Jose asks: "What makes a document?"

Exercise 3 - read the post "What makes a document?" on WeAreOCA, including all the replies to it and write your own comment both on the blog page and in your own blog.

Make sure your reply is personal and authoritative. Express you opinion on the topic of the blog and substantiate your comments with solid arguments, ideally referring to other contributions to the blog.

Jose posses a question:

So is it time or is it context that makes a document? Or is it something else?

Bearing in mind I just had the joy of reading Walton on the transparency of photographs - I promise not to talk about fictional or directly seeing.  My first point would be that in order to be a document the photograph needs to be of a 'real' event, so regarding this photograph (as Rob stated) "If nothing else it also documents that [Jose's Grandfather] stood in front of a large wall on a sunny day." That said, I do not question that a fictional novel is a document.

With respect to time, I believe a number of elements need to come together for that photograph to become a document and then to have any gravitas in later years. For example, that:

1.      The photograph was taken in the first place

2.      Events conspire to enable the photograph to become a document

3.      The photograph is found and that somebody knows the story, thus providing provenance and creating a document of interest

4.      The 'owner' is perceptive enough to understand that it is a document

5.      The document can find an audience that are receptive and interested.

A classic example of this is the photography book "Bill Wood's Business". Diane Keaton (actress) purchased a photographic archive and within the archives were thousands of images of Fort Worth, Texas, taken by Bill Wood, over the period of thirty years. The photographs effectively chronicle the lives of the residents and whilst individually they are quite ordinary, together they provide a fascinating insight into all aspects of daily life during that period. All 5 of the above points occurred and resulted in the publication and distribution of Wood's work.

Regardless of how perfectly executed the photograph, as Anne stated (most ably, albeit unknowingly, paraphrasing Berger) "the document would need to have an anchor in the original reality even though it would still be open to differing readings". Berger states that, regardless of subject, because "photographs have been taken out of a continuity" they are all ambiguous. Returning again to Wood's photographs, the captions are very generic because little or no information was included with the archive. This does not make the collection any less documentary in function, just less detailed in factual information.

Anne's follow on question, "can one photograph be a document?" is very valid. It opens the discussion to the amalgamation of words and images and the age old debate that 'if you need words you photograph isn't good enough'. Looking back at the images proffered by Jose, regardless of time (his grandfather 70 years ago and Gaddafi in 2008) both required 'words' to engage the audience. Are we now talking about the difference between photojournalism, reportage and documentary photography?

Jim adds an interesting dimension, that culture means that certain documents will have greater significance to certain sections of the population. I would extend this beyond just culture and include age, disability, ethnic origin, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic background and political opinion; I have no doubt there are numerous other 'groups' that could be added to this list.

So, finally, what makes a photograph a document?

In my opinion, as long as it is an image (or multiple images - photomontage) of a real event(s) it is a document.

Here is a link to one of the more insightful reviews of the difference between photojournalism and documentary photography written by Antonin Kratochvil (Czech-born American photojournalist).