Alain Briot's 'An introduction to composition'

[drew]

I read Alain Briot's essay on an 'Introduction to composition' with great interest. I agree with a lot of the detail and I would certainly share his aspiration to express oneself emotionally through photography. However, I feel that he tries too hard to establish clear blue water between what he calls the 'factual recorder' and the photographic artist. In providing a sort of riposte (I actually think we are very much on the same wavelength), I will sprinkle in a few of my own pictures of Arizona and Utah. Unfortunately, I do not live in Arizona, but instead have had to maximise my efforts to two short trips (considerably assisted by others of a more determined mindset!). I hope my pictures will show that my goals are very similar to Alain's.

I think there are actually very few 'factual recorder' photographers (yes, I acknowledge there have to be some). Anyone concerned with the aesthetic will attempt to produce an image that appeals in some way. Whether that person can be classed as a photographic artist comes down to a question of intent. An intent to convey or communicate an emotional response to something through the image; the expressive arrangement of elements within the medium. In understanding this, there is a subtle, but important distinction between art and the artist. An artist sets out to
create a work of art and may or may not suceed. A work of art can happen passively or even by accident.

A sports photographer may be there to capture 'factual' images from a game, but either by design or good luck, truly artistic photographs can be created. We have all seen those amazing pictures of bodies frozen in a moment of time, facial expressions conveying the tension as several players go for the ball. What would make that photographer an artist? I suppose the frequency with which such images are created by design. So art can be created passively, but more often an artist makes it happen.

Am I saying something different to Alain? Where we diverge is over his statement that the factual recorder is poles apart from the photographic artist. The problem I have with this is that photography is a recording medium. A photographer only has limited control over the elements (light, subject, composition and so on) and a photograph
(except of another artwork) can never truly be a  work of the imagination. Combining disparate elements (separated in time and space) even if they are photographic elements, is no longer photography. Traditionally, this is called photomontage. Now that this can be done electronically still does not make it photography.

Alain talks about "the truth" and that this is of little or no concern to photographic artists, but that it is only important to factual recorders. This is not so. A factual recorder is concerned with upholding a general truth about something. However, a photographic artist must also be concerned with "the truth". Why is this? Because the
appreciation of a photograph as art carries with it an expectation that the photograph is representational i.e. photography comes closest of all the media to the classical definitions of art as mimesis or that which mirrors nature. The important difference is that a photographic artist portrays a personal truth or reality. Factual recorders and photographic artists are not poles apart, but rather are separated by a continuous spectrum made up of increasing intent to convey an emotional response through a photographic image. Both have to be concerned with "the truth", but a general truth versus a personal one.

[Brad Proctor]

Drew,
You make some good points.  Great pictures, I particularly like the third one.  I'd post some of mine, but I don't think they fall into the same class as either yours or Alains.  

I would suspect that rather than the factual recorder and the photographic artist being at two fixed points, whether near or far from each other in this regard, are actually on a line.  Where on this line the two fall are entirely up to the two individual people that are being compared.

A person taking pictures at the scene of a crime is probably a lot further away from the photographic artist than a sports photographer, but they might both be considered factual recorders.  There are also photographic artists that use images basically untouched from the camera, and those that work their photographs until they something else entirely.  Both, I believe, are photographic artists.  For the same reason as you said, out of intent.  But they lie on different points on the line.

I'd like to go one further and suggest that whether a particular image from a photographic artist is art or not is not only up to the photographic artist but also the observer.  The same applies to the factual recorder.  Whether one is considered a photographic artist or a factual recorder might also depend partly on the observer.

Thanks for the great essay Alain, I look forward to reading the next ones.

[drew]

Yes, I agree with nearly all that, especially the bit about art not only needing to be intended, but also appreciated by someone else. Communication of an emotional response to something being the key here.
Photography is photography though and there is an expectation that the image represents reality even if it is a 2D observation of an instant of time. Alain has a picture in his essay of the Devil's Garden and there is a tree trunk in the foreground. He must have taken it recently, because that tree trunk was there when I was in October. That trunk is a mobile prop that just happened to be there, but would I have been tempted to put it there from some distance away if it had not been there? Absolutely not and I do not think Alain would either. My point? Photographers, artists or not, feel a duty to represent a reality even if, as I say, it is a personal one.
It can go too far towards "the truth" too. I always remember seeing one of MR's interviews with the American photographer Steve Johnson. I think that approach of being almost enslaved to the hardware is just cold and clinical and ultimately not very interesting.

