Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: 32BT on May 28, 2017, 04:59:27 am
-
With recent discussions in mind, i was wondering about this:
Is it easier to recognise a great photo than it is to actually produce a great photo?
My initial reaction was "of course!", but then i realised that, apart from the skill required, what is it that stops one from recognising a potential scene and capturing it? Technology has certainly reduced the need for skill, no? And one might still take a 1000 pictures before one word is finally uttered. (Excuse me for horribly reversing the metaphore.)
In other words: the barrage of irrelevant images on the internuts (and this site in particular)* might be more a result of people not filtering their own production? Something exemplified by the fact that people tend to post several images of the same thing, none of which contribute meaningful difference.
*Note: i don't mean this derogatory, nor am i referring to the occasional misfire in the critique section, but one would expect that the crowd here is slightly more discerning than elsewhere...
-
For good measure:
By "irrelevant" i mean "void of meaning", where landscape is concerned maybe "void of mood".
I don't mean "bad" or "ugly".
-
An interesting line of thinking, but fraught with undefinables; e.g. "great". How does one even define the word "great" as it applies to photographs? Beautiful? Visually compelling? Emotionally evocative? Thought-provoking? Artistic? Unique? Universal? Timeless?
Great to whom? The artist? The general public? Art snobs? Gallery owners? Ad "men"? Furniture dealerships?
Great technically? Visually? Compositionally? In IQ?
These are words/concepts that float around in my wee pea-sized brain when considering photographs posted here and elsewhere, in fact any time I see a photograph. But, the bottom line is, a natural landscape (sans "the hand of man") that is intensely emotionally evocative, timeless and visually compelling, technically perfect to me, means very little to others here and elsewhere. And street scenes of people who are engaged in nothing more than anthropocentric self-absorption (the way I see a great many public human interactions) are full of meaning and nuance to others here, hence my complete ignorance when it comes to street candids.
When photographing, all we can do is work to please ourselves (unless a commercial client is footing the bill!). If someone else is moved by your work - great! If not, you have something for your walls or screens that will, at least, give you some satisfaction. If your work is unique, compelling and thought-provoking AND is in front of the right eyes at the right time AND you have an interesting backstory, your work might just be considered "art"!
-
When photographing, all we can do is work to please ourselves
I have to respectfully but vehemently disagree with you here, this kind of thinking abounds on the internuts and society at large these days, but this isn't correct at all. It is untrue in the same way that we do not just utter language to please ourselves. In fact, the latter case might just have you committed.
-
I have to respectfully but vehemently disagree with you here, this kind of thinking abounds on the internuts and society at large these days, but this isn't correct at all. It is untrue in the same way that we do not just utter language to please ourselves. In fact, the latter case might just have you committed.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Spending a lifetime pleasing someone else is not living your life.
I know what I photograph pleases others, but that's not what drives me to create. Believe me, I also am fully aware that "it's not all about me"; I'm almost as far from the Libertarian view as one can get (short of being Communist!), but when it comes to the personal and individual time I spend expressing myself through my photography, it's what I "like" that counts. If no one else appreciates it, that's fine; they aren't me.
Imagine Picasso showing his first works to someone who said, "That sucks!" and because he hadn't satisfied them he decided to paint pretty landscapes – what a loss!
Be bold. Be creative. Be yourself, not what someone else wants you to be!
-
Hi,
My take is the work on my photography and try to take great images. What is a great image depends as much on the viewer as on the image. But, more often than not, great images are well executed. Some things many great images share:
[- The are devoid of distracting elements
- The main elements are well balanced
- The images are processed well
Let's look at an image i shot two days ago. I would not argue that it is a great image. But, I like it...
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Summer/i-hvKVqtp/0/d540407e/X3/_DSC9513-X3.jpg)
So, what does it take an image like this?- First we need to have an idea
- Next we need to find a perspective that implements the idea
- At this stage I put up the tripod and look for a lens that will work for the subject
- This time I decided on 35-135 zoom at 60 mm
- I also knew the DoF would be problematic, so I choose a lens that allowed swings to expand DoF
- Choosing the right swing was not easy, as the trees and the bell tower don't line up. use around 1 degree of tilt and stoppen down a lot
- When cropping in the viewfinder I left some leeway for cropping in post
Getting good images may depend on making a lot of small decisions and making those decisions take some experience.
Best regards
Erik
With recent discussions in mind, i was wondering about this:
Is it easier to recognise a great photo than it is to actually produce a great photo?
My initial reaction was "of course!", but then i realised that, apart from the skill required, what is it that stops one from recognising a potential scene and capturing it? Technology has certainly reduced the need for skill, no? And one might still take a 1000 pictures before one word is finally uttered. (Excuse me for horribly reversing the metaphore.)
In other words: the barrage of irrelevant images on the internuts (and this site in particular)* might be more a result of people not filtering their own production? Something exemplified by the fact that people tend to post several images of the same thing, none of which contribute meaningful difference.
*Note: i don't mean this derogatory, nor am i referring to the occasional misfire in the critique section, but one would expect that the crowd here is slightly more discerning than elsewhere...
-
we do not just utter language to please ourselves.
Really?
-
I'm sorry you feel that way. Spending a lifetime pleasing someone else is not living your life.
I know what I photograph pleases others, but that's not what drives me to create. Believe me, I also am fully aware that "it's not all about me"; I'm almost as far from the Libertarian view as one can get (short of being Communist!), but when it comes to the personal and individual time I spend expressing myself through my photography, it's what I "like" that counts. If no one else appreciates it, that's fine; they aren't me.
Imagine Picasso showing his first works to someone who said, "That sucks!" and because he hadn't satisfied them he decided to paint pretty landscapes – what a loss!
Be bold. Be creative. Be yourself, not what someone else wants you to be!
Well said Terry.
-
Quote Terry.
When photographing, all we can do is work to please ourselves (unless a commercial client is footing the bill!). If someone else is moved by your work - great! If not, you have something for your walls or screens that will, at least, give you some satisfaction.
Absolutely spot on! No need to look for a more complicated explanation. When I see some of the more complicated explanations then I see waffling.
-
Hi,
My take is the work on my photography and try to take great images. What is a great image depends as much on the viewer as on the image. But, more often than not, great images are well executed. Some things many great images share:
[- The are devoid of distracting elements
- The main elements are well balanced
- The images are processed well
Let's look at an image i shot two days ago. I would not argue that it is a great image. But, I like it...
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Summer/i-hvKVqtp/0/d540407e/X3/_DSC9513-X3.jpg)
So, what does it take an image like this?- First we need to have an idea
- Next we need to find a perspective that implements the idea
- At this stage I put up the tripod and look for a lens that will work for the subject
- This time I decided on 35-135 zoom at 60 mm
- I also knew the DoF would be problematic, so I choose a lens that allowed swings to expand DoF
- Choosing the right swing was not easy, as the trees and the bell tower don't line up. use around 1 degree of tilt and stoppen down a lot
- When cropping in the viewfinder I left some leeway for cropping in post
Getting good images may depend on making a lot of small decisions and making those decisions take some experience.
Best regards
Erik
A spirit level might have helped with this one Erik.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way. Spending a lifetime pleasing someone else is not living your life.
...
Be bold. Be creative. Be yourself, not what someone else wants you to be!
That is not what the original question was about.
You're obviously entitled to your own emotional experience. You are however, NOT free to express or execute upon all of your emotions. (not even in language, in case you might be a free-speech advocate.)
