The first question I asked when trying to define documentary photography was what is the difference between documentary photography and photography in its broadest term? Aren’t all photographs visually documenting something? Aren’t all photographs visual explorations and visual expressions? Other than commercial, when does a photograph begin to fit into the documentary category?
Documentary in its broadest terms is to use documents as evidence. Ok. So starting from that point, documentary photography would then be using visual documents as evidence. Right? Perhaps we could say it is visually presenting the facts of a person, place or event…..facts???? or portions of facts? Perhaps it is the intent of a documentary photographer to record some aspects of reality. Perhaps it is the intent behind the photography that defines one as documentary.
According to film theorist Paul Rotha, “Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. It justifies the use of every known technical artifice to gain its effect on the spectator.”
It this definition given by Rotha that resounds most with me – one that addresses the intent and approach of documentary photography. With that said, documentary photography has many purposes: to record, reveal or preserve, to persuade or promote, to analyze or interrogate and to express.
No related posts.
Thank you for the information about documentary photography. I was wondering if you had anything to say about the differences (or similarities) between documentary photography and photojournalism? Thanks
I think photojournalism can fit under the terms of documentary photography. The term documentary photo is an all-encompassing term that may including photojournalism or fine art photography but it is understood that with documentary photography you are going to have a group of photos or body of work that has a similar style and theme/concept. Hopefully that helps.
Pingback: Documentary photography « marlizeprinsloohistory