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.
Posted by Jenn Ackerman