But language works precisely because there is a certain overlap in people's emotions, and in the same way we may experience certain emotions when observing a scene, and hence capture these emotions in a picture. The question is: is it easier to recognise emotions captured in a picture than it is to actually capture (your personal) emotions in a picture?
-
Hi Graeme,
Thanks for the feedback. My point is that photography is a bit of a learning experience and this contributes.
I did actually use the levelling tool built in the camera, but it is possibly not accurate enough. I don't know if the spirit levels we can put into the accessory shoe are more exact.
I have adjusted the image on the lamppost at the center and that gives a correction of around -0.5 degree, doesn't sound much but it is quite noticeable I don't know how accurate spirit levels are.
Best regards
Erik
A spirit level might have helped with this one Erik.
-
I think I take photos because I'm a curious observer at heart. A Nosey Parker, as my mom said more than once. Someone who, for instance, backs off from groups and carefully watches how the individuals within them behave. Using a camera helps keep my scrutinizing senses sharp. The process is the thing…the photos themselves are secondary.
So I guess for me a "great" photo is one where in taking it I noticed something new, whether a new thing or a previously unnoticed aspect of an older thing. When it comes to the photos I share with other folks, I generally pick those that appeal to me tonally & geometrically. Those other folks can like 'em or not…doesn't matter.
-Dave-
-
Hi Graeme,
Thanks for the feedback. My point is that photography is a bit of a learning experience and this contributes.
I did actually use the levelling tool built in the camera, but it is possibly not accurate enough. I don't know if the spirit levels we can put into the accessory shoe are more exact.
I have adjusted the image on the lamppost at the center and that gives a correction of around -0.5 degree, doesn't sound much but it is quite noticeable I don't know how accurate spirit levels are.
Best regards
Erik
I pretty much
Hi Erik
I find my accessory shoe spirit level to be more accurate than my camera's built in level but I'm a bit obsessive about this stuff: I once corrected the verticals in an image which were .1 of a degree off.
I pretty much agree with what you said except that I don't mind some 'distracting' elements in a photo as long as they aren't too distracting. Having come from a design background, part of photography's attraction is that a photo is a capture ( sample ) of the untidy, external physical world rather than a composition that starts of on a blank sheet of paper ( like an illustration or piece of graphic design ).
Graeme
-
Hi Graeme,
As said, photography is a learning experience. You have just shown me that 1/2 degree matters. I will pack my spirit level on next photo trip.
My point is that there is a lot of things going into a picture, and there is a lot of learning involved. So I feel that great pictures seldom are a result of luck, but rather the outcome of experience and some luck.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik
I find my accessory shoe spirit level to be more accurate than my camera's built in level but I'm a bit obsessive about this stuff: I once corrected the verticals in an image which were .1 of a degree off.
I pretty much agree with what you said except that I don't mind some 'distracting' elements in a photo as long as they aren't too distracting. Having come from a design background, part of photography's attraction is that a photo is a capture ( sample ) of the untidy, external physical world rather than a composition that starts of on a blank sheet of paper ( like an illustration or piece of graphic design ).
Graeme
-
To me it is very simple:
1. When I look at photos from other people, I like them, or not.
2. When other people look at my photos, they like them, or not.
All this intellectualization around it is just not useful in my photography. I take photos of what I like. I like landscapes and travel. I like landscape photography because I like to be out in the nature; I like travel photography because I like to travel and meet new people and go to new places.
Of course photography, as a means of communication, can convey emotions. I feel that with photos of others, and with photos of mine.
-
I think that Terry and Paulo addressed this quite nicely.
There is a lot of subjectivity in the appreciation of art. Even defining the term art is difficult.
I can easily identify a photograph I like looking at. I can also look at a so called "great" photograph and simply not get it. Oh well, to each his or her own.
If a person looking at a photograph perceives a "void of meaning/mood", that means that the photograph does not have a meaning/mood to that viewer. Another viewer may perceive the meaning/mood. The wacky thing about art is that a viewer can perceive a meaning/mood that the original artist never intended or may have even known about. Weird huh?
As I often post: I think we would be better off if we paid a little less attention to what other people like or dislike about photography.
I find it hard enough to make one person (me) like my photographs without worrying about if other people like them.
-
I like landscape photography because I like to be out in the nature; I like travel photography because I like to travel and meet new people and go to new places.
Right, and presumably you have experienced both first hand. You've been out in nature and know what the experience means to you, or how it forms your character. Even more so with travelling, you likely have experienced how that can seriously broaden the mind, to name just one element.
So, when you look at an image, you can appreciate how it might evoke that same mood, or sense of place, or whatever. The experience is obviously entirely personal, but the general (or even universal) sense is transferable in the same way that language allows you to transfer the experience. Not fully: no one thinks that they will actually broaden your mind just by telling you a story, or showing you a picture, but the experience captured in some images can certainly have universal meaning or universal appeal, in the same way that language works in sharing an experience.
And so the question remains:
is it easier to recognise images with that certain universal appeal, than it is to recognise a scene with universal appeal?
-
And so the question remains:
is it easier to recognise images with that certain universal appeal, than it is to recognise a scene with universal appeal?
Why does it matter? I feel, it doesn't. The two can be mutually exclusive.
-
is it easier to recognise images with that certain universal appeal, than it is to recognise a scene with universal appeal?
I am not sure I understand. Could you please share an example of an image with "universal appeal"? That way we would have a common understanding of what you are asking.
-
And so the question remains:
is it easier to recognise images with that certain universal appeal, than it is to recognise a scene with universal appeal?
Depends on whether or not you've learned to throw a mental crop around the parts of scenes that make images. That's one reason using, say, a 50mm lens almost exclusively, as HCB did can help with instant recognition of a worthwhile image within a scene. The ability to crop images from scenes comes from extensive practice and experience, but also from careful and extensive study of what's gone before in visual art.
-
Hi,
As a photographer, you transform a scene to an image.
To get a worthwhile image you need to find a worthwhile subject that you transform into that image. Doing that transformation takes som experience an knowledge.
There are tools, like composition rules that can help. Composition rules don't make a good picture, but they offer some help.
Best regards
Erik
I am not sure I understand. Could you please share an example of an image with "universal appeal"? That way we would have a common understanding of what you are asking.
-
I am not sure I understand. Could you please share an example of an image with "universal appeal"?
A cute kitten, or a sunset with exaggerated colours.
That's the problem, "universal" will typically mean something extremely cliché. In comparison, pick a random person off the street which probably means somewhere in India or China and show them a Cartier-Bresson, or an Ansel Adams. I'd guess the response will be "Black and white, kind of boring..."
Art is always looking for a niche audience.
Partly that means one that recognises that some things are too easy and that one will quickly tire of them, so some level of education, some experience of trying to do, in order to appreciate that it's difficult. The same is true of cooking and getting beyond adding lots of sugar. Or sport: it's hard to appreciate golf if you haven't tried playing it (and even then...)
Partly it means that one feels important because one is of the "select" group sophisticated enough to understand the art... and so we have the self-perpetuating absurdity of conceptual art, and the admiring reviews of the Emporer's new clothes.
Of course one wishes to appeal to those in the first part, and not so much to those in the second, although that may not be where the money is. And then Dunning-Kruger applies...
-
Very well said, Graham. Bravo!
-
A cute kitten, or a sunset with exaggerated colours.
