Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: leeonmaui on September 01, 2013, 11:50:41 pm
-
Aloha,
In regards to traits of creative people you outlined; I have not found this to be the case.
also;
http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/the-7-characteristics-of-highly-creative-people.html
A long time ago I had the opportunity to work with one of the most talented and original painters of our generation, I was lucky enough to work as the director of his company. In effect, I helped him form a company and set him on the road to international acclaim and success.
I will say this much;
He cared not one speck of what you thought about his work, he was not doing his work for your satisfaction.
He had absolutely no interest in discussing it with you or commenting on your work or the work of others or interacting with other artists or creative people.
The art world is littered with fanatical rivalries between artists that span decades and of personalities that are extremely difficult to deal with in normal daily intercourse.
This I think can be said of many arms of the creative field.
"The only difference between me and a madman is; that I am not mad"-Dali
Anyway, my two cents.
Lee
-
Aloha,
In regards to traits of creative people you outlined; I have not found this to be the case.
also;
http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/the-7-characteristics-of-highly-creative-people.html
A long time ago I had the opportunity to work with one of the most talented and original painters of our generation, I was lucky enough to work as the director of his company. In effect, I helped him form a company and set him on the road to international acclaim and success.
I will say this much;
He cared not one speck of what you thought about his work, he was not doing his work for your satisfaction.
He had absolutely no interest in discussing it with you or commenting on your work or the work of others or interacting with other artists or creative people.
The art world is littered with fanatical rivalries between artists that span decades and of personalities that are extremely difficult to deal with in normal daily intercourse.
This I think can be said of many arms of the creative field.
"The only difference between me and a madman is; that I am not mad"-Dali
Anyway, my two cents.
Lee
To say nothing of the fact that there are five, not four "exercises" listed and none of them are actually exercises! ;)
These essays on creativity never end well. They're tautological ("creatives think differently from other people") or unintentionally ironic ("follow these five steps to becoming more creative") and rarely insightful. It's a tall order and one I'm afraid that Alain did not successfully fill here.
-
My personal interest, as an admirer of Alain's photography, would be to read a series of essays in which he discusses, in depth and detail, his personal creative processes. To see his inner creative feelings, fears, conflicts, compromises and joys; the techniques, exercises and inner dialogues that he has used over the years to develop his creative vision. That's something I'm going to identify with, be inspired by and learn from.
I have no interest in reading more theories and generalizations about creativity and "creative people" which, with all respect, have struck me in this series of essays as generic and hollow.
-
I think there's a distinction to be made here, between "artist" and "professional." The qualities that Alain outlines seem to be to be qualities that may be valuable to a professional who is operating a business. Businesses may involve all kinds of creative people -- Steve Jobs, for example -- but they're not exactly what I would call "artists." When you look at highly creative individual artists, they seem to be notably preoccupied by their own work, and actually reject a lot of the qualities that Alain talks about (for example, J.D. Salinger, who recently died.) Salinger knew one thing about business: get a decent agent. That's all he had to know, and apparently, that's all he wanted to know.
One critical thing that has to be kept in mind when reading Alain's essays is that he runs a successful business, and is apparently willing to do those things necessary to be a successful businessman. Which is terrific, in a whole lot of ways -- but his experience (which is quite analogous to my own) doesn't necessarily translate directly to any form of "artistic" endeavor.
-
But the root problem is so simple: if we can't even say with certainty what art is, how can we possibly pontificate honestly about what makes an artist?
Articles like the one in question are exercises in filling a need that is an expression of optimism and unrealiity. Nobody that I have ever met, whom I'd have considered artistic, ever had to read a book on how to become so: he/she just was.
Why is photography so bedevilled with people who think they can take five easy lessons and become something that they are not?
That it is also filled with people offering either solutions or panaceas to the need is no mystery: there is either money or glory and possibly both in the 'service'.
If you want to be a painter, you paint; if you want to be an author you sit down and auth! Why expect to pick up the photographic genre of artistry from a book or a few articles churned out by someone else? Because you can buy a camera, a device?
The same self-deception certainly carries over into photographic equipment: you don't need a Stradivarius to be a talented musician as you don't need a Leica or Hasselblad or Phase to be an excellent photographer. That the finest (most expensive?) of instruments might soothe your soul and create the advantage that golden audio cables supposedly do, then to that extent, yes, they are an advantage in that your ego is stroked and stoked which may, just may, make you a better performer than you already are. But there lies the rub; you have to be one already. Nothing external can ever make you one nor give you the sensibilities with which you must be born.
Space-fillers, and somewhat disingenuous of the realities of artistic expression and being.
IMO, as Cooter would offer.
;-)
Rob C
-
"Every creator painfully experiences the chasm between his inner vision and its ultimate expression." ~Isaac Bashevis Singer
-
But the root problem is so simple: if we can't even say with certainty what art is, how can we possibly pontificate honestly about what makes an artist?
Articles like the one in question are exercises in filling a need that is an expression of optimism and unrealiity. Nobody that I have ever met, whom I'd have considered artistic, ever had to read a book on how to become so: he/she just was.
Why is photography so bedevilled with people who think they can take five easy lessons and become something that they are not?
That it is also filled with people offering either solutions or panaceas to the need is no mystery: there is either money or glory and possibly both in the 'service'.
If you want to be a painter, you paint; if you want to be an author you sit down and auth! Why expect to pick up the photographic genre of artistry from a book or a few articles churned out by someone else? Because you can buy a camera, a device?
The same self-deception certainly carries over into photographic equipment: you don't need a Stradivarius to be a talented musician as you don't need a Leica or Hasselblad or Phase to be an excellent photographer. That the finest (most expensive?) of instruments might soothe your soul and create the advantage that golden audio cables supposedly do, then to that extent, yes, they are an advantage in that your ego is stroked and stoked which may, just may, make you a better performer than you already are. But there lies the rub; you have to be one already. Nothing external can ever make you one nor give you the sensibilities with which you must be born.
Space-fillers, and somewhat disingenuous of the realities of artistic expression and being.
IMO, as Cooter would offer.
;-)
Rob C
Nail on the head.
-
if we can't even say with certainty...
Death and Taxes.
what art is
"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. (http://www.moodbook.com/history/articles/art-and-artists.html) ... There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence. You may crush an artist by telling him that what he has just done may be quite good in its own way, only it is not 'Art'. And you may confound anyone enjoying a picture by declaring that what he liked in it was not the Art but something different." p15 The Story of Art
"It is the secret of the artist that he does his work so superlatively well that we all but forget to ask what his work was supposed to be, for sheer admiration of the way he did it." p594 The Story of Art
-
Death and Taxes.