[alainbriot]

Thank you Drew and Bradley for your responses.  In the upcoming essays I will talk about the relationship between reality (truth if you will) and believabilty.  What I am concerned with is believability, not reality.  I want an image that is believable, not necessarily real, whatever reality may be, something which is different for all of us.

One of the definitions of fiction is "Is it real? No.  Did it happen? Yes."  In other words, it is not real, but it is believable in the sense that we come to believe that the fictional story we are reading did happen although it is not a real story.

The same applies to photography and the same is at the foundation of my work.  I want the viewer to believe in the image, regardless of whether the colors, contrast, composition, etc. are similar to those of the real scene.  

I think in many ways this was the foundation for black and white photography, since the world is not in black and white and since we are therefore asked to believe in an image that is not 'reality'.  

The same approach can be applied to color photography as well, once we move away from color denotating an objective reality and accept that color can denotate a subjective reality just as well.

[drew]

Alain,
The mono images I put in above were taken with an IR converted Canon 5D and stitched in PTGui. I did wonder if someone would pick me up on the fact that they are black and white images and maybe even that they have a somewhat odd tonality for 'conventional' black and white photographs. Some might even argue that they are not strictly photographs.
I understand where you are coming from in your reply, but even with the IR images, it was never my intention to create a work of fiction. Believability is, I agree at the heart of this, but as a fundamentally honest person (i.e. hardly ever intending to deceive!), I prefer the idea of personal truths when it comes to photography. People in the know will know that the Manti La-Sal mountains lie behind Delicate Arch and I would never try to enhance their size or substitute them with a more impressive mountain range. When I take a landscape photograph of something, someone else should be able to go back to that point and produce something recognisably similar even if not exactly the same.

[plugsnpixels]

A version of Alain's Composition article is available for free in issue 7 of the Plugs 'N Pixels ezine.

Drew, those are great shows and makes you wonder what happened to those rock formations! Either geologic, wind or ancient water wear. These shots remind me of formations in Egypt's Sinai desert that look as if water were involved in their shaping (see attached, which I shot there in 1985. Looks like an ancient oceanside cliff and caves. That's an army truck on top from the '67 war).

[barryfitzgerald]

Well I enjoyed the read, interesting.
Starts off with a quote that I find, a little too disturbing myself!

"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas.
It is a creative art"

Well it is kind of, but then..to many it is not. IMO Photography is many things, to many people. Good though, that Alain pointed this out.
On the other hand, I am not so sure that the "line" between those who consider themselves "artists", and those who are "documenting" with pictures is so clear. A picture can provoke emotions, and be considered to some "artistic", but to others it may not have that effect.

I quote Alain:

"When capturing emotions one must be sure to take into account one’s feelings about the scene, the object, the people or the event being photographed.  An artistic photograph is about the response of the photographer to subject of the photograph.  It is about the person who takes the photograph first and about the subject of the photograph second.   In fact, the more a photograph veers in the direction of art, the more it becomes an image about the photographer and less an image about the subject itself.  The personality of the photographer must be present in the image for an artistic photograph to have value."


Again, this kinda worries me a bit. Let me explain a little. I am not sure I consider my photography "arty", or that I think of emotion or reflection of myself, or my thoughts. In fact, I would say I am not thinking of much at all, on a Conscious level, when taking photos. I might have an idea of what I am looking for, but just not seeing this uber emotion thing at all!
I don't want to come off sounding a bit cold, or detached with this. Or that I am shallow (lol far from it!) To me photography is to a large part "instinct", its an element that cannot be detailed, or described.

Are we overcomplicating thngs here a bit? Is there an element of "it just looks good", and no real reason other than that, for taking the photos?

I do not consider my photography art, is that a bad thing? For what I may feel or think, is one thing..what others might, is something else. I feel emotion when looking at photos of wars, and hardship for example, but then does a nice landscape mean anything on an emotional level, other than a nice scene? Interesting series though..there is a technical side, that is no more than a guide, and a creative element..that is wildly open to debate also. I for one think that the line between documenting and artistic cannot be defined, a mistake to attempt it.