That's the problem, "universal" will typically mean something extremely cliché.
Exactly the problem. I don't think there is any image that has universal appeal when it comes to humans. That's why I was struggling with the question.
In comparison, pick a random person off the street which probably means somewhere in India or China and show them a Cartier-Bresson, or an Ansel Adams. I'd guess the response will be "Black and white, kind of boring..."
I am sure there have been all sorts of studies where they show people photographs taken by famous people but conceal the names and record their reactions.
I know for a fact that I can't produce a photograph that has universal appeal. I also know that I have not personally seen a photograph that I would even imagine would have universal appeal. But in the best Black Swan tradition, maybe there is such a photograph. At least I can't prove that it does not exist. :)
-
"the curmudgeons' corner"
I'm imagining a picture with black crows picking at a karkas in the corner of a fenced field. The corner is a useful opportunity for a triangular composition. The scene is bleak in saturation. Beyond the fence there is something of beauty, with selectively more saturation, perhaps "greener grass".
On the other hand, i possibly was ineffective at formulating the question.
-
There are hundreds of photographs (taken by others) that have significant emotional impact and relevance for me. These images may or may not have the same impact or relevance for other viewers. We each bring a unique set of personal experiences, education and predilections to bear.
I strive to take photographs of similar, high "quality". I find that, when "what resonated within me in the seeing", also resonates in the finished image, then I have been personally successful, and the image stands a better chance of having impact and relevance for others. There are no guarantees, of course.
Creating such an image is challenging. One only has so much control. I can research locations and weather reports and tides and such, but I get what I get on any given day and any given hour. A key aspect for me is being "open" to an opportunity. All too often my mind is cluttered with thoughts that distract from "seeing". Sometimes I have to walk for a couple of hours before I find myself "in the zone". Sometimes it doesn't happen at all that day. Sometimes there is serendipity.
When I am open to an opportunity (recognition), I begin to "previsualize", and then execute the exposure. Previsualization includes a general idea of how I might treat the shot with post processing, and also directs such choices as focal length, aperture and shutter speed. This is not a precise process for me. Sometimes I need to explore several compositions, and perspectives.
Somewhere inside my head are all those "great" images from others, too. I can't escape having seen them. Though I may benefit from having viewed them and understood what made them impactful and relevant for me, it's often counterproductive when they bubble up too closely to the surface of my consciousness.
The amount of post processing differs from image to image. Sometimes it's minimal. But I'm not afraid of applying whatever techniques I might need in order to try to replicate "what resonated within me in the seeing". I don't feel obliged to retain the "purity" of the original image (obviously I'm NOT talking about journalistic, nature or commercial work where accurate representation is required).
In the end, there are precious few personal photographs that achieve my goal of a continued "resonance" for me. I used to find that a bit dispiriting, but I don't anymore. I simply enjoy the pursuit.
-
When photographing, all we can do is work to please ourselves
I think that you have found the most important reason why those of us who are not professionals photograph!
-
There are hundreds of ...
In the end, there are precious few personal photographs that achieve my goal of a continued "resonance" for me. I used to find that a bit dispiriting, but I don't anymore. I simply enjoy the pursuit.
Thanks for a clear and concise answer.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/arts/fan-ho-photography/
"[Ho] thought that if you experienced a feeling when you saw a particular scene, you could capture it in a way that meant the photograph's viewer could also feel that emotion -- that's what he considered important. His pictures have a very strong emotional character. It's not dry, objective photography."
-
"[Ho] thought that if you experienced a feeling when you saw a particular scene, you could capture it in a way that meant the photograph's viewer could also feel that emotion -- that's what he considered important. "
I agree completely. But I find it challenging as a casual (meaning every now and then), amateur photographer. Fan Ho, HCB, and others who have earned their place among the greats of photography were/are wonderfully talented. But they were also dedicated and disciplined professionals (for the most part). The considerable work they did honed their skills of "recognition and execution".
-
I think I understood Oscar's original question, and I feel the chat's drifted well away from it, as I think has Oscar's own view of his question.(?)
But reverting to my original take: no, there is no way of making universally appreciated images, because even the type selected in this thread as being 'universal' fails: it doesn't caress my G spots. So it can't be trully universal. I am cold to kittens and pups, in snaps, but not in life: I have shed tears at the kittens that died on our terrace during the 80s when we had about twenty-three or more semi-wild cats mostly dependent upon us to feed them. My wife and I tried fruitlessly to help some weaker kittens suckle as the mothers just lay there, looking at us with patient sadness at our lack of understanding of Nature, why some kittens found a teat where others could not. (Jesus, if ever there was a practical demonstration about people not being created equal, it's found right there, in the cat world.)
I think that as photographers, we confuse the issue every day. We grow, develop this arrogance that it's about us, when the truth is that no, it's about our abilty to recognize what's been created and exists already, our part to play being nothing deeper than the seeing of that whatever. Then, and only then, can our photographic skills make or break the situation. I can't tell you how many times I have read well-known photographers admit to the same thing: that they can't go out to make pictures, only to find them. (I exclude paid photography from what I describe above, which is mainly about the different faces and forms of street.) Also, though I'm no fan of Mr Eggleston, I have read that he will only shoot his first impression of whatever; in that, I think he makes a strong point: it's recognition of essence that matters most.
And going a little deeper into it, touching upon Oscar's reference to the grammar of photography, without which the language can't exist and, consequently, the means to formulate meaning, education is key. As the illiterate can look at a book and grasp nothing, so it is with photographs.
I suppose that if it means enough to us, we delve deeply into the genre that appeals most, and through this exploration provide our own education; we discover nuances, styles and even formulae that together constitute a language, perhaps never so clearly defined as in the world of fashion photography where you can find trends, famed name immitating other famed name, the incestuous love being made everywhere within the genre. After a couple of years of immersion you realise that yes, you too can understand what's going down, because you learned the language! And better yet, the local dialect that does or does not get you preference.
As you require an educated photographer, so do you need an educated public to get what he/she is doing.
Does this mean anything? Perhaps it does, and that may be nothing more than that both parties must learn the rules of the game. Hence, it's pointless having a landscape shooter judge a fashion photography show. And probably just as pointless reversing the roles; a referee needs to know the game and its rules; a spectator, to be more than a simple fan and to enjoy the game, has to know both the rules and when the game is being played well. Omit any part, and its chaos that you see.
Rob C
-
Maybe I should have used the word "evocative" which better refers to language?
Is it easier to recognise an evocative photo, than it is to recognise an evocative scene?
To me appeal isn't necessarily about beauty. An evocative photo may transcend beauty, as many pulitzer images show. So, I believe there certainly is something like universal appeal in images, considering Nik Ut's napalm image for example. It's not pretty, but if that leaves you unstirred, you'd better visit a shrink.
-
We have a tv program that is meant to promote museum and gallery visits. They select two reasonably well known individuals (not celebs) and have them visit a museum. One episode was about a photomuseum. They selected a photographer and a presenter. The photographer is of playboy fame, and obviously familiar with nudity. Halfway through the program they enter a room where there is an image of a nude woman in a loungechair situated in a library with a small kitten on the ground next to the chair. Here private parts are prominently visible.
playboy photographer immediately dismisses the image as vulgar, claiming he at least tried to keep his images within a certain decency, and moves right on to the next image.
I'm like: what?