So broadly, Isaac, we’re in agreement?
I think I’d actually be inclined to go a little further with this being or not being – perhaps in the sense of where photography might be a fresh art rather than just a slavish copying of already known and developed genres of this – whatever this/it, is.
At the risk of offending many, which I really don’t want to do, I feel that photography owes it to itself to move in different directions and not compete with the established orders of paint, pencil and paper marking in whatever form.
Looking at the huge two-way influences of the magazine and newspaper worlds upon the genre (photography) I think it would make a sort of sense to think that maybe, just maybe, photography might be better served aiming for those types of works/representations that the older media can’t do. An interesting illustration of this idea can be seen happening on the front pages of this very site: LuLa.
If you look carefully at the images that Michael posts that are uniquely powerful, then I feel they are all about the human condition – his form of ‘street’ which isn’t simply about the catching of people doing something, but the catching of shapes; graphics, in other words. His landscape stuff is, of course, very accomplished, but then so is that of innumerable other photographers. Something uniquely photographic goes beyond that – into realms that demand speed, acute observational skills and not a little nerve. Mood, action and even the presentation of ‘found’ art in the sense of graffiti and distressed artworks used for entirely other purposes than being photographed; nothing new there, of course, but things that are found all around us that pretty much preclude the setting up of easel and bottles of turps!
Perhaps it’s cultural exposure and different backgrounds, but I still can’t see photography of pretty views making it onto walls and being considered art because it hangs on those walls. I do see the validity of strong black/white images of people as decoration for city dwellings – statements, if you like, of the owner’s own sensibilities and beliefs; maybe especially so in the case of images derived from recognizable advertising campaigns. I’ve noted some very cool-looking rooms decorated with Sarah Moon shots from the early 70s… that kind of thing still looks contemporary, indicates a sense of the ethos and owes not a lot to the world of other arts. I also think that black/white images of industrial sites of long ago can pass as good photographic decoration. That doesn’t at all impact on the validity of paintings as décor – in most cases I think them much superior choices. But, I do believe that using photographs as decoration is very location dependent. I don’t, for example, think the Moons would look right in a farm. Nor, for that matter, the industrial offerings.
Do you notice how this topic (within this post) constantly finds itself in the process of conflating art and decoration? Perhaps that’s quite important, beyond simply being my personal take; I always thought photography was best housed within books, but that seems to be a rare event these days, unless one is willing to include porn and the inevitable ‘Hidden Gems Of…’ (supply the name of your own county, state or country) type of publication.
Maybe. Maybe it doesn’t matter at all, and maybe it’s all rubbish anyway.
Rob C
-
Leeommaui,
I agree with your assessment. Perhaps there is a confusion with creativity and creating art. They are not the same thing. A CPA can be very creative and the result is money not art. Many artists are creative but fail to create great art. Others like Cartier Bresson say they are not artists and create enduring bodies of work that many do think is art. Art is subjective, the viewer decides.
As far as the exercises, IMO it is not possible to create creativity through exercises. On the other hand, it is very possible to remove blocks to creativity through exercises. Many who could be creative find them selves paralyzed by fear of rejection and some by perfectionism that doesn't allow them freedom of movement. When I was in design school, we had to create 8 design schemes every day. There was no way to retain fear or perfectionism. You just had to produce. The result, if not art, was fluidity and a grasp of technique. There were some people there, however, who simply produced work that was more like genius--no matter how many different schemes they made. Others produced work that became very good but was still workmanlike. The point is that exercises do work to remove major blocks and for the few that really possess a genius for art, then the path is smoother. So in that respect Mr. Briot's suggestions are not off the mark.
Finally, art may not be recognized as such for many years and hunting for it in oneself instead of working may be a futile endeavor. Think Van Gogh for an example. If you can make a living doing photography and you like it, congratulate yourself and keep on working. :D
-
But the root problem is so simple: if we can't even say with certainty what art is, how can we possibly pontificate honestly about what makes an artist?
You're confusing the general with the specific. Just because we can't get *everybody* to agree with what art is (in a global sense,) we can get *almost* all knowledgeable westerners to agree that much of what Van Gogh painted is art. We can also agree that, say, Van Gogh was an artist, although he may also have been a lot of other things, as well, and not all of them good. Nor do we have to consider one particular activity "art," just because it generally resembles an activity that often is "art." House painting is not art, it's a craft. Picture painting is sometimes an art, and sometimes not. Given all that, why should anyone try to argue that photography, for example, is "art?" It's actually a lot of things -- a real estate dealer taking a snapshot of the outside of a house is not producing art, even if he or she is using the same instrument as Ansel Adams. She's like a house painter -- using instrument that can also be used to produce art, for something else. So...there's no point in getting hung up on global definitions, but at the same time, it's safe to say that there IS such a thing as "art" and there are such things as "artists."
I belong to a whole long stream of people, reaching back to the days of Egyptian empire, involving millions of knowledgeable individuals, who are or once were (when they were alive) willing to state whether or not something is art, and whether or not a particular individual is an artist. And largely, we agree with each other, though some of us are sometimes wrong. I don't have to negotiate with an Asian to get him/her to agree that van Gogh is an artist, nor does he have to negotiate with me to recognize Hiroshige. We look at the work, and accept it as art, and the creator as an artist. Just because some sophomore somewhere says *anything* can be art, does not require us to agree or even recognize that he said that. That's his problem, not ours. We don't need any further definition, other than what we generally (not universally) agree on. Likewise, just because somebody gets hung up on laying out definitions, we're not obligated to consider his problem of finding definitions, or even recognize that he has a problem.
Once you've said that, a whole lot of questions become discussable: Can you teach art? Is Alain practicing an art form? Is a guy who's playing Zippidy-Do-Dah on a Stradivarius making art? Is it possible to make art that eventually becomes not-art? It's a pretty interesting on-going discussion, for people who care to join it.
-
So broadly, Isaac, we’re in agreement?
I suspect the devil is in the detail :-)
Do you notice how this topic (within this post) constantly finds itself in the process of conflating art and decoration?
Decoration is a common use for art.
... Once you've said that, a whole lot of questions become discussable... It's a pretty interesting on-going discussion, for people who care to join it.
Exactly.
-
Its hard for me to take seriously ones pronouncements on creativity when they come from someone who has chosen to work in such a well worn genre and path and who's images are easily mistaken for a couple dozen other's who work and see virtually identically. Creativity is a unique individual process which results in a unique product or idea. Good, well crafted work is not necessarily creative, however successful or stunningly well executed.