[drew]

Barry,
I  agree totally about that quote and I agree that photography can mean different things to different people, though for the vast majority it might as well be wallpaper. I think it hardly ever gets used for the factual communication of ideas, rather it gets used more to sell things. It is a medium for art, but I do not really know why or what the meaning of the qualifying pronoun 'creative' is in this context any more than I understand what is meant by the term 'fine art'. Also, like you I am a bit uncomfortable with the term emotional communication as it invokes mental images of anguished handwringing. What I do know though is that I get a kick out of seeing good photogaphy and it inspires me to want to do it myself, so some sort of emotional response must be going on. The definition 'expressive arrangement of elements within the medium' does seem to work well for me. I actually do not agree with Alain when he says 'the more a photograph veers in the direction of art, the more it becomes an image about the photographer and less an image about the subject itself'. A good
photograph tells you very little about the photographer or the artist other than that they have that ability. Yes, a recognisable style may emerge with time, but that does not make any one image less or more of an artwork. An artist may be acknowledged as such when he/she has produced a coherent or consistent body of work. The art movements of the twentieth century placed too much emphasis on uniqueness and originality without considering whether this was helping us understand it better. Are we really that interested in Dali's preoccuption with the phallus? Before, the art student had a  relaitionhip with the artist were he tried to copy the work of the master. So,with many renaissance pieces we just do not who painted what in the masterpiece. Ultimately, it does not matter, the masterpiece is still a masterpiece, the image should stand on its own. The whole expressive thing can be driven by instinct.

[alainbriot]

I think that everyone's goals for their photography is different and I respect all of them.

However don't forget that the goal of my series of writings, and in fact of all my writings on photography, is not to try to find out where you stand, or to classify photographers based on intent or goals.

Instead, my goal is to help you, to help photographers improve their work, get to the next step and so on.  

I do understand that the introduction to my new series is in part a discussion of the different possible uses that photography can have. However, it is the introduction, not the focus of the series.  The focus of the series is helping you with composition.

[Morgan_Moore]

Alain

I find both the tone of your posts and article both arrogant and patronising and therefore infuriating

To be fair you have obviously mastered the basics of composition and probably help many untrained photographers bring thier work along a couple of steps

It is hard however to read the article at all with that tree image topping it - it is an image that I can see no rationale behind whatsoever

The image appears to be a dismal exercise in the the use of colour but unfortuanately a complete failure to translate the three dimensional into the two dimensional, compositionally I would give it 'null points' an irony of the highest order for an instructional on composition

Of course there is no 'right' or 'correct' in photography so no-one can judge any one else

You, however, have put yourself on the pedestal of the preacher and therefore I beleive criticism is fair (and meant to be positive)

I think it would be best for us to all, including you (and me) acknowledge that we are all travelling a road with our photography from bad to better

The road is, however, long and your work would appear to be very far from the end of it whereas your tone including the frequent use of words such as 'master' implies otherwise

If your knowledge of composition is so great as to be worthy of such a wide audience why is so much of your work executed and edited in such a sloppy manner ?

This post is meant to encourage broadness of thinking, the enjoyment of debate and questioning rather than personal attack - please read in that manner

SMM

[drew]

Sam,
I would have to agree that the image heading Alain's essay is surprisingly weak. I am conscious of the fact that I started this thread and bunged in some of my pics and it has made me think about my own motivations for doing so and of course I would have to admit that my own ego needs to be brought out occasionally for everyone to see and beat or massage. I suppose the key difference is that I do not need to make a living from photography, so hey! come and bruise me (but I would prefer a massage). So I am curious with the notion of being infuriated. Is it really as strong as that for you?
I could take causing irritation, but I would hate to think I was infuriating anyone....

[Morgan_Moore]

Sam,
I would have to agree that the image heading Alain's essay is surprisingly weak. I am conscious of the fact that I started this thread and bunged in some of my pics and it has made me think about my own motivations for doing so and of course I would have to admit that my own ego needs to be brought out occasionally for everyone to see and beat or massage. I suppose the key difference is that I do not need to make a living from photography, so hey! come and bruise me (but I would prefer a massage). So I am curious with the notion of being infuriated. Is it really as strong as that for you?
I could take causing irritation, but I would hate to think I was infuriating anyone....
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are not infuriating me - it the the patronising tone of MrBs output that makes me want to headbut the screen

Your images? They are fine IMO Idont like the way the subject seems to run out of the frame in the first one and second one (the yellow trees) I also dont like inconsistent aspect ratios when images are run as sets - which yours aren't intended to in this case

