Bernd And Hilla Becher: Part I

Based on these images, the video from last week, and our in-class conversations, define typology.

I think that typology is the categorical documentation of a subject and its multiples. The process, when we create a typology, seems investigative; the photographer seeks to capture the subject with clarity and precision. To me, it is reminiscent of scientific observation; we record without interpretation, collecting data from which we may, in time, draw meaning or make comparisons. In this characteristic I think that a typology differs from other forms of photography. Often, we try to manipulate our subject, to manufacture meaning through formal choices: the model, the lighting, the setting. We are pursuing something, an effect or mood perhaps, that we hope to communicate to the viewer, so that they might see our image and understand, so that they might find meaning in it.

For example, Gregory Crewdson's meticulously constructed photographs seem to be only a part of a much greater narrative. They arouse our curiosity, only to leave us grasping for answers. We might ask, "Why has this girl been caught without her clothes?" Or, "Who are this woman and boy waiting for?" Crewdson ultimately leaves us to wonder, "What is happening in this image?" Perhaps he knows, but he allows the viewer to extrapolate meaning for themself, to answer the questions that he poses in the photograph. In contrast, I feel that a typology lacks this manipulative quality, that there is no artifice, no engineering. Both the photographer and viewer are merely observers, who, when confronted with the end result, may begin to interpret the images.