OVERVIEW

In art criticism of all kinds, but possibly more so in photography, process has been given less attention than it deserves. Perhaps it is because the viewer, or critic, has to extrapolate backwards from the image to guess the situation and what went through the photographer's mind. This can be done, but it needs thorough practical knowledge. Here, photography becomes arguably more difficult to analyze than painting because the process is much shorter often too short for the photographer to be completely aware of the steps at the time of shooting.

This tends to confound art critics with limited personal experience. MoMA's John Szarkowski, writing about a well-known reportage shot by Mario Giacomelli, said: "Analysis was surely useless to Giacomelli during the thin slice of a second during which this picture was possible, before the black shapes slid into an irretrievably altered relationship with each other, and with the ground and frame. It seems in fact most improbable that a photographer's visual intelligence might be acute enough to recognize in such a brief and plastic instant " and so on. He concludes by invoking luck as a hidden ingredient, closing with the curious " whether good or bad, luck is the attentive photographer's best teacher, for it defines what might be anticipated next time." It does not, of course. Good or bad, luck is simply a reminder that you are shooting in a world that does not bend to your control. Szarkowski's own photography, I should note, is...