This isnt about 'mine is better than yours' - my landscape work is pretty poor - it is about mutual improvement and the philosophy of same

Most importantly we must learn to shoot images that 'sing' and adhereing to a basic set of rules and learning to break them as alain will no doubt outline does tend to speed that process

Personally I am a fan of [a href=\"http://www.superhyperreal.com]LL member Jing[/url]'s work (check out the crossings set for challenging composition) - but I do appreciate Ansel Adams too

S

[drew]

Sam,
Glad about that. Hate to think I was contributing to a repetitive head injury. Your criticisms are good and I accept them.
I think Jing's work is great. The superhyperreal section reminds me of Neal Slavin's 'Britons' series, all shot with that colossal polaroid camera. You are probably familiar with that.

[alainbriot]

I did not mean to be patronizing -- I just meant to be helpful.  Sorry if what I wrote came out that way.

[Gordon Buck]

... an image that is believable, not necessarily real ...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you very much for that thought and words -- just what I've been looking for!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Sam,

I think you are overreacting a bit. Much of what Alain has said so far in this introductory essay follows very much in the grand tradition as practiced and written about by such masters (yes, they certainly were "masters") as Stieglitz, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Minor White.

I took his comments about reality versus fiction to be intended to describe the ends of a spectrum of ways to approach photography. I expect that most photographers fall somewhere along the line rather than at either end.

For myself, I often see a scene that I want to capture "exactly as it is", because it excites me just the way it is. But more often I am drawn toward what Alain describes as photographic "fiction", in which the image must maintain a sense of plausibility while leading the viewer in another direction.

If you don't like my photographs, or Alain's, that's fine. But if you can look at a Stieglitz "equivalent" and see only a cloud, or lookat a Weston Pepper and see only a vegetable, than I think you are missing a lot.

Alain,

I look forward to the rest of this series.

P.S. The opening picture of trees isn't one of my favorites of yours, but it doesn't infuriate me either.  

[OnyimBob]

With regard to the tree image - it's just as well we don't all have to agree on our tastes or opinions. If we did then someone would have to arbitrate and the rest of us would miss out. MHO I like the impressionistic feel of the image - more to the point - if I had made it I'd be very pleased with myself.  
Bob.

[Morgan_Moore]

There is a duality going on here.

In one corner the concept for the essay(s) is improvement

Meaning there is a universeral acceptance of good - better - bad

And in the other corner the ability to hide behind different artistic vision

There is an intrinsic contradiction

(sorry if this is starting to sound like art critic BS)

I can of course see  that the pepper image is a great picture

When I was a kid I had the HCB bike pic above my bed - I see it as a whole 'course' in that art of composition

Nowadays I would be more likely to want a Helmut Newton or Terry Richardson (!) as a poster in my house - I like thier humour - they cheer me up those people whether that was the intention or not

But when a series of writings essentially say 'I can help you improve' I think there is some value to countering that by saying 'and you could improve a lot yourself buddy' when it has not been said by the author

Were I teaching I would be consistently critiquing my own work as 'OK/quite good' but still no where near 'mastery' and putting it in context

All sort of people visit this site - I saw one post in the FS section by Stuart Franklin!

I think Mr B fails to put his teaching or context or perspective - that is what I find fundamentally frustrating/infuriating

He is good enough to teach but also bad enough to learn as am I and everyone else

-----

In terms of that tree picture I think I can see the 'mission' being attempted - the juxataposition of the bright colours in an impressionistic manner,

I think that stepping to the right and 'bending ze kneez' would have achieived the 'mission' better by lining up and contrasting A  B and C while excluding E

Maybe even defocusing would have helped

Would I have been attempting that mission?  probably not, but that is irrelevant

---

I hope debate of this nature helps us all improve

S

[Ronny Nilsen]

There is a duality going on here.

In one corner the concept for the essay(s) is improvement

Meaning there is a universeral acceptance of good - better - bad

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that would be a wrong assumption. One can have improvement without
universal acceptance of good , better and bad. If I look at one of my images and
think that I can do better, then I have room for improvement even if the rest of
the planet claims that the image is perfect¹ and my improvements are for the worse.

Ronny

¹ Thats not going to happen thou.  

[JohnKoerner]

Well I enjoyed the read, interesting.
Starts off with a quote that I find, a little too disturbing myself!

