Reflection on Paul Strand, and Four Garden Images.

Recently Steve lent me a beautiful book of photography:

Contemporary Photography and the Garden  - Deceits and Fantasies.

Within this book was a single image by Paul Strand (Photo 4 below) - a deceptively simple black and white photo of columbine. Having seen this I decided to investigate the work of Paul Strand.

Paul Strand lived from 1890 to 1976, being introduced to photography in 1907 and working as a commercial photographer. In the 1930s and 1940s his main interest was socialist documentary, both with still film and the cinema. From 1945 to his death was his most productive period. He settled in France and travelled extensively taking photos of working people. It is during this period that most of his works of nature were produced, many being taken in his garden in France.

In 1917 Paul Strand said that if one were to use photography honestly he must have "a real respect for the thing in front of him".

This to me seems so self evident that I was amazed to read the statement, and partially explains the reason for my choice of themes. My own sense of this is that for my photography to have meaning I must have not only an interest but also an emotional bond with the subject. Thus although I loath wasps with a passion, I can photograph them as they both fascinate and repel me.


The four images below are all in black and white:

Wild iris, Maine.

I do not know the date for this photograph, but possibly since it was taken in America it may be from the 1920s.

The leaves of the iris dominate most of the picture, with the ferns weaving in at the top. The image is unusual as it is lit from the bottom centre, and it is to this point that your eye is initially drawn and then upwards and outwards with the leaves; the ferns at the top then pull your eyes to the right and down, from where you re-enter the image once more. The depth of field is very large, so that the edges of the iris leaves have complete clarity; the darkness immediately behind them gives an impression of depth and solidity to the leaves. The ferns in contrast have less clear edges and appear more frail - which in truth they are of course. This creates a great feeling of texture and contrasting tones, enhanced by the starkness of black and white. The only leaf that is out of focus is the bent central leaf where the image begins - perhaps to pass you beyond that point and upwards into the main photo. Why can this image work in black and white? It's simplicity and lack of clutter, and the immensely powerful lines of the iris leaves.
I have several images of similar leaves in my own garden where I have focused on the colour of the seeds. In a future blog I hope to compare them with this image.

Journeys in land of the morning calm.
Again I do not know when this image was taken, nor where. In this image your eye is drawn to the upper side of the mushroom since it is so light and dominant in the image. From there you go back into the image by following the ivy leaves into the darkness, and then following the darkness to the stalk of the mushroom. At this point your eyes meet the pale stalks of the grass and you are drawn upwards and round again - but these same grass stalks also help you to move from one dark spot (above and behind the mushroom) to beneath the mushroom. Hence the grass which might initially appear to be a distraction is a vital component of the photo. Again there is a variety of textures - the soft mushroom, the fragile leaves and the sharp grass stalks. The closeness and perspective of the image are also unusual. Very few of us get so close and low down to mushrooms  to do so shows a true respect for the object.
At present there are several mushrooms in my garden so I hope to emulate this image - weather permitting.

Big leaves, The Garden, Orgeval, 1965

This is an image from Paul's own garden. Again it is a very close up work - closer than we normally examine climbing ivy. The eye is first drawn to the second leaf down on the right, from where it can travel up or down with the other large leaves; from either route there is a vertical creeper branch which draws the eye down to the centre to a larger horizontal branch which completes the circle. On the right is vertical frame of darkness, whereas central left is also darkness with the horizontal branch being a leading line to direct the eye. Again the image is simple and uncluttered of only ivy leaves, but contrasting the dominant large to the smaller leaves - not only is the size difference immense, but also the colours of large and small leaves are practically reversed. It is this difference in tone and colour that provides the fascination.

Once more I have taken photographs of similar leaves and it will be interesting to compare mine with Paul's.

Columbine,Orgeval,1974

Photograph taken in his own garden in France. This photograph has been scanned from the book referred to earlier - hence the poor quality. The image is far from classical, with the lower horizontal leaf cutting across some flowers. However Paul does not amend the image but remains true to his premise to photography honestly. The leaf does act as a leading line to control the movement of the eye within the image, yet I suspect many of us would have moved that leaf down by an inch. I love the contrast of light and dark, and the unknown factor of what is behind the columbine. The paleness of the flowers means that monochrome is most effective, but it would be interesting to have compared with a colour version.In this instance I suspect that colour might have enhanced the overall image - but possibly detracted form the overall simplicity of the image. 

Again I can compare this with my own images.

In conclusion I love the simplicity of these images and their concentration on the subject rather than their context within the wider garden. They are accurate and yet respectful and almost loving of the objects - photographs taken with integrity and honesty. For me they say: "Look at me! I am small and humble, yet beautiful and deserving of respect as God intended".