I just watched this absorbing documentary on Paul Strand. I’ve always been a fan of Strand’s work- particularly the abstracts and the work in New England. It was interesting to see how he switched from still photography to movie making and then back again. I also found it fascinating that towards the end of his life when he was no longer very mobile he started to photograph things closer to home – in his own garden. He was so passionate about his photography that during a period when he had vision problems he would have his wife (who was also a photographer) print his pictures while he continually asked her questions. “What do you see in the top left of the picture?” etc.

Early on in the documentary there’s a statement that the photographer must “have something to say”. I hear this a lot and I think it tends to reflect the view of those involved in social documentary photography. Why does a photograph have to have something to say? Do Van Gogh’s sunflowers have something to say? Monet’s garden? I’ve nothing against having something to say, but I don’t see why all photographs have to conform to that model.

A documentary about Paul Strand, one of the greatest photographers of the 20th century.

via Paul Strand: Under the Darkcloth, Part 1 of 6 – YouTube.