add and remove elements and I do not believe a photographer's image is any more TRUTH than a writer's words.

Michael--

Excellent points.

With the reminder that Truth is often much more than facts in the world. There are deeper truths than statements that line up with reality. Good photographs may approach those kinds of truths even if it doesn't always get its facts straight.

"Truth is often much more than facts in the world. There are deeper truths than statements that line up with reality. Good photographs may approach those kinds of truths even if it doesn't always get its facts straight."

Yes.

The truths that are here being referred to are secondary truths, as the secondary qualities of reality i.e. color. These are considered conditional; based on other factors.
The Truth is a image radiating from a source and registered on a light sensitive material. An indisputable fact that we interact with daily.
The Role of Photography is entwined with this "fact" and should be explored.

Robert--

Let's take two sort of very different photos as examples.

Ansel Adams's Moonrise: http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/pdf/monrise.pdf

Nan Goldin's Klara and Edna Belly Dancing (some may be offended): http://hitsusa.com/blog/140/klara-and-edda-belly-dancing/

What is the indisputable fact in either photo. If there is such a fact, what is its relevance to the photo or to the viewer. What "accurate details of the world" have been rendered in the two photos?

Two of Fred's justifications,
"Extracting meaning and striking visual chords.
Conveying of narratives, enhancing narratives, and defying them."
form the foundation of my photos (yet to be posted as I am one-week new to this net-community).
This is, more likely than not, because my first photo task was to "tell a story" with photographs. We were allowed to build a PowerPoint of photos only, unless we found music to enhance our attempt to communicate. With a high end Kodak digital and my 10-year old son in tow, I went to work. My presentation garnered a standing ovation, a couple successful university-level presentations in Taiwan, entirely new presentation styles from my College of Education grad-school classmates, and the beginning of my son's continued interest in photography.
Today my son intuitively uses artistic and graphic composition elements as one form of personal expression in his myspace account.

Did I successfully use photos tell a story? ...to transcend language barriers? ...to teach?

Photography is the destination of the journeyl of life that mankind travels through,the
end product.