I very much love his photography not only because of the images themselves, which are wonderful observations of rural life in North Devon, but also because of the way he approached his life and documentary art. His father (Eric) was quite famous as a painter and illustrator, so I suspect James was always trying to play catch-up.
I was also humbled by the help I received by his curator and his wife in researching his work.
About intentions. There is a school of thought that one tries to understand the intentions of a photographer by the way the photographer chooses subjects, takes a point of view, gives the image a certain look, combines it with other images in a sequence and so on.
There may be something in this. I also have thought about symbols and signs and gestalt forms, wondering whether, through subject matter and composition and looks, photographs elicit certain feelings and thoughts through compositional forms. But I'm not sure.
Can feelings and thoughts be separated? My view is No.
The best photographs do dual duty. Firstly they drag you in, making you feel something. Then they trigger thoughts. The two are interwoven. It doesn't happen in this linear sequence.
The way a photographer gives expression to an image influences whether these thiings can happen in the mind of the viewer.
Thank you for this well-worded reply, that certainly helps me see my first impressions of his work in a different light. With a father who was famous for his visual art, it is very likely he wanted to prove himself somehow with his photography. That doesn't alter the perception of the way he observed and documented the people and their lives he chose as a subject, but it may have stimulated his eagerness to do it as well as he did.
The points you mention about looking for intention by analyzing the photos (on multiple levels) are also valid, and the help and first-hand reports you received from his wife humbles any presumption about his intention or chosen approach (like the mention of someone's name).
It's safe to say the viewer can immediately relate to the scenes he photographed, in which the human element may be underlined by mentioning the names of the people in his descriptions.
His work is quiet and maybe even contemplative, but that may be more dependent on the beholder than something he intended. I can imagine it must have taken time to be able to be accepted as a photographer within a smaller community, not in the least because his photos seem to be unobtrusive, yet personal. The fact he mentions the names of the people in a photo might emphasize his involvement in his community, but at the same time it comes across as impersonal,even journalistic (which was probably not his view on it). I liked your introduction to this photographer, which I had never heard of before.
Thanks for these insightful thoughts, Vincent.
I very much love his photography not only because of the images themselves, which are wonderful observations of rural life in North Devon, but also because of the way he approached his life and documentary art. His father (Eric) was quite famous as a painter and illustrator, so I suspect James was always trying to play catch-up.
I was also humbled by the help I received by his curator and his wife in researching his work.
About intentions. There is a school of thought that one tries to understand the intentions of a photographer by the way the photographer chooses subjects, takes a point of view, gives the image a certain look, combines it with other images in a sequence and so on.
There may be something in this. I also have thought about symbols and signs and gestalt forms, wondering whether, through subject matter and composition and looks, photographs elicit certain feelings and thoughts through compositional forms. But I'm not sure.
Can feelings and thoughts be separated? My view is No.
The best photographs do dual duty. Firstly they drag you in, making you feel something. Then they trigger thoughts. The two are interwoven. It doesn't happen in this linear sequence.
The way a photographer gives expression to an image influences whether these thiings can happen in the mind of the viewer.
Long response. Hope it makes some sense.
Thank you for this well-worded reply, that certainly helps me see my first impressions of his work in a different light. With a father who was famous for his visual art, it is very likely he wanted to prove himself somehow with his photography. That doesn't alter the perception of the way he observed and documented the people and their lives he chose as a subject, but it may have stimulated his eagerness to do it as well as he did.
The points you mention about looking for intention by analyzing the photos (on multiple levels) are also valid, and the help and first-hand reports you received from his wife humbles any presumption about his intention or chosen approach (like the mention of someone's name).
It's safe to say the viewer can immediately relate to the scenes he photographed, in which the human element may be underlined by mentioning the names of the people in his descriptions.
His work is quiet and maybe even contemplative, but that may be more dependent on the beholder than something he intended. I can imagine it must have taken time to be able to be accepted as a photographer within a smaller community, not in the least because his photos seem to be unobtrusive, yet personal. The fact he mentions the names of the people in a photo might emphasize his involvement in his community, but at the same time it comes across as impersonal,even journalistic (which was probably not his view on it). I liked your introduction to this photographer, which I had never heard of before.