"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas.
It is a creative art"

Well it is kind of, but then..to many it is not. IMO Photography is many things, to many people. Good though, that Alain pointed this out.
On the other hand, I am not so sure that the "line" between those who consider themselves "artists", and those who are "documenting" with pictures is so clear. A picture can provoke emotions, and be considered to some "artistic", but to others it may not have that effect.

I quote Alain:

"When capturing emotions one must be sure to take into account one’s feelings about the scene, the object, the people or the event being photographed.  An artistic photograph is about the response of the photographer to subject of the photograph.  It is about the person who takes the photograph first and about the subject of the photograph second.   In fact, the more a photograph veers in the direction of art, the more it becomes an image about the photographer and less an image about the subject itself.  The personality of the photographer must be present in the image for an artistic photograph to have value."
Again, this kinda worries me a bit. Let me explain a little. I am not sure I consider my photography "arty", or that I think of emotion or reflection of myself, or my thoughts. In fact, I would say I am not thinking of much at all, on a Conscious level, when taking photos. I might have an idea of what I am looking for, but just not seeing this uber emotion thing at all!
I don't want to come off sounding a bit cold, or detached with this. Or that I am shallow (lol far from it!) To me photography is to a large part "instinct", its an element that cannot be detailed, or described.

Are we overcomplicating thngs here a bit? Is there an element of "it just looks good", and no real reason other than that, for taking the photos?

I do not consider my photography art, is that a bad thing? For what I may feel or think, is one thing..what others might, is something else. I feel emotion when looking at photos of wars, and hardship for example, but then does a nice landscape mean anything on an emotional level, other than a nice scene? Interesting series though..there is a technical side, that is no more than a guide, and a creative element..that is wildly open to debate also. I for one think that the line between documenting and artistic cannot be defined, a mistake to attempt it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think Alain's essay is designed to be thought-provoking, in which goal the article obviously succeeded. Whether the material was grammatically-flawless or not, or absolutely accurate or not, is unimportant. Its purpose was to stimulate thought and understanding. If you think about it, that is all the classical philosophers ever did, was debate and debate ... in the effort to find the truth and to reach new levels of understanding ... with an inner realization that this may never happen.

And so it is with Alain's essay. When he says, "In fact, the more a photograph veers in the direction of art, the more it becomes an image about the photographer and less an image about the subject itself.  The personality of the photographer must be present in the image for an artistic photograph to have value," I personally couldn't disagree more. And yet I appreciate what Alain is trying to say, and even see what he is saying.

IMHO, I believe the simple difference between photography as non-art versus photography as art, is the former tries capture the facts of the scene only, while the latter tries to capture the feelings of that same scenery.

Yet to say, as Alain says, that 'the personality of the photographer must be present' for the image to be art is not exactly accurate to me. This may be true if the artist tweaked the color, added all kinds of digital manipulation, and essentially changed the original image scene ... then, yes, the end-product image would in fact be a reflection of that photographer's personality, by way of digital (and other forms of) manipulation. But this kind of effort will never be the most powerful kind of photographic art, at least not to me anyway.

To me, the most powerful "photographic art" there ever was, is, or will be ... is when no such digital manipulation occurs at all through software ... but rather when it occurs when a photographer is able (through his skill, his positioning, and his lens and setting choices) to capture the awesome beauty, color, and emotion of life (or death) in such a way as to convey these indescribable emotions so that WE ALL feel the same sense of awe when we see that image, in a way that 'words' could never bring us to feel.

The saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," exists for a reason. And that reason is the right picture will impact us emotionally in such a way as words could never do.

A truly great photographer is simply able to use his photographic tools, and his knowledge of how to apply those tools with the right perspective, in such a way as to deliver in this capacity ... to be able to see the powerful moments of life before him ... and to capture the emotional essence of those moments in such a way as to convey their emotional power to every single human being who views his images.

The "photographer as artist" is simply one who is able to capture The Awesome Power and The Awesome Beauty of Life and Death in his images in such a way as to emotionally-move whoever views those captured images in such a way where mere words are rendered useless and inadequate.

Therefore, I don't think saying 'the photographer's personality' is exactly accurate in describing what is coming through in his images-as-art. Rather, I believe it is the photographer's ability to move others in the same way he himself was moved, that more closely describes what happens in "photography as art."

That is how I see it anyway.

Jack