A much better and informative read on this subject and the life of an artist is Art and Fear (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaking/dp/0961454733). Unlike the author we are discussing here who confuses cheerleading with insight, these authors IMHO really get it and have actual insight.
-
... someone who has chosen to work in such a well worn genre ...
To be clear, are you referring to Alain Briot?
-
Yes I thought that was obvious. Isn't this thread about his article?
Just to be clear I like his work too just like I like the Muench"s work. It is very good but not creative IMO.
-
There are many common words in the Eglish language which have a broad range of meanings depending on context, opinion, tradition, authority and individual taste etc. Art is one such word. In order to determine what is 'art' one should therefore first precisely define the definition of art one is using. Without such a precise definition there can be no resolution to the question.
For example, is 40 degrees centigrade hot? If one is referring to the temperature of the weather, it is definitely hot. No-one would argue. However, if one is referring to the cup of coffee that the waitress has just brought to the table, 40 degrees is cold and one should complain.
If the weather is 20 degrees, is that hot or cold? If one is accustomed to living in the tropics, near the equator, it's definitely cold. However, if one is an Eskimo accustomed to arctic conditions, 20 degrees is a heat wave.
The broadest definition of art I can think of is, any 'thing' that has been created through the application of human skill. But even this broad definition would not include everything that some people might consider to be art. Is a beautiful flower, or a tree, a work of art created by God? From Shakespeare's Hamlet we have, "What a piece of work is man!"
John Camp makes the point that house painting is not art, it's a craft. Is this perhaps an artificial distinction? Is there not an element of snobbery in such a distinction?
For example, there's a recognized type of abstract art called Color Field, which is characterised by large fields of flat, solid color spread evenly on a canvas. Why shouldn't the interior walls of one's painted house be called 'art'? They are characterised by large fields of flat, solid color, are they not? They are also impressively large compared with a canvas hanging in a gallery.
-
On a related topic -
http://www.parrikar.org/essays/shakespeare-newton-beethoven/
-
There are many common words in the Eglish language which have a broad range of meanings depending on context, opinion, tradition, authority and individual taste etc. Art is one such word. In order to determine what is 'art' one should therefore first precisely define the definition of art one is using. Without such a precise definition there can be no resolution to the question.
For example, is 40 degrees centigrade hot? If one is referring to the temperature of the weather, it is definitely hot. No-one would argue. However, if one is referring to the cup of coffee that the waitress has just brought to the table, 40 degrees is cold and one should complain.
If the weather is 20 degrees, is that hot or cold? If one is accustomed to living in the tropics, near the equator, it's definitely cold. However, if one is an Eskimo accustomed to arctic conditions, 20 degrees is a heat wave.
The broadest definition of art I can think of is, any 'thing' that has been created through the application of human skill. But even this broad definition would not include everything that some people might consider to be art. Is a beautiful flower, or a tree, a work of art created by God? From Shakespeare's Hamlet we have, "What a piece of work is man!"
John Camp makes the point that house painting is not art, it's a craft. Is this perhaps an artificial distinction? Is there not an element of snobbery in such a distinction?
For example, there's a recognized type of abstract art called Color Field, which is characterised by large fields of flat, solid color spread evenly on a canvas. Why shouldn't the interior walls of one's painted house be called 'art'? They are characterised by large fields of flat, solid color, are they not? They are also impressively large compared with a canvas hanging in a gallery.
Ray, you answered your own question: "there's a **recognized** type of abstract art..."
I have my own questions for you: why do you insist on global definitions? Why do you say something can't be discussed until there is one? Why do you need a resolution to the question? Is there a question? If you want to argue that house painting is a fine art, well, god bless you, but I, and several million more pretty knowledgeable people, won't necessarily disagree, but will simply ignore the suggestion and go on our merry ways, talking about art, and, for those of us who are interested, trying now and then to make some. Is there a Mrs. Ray? Does she have a perfect global definition of Ray? I bet she doesn't (if there is a Mrs. Ray), but I bet that doesn't stop her from discussing the many and diverse aspects of Ray...
-
On a related topic -
http://www.parrikar.org/essays/shakespeare-newton-beethoven/
His brother, P. Balakrishnan, divulges an excerpt of his moving letter to Chandra in the final years:
“…Another thing that I want to write to you is in regard to your “strange feeling”, as you put it, that all your books, all your hard work, when the books have been written and the work has been done, seem not to be yours, seem to be something extraneous, entities by themselves, separate and different from you. This is a mystic intimation, on the intellectual level, proclaimed by the Upanishads which in fact extends this sense of non-cognition even to one’s body, senses and mind. (Note that the mind is included in the list.) The Gita also teaches that once you have performed your work, you should have no further concern with it and that it belongs to God. I see that after all Hindu blood runs in you…”
This is amazing: though not Hindu, I still recognize the feeling of distancing of authorship for myself. Maybe it comes from some years of living there…
I look at some of my old images and I see them as themselves, with my own part in their existence as quite distant, their meaning wrapped more, now, in memory of what was going on at the time than of themselves and certainly hardly at all of their commercial genesis. Perhaps, in the end, it is all happy snaps and the only thing that survives is the ability of images to conjure up the past – they then become but triggers into something else, hopefully, of that place where we attain what we desire without really articulating.
Thank you for the link.
Rob C
-
Ray, you answered your own question: "there's a **recognized** type of abstract art..."
I have my own questions for you: why do you insist on global definitions? Why do you say something can't be discussed until there is one? Why do you need a resolution to the question? Is there a question? If you want to argue that house painting is a fine art, well, god bless you, but I, and several million more pretty knowledgeable people, won't necessarily disagree, but will simply ignore the suggestion and go on our merry ways, talking about art, and, for those of us who are interested, trying now and then to make some. Is there a Mrs. Ray? Does she have a perfect global definition of Ray? I bet she doesn't (if there is a Mrs. Ray), but I bet that doesn't stop her from discussing the many and diverse aspects of Ray...
John,
With all due respect, I think you might have missed my point. My point is that discussions of this nature, whether about art, esthetics, truth, beauty, etc, serve little purpose unless they are referenced to some precise definition of the central concept behind the specific word being used.
For example, in your post you remark, "If you want to argue that house painting is a fine art, well, god bless you.....". Now the fact is, I never mentioned the term 'fine art'. Fine art is another level of distinction. All fine art is art, but all art is not necessarily 'fine art'.