If that picture is in a museum, not generally known to be controversial, apparently the image contains something more than what is immediately obvious. So, after taking some time to think it through, I get it: the image is showing us the difference between a "pussy" and a "thinking human being with a rich emotional and intellectual background". (Unfortunately Google isn't your friend when trying to find that image as I've forgotten the photographer. I believe it was a self-portrait.)
Bottomline of this short anecdote: apparently shooting images within a certain frame of mind for too long, can also make you deaf...
-
Oscar,
Taking your reference to the Ut photograph first: that's not a picture that is governed by any form of aesthetics or regulatory parameters; that's simply a picture of a terrified, suffering child. It's the perfect example of the fabled "f8 and be there". The photographer will surely admit to no input beyond being on the spot and having the presence of mind to do his job. It's not about creativity in any language or use of an aesthetic grammar by which to express. It's a pure recording of a moment within a chain of them, of shock and disgust, and as such, removed from artistry. It doesn't share space with "Piss Christ" which, on the other hand, is intentional, also shocking and because intentional, hateful.
Playboy photographer. I don't know if you mean Playboy as in literally or metaphorically speaking. Either way, I share his sentiment. As I've said here often, I bought Playboy for years. I used to feel perfectly happy to have it lying around the house for the kids to look at if they chose to do so; I can't remember them ever thinking about it. However, came the sad time that Playboy felt under pressure from Penthouse and the scumbag press, and they began to go vulgar just to retain market share. I stopped buying, both for the sake of my developìng childen and because it wasn't where I wanted to feel myself drifting either, especially as I was photographing women for a living. There is a chasm between beauty and charm and its opposite: vulgarity and pornography.
You write: "I'm like: what?" I have to write: I'm so sorry you don't understand there's a difference.
As to deafness: are you then suggesting we really do live in a world where anything goes, and are you advocating that we should?
Rob
-
Taking your reference to the Ut photograph first: that's not a picture that is governed by any form of aesthetics or regulatory parameters; that's simply a picture of a terrified, suffering child. It's the perfect example of the fabled "f8 and be there". The photographer will surely admit to no input beyond being on the spot and having the presence of mind to do his job. It's not about creativity in any language or use of an aesthetic grammar by which to express. It's a pure recording of a moment within a chain of them, of shock and disgust, and as such, removed from artistry. It doesn't share space with "Piss Christ" which, on the other hand, is intentional, also shocking and because intentional, hateful.
Perhaps removed from artistry, but at least we can agree that it has "universal appeal" (where appeal doesn't necessarily refer to beauty).
Piss Christ may be less universal, since it requires one to be at least somewhat educated and broadminded about (other people's) religion to understand. But maybe that is the point: "appeal" may require one to engage the mind.
How do you figure the latter as shocking and hateful?
As far as the image is concerned without prejudice, it has exactly that certain representation of "Christ = the light" that its religious proponents like to believe. Further taking into account the emersion, one can both relate to the idea of commercialised symbolism, as well as perhaps a more or less universal struggle that most religious people go through at some point in their lives.
Playboy photographer. I don't know if you mean Playboy as in literally or metaphorically speaking. Either way, I share his sentiment. As I've said here often, I bought Playboy for years. I used to feel perfectly happy to have it lying around the house for the kids to look at if they chose to do so; I can't remember them ever thinking about it. However, came the sad time that Playboy felt under pressure from Penthouse and the scumbag press, and they began to go vulgar just to retain market share. I stopped buying, both for the sake of my developìng childen and because it wasn't where I wanted to feel myself drifting either, especially as I was photographing women for a living. There is a chasm between beauty and charm and its opposite: vulgarity and pornography.
You write: "I'm like: what?" I have to write: I'm so sorry you don't understand there's a difference.
As to deafness: are you then suggesting we really do live in a world where anything goes, and are you advocating that we should?
Rob
Yes, i meant "Playboy the magazine" photographer.
No, I wouldn't suggest anything goes, in fact, especially where artistry is concerned we need to (be forced to) engage our mind, but shock doesn't help at all in that regard. It turns people away from the message, instead of enticing them in to a new way of thinking. It is the equivalent of Ad Hominem name-calling and cursing in language, instead of weaving a story that actually makes you wonder and think.
But then, the level of shock is different for all people, I will readily agree with that. Nudity being one obvious example (although in the Netherlands we're not quickly offended). The point though is this: you go to a museum exactly because it allows you to engage the mind. You can't just dismiss a piece of art on the basis of gut-feeling alone.
I know you're an advocate of gut-feeling, and I can understand how you can judge beauty, composition, and balance e.a. using gut-feeling alone, especially if it has become second-nature to a (former) professional photographer (or artist). But clearly, just as with language, we are also obligated to use our mind as we try to convey and articulate a message as sender, or perceive and understand a message as receiver.
Seeing an image and recognising its evocative aesthetic, is sometimes hard. Recognising (or even creating) an evocative aesthetic in real life and being able to capture it, is equally hard, apart from the skill factor. The skill factor just is the difference between "understanding a new language" and "producing a new language". Understanding people in a new language usually comes sooner than being able to converse with people in a new language, but we are certainly able to explicate what we want to convey in our native language. In fact, we are probably using our native language sooner for messaging, than for understanding. And yes, that is because our gut-feeling tells us about our own understanding, but that is, at least initially, only for very self-centered intuition.
Hence, being stuck in the "I shoot only to please myself" is just a self-centered initial stage to grow to a more engaging interactive maturity.
-
Perhaps removed from artistry, but at least we can agree that it has "universal appeal" (where appeal doesn't necessarily refer to beauty).
1. Piss Christ may be less universal, since it requires one to be at least somewhat educated and broadminded about (other people's) religion to understand. But maybe that is the point: "appeal" may require one to engage the mind.
How do you figure the latter as shocking and hateful?
2. As far as the image is concerned without prejudice, it has exactly that certain representation of "Christ = the light" that its religious proponents like to believe. Further taking into account the emersion, one can both relate to the idea of commercialised symbolism, as well as perhaps a more or less universal struggle that most religious people go through at some point in their lives.
Yes, i meant "Playboy the magazine" photographer.
No, I wouldn't suggest anything goes, in fact, especially where artistry is concerned we need to (be forced to) engage our mind, but shock doesn't help at all in that regard. It turns people away from the message, instead of enticing them in to a new way of thinking. It is the equivalent of Ad Hominem name-calling and cursing in language, instead of weaving a story that actually makes you wonder and think.
But then, the level of shock is different for all people, I will readily agree with that. Nudity being one obvious example (although in the Netherlands we're not quickly offended). The point though is this: you go to a museum exactly because it allows you to engage the mind. You can't just dismiss a piece of art on the basis of gut-feeling alone.
I know you're an advocate of gut-feeling, and I can understand how you can judge beauty, composition, and balance e.a. using gut-feeling alone, especially if it has become second-nature to a (former) professional photographer (or artist). But clearly, just as with language, we are also obligated to use our mind as we try to convey and articulate a message as sender, or perceive and understand a message as receiver.
Seeing an image and recognising its evocative aesthetic, is sometimes hard. Recognising (or even creating) an evocative aesthetic in real life and being able to capture it, is equally hard, apart from the skill factor. The skill factor just is the difference between "understanding a new language" and "producing a new language". Understanding people in a new language usually comes sooner than being able to converse with people in a new language, but we are certainly able to explicate what we want to convey in our native language. In fact, we are probably using our native language sooner for messaging, than for understanding. And yes, that is because our gut-feeling tells us about our own understanding, but that is, at least initially, only for very self-centered intuition.
