Alex Deliso -- Studio vs. Documentary Photos

                Both studio and documentary are taken with specific intent, although the purposes for both vary drastically. Studio is more controlled because it only takes the confines of the small area and manipulates it until it matches the photographer’s (and sometimes the subject’s) desires. Documentary is harder to control because it takes place in the context of the real world, and even though the picture may be taken to skew a particular vantage, there will always been an opposing vantage that can potentially contradict the message that the image conveys.

                Documentary photos also contain a larger amount of historical context that coincides with it, while studio photos can be taken for fun and entertainment. Even the documentary photos that are taken for fun will still contain historical influence simply because of the fact that they are always tied to the real world, while studio photos are mostly self-contained. Both of them rely on the audience heavily; while the pictures can stand on their own, without the necessary background knowledge, some of the meaning behind the pictures may be lost. Gordon’s work during the 1940’s in particular relies on the knowledge of the movements in Harlem—the picture I posted for my annotation on his work holds a lot of political connotations to those who are knowledgeable about that topic, but it may look innocuous to the uninformed viewer. Studio photos, such as Keita’s work, also are better able to draw emphasis on the individuals within the picture, while documentary photos can emphasize the environment around them.