What I'm proposing is that one begin with an all-inclusive definition of what art actually is, then progress to various, precisely defined categories of art that currently exist, so that, when we ask the question 'is this art?', we can say yes or no, according to my global definition, then progress to discussions of what type of art it may be.
For example, the interior walls of a house, painted in a flat, solid color, could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered Fine Art or High Art, but they could be considered as a type abstract Color Field art. In fact, I've just given myself an interesting idea. When I return from my travels, I might paint each of the walls of my living room a different color, and the ceiling yet another color. ;D
Now you ask, 'Is there a perfect global definition of Ray?' Well, nothing's perfect, I'm sure you'd agree, but I would suggest there is a pretty good global definition of me. I'm Homo Sapiens Sapiens, that is, a modern man as opposed to our ancestors who were merely Homo Sapiens.
However, one could discuss which category I belong to. Some folks consider I'm rather primitive. ;D
-
What I'm proposing is that one begin with an all-inclusive definition of what art actually is...
- "Art is the objectification of feeling, and the subjectification of nature."
- "Art gives form to feeling."
The long and the short of it ;-)
-
- "Art is the objectification of feeling, and the subjectification of nature."
- "Art gives form to feeling."
The long and the short of it ;-)
But hardly exclusively. The same could be said about a kick in the ass.
I suppose, if it were to come from David Beckham, there woud be those who'd claim it was art...
Rob C
-
But hardly exclusively.
Ingrate! Ray asked for "inclusive" not "exclusive".
-
- "Art is the objectification of feeling, and the subjectification of nature."
- "Art gives form to feeling."
The long and the short of it ;-)
Sounds like a good definition, Isaac. Let's examine it in relation to the following scenarios.
(1) Let's say I have a new house, or an old house which I'm renovating, and I'm pretty excited about painting the walls and choosing a color scheme which pleases me. I decide on a blue ceiling in the living room, suggestive of a clear blue sky. I decide to paint one wall a matte black, and another wall a pale green, and other walls yet a different color.
I'm satisfied with the result. It gives me a degree of pleasure. Now, according to your definition, I've succeeded in objectifying my feeling, and I've even subjectified nature by painting a ceiling the same color as the sky. Therefore, my painted walls could be considered as art. Right?
(2) A professional painter of walls, a tradesman, is dissatisfied with the boring nature of his job. One day, for the thousandth time, he finds himself painting yet another house pale cream. He feels so despondent that he vows to hand in his resignation at the end of the day, but he doesn't have another job to go to. His mental state is distracted. He's not able to do his usual impeccable job. The walls show a few brush marks here and there, and there are patches of the slightly different shades of undercoat that show through the final coat. There are also a few dribbles of paint here and there, which have trickled down the wall. But the painter doesn't give a stuff. He's going to hand in his resignation and he doesn't care whether or not he gets a good reference from his employer because he's not going to seek another job as a house painter. That may be shortsighted of him, but that's another issue.
The point is, his lousy work on this occasion is an expression of his feelings. He has objectified his emotional state of mind. He's created a work of art. Right? ;D
-
Sounds like a good definition, Isaac. Let's examine it in relation to the following scenarios.
(2) A professional painter of walls, a tradesman, is dissatisfied with the boring nature of his job. One day, for the thousandth time, he finds himself painting yet another house pale cream. He feels so despondent that he vows to hand in his resignation at the end of the day, but he doesn't have another job to go to. His mental state is distracted. He's not able to do his usual impeccable job. The walls show a few brush marks here and there, and there are patches of the slightly different shades of undercoat that show through the final coat. There are also a few dribbles of paint here and there, which have trickled down the wall. But the painter doesn't give a stuff. He's going to hand in his resignation and he doesn't care whether or not he gets a good reference from his employer because he's not going to seek another job as a house painter. That may be shortsighted of him, but that's another issue.
The point is, his lousy work on this occasion is an expression of his feelings. He has objectified his emotional state of mind. He's created a work of art. Right? ;D
Of course he has; I created a series of my own around this very theme. I say it's art so it is art.
Only thing: I didn't have to resign from anything, so maybe that doesn't count.
;-)
Rob C
-
Part 5 is lacking in cohesion.
It might as well have said "creative people are people too, you know" and left it at that.
There's only one part of it that I see as being related to creativity: "4: Take chances with your work". That's it.
If you give a (young?) child a pile of Lego bricks, will they care what they create? Will it even look like anything? They create it using rules that exist only in some universe that doesn't exist except for inside of their head.
If you give an adult (maybe even 16+) that same pile of Lego bricks, what you will get will be significantly different. That matured mind will produce something based on the world that they live in or know to understand and will not require nearly as much talking or leaps of faith in creativity as that of the younger child.
Look at the drawings that young children do - they often express the world they see in a vastly different way to adults. A picture of a person may not look like a person at all. They don't understand that when you draw a person that there are rules that should be obeyed and thus just represent the person as they wish.
So my understanding of what it means to be creative in photography is to look at what others do and think "how can I do that differently?". Sure when I'm on vacation, my photographs of some famous thing are going to look mostly like those of others but that's me not trying to be creative. Being creative is going outside on a rainy day in a trench coat with an umbrella in one hand, camera in the other hand and thinking "how can I make this boring road be an interesting subject?". It's going to some "famous" photography location such as Oxbow Bend in Wyoming and producing a photograph that doesn't look like a clone of those already taken. It's using photoshop to change an image from something you captured in real life into something else ("The Makings of Belmont Castle (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/castille_belmonte___spanish_castle.shtml)".)
How do you teach that?
Tell an adult that they need to think like a child and forget all of the rules that they've learnt about how the world looks and behaves.
Anyway, they're just my ramblings on this topic to add to the others here that are worth $0.02 or less.
Has anyone ever tried to clone out the light poles (and just the light poles) from an image, leaving just lights (either dark or glowing) floating in the air? (Just a random creative thought.)
-
So do you produce art as a result of "divine inspiration" and "talent"? Or as a result of discipline, training and analysis? Do you use your right brain or your left brain half? I certainly have seen interviews of authors whose results I admire, to the effect that they dislike the inspiration/alcoholic/hermit myths, rather "write one page today, then go pickup the kids".
-h
-
So do you produce art as a result of "divine inspiration" and "talent"? Or as a result of discipline, training and analysis? Do you use your right brain or your left brain half? I certainly have seen interviews of authors whose results I admire, to the effect that they dislike the inspiration/alcoholic/hermit myths, rather "write one page today, then go pickup the kids".