3. Hence, being stuck in the "I shoot only to please myself" is just a self-centered initial stage to grow to a more engaging interactive maturity.
1. Piss.
It takes a very isolated individual not to understand the significance of the photograph. And the significance is this: the man has sold his soul to commerce. It matters not whether one believes or does not believe in Christianity, any more than it does in the case of Islam, Hinduism or any other 'ism. The point is that millions do believe, and causing them gratuitous offence is not an artistic choice but a flagrantly commercial one, blame and guilt shared equally by himself and his promoters; for myself, I trust they rot in hell. It doesn't take a whole lot to understand the Charlie Hebdo situation, does it? Difference? Christians roll over more easily.
2. No, that's just spurious rationalization that comes, as ever, after the fact.
3. I don't agee with you on that. Being self-centred is a prerequisite to the life. In fact, that's borne out by the many famous artistic couplings that have ended in total disaster. Almost every star you can think of has been through a portfolio of partners; it's the also-rans who, being a little less self-centred, generally stay faithful, their personal lives, on balance, considered more important than their commercial ones. It's probably about choices, on one level, but I tend to believe that those choices are not real: we are what we have been designed to be with much of choice but an imaginary conceit.
What you are proposing is to become everyone's best friend, a situation unpleasant enough when you are at a stage of your career where you have no choice other than to be exactly that or starve. If you are an "amateur" then you need never accept such a situation. Should you imagine that you really can do everything, need to please everyone, then you're either crazy or have low standards. Regarding maturity: with maturity, normally, comes the realisation that one, if lucky, is perhaps good at one "creative" thing: the one that brings the most pleasure, which is perhaps why one's good at it.
-
Maybe I should have used the word "evocative" which better refers to language?
Is it easier to recognise an evocative photo, than it is to recognise an evocative scene?
To me appeal isn't necessarily about beauty. An evocative photo may transcend beauty, as many pulitzer images show. So, I believe there certainly is something like universal appeal in images, considering Nik Ut's napalm image for example. It's not pretty, but if that leaves you unstirred, you'd better visit a shrink.
I'm having to assume you're restricting the photographer as the only one recognizing an evocative scene when he/she sees it, and not a random viewer who may or may not later recognize it in a photographer's finished image.
A photographer's location would have a large influence on presenting more opportunity of coming across a variety of evocative scenes. Some photographers can travel across the world to exotic places they've never been to and shoot the typical tourist shot while another photog might go behind, around the top or sides of the scene at different times of the day under more evocative lighting and capture something no one would recognize as even coming from the same location but make the viewer see something totally out of this world and quite evocative.
That photographer would have to know from past experience that evocative scenes can be found this way anywhere on the planet.
This also brings to mind the important aspect a photographer can communicate which is intent, anticipation and expectation, all elements that are immediately understood no matter the language one speaks just by looking at a rectangle/square crop object hanging on a wall or flipping through a book. First there is expectation from the viewer that the photographer is saying something (without words), then there is anticipation that it will be clearly understood as the image speaks to the mind maybe in emotion and/or words after which intent will make a connection between the viewer and photographer.
No one can determine how this will unfold. It will be different depending on what the photographer communicates and the viewer is able to interpret. Some viewers will read more evocative meaning and ideas into an image a photographer never intended. That's the magic of image making and why it's such a rich and satisfying way to communicate to another human being.
-
I'm not sure about communication at all. To me, communication implies message, and also for me, message is not what goes down in photographs. What goes down are impressions of one mind's take on reality as found, or fantasy as derived from/imposed upon the unavoidable situation which confronts the tumescent photographer, hot little camera clasped to eye.
Most of the time my own non-pro (it's been so long since I was one, that I'll soon be able to get over that and not even mention the past as distinction of intent!) work is a surprise to me. Far fom having message or being a word from a wise mind, the snap is nothing more than the realisation of something out there that's trying to cach my attention for its own reasons, of which I know nothing. In short, making the shot is all back to gut, which might not cause Oscar a lot of joy. I can't qualify that need to click, and it's when people try that we end up with those absurd, hilariously pretentious artists' statements.
Unavoidably, it's again one of those factors that distances landscape photography from "meaningful" photography. Those beauty shots of Mama Nature without her knickers are saying nothing at all: they are just the holding up of mirrors. If the photographer enjoys the concept of being a mirror's frame, so well and good, but it's hardly much of a job. It's the guy who eschews her lipstick, powder and paint and goes into the storm, finds the rain on the windows and the snow in the streets that's doing some writing about something.
I agree with Tim's view:
" while another photog might go behind, around the top or sides of the scene at different times of the day under more evocative lighting and capture something no one would recognize as even coming from the same location but make the viewer see something totally out of this world and quite evocative"
or at least the first part of it; I cannot fully agree with the second part about what the viewer may be led into seeing, but the truth of the first is my own situation. I have shot for most of the past few years within the confines of two little towns, between which I live. I don't really care about the lighting at all, because it remains out of my control as much as does seeing the picture in the first place. Only when I do see the possible snap does it exist for me, so how can I plan for the position of the sun and even if I could, how would that make what's now fortune my slave? If anything, control like that, of subjects like that, would kill them.
I may have mentioned this before, but if not I have certainly been thinking it: as photogaphes we make too much of ourselves, and reverse-engineer our snaps into our own childen, when all we're doing is standing outside looking in at where the game's already in full swing. It all goes on without us.
Rob C
-
Sunday night I stayed at a property owned by the parents of a friend, in the Dordogne. It was once a grand home (built 1830); more recently a school for young ladies to learn household skills (including, reputedly, some rather carnal ones courtesy of the husband of the Directrice), before Alain and Moniqa bought it in 1995. They have since turned it into a crazy museum of "habitable art", of the contemporary-conceptual type. There is so much piled up that it could be easily mistaken for the sort of accumulation of rubbish found in the houses of old mad people.
Had I walked in cold, I would have walked out again with a one-word description.
However, the connection meant I got the explanations... and while the objects have really zero interest for me, the strings they pull or anchor for the owners are fascinating: so many ties to the history of their families, immigrants who came from Italy, who were treated like foreign dirt, imprisoned during the war by the gendarmes under Vichy, narrowly avoided being executed, transported to Dachau, marriages to obtain citizenship, citizenship refused because of illness despite fighting in the resistance, the history of the school and the women students and how the directrice came to be there... and what does it have to do with the story of sleeping beauty and the 7 dwarfs?
So it is still a pile of crap (with maybe one or two exceptions), but it's crap that tells stories... and so maybe it becomes art. Nothing much has absolute or universal value, but it is pregnant with meanings that are still relevant in a society that likes to forget that it was a fascist state under Petain. The construction of most of the objects... would have varied between trivial and painstaking.
A citation that stuck:
"The role of art is to remind us that life is more interesting than art"
Take that whichever way you will :)
-
Sunday night I stayed at a property owned by the parents of a friend, in the Dordogne. It was once a grand home (built 1830); more recently a school for young ladies to learn household skills 1. (including, reputedly, some rather carnal ones courtesy of the husband of the Directrice), before Alain and Moniqa bought it in 1995. They have since turned it into a crazy museum of "habitable art", of the contemporary-conceptual type. There is so much piled up that it could be easily mistaken for the sort of accumulation of rubbish found in the houses of old mad people.
