Thierry Maindrault’s Monthly Cogitations
Often during a lecture, an exhibition, or a casual conversation, someone asks, “What makes you choose one photograph over another?” I’ve also heard people say, “Why does this photograph move me? Why does it speak to me?” The desire to know, for novices, or the need to understand, for more passionate enthusiasts, arises in the middle of an exhibition or while flipping through a book.
This boundary does indeed exist, more or less blurred sometimes called artistic between understanding and feeling, between the rational and the admiring, between prose and poetry, between materialism and spirituality, and so on. All these questions pertain to photography, which, incidentally, reinforces the photographic image’s entry into the nebulous realm of Art. This spatial boundary separating the interpretation of a photograph from the fascination with a photographic image remains unclear to many of us.
A photograph is the visual representation, aided by light and more or less sophisticated technologies, of a situation frozen at a very precise moment in time. This highly practical record has become a useful tool for an inexhaustible multitude of activities. Thus, I know of virtually no professions or fields that do not utilize photographs. Photography has established itself as a particularly reliable tool for archiving, comparing, detecting, extracting, and visually documenting spaces even those invisible to the naked eye. The farthest reaches of the universe (we are gradually getting there) and the smallest unstable particle (to date) have only been captured through photography. The degeneration of a cell, the corrosion of a bridge are discovered through photography. The uniqueness of a landscape, the memory of a graduating class are archived through photography.
Undeniably, for the past two centuries, photography has proven useful, even indispensable, to the evolution of humanity.
In my view, this much-used utility has gone down the drain with the excessive popularization of its use. The tool (which has become extremely sophisticated) is losing its function of capturing space-time to serve as proof of existence and self-proclaimed recognition by its new users. As it is well known that the mass effect always destroys what is essential, the multiplied and uncontrolled photographic frenzy is drowning everyone’s interest in the use of photography.
A small (or almost) off-topic current event: during a space adventure that took four humans (even further) behind the Moon, I read that they had been allowed to bring their iPhones (no more Hasselblad!). But the key tool for this mission was their eyes, a fact repeatedly highlighted by many media outlets. If the main thing lies in the eyes and the brain, where are we headed? The high-performance sensor and its hyper-powerful software (nicknamed AI) remain, therefore, merely a superb very important tool, but nothing more. It’s nice to get back to basics so we can dream collectively once again!
The fact is that photography has not been limited to mere reproduction, to a cold and exhaustive documentation of situations. Whether this stems from a combination of circumstances, a spiritual impulse, the talent of the photographers, or some form of physical or metaphysical coordination, we cannot help but notice the presence of a hidden soul in certain photographic images. It is precisely this atmosphere that hovers around our perception that marks the difference between a photographic image and a photograph. Without knowing why, at first, the image will convey more than just information or a description, drawing you into a universe that will coincide, to a greater or lesser degree, with your own. Beyond the photograph itself, a sort of magical aura will draw our analytical understanding toward intangible realms. To validate the reality of this soul, two selective stages are required. First, the observation that at least one viewer can demonstrate a genuine emotional response to the work being contemplated. The second is much more demanding, as it concerns the enduring nature of this photographic image and the inexpressible quality it will convey to future generations. This is how we observe or sense the presence of a photographic image and its soul.
What remains is the power of the impact, which varies over time. It is measured by the number of people who are moved by a specific work. For it is quite evident that not all those who linger before a work will experience a corresponding emotional response. The greater the number of people who react, the more powerful the image becomes.
If, after a series of ups and downs in the number of admirers over time, the image retains its magical power of seduction, then that is how it becomes a masterpiece. It should be noted that, personally, I have never encountered a masterpiece without a soul.
The question that arises, after the “why,” is the “how.” How do we distinguish between a photographic image and a mere photograph? There are certainly many answers, and I do not claim to know how to identify such works. However, with the help of assistants often improvised on the exhibition place during visits I have grasped a few certainties that allow me to determine that what we have before us is not a photographic image. When, at an exhibition, I hear someone say, “…easy, I’ve done the same thing.” Unless the visitor is lying, or it’s a case of plagiarism, the photograph before your eyes is probably not an image at all. Photography presented as the psychological outlet of its author is certainly not an image. You can also forget about the image commissioned by a learned professor or some guru (even if he has a fancy celebrity pedigree). Indeed, the “vision of the master” pertains to reproductions, not authentic works. Photography, the product of a duo or a collective of authors, offers nothing but quarrels or patchworks of souls hardly conducive to an awakening of the imagination. Finally, if quality and coherence have vanished from photography, it is evident that the soul has escaped with them.
As for recognizing a photographic image, I can only offer you some points for reflection. You step into a photograph, and already, without premeditation, your mind wanders, causing you to lose your train of thought. This poses no problem, since during your digression, your brain continues its curious and informed analysis of this photograph, which transforms into an image. Be careful: your lack of interest or your simple, superficial reading of a photograph does not necessarily disqualify it. Your neighbor’s gaze may literally get lost in the subject matter, which is not your case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, each of us still possesses a distinct personality,sensuality,spirituality. An emotion defines an image; but, as we have seen above, it is the number of people carrying emotions that will determine the power of successful images.
One detail worth noting: every sector and every activity that has produced photographs can boast of having produced a few exceptional images.
Above all, don’t feel obligated to tell me that you’ve already read this somewhere.
Thierry Maindrault – April 10, 2026
your comments about this chronicle and its photography are always welcome at
[email protected]