-h
But writing isn't photography: they are vastly different disciplines. A visual artist may be next to illiterate and it make no difference to the quality of his/her visual work and expression.
For example: my wife's grammar and spelling abilities were impeccable, as was her speech and accent. My grammar isn't too bad but my spelling is ever a problem, and I've no idea how I sound - all I know is I can't sing, so God help me and an audience if I ever have the misfortune to have to speak publicly. But, my wife would never write, she wouldn't even text or send E-mails to the kids, telling me with utter conviction that one minute on the telephone would inform her whether they were all right or not, regardless of their actual words. I, on the other hand, always enjoyed putting pen to paper and would avoid telephone conversations whenever possible. I still do.
Photography and writing for me, in amateur mode, have nothing to do with planning and/or previsualisation of anything: it's all about instant reaction to some stimulus that triggers me off. That's where the old question of that now (in these pages) notorious Terence Donovan quotation comes up: it's very, very difficult to plan anything ahead - with no schedule forced upon one, it all depends on reaction to external inputs.
I guess it might take dedicated street shooters to see the point for what it is.
Rob C
-
... t's all about instant reaction to some stimulus that triggers me off. That's where the old question of that now (in these pages) notorious Terence Donovan quotation comes up ...
Careful Rob, that's a 'red rag to a bull' topic.
And, in the context of this thread, was it not Donovan who eschewed the notion of photography as art ? " Craftsmen, yes. Artistry, no. "
-
The point is, his lousy work on this occasion is an expression of his feelings. He has objectified his emotional state of mind. He's created a work of art. Right?
Wrong ;-)
His lousy work is the result of his feelings, not an expression of his feelings.
He was just trying to paint the walls and did a sloppy job; he wasn't trying to "give form to feelings" at all.
-
So do you produce art as a result of "divine inspiration" and "talent"? Or as a result of discipline, training and analysis? Do you use your right brain or your left brain half? I certainly have seen interviews of authors whose results I admire, to the effect that they dislike the inspiration/alcoholic/hermit myths, rather "write one page today, then go pickup the kids".
Why can't you produce art as a result of any/all of the above and more?
-
Photography and writing for me, in amateur mode, have nothing to do with planning and/or previsualisation of anything: it's all about instant reaction to some stimulus that triggers me off.
So what you saw and reacted to today doesn't influence how and where you'll look tomorrow?
-
So what you saw and reacted to today doesn't influence how and where you'll look tomorrow?
Influence is something else; it's a part of you that slips into second gear to the level that it's only there in your subconscious - you don't refer to it at the time of the new challenge - I hate writing challenge - art isn't challenge, it's fulfillment.
If you consciously refer backwards - how else? - then you end up repeating yourself into infinity. It happens a lot to photographers and, it seems, to musicians too.
It becomes comfortable.
Rob C
-
Influence is something else...
What you saw and reacted to today can be the straightforward conscious reason for where you plan to be and what you plan to look for tomorrow.
You work the idea until you're done with it.
-
Through most of history, the people who made art never thought of themselves as making art. In fact it’s quite presumable that art was being made long before the rise of consciousness, long before the pronoun “I” was ever employed. The painters of caves, quite apart from not thinking of themselves as artists, probably never thought of themselves at all.
What this suggests, among other things, is that the current view equating art with “self-expression” reveals more a contemporary bias in our thinking than an underlying trait of the medium. Even the separation of art from craft is largely a post-Renaissance concept, and more recent still is the notion that art transcends what you do, and represents what you are. In the past few centuries Western art has moved from unsigned tableaus of orthodox religious scenes to one-person displays of personal cosmologies. “Artist” has gradually become a form of identity which (as every artist knows) often carries with it as many drawbacks as benefits. Consider that if artist equals self, then when (inevitably) you make flawed art, you are a flawed person, and when (worse yet) you make no art, you are no person at all! It seems far healthier to sidestep that vicious spiral by accepting many paths to successful artmaking -- from reclusive to flamboyant, intuitive to intellectual, folk art to fine art. One of those paths is yours.
- David Bayles and Ted Orland, Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking
-
Wrong ;-)
His lousy work is the result of his feelings, not an expression of his feelings.
He was just trying to paint the walls and did a sloppy job; he wasn't trying to "give form to feelings" at all.
I see. So you're making a distinction between a deliberate, conscious attempt to give form to one's feelings, as opposed to a situation where one's true feelings might just leak out despite a half-hearted attempt to do a regular and conventional job.
For example, if the house painter had decided to let it all hang out, and instead of even attempting to do his regular work, had dipped his brush several times into whatever cans of paint were open and, in a fit of fury, splattered the paint over the walls several times, then that would be art. Right? ;)
I see a problem here in needing to know the personal details relating to the execution of a particular work, in order to determine if the work is art. Suppose that a number of people consider a particular, semi-abstract photo to be a work of art because they like the relationships between the OoF shapes and the general sort of eerie pattern which seems quite unusual and original. The photo sells for a good price, and the photographer reveals during an interview that the photo was in fact an accident. As he was walking through the rainforest, the shutter accidentally tripped.
Does the buyer now claim his money back on the grounds he has been deceived into thinking the photo was a deliberate expression of the photographer's feelings, and therefore 'art' according to Isaac's definition? ;)
-
Aloha,
Vision and creativity part 5 or Everything you guys say is true, even if its not.
The older I get the more everything looks like art to me, I was in my bathroom the other day, a pile of clothes, was next to the clothes hamper, I noticed the textures and colors in the pile, laid down randomly in accordance with a daily sequence and some gravitational law. It occurred to me it was a very personal grouping, and that it represented in some fashion (no pun intended) a bit of me, I got a camera out and played around a bit; on a self portrait of sorts. While I was working I was thinking of how different piles of accumulated clothes could represent different people, with different jobs or tastes or whatnot, and you could guess or contemplate on that person from the vantage of just what they had in their laundry that week. Would a perfect portfolio of these images hung just so in a fancy gallery be art? Or more suitable as imagery for a tide advertizing campaign; Tide! what's in your laundry!
And of course the next portfolio would be 40 x 60 inch photos of peoples garbage, after all; you are what you eat....
-
But writing isn't photography: they are vastly different disciplines. A visual artist may be next to illiterate and it make no difference to the quality of his/her visual work and expression.
I am not suggesting that the practical craftmanship (such as litteracy) needed for writing are similar to those needed in photography. I am suggesting that the "process" of creating art may be similar across different kinds of art.