2. Had I walked in cold, I would have walked out again with a one-word description.
However, the connection meant I got the explanations... and while the objects have really zero interest for me, the strings they pull or anchor for the owners are fascinating: so many ties to the history of their families, immigrants who came from Italy, who were treated like foreign dirt, imprisoned during the war by the gendarmes under Vichy, narrowly avoided being executed, transported to Dachau, marriages to obtain citizenship, citizenship refused because of illness despite fighting in the resistance, the history of the school and the women students and how the directrice came to be there... and what does it have to do with the story of sleeping beauty and the 7 dwarfs?
So it is still a pile of crap (with maybe one or two exceptions), but it's crap that tells stories... and so maybe it becomes art. Nothing much has absolute or universal value, but it is pregnant with meanings that are still relevant in a society that likes to forget that it was a fascist state under Petain. The construction of most of the objects... would have varied between trivial and painstaking.
A citation that stuck:
"The role of art is to remind us that life is more interesting than art"
Take that whichever way you will :)
1. They also serve who only stand and wait...
2. Maybe your monosyllabic comment, had it been made had the visit been a cold one, was on the money.
I love the Dordogne... which little town were you in?
Rob
-
"...message is not what goes down in photographs."
Messages or any form of communication is intrinsic within photographs or paintings or any framed object that show a human made an image and thus attempt to say something as to why they made the image. The photographer has no say in preventing communication or conveying a message. The viewer determines what is being communicated and it happens constantly by habit.
"I don't really care about the lighting at all, because it remains out of my control as much as does seeing the picture in the first place."
I agree about not being able to control certain aspects of what sets up a photograph worthy arrangement of lights, darks and colors. I just react according to past lighting arrangements I've encountered in similar scenes.
For instance the image below was my reacting to the color of my mini blinds in the morning inside my apartment that were a fiery golden yellow. I thought there was a fire blazing outside. Opened my front door to find everything was glowing golden yellow and immediately knew from living in Texas all my life this was weather related. I saw the clouds forming and ran into the nearby saw grass field and started shooting a couple of shots and was going to go back to my apartment and have my breakfast when I noticed the sun rising higher and affecting the shape and color of the clouds where you can see the second shot.
In those two shots I can't help but communicate to the viewer that the scenes are a once in a lifetime shot and that I was lucky enough be patient and wait there possibly risking getting struck by lightning.
-
1. Messages or any form of communication is intrinsic within photographs or paintings or any framed object that show a human made an image and thus attempt to say something as to why they made the image. The photographer has no say in preventing communication or conveying a message. The viewer determines what is being communicated and it happens constantly by habit.
I agree about not being able to control certain aspects of what sets up a photograph worthy arrangement of lights, darks and colors. I just react according to past lighting arrangements I've encountered in similar scenes.
For instance the image below was my reacting to the color of my mini blinds in the morning inside my apartment that were a fiery golden yellow. I thought there was a fire blazing outside. Opened my front door to find everything was glowing golden yellow and immediately knew from living in Texas all my life this was weather related. I saw the clouds forming and ran into the nearby saw grass field and started shooting a couple of shots and was going to go back to my apartment and have my breakfast when I noticed the sun rising higher and affecting the shape and color of the clouds where you can see the second shot.
In those two shots I can't help but communicate to the viewer that the scenes are a once in a lifetime shot and that I was lucky enough be patient and wait there possibly risking getting struck by lightning.
1. "I'm not sure about communication at all. To me, communication implies message, and also for me, message is not what goes down in photographs. What goes down are impressions of one mind's take on reality as found, or fantasy as derived from/imposed upon the unavoidable situation which confronts the tumescent photographer, hot little camera clasped to eye."
Quoting myself, above, I think we are looking at the same thing from opposite sides of the window. We are bound to see a different thing. You think that you see and state, whereas I think that I see but have absolutely no idea about what's being said. I can see it but not hear it, if only because I don't invent it: I come across it - it's already there, with or without me.
Obviously, I'm not writing here about staged professional or amateur work. In such cases there's often copy which has to coincide and make common sense with the image. Images like that can be or say anything the team wants them to be or to declare.
Rob
-
We are bound to see a different thing. You think that you see and state, whereas I think that I see but have absolutely no idea about what's being said. I can see it but not hear it, if only because I don't invent it: I come across it - it's already there, with or without me.
Rob
Seeing differently doesn't guarantee reacting differently. When one photographs something that strikes them, they are reacting to it. Seeing OTOH requires one to purposely go looking for something that is worthy to photograph but can't be foreseen unless they are familiar with where ever they decide to go seeing. Anyone can go looking to see. Reacting is what makes one photographer different from another in what they capture.
An example of this is Eggleston's shooting habits mentioned in this thread which look like he's not even thinking or seeing but just reacting to whatever his eyes land on. Some of his images wind up looking as if an insurance adjuster took them and others look hauntingly surreal and mysterious. But is that me interpreting them as such or is that the result one gets shooting the way he does? Did Eggleston learn this or come upon it by accident and just went with it the rest of his photographic career?
You take two photographers, one just takes his camera for the first time and waves it around pointing everywhere and anywhere and randomly trips the shutter over and over without looking through the viewfinder. No chimping to check if any of his images look acceptable.
The other photographer does the same which he's done several times in the past and so he knows what the results will be and the effects he will get if he changes up his timing and speed of where he points and then decides to trip the shutter.
I can guarantee you the second photographer will have more keepers than the first. Both did not know what subject or scene composition they were going to get so there was no thinking or picturing in the mind.
But a stranger comes along and looks at the first photographer's shots and compares to the second and is not aware they've photographed in that matter and decides he likes the first one's better than the second.
Clearly there's no accounting for taste because now the viewer is the third creative collaborator.
-
I take you argument, but it's not quite the same as mine, and in some ways totally different, accepting beliefs that I do not.
For instance, hosepiping a camera is not the same as simply going out with an open mind and, more importantly, an open pair of eyes, though I'm sure even one would do: witness Albert Watson.
Mr Egg. I can't stand, but I do go with his idea of shooting the first impression that triggers one's interest. It's often the best, and if it isn't, both in his case and mine, it's of no consequence, one way or the other.
But my opinion remains the same: going out with open eyes is not tantamount to going out wired to a directional mike! I post below a pairing of images that, for me, hang together well, but neither separately nor married do they tell me anything. My only cerebral intelligence on them is that Leiter inspired their making from the grave. But he didn't tell me anything, and neither do they.
(http://ssanse.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/50_orig.jpg)
"Clearly there's no accounting for taste because now the viewer is the third creative collaborator."
Indeed, he is a third party, but he is still not being told anything; he may imagine what he likes to imagine, but that's within his psyche and not the photographer's and certainly not of the lifeless subject. Because people often hear voices in their heads does not signify that voices are actually speaking to them.
Rob C
-
1. "I'm not sure about communication at all. To me, communication implies message, and also for me, message is not what goes down in photographs. What goes down are impressions of one mind's take on reality as found, or fantasy as derived from/imposed upon the unavoidable situation which confronts the tumescent photographer, hot little camera clasped to eye."
First of all, the situation was entirely avoidable, that alone makes it a conscious effort.
Secondly, by most definitions "the message" is not limited to language or words. In fact, the transfer of an impression of one mind's take on reality through a photograph, is exactly the kind of communication I would be referring to, especially when landscape is concerned.
