Back in the 70's during a logorrheic speech, G. Winogrand nailed a good one: "The photograph has to be more dramatic than what has been photographed. It's all about drama or nothing!"
Not poetic? Poetry has to be dramatic!
Not narrative? Narration has to be dramatic!
Now, how that works? Can it be constructed? Yes, but the joggling with the documentary authority of the picture should be extremely subtile. As soon as the viewers are confronted with a subjective (staged) picture they lose their interest in resolving any ambiguities present.
The transformation(s) of the content(s) are still there but the need to untangle the puzzling elements disappears.
Nevertheless, the pictures presented here are powerful enough to stand both ways.
The question is: which one is closer to the thin line between objectivity and subjectivity? Which one maintains the documentary authority of an otherwise mechanical process condemned to change into something meaningful or die?
Because mechanical it is (chemical stands no more).
"I’m an eye. A mechanical eye. I, the machine, show you a world the way only I can see it. ! free myself for today and forever from human immobility. I’m in constant movement. I approach and pull away from objects, I creep under them. I move alongside a running horse’s mouth, I fall and rise with the falling and rising bodies. This is I, the machine, manoeuvring in the chaotic movements, recording one movement after another in the most complex combinations, Freed from the boundaries of time and space, I co-ordinate any and all points of the universe, wherever I want them to be. My way leads towards the creation of a fresh perception of the world. Thus I explain in a new way the world unknown to you." - Dziga Vertov, Soviet film director, 1923
All content © SCP
This is the public curated Gallery of the STREET CORE PHOTOGRAPHY Group