Perhaps a photographer needs to pick up the camera every day, decide to make at least one good photography and be over it (similar to the writer in my example) instead of pondering over philosophical divine inspiration thingies.
-h
-
Why can't you produce art as a result of any/all of the above and more?
Me myself, I am not much of an artist. That probably explains why I do not produce much in the way of art. I do strive to produce images that I (and occasionally those around me) find "pretty" or "interesting".
-h
-
Me myself, I am not much of an artist. That probably explains why I do not produce much in the way of art. I do strive to produce images that I (and occasionally those around me) find "pretty" or "interesting".
-h
That judgement I leave to you, but on the basis that what you just wrote is true, then it underl¡nes the fact that some people are born artists and others not, because different people can make pictures every day of their lives and get nowhere, but others find that each time they do it, they get something worthwhile. Now, is that a display of natural ability as artist or luck? I think it indicates born artists.
And then it's the matter of judgement. Whose matters? I think that in the end, the voice that matters is inevitably your own. When you discover you have done something that pleases you, and manage to do so time after time, then I think you have, in essence, discovered your own particular gamut of satisfaction and self-expression. And unless you are in it for the money, nothing else matters at all. Why should it? I suppose that now I think abut it, that's one of the reasons that I feel so glum about guru-disciples: they, the gurus, can't be you and neither can you be they.
With reference to your other post about a shot a day keeping the urge at bay: are you describing the work ethic of the hack?
Rob C
-
What you saw and reacted to today can be the straightforward conscious reason for where you plan to be and what you plan to look for tomorrow.
You work the idea until you're done with it.
Really?
When I ran my studios I did the opposite as often as I could: I sought out locations and location work. That was simply down to two big creative factors: I liked new places and did not want to find myself back again facing a white Colorama and the same old shape and expression choices that day after day of snapping clothes forces one to accept is the norm. There are only so many faces a woman can pull, only so many pleasing shapes that she can bend herself into and look sane. Locations allow you to exploit the same relatively short range of options and make them seem new because of the dynamic and atmosphere that location will lend. It also inspires both parties to fresh effort in, with luck, new directions too.
If anything, what kept one going was having the shortest residual memory possible.
Rob C
-
For example, if the house painter had decided to let it all hang out, and instead of even attempting to do his regular work, had dipped his brush several times into whatever cans of paint were open and, in a fit of fury, splattered the paint over the walls several times, then that would be art. Right? ;)
Wrong ;-)
Again, splattering the paint over the walls is the result of a fit of fury, not an expression of a fit of fury.
He was just having a fit of fury; he wasn't trying to "give form to a fit of fury" at all.
Does the buyer now claim his money back on the grounds he has been deceived into thinking the photo was a deliberate expression of the photographer's feelings...
The answer will be much the same as the answer to basic questions about "The Ethics of Photo Manipulation" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78913.0) -- it depends whether the photographer misrepresented the photo to the buyer.
'art' according to Isaac's definition?
Susanne K. Langer's aphorism.
-
Would a perfect portfolio of these images hung just so in a fancy gallery be art?
The Unmade Bed (http://metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/260781), Gelatin silver print 1957, Imogen Cunningham
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
-
What you saw and reacted to today can be the straightforward conscious reason for where you plan to be and what you plan to look for tomorrow.
You work the idea until you're done with it.
Really?
As you said (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=81713.msg662918#msg662918) -- "When you discover you have done something that pleases you, and manage to do so time after time, then I think you have, in essence, discovered your own particular gamut of satisfaction and self-expression."
-
With reference to your other post about a shot a day keeping the urge at bay: are you describing the work ethic of the hack?
Not sure what you are asking. I was suggesting that becomming "an artist" or even proficient at anything may be more about hard work and discipline than searching for some magic formula/inspiration/... that is suddenly going to do the thing for you.
I did play the piano when younger. Well enough to consider making a career out of it, poor enough to recognize that it would not be a career on my terms. I believe that I learned something relevant to my current photography hobby:
-It is ok to learn from the best. Take classes, digest other peoples techniques, but discard what you dislike. Don't try to copy every aspect of your idols.
-Even the "natural born talents" tends to practice - a lot, even if they do not admit to.
-h
-
Really?
As you said (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=81713.msg662918#msg662918) -- "When you discover you have done something that pleases you, and manage to do so time after time, then I think you have, in essence, discovered your own particular gamut of satisfaction and self-expression."
That's not in any way saying that you either abandon a genre - which is what I think you were suggesting ("finished with it") - nor is it saying that you then slavishly repeat what went before. It simply implies that you accept/recognize the possibilites and try work within them and do your best to remain fresh. In particular, I mean that you come to terms with your personal limitations because outwith that, there really are no limits: the ones that you believe exist are bound by the limitations of the individual imagination and what drives it. I think I mentioned somewhere here that I watched a rerun of an old tape about the 60s, and though it was mainly about London's photographic and model scene (and the film Blow-Up) even then there was great viariety of style within the tight little world that London fashion photography represented. At one point Celia Hammond (or was it Shrimpton? - I forget) mentions that the group consisted of maybe a dozen people... but the range of work and the different magazine styles that it catered for was vast.
Yes, several of the ‘stars’-to-be had come out of the John French studio experience – he was magical – and so they did share a basic common technical understanding about photography, but other than that, Bailey and Donovan were worlds apart in what they produced. Duffy originally came out of art college where he studied dress design… what they had in common was eye and talent. All different ‘eyes’ but quite obviously heaps of talent. In fact, it was French who did a lot for Bailey when he was still working for him, introducing him to prospective clients, even! If that didn’t show the belief French had in Bailey, then I’d be most surprised. Helping the guy you know is good enough to dethrone you is pretty cool. But he obviously recognized gold when he saw it – talent.
It’s funny though; I watched a more recent show about Norman Parkinson, and in it, Celia Hammond, with whom he was apparently obsessed for a while, says that Parks didn’t like the model to think for herself, just to follow his direction. In contrast, in the same film, Jerry Hall tells how Parks loved to let her have her head and contribute idea after idea… now both might be telling it as they saw it: perhaps Parks felt one was a creative model and the other not, but blessed with the right physical features. You play different girls in different ways, as you discover what they are all about, if you use them often enough. That, quite separately from the pictures, is a delicious aspect of model photography that has pretty much zero to do with sex, though of course the opposite could as easily be the case. It all depends on the players, doesn’t it?
You don’t get that buzz from rocks and trees. At least, I never did. And no, that's not a gratuitous swipe at a genre - just the reason why it doesn't do anything much for me, even though it's really all that's left open to me now.