You attempt to capture a certain mood. You at least need to be able to experience (or have experienced) the mood, in order to be able to recognise a scene that conveys a similar mood (for you personally). Fortunately, because we are humans with a certain innate sensory equivalence, we can transfer a mood or impression, and can reasonably expect that mood or impression to be received at the other end.
I have never claimed it would be exactly the same, but in abstract it should evoke an equivalence, otherwise no form of communication would ever be effective. Obviously, the more apt photographer will be able to combine several pictoral elements into a single photograph to convey even more than just a mood, in a similar manner that pictograms, icons, and emoticons can convey more than mood alone.
Note also, that I never claimed that this is how all photographers should operate or that it is some higher state that one should attempt to achieve, but the whole idea about "shooting to please oneself" on the other hand, is bordering Tourette syndrome, and exactly the kind of immature thinking that feeds terrorism. Terrorists also shoot to please some figment of their own imaginary making, but that hardly leads to constructive equivalence on the receiver's side.
-
Interestingly, I have a new project in the back of my mind for a series of pictures called "Determination".
Some of the intended images currently exist in my imagination only. They are entirely realisable in real life. The returning theme involves a small child. I don't have a small child readily available in my suitcase, so I talk to mothers. I explain the picture, the intended clothing, the setting, the props etc...
Fortunately, they immediately "get it", and when they bring me some of the props, not only am I convinced that they get it, but it can bring an additional input. So I'm confident that the project could successfully produce images where the intended "message" will be reasonably conveyed. The intended message being "determination". Of course, these will be staged photographs.
I also explained one of the images to family living in the US. I want one of those "endless highways" in a landscape of those slightly ominous vulcanic remnants as backdrop. I wanted to know where in the US those exist. I know they exist, I can transfer the idea of that picture, and they got it.
They tell me Utah.
Unfortunately, now I need to find a photographer who can do the shoot for me, short of starting a kickstarter funding project to go there myself, since I don't life anywhere near there. The advantage though is that the image is easily transferred in language to be conceived by (in)direction, and, moreover, I might be able to come home with a better picture, because it will be quite easy to find a better photographer than myself...
Speaking of direction: wouldn't all movies fail miserably if it weren't for a director with a vision and a story and the ability to transfer at least one of these to a lot of people involved in production?
-
1. First of all, the situation was entirely avoidable, that alone makes it a conscious effort.
Secondly, by most definitions "the message" is not limited to language or words. 2. In fact, the transfer of an impression of one mind's take on reality through a photograph, is exactly the kind of communication I would be referring to, especially when landscape is concerned.
You attempt to capture a certain mood. You at least need to be able to experience (or have experienced) the mood, in order to be able to recognise a scene that conveys a similar mood (for you personally). Fortunately, because we are humans with a certain innate sensory equivalence, we can transfer a mood or impression, and can reasonably expect that mood or impression to be received at the other end.
I have never claimed it would be exactly the same, but in abstract 3. it should evoke an equivalence, otherwise no form of communication would ever be effective. Obviously, the more apt photographer will be able to combine several pictoral elements into a single photograph to convey even more than just a mood, in a similar manner that pictograms, icons, and emoticons can convey more than mood alone.
Note also, that I never claimed that this is how all photographers should operate or that it is some higher state that one should attempt to achieve,
4. but the whole idea about "shooting to please oneself" on the other hand, is bordering Tourette syndrome, and exactly the kind of immature thinking that feeds terrorism. Terrorists also shoot to please some figment of their own imaginary making, but that hardly leads to constructive equivalence on the receiver's side.
1. Irrelevant, in that avoiding doing anything doesn't mean that anything specific is being said, even in a figurative manner. It's (the snap one may make) no more than a pleasing (to the snapper), silent shape. Getting out of bed in the morning means little beyond the requirement that one faces before having breakfast. Now, had I been a supermodel in the 80s, I'd allow that 10,000 dollars makes a pretty good message for getting up; best reveille yet!
2. Again, I think you confuse a pleasing shape with the totally different concept of a message. A shape is just that, and it may or may not please somebody. A message is a precise thing, unless from an illiterate. In fact, it's unfortunate that you cite landscape as a prime example, for it's the very genre that says almost nothing to me unless very far removed fom the normal range of human vision; it at least needs to go into black/white, but still no message...
3. That's the very danger facing society today! Equivalence is imprecise and open to interpretation, resulting in Chinese whispers, where after a couple of stages it becomes nonsense vis-à-vis the original idea, (if there was one, when we translate this into images rather than words.) I reiterate: we sometimes take too much credit for what we do, rationalising after the event to our greater glory - we'd like to think.
4. Now I know you're joking!
;-)
Rob
-
Interestingly, I have a new project in the back of my mind for a series of pictures called "Determination".
Some of the intended images currently exist in my imagination only. They are entirely realisable in real life. The returning theme involves a small child. I don't have a small child readily available in my suitcase, so I talk to mothers. I explain the picture, the intended clothing, the setting, the props etc...
Fortunately, they immediately "get it", and when they bring me some of the props, not only am I convinced that they get it, but it can bring an additional input. So I'm confident that the project could successfully produce images where the intended "message" will be reasonably conveyed. The intended message being "determination". Of course, these will be staged photographs.
I also explained one of the images to family living in the US. I want one of those "endless highways" in a landscape of those slightly ominous vulcanic remnants as backdrop. I wanted to know where in the US those exist. I know they exist, I can transfer the idea of that picture, and they got it.
They tell me Utah.
Unfortunately, now I need to find a photographer who can do the shoot for me, short of starting a kickstarter funding project to go there myself, since I don't life anywhere near there. The advantage though is that the image is easily transferred in language to be conceived by (in)direction, and, moreover, I might be able to come home with a better picture, because it will be quite easy to find a better photographer than myself...
Speaking of direction: wouldn't all movies fail miserably if it weren't for a director with a vision and a story and the ability to transfer at least one of these to a lot of people involved in production?
Have you heard of the phrase, moving the goalposts?
;-)
Rob
-
2. Again, I think you confuse a pleasing shape with the totally different concept of a message. A shape is just that, and it may or may not please somebody. A message is a precise thing, unless from an illiterate.
Message = intent, the intent to transfer an emotion or sensory experience. In this case "pleasing", but as mentioned previously, the experience may have nothing to do with pleasure or beauty.
For me great art reminds me that I'm human. I'm reminded of being human when I'm triggered to engage my mind, especially doing so without prejudice. Or more emphatically; especially doing so while overcoming prejudice. And if a photographer attempted to capture "just beauty" I will attempt to perceive the beauty. Sure, I may not succeed, and most certainly it will be a different perception of beauty, but it doesn't mean that, because of that difference, everything we shoot is now fair game and we no longer need to "engage our mind" while actually producing a picture, even if it is just beauty we're trying to capture...
And for the record: yes, I do believe that even beauty has a universal element, even though it exists of course more in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't mind seeking that elusive universal element of beauty my entire life like a modern-day Don Quichot. In fact, I may even consider it a prerogative if photography was my occupation. And at the end of my life I may well find that it was never there, and that life itself was the beauty that needed to be captured. But then, I am not occupationally burdened by being a photographer, nor am I Don Quichot, so WTH do I know...
-
Message = intent, the intent to transfer an emotion or sensory experience. In this case "pleasing", but as mentioned previously, the experience may have nothing to do with pleasure or beauty.
