Szarkowski
20 Oct
It could be said – it doubtless has been said – that such pictures often bear a clear resemblance to the Kodachrome slides of the ubiquitous amateur next door. It seems to me that this is true, in the same sense that the belles-lettres of a time generally relate in the texture, reference, and rhythm of their language to the prevailing educated vernacular of that time. In broad outline, Jane Austen’s sentences are presumably similar to those of her seven siblings. Similarly, it should not be surprising if the best photography of today is related in iconography and technique to the contemporary standard of vernacular camera work, which is in fact often rich and surprising. The diffference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination, intensity, precision, and coherence.
This from the intro to Eggleston’s Guide. It kind of makes me think of Flickr. I wonder to what extent the “educated vernacular” has been derived from the canonical works and styles of the past – will we at some point be capable of charting something like the dialogue between the canon and the vernacular over time? I’m endlessly fascinated with the prospect. I also wonder if those last qualities really comprise the difference. As with anything, it seems that means, politics, chance and what have you invariably intrude a bit.
Later in the essay, he says: “If our concern is for the meanings in pictures, verbal descriptions are finally gratuitous.” I don’t know about that! Maybe this is true when we’re talking about a very personal meaning, but even then, who knows.