Rob C
-
Not sure what you are asking. I was suggesting that becomming "an artist" or even proficient at anything may be more about hard work and discipline than searching for some magic formula/inspiration/... that is suddenly going to do the thing for you.
I did play the piano when younger.
1. Well enough to consider making a career out of it, poor enough to recognize that it would not be a career on my terms. I believe that I learned something relevant to my current photography hobby:
-It is ok to learn from the best. Take classes, digest other peoples techniques, but discard what you dislike. Don't try to copy every aspect of your idols.
2. -Even the "natural born talents" tends to practice - a lot, even if they do not admit to.
-h
1. Shared with Adams, then.
2. Photographers (pro) do that every day and get paid for doing it. It's called their work. And the reason they get that paid practice is because they usually have the talent that brings them the work on which to practise their art.
The circle is vicious!
Rob C
-
That's not in any way saying that you either abandon a genre - which is what I think you were suggesting ("finished with it")...
Not "abandon a genre" but finish an idea that was being worked out within a genre.
-
"that it would not be a career on my terms" - Hjulenissen
That is pretty profound!
Are you really Santa Claus?
An artist is someone who produces things that people don't need to have but that he - for some reason - thinks it would be a good idea to give them. ~Andy Warhol
Near my old house in Lahaina along the beach, a very small stream emerged from hiding beneath the Naupaka bushes and hurried the short distance to the shore and rejoined the great Pacific ocean.
It came to be a location which delighted me, when other locations of delight seems far away and unreachable, I would visit the stream often at various times of the day.
In this small world there was constant change and dissimilar routine. Rough canyons were carved and then smoothed by the waves at high tide, shiny pebbles would be exposed and then hidden, swift water played into shapes creating vertebrae to anchor all manor of anatomies. Natural light worked in silver, pewter, copper, gold as the height of the sun and the clouds dictated. There was joy in the Macro and the wide angle, the vertical and the horizontal.
It was not an obsession or a particularly profound reason that drew me back to the stream, I was happy to feel the sand beneath my feet, or the feel the cool stream water circle around them. In these times there was just the stop of the shutter, the feel of my hand on the camera, the light, the stream, and the movement of the lens that mattered.
One day while I was working at the stream, a very old Hawaiian lady came near and stopped a distance from me. She said to me "I see you here a lot, What are you doing?" I replied; I am taking pictures, I like this spot" She asked me then; "Do you know what that stream is?" I answered something along the lines of no, I did not know. "That is the King's stream" she said, "That stream was the only constant source of water for the entire ancient Hawaiian village of Lahaina, it was because of that stream that the village could even survive, and nobody could do anything in that stream without the King's permission, because to harm it in any way, could endanger to whole village."
He explanation led me to tell her a bit more about what I was doing, why I liked it, and what I thought was interesting about it. She listened to me silently nodding a few times. She then showed me some rocks that she had collected on the beach, which had Olivine embedded in them and explained to me how to remove the gem from the lava without destroying the gem. We then said goodbyes, and I moved to get back to shooting and she moved away, she stopped again and looked at me then she said; "Well I hope you find your gems, I don't think the king would mind either"
-
Wrong ;-)
Again, splattering the paint over the walls is the result of a fit of fury, not an expression of a fit of fury.
He was just having a fit of fury; he wasn't trying to "give form to a fit of fury" at all.
Oh! I see! To give form to a fit of fury requires that one be calm and collected. Splattered paint delivered in fury is not an expression of fury. Only carefully positioned splatters, applied with equanimity and dexterity, could be considered as an expression of fury. Now all is clear. ;D
-
I see that you've exhausted your argument and all that remains is sarcasm.
Intent is so central to our ordinary understanding of people's behavior that we write it into Law -- "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft).
You might as well voice mock surprise that the player who's back the soccer ball bounced-off into the opponents goal is only congratulated for their dumb luck.
-
I see that you've exhausted your argument and all that remains is sarcasm.
Intent is so central to our ordinary understanding of people's behavior that we write it into Law -- "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft).
You might as well voice mock surprise that the player who's back the soccer ball bounced-off into the opponents goal is only congratulated for their dumb luck.
Nonsense, it's the tattoos wot done it. Everybody knows that.
Rob C
-
Wrong ;-)
Again, splattering the paint over the walls is the result of a fit of fury, not an expression of a fit of fury.
He was just having a fit of fury; he wasn't trying to "give form to a fit of fury" at all.
Oh! I see! To give form to a fit of fury requires that one be calm and collected. Splattered paint delivered in fury is not an expression of fury. Only carefully positioned splatters, applied with equanimity and dexterity, could be considered as an expression of fury. Now all is clear. ;D
When a chimp smudges paint over a paper that’s not how the human normally perceives and recognises art. Although paintings of this and similar character often hung in communal areas of buildings and they may often seem pretty pictures they won’t strike you in that way. Which is what art does, and has many ways of doing it and significances for a particular individual about it.
Art has something that goes beyond the physical form. I said something, so yes, it's a magic. Recognition of that is universal, archetypal and it runs through some very deep and basic layer of human intelligence and can have infinite number of shades and forms, yet is always recognisable and definite. Something similar to infinite number of individual minds but the unique and undoubted distinction of Love. That 'something' we drew with a piece of soil picked from under our bare feet on the rock above our head and carry it with us since.
So if a fury is to be involved in a meaningful way, it has to be that kind.
-
Aloha,
Originally I opened this post as a counter point about creativity/ and creating that I thought was valid.
It was in no way an attempt to belittle the authors photographic work, which some chose to do.
Nor was it an attempt to prompt a discussion about "what is art" which I can see from all the posts is what this has degenerated into, which seems to follow a pattern on this forum as well as many others.
I guys asks about "which lens people like in Canons wide primes" and soon after a few posters are spiting back and forth about Canon verses Nikon or whatever.
I then used a story to attempt to bring everybody around to a more positive discussion about creating and
how something came to be. (and I know the image was not that great, that's why I never published anything from the series into prints)
Ok so lets try this; using some discipline, why doesn't everyone that has posted a tit for tat rant about art, post something positive about how they create or what matters to them when they create, post something along with an image you've done, come on try inspiring your fellow photographer as opposed to grinding axes.
At any rate, Aloha,
Lee
Honolulu, HI
-
Aloha,
Originally I opened this post as a counter point about creativity/ and creating that I thought was valid.
It was in no way an attempt to belittle the authors photographic work, which some chose to do.
