Describing "Engine Driver"

Before looking at the process of description, I want to make the point again that I'm deliberately picking apart this approach to photo criticism, giving it a heavy formalistic appearance. This is for the purposes of explanantion. I don't suggest that the process of confronting an image should always be reduced to a dry and analytical procedure and that we should put our emotional responses aside.

Description means information collecting. What can we objectively find out out or discern about the image. As Terry Barrett points out, this process could be infinite - what is important is the relevance of the information. By objective I mean information that can be verified, by observation or by supporting material. Some of this information is contained in the image itself, what size and format is it, what is the subject matter, what compositional motifs can we see, how are the colours or monochrome tones of the image represented etc etc. Other prices of information are provided by external sources such as a note or description as to when and for what reasons the photograph came into being, the title might be important as well.

With external sources we have to be careful however - can we know the truth absolutely about these? Similarly the title - is it descriptive, or is intended to lead us into a particular interpretation? Some knowledge about the photographer and his other work can also be relevant, especially for example if the work is part of a series, or a themed exhibition.

Personally I always find this exercise rather interesting for any image. That's because I look on it as a sort of detective game. The more things I can find, the more points I give myself. It makes me want to look more closely. That's just a personal thing though. Going back to my old Art History tutor however, it's always a useful exercise if you want to, or have to understand a piece of art, and don't have a clue where to start.

In "Engine Driver" we see several things very quickly. It's monochrome, portrait format, and it shows an engine driver and his locomotive. It has a very strong compositional motive based on an abrupt diagonal, sliced up by some verticals. The lighting is strong sunlight pretty much from above. Most people will notice these details immediately without perhaps remarking on them. They are very strong.

Slightly less obvious, but clear, is the fact that the photograph is taken from a low viewpoint (well it would be, wouldn't it) so locomotive and driver tower over us. The image has been taken from the cabin end of the train looking towards the front. We are left in no doubt as to the subject matter, (it's a driver and his loco) the driver is large and grimy, with a cigar clenched in his teeth and goggles sitting on top of his head. He leans slightly out of the cab, is caught by the light and his arm and hand cast a strong shadow on the side of the cab. We see the drivers whole body as he stands on the footplate from the angle used. The strong sun picks out the details on the engine.

Getting a bit more into detective mode, I notice that the image proportions are 4x5, (or 8x10). I know that this is a standard format for plate and field cameras, and I know that at this time images were most often contact printed and not cropped. So I guess that it was taken using such a camera. I find this relevant. You don't dance around taking candid shots with a view camera. This suggests that the photographer has exercised a lot of control over the image and that all aspects are carefully intentional.

We know from the records that at the time Willy Ronis did publicity and documentary work for SNCF, the French Railway system, so we can assume that it was produced as part of that, although it may have been intended as a private image rather than one for official publication.

Next time we move on to Interpretation - what was the photographers intention when he created this image?