Nor was it an attempt to prompt a discussion about "what is art" which I can see from all the posts is what this has degenerated into, which seems to follow a pattern on this forum as well as many others.
I guys asks about "which lens people like in Canons wide primes" and soon after a few posters are spiting back and forth about Canon verses Nikon or whatever.
I then used a story to attempt to bring everybody around to a more positive discussion about creating and
how something came to be. (and I know the image was not that great, that's why I never published anything from the series into prints)
Ok so lets try this; using some discipline, why doesn't everyone that has posted a tit for tat rant about art, post something positive about how they create or what matters to them when they create, post something along with an image you've done, come on try inspiring your fellow photographer as opposed to grinding axes.
At any rate, Aloha,
Lee
Honolulu, HI
Lee,
What you complain about is inevitable. Why? Because you look for something that can’t be done if only because in reality, it doesn’t work as you’d like it to work.
Creativity is a subconscious factor in the making of any work. You don’t sit down with that sheet of paper and draw two columns, one headed Do and the other Don’t Do.
I my opinion, anyone who tells you otherwise is ether a fraud or is himself anything but creative.
I’ve known a lot of creative people in my time and not one has ever told me that he has a ‘system’ of work. They just damned well do it! Speaking personally from experience, the worst thing I could ever have to deal with, work-wise, was the presence of an art director and, worse, of a client at a shoot. If the art director had been any good then he wouldn’t have needed me because my kind of photography is basically so damned simple that he could easily have done it himself after a few sessions with various snappers. As for clients, they are nothing better than a distraction when you least need one.
And that’s why responses meander off the tight track you’d have then adhere to – either you get no response at all to an impossible question or you get one that skirts around it and displeases you somewhat because of it.
I’ve got a website overflowing with pictures, professionally taken ones and others simply results of my random wanderings with a camera or cellphone. There isn’t one where I could sit down and describe some organized, spiritual and self-consciously artistically engineered process that got me to the click. Not that, and be telling you the truth. Of course, if you wanted me to, I could certainly write you an interesting pack of fibs about any one. Pictures just get made. It’s up to what happens between the snapper, the model and the background at the time. I keep telling everyone: it’s so bloody simple! And there lies the key: you can or you can’t, and if you can you can’t understand why folks should think there’s a problem. It’s the same with any talent – why expect it to be available to all by formula? I play music all day long and can’t sing a note. That depresses me, but doesn’t stop the bathroom ringing when I shower; it becomes my magical echo chamber and the genesis of my next hit record!
Rob C
-
I’ve got a website overflowing with pictures, professionally taken ones and others simply results of my random wanderings with a camera or cellphone. There isn’t one where I could sit down and describe some organized, spiritual and self-consciously artistically engineered process that got me to the click. Not that, and be telling you the truth. Of course, if you wanted me to, I could certainly write you an interesting pack of fibs about any one. Pictures just get made. It’s up to what happens between the snapper, the model and the background at the time. I keep telling everyone: it’s so bloody simple! And there lies the key: you can or you can’t, and if you can you can’t understand why folks should think there’s a problem.
Perfectly put, Rob. Exactly how I feel about the process of making photographs of people. I would add that I also try not to use the word 'model', because I feel it can diminish the contribution of the person being photographed.
I always look for that frisson that results from the perfect coming together of intention and accident; it's why I don't record my studio settings. Serendipity is my little luxury.
-
For me, the taking of any shot is akin to taking detailed notes of what one saw and found interesting, from whatever perspective one thought appropriate or interesting.
The art is in the process of applying the Photoshop techniques, and/or printing techniques according to one's skills, to such detailed notes (Raw files), in order to create (or as Isaac would say, 'give form to') the emotional experience that motivated one to take the shot in the first instance.
-
Ray the emotional experience can also be in the original "capture". Take clouds for instance. They oftentimes (for me) are a kind of emotional "score" which gives the image its emotional tone and sets the "mood".
-
Aloha,
Ah, what photographer, or anyone for that matter doesn't love clouds, that is such a great way to start to connect with a photograph...
Ah, what photographer hasn't cursed them as well!
Asking them; please get the f*%k out of the way!
Yes bringing that "score" to the camera is the trick, when I'm working now I don't think (or I try not to) about what I see, I think only about how to compress that "score" into the camera, so that when the print is done it can all come flooding out again. I like to think only about what the camera can "see" and use that to get as much of what I feel.
"You have to have an idea about what you are going to do, but it should only be a vague idea." - Pablo Picasso
-
Aloha,
Ah, what photographer, or anyone for that matter doesn't love clouds, that is such a great way to start to connect with a photograph...
Ah, what photographer hasn't cursed them as well!
Asking them; please get the f*%k out of the way!
Yes bringing that "score" to the camera is the trick, when I'm working now I don't think (or I try not to) about what I see, I think only about how to compress that "score" into the camera, so that when the print is done it can all come flooding out again. I like to think only about what the camera can "see" and use that to get as much of what I feel.
"You have to have an idea about what you are going to do, but it should only be a vague idea." - Pablo Picasso
I'm not a painter so I don't know how they work.......there is a long tradition in photography of "pre-visualization" where you look at a scene and based on your mastery of the medium you can see through the process to a possible final print. I do that including many possible variations. But nothing is locked in. Doing that helps me to create a negative or file that is optimized for my vision and helps remove the guess work that IMHE results more often in disappointments than success.
-
For me, the taking of any shot is akin to taking detailed notes of what one saw and found interesting, from whatever perspective one thought appropriate or interesting.
The art is in the process of applying the Photoshop techniques, and/or printing techniques according to one's skills, to such detailed notes (Raw files), in order to create (or as Isaac would say, 'give form to') the emotional experience that motivated one to take the shot in the first instance.
Actually, I have an admission: that has become photography for me since I started playing digital games.
And it sucks. It's partly why I can't really get my head back into making pictures that I honestly want to make. In order to do that, I'd have to be able to make all the calls before clicking the shutter: transparencies. Now, I get the exposure about right - whatever the hell that concept currently is (you see the corruption of the medium?), and play monitor games over a cup of coffee or coldish tea. Jeez, I don't even have to think lighting. It's photography by numbers; it's what Patrick Lichfield supposedly discovered shortly before he died; it's part of what destroyed Bob Carlos Clarke. For Lichfield, fake location grafts meant the end of his trips abroad and for Clarke, the redundancy of his printing exepertise. Cool shit; don't we love it? Please, no friggin' buggy-whip nonsense? It's more important than that.
Rob C