For me great art reminds me that I'm human. I'm reminded of being human when I'm triggered to engage my mind, especially doing so without prejudice. Or more emphatically; especially doing so while overcoming prejudice. And if a photographer attempted to capture "just beauty" I will attempt to perceive the beauty. Sure, I may not succeed, and most certainly it will be a different perception of beauty, but it doesn't mean that, because of that difference, everything we shoot is now fair game and we no longer need to "engage our mind" while actually producing a picture, even if it is just beauty we're trying to capture...
And for the record: yes, I do believe that even beauty has a universal element, even though it exists of course more in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't mind seeking that elusive universal element of beauty my entire life like a modern-day Don Quichot. In fact, I may even consider it a prerogative if photography was my occupation. And at the end of my life I may well find that it was never there, and that life itself was the beauty that needed to be captured. But then, I am not occupationally burdened by being a photographer, nor am I Don Quichot, so WTH do I know...
WTH does anyone know?
;-)
Rob
-
Warning, off topic :)
I love the Dordogne... which little town were you in?
We stayed two nights in Mensignac, with a foray into Périgueux. The Museum/Crazy house was at St Médard d'Excideuil... there is 75km between them via the scenic route, so I handed the car to Claire and rode the bicycle via minor roads through the forest... lovely :)
-
"Clearly there's no accounting for taste because now the viewer is the third creative collaborator."
Indeed, he is a third party, but he is still not being told anything; he may imagine what he likes to imagine, but that's within his psyche and not the photographer's and certainly not of the lifeless subject. Because people often hear voices in their heads does not signify that voices are actually speaking to them.
Rob C
I was hoping you'ld reframe what you consider lifeless subjects and other random acts of capturing a scene by the photographic process as providing a moment of enrichment for the viewer and not just voices in their head. Some folks find this world fascinating no matter where they're located on the planet.
I guess a photographer would have to hang around enough of these people to actually see how their work is of value in this regard. A lot of these untapped audiences can't get to a gallery to view them.
-
Note also, that I never claimed that this is how all photographers should operate or that it is some higher state that one should attempt to achieve, but the whole idea about "shooting to please oneself" on the other hand, is bordering Tourette syndrome, and exactly the kind of immature thinking that feeds terrorism. Terrorists also shoot to please some figment of their own imaginary making, but that hardly leads to constructive equivalence on the receiver's side.
"To Please Oneself" is a loaded and complex statement which I don't feel can be simply summed up by comparing it to what a terrorist does. "Pleasing" is a subjective term made that way by the self. It feels like you're implying that if that's the only motivation then it is the same for everyone as some kind of broad brush on the aesthetic tastes of each who operates within this type of deceptively impulsive motivation. Not everyone is pleased by the same things which can produce some interesting looking POV's.
-
"To Please Oneself" is a loaded and complex statement which I don't feel can be simply summed up by comparing it to what a terrorist does. "Pleasing" is a subjective term made that way by the self. It feels like you're implying that if that's the only motivation then it is the same for everyone as some kind of broad brush on the aesthetic tastes of each who operates within this type of deceptively impulsive motivation. Not everyone is pleased by the same things which can produce some interesting looking POV's.
No, I certainly don't want to imply that. I sense however, that some people like to imply this as a result of their own limitations in effectively communicating through their pictures. Clearly, if you're in a group of some kind, and you intentionally go out to shoot something individually appealing or with only egocentric appeal, you may end up with interesting and useful coffeetableconversation. At least it is a conscious choice and a preconceived intent within a certain context.
If, however, people start to advocate this type of motivation on the feeble excuse that the audience is some kind of chaotic and random receptor, then we are getting dangerously close to narcissism.
-
I'm somewhat bemused by the direction this thread's taking. It started off with the promise of a certain fecundity, that it would lead to an interesting exchange of MOs whereas, to my disappointment, it seems to me to have drifted into that no-mans land just this side of attacksville.
To make my own position crystal clear:
a. when I was working, it was pretty much always a matter of making the best of the situation with which I found myself presented. Sometimes I had choice of model or location and sometimes not; when my instincts were frustrated like that, I just did my best to produce as good a technical end result as I was capable of producing - I didn't want to lose clients and I needed the work. My head was seldom filled with preconceived notions of what the images were going to look like: I simply winged the whole thing. To my joy, many years later, I listened to a David Bailey interview where he was asked if he planned his portaits well in advance. He said no, never; he just spent an hour or so chatting, and that gave him an inkling of how the subject might function. He went on to say that were he to pre-plan, he'd just hand the job over to somebody else to shoot for him. I know exactly what he meant;
b. now that I'm not working, I continue in the manner to which I've always been accustomed to work: I wing it. Totally. Digital makes that oh, so very easy and safe. The thought of having a shooting plan would cross my mind once or twice, in my early days of retirement, and almost always meant that I came home without making a single shot - not one exposure. Which in film days, was a brilliant piece of fiscal self-censorship! Today, I eshew plans of any sort - not just photographic ones. So the very idea of setting out at some time during the day intent on doing x, y or zee is absolutely alien to me.
When I do make a click, it's because something has appealed to me, and I feel I'd like to look at it again and, with luck, transform it into something more than itself. That's the second huge plus of digital for me: I can start with the probably mundane, and sometimes turn that around into an interesting (to me) picture after the event. But hey, Adams did no less. On some rare - very rare - occasions I will find a caption come into my head, right out of the blue, and then find something that sort of fits. But by the time I've finished with the thing, the caption probably vanishes into that deep pit of good intentions.
So there it is: I shoot without a plan, guided only by an instinct which, maybe, can be called an eye or, perhaps, luck, depending on how charitable one feels.
-
To make my own position crystal clear:
...
So there it is: I shoot without a plan, guided only by an instinct which, maybe, can be called an eye or, perhaps, luck, depending on how charitable one feels.
I don't feel charitable at all, as you may have noticed... ;-)
two questions come to mind:
1. Was there never a time that you stumbled upon a scene but wanted to wait for better circumstances to capture whatever you sensed in the gut? Say, better weatherconditions (not necessarily meaning better weather) or whatever. So you had to wait a couple of days and pass on the opportunity?
2. What are you trying to achieve combining your life's work into a book? What will be explained in the accompanying text?
-
I don't feel charitable at all, as you may have noticed... ;-)
two questions come to mind:
1. Was there never a time that you stumbled upon a scene but wanted to wait for better circumstances to capture whatever you sensed in the gut? Say, better weatherconditions (not necessarily meaning better weather) or whatever. So you had to wait a couple of days and pass on the opportunity?
2. What are you trying to achieve combining your life's work into a book? What will be explained in the accompanying text?
1. Insofar as pre-planning goes: weatherwise, yes, I have often wished it would rain or, better yet, snow just so I could get some effects I can't get in the normally dryish weather of Mallorca. I've also wished that I could win the lottery. Such thoughts are simply desires for a different set of opportunities to see something different to the usual things that I now almost can't see anymore because of over-familiarity. I don't see that as any form of previsualisation, though - just as wanting to play a different sport.
2. No, I've tried the book idea and it got nowhere; my interests are not those of any popular press as such, and I imagine would not tempt any publisher into spending vast sums of money in the hope of making even more off my efforts. I did try a couple but to no avail: one was polite and the other not quite on the wrong side of brusque! But then, as Harry Potter also had a very long gestation period, I don't take offence that easily. But the bottom line is that I've pretty much run out of time- or so it feels.
What I am doing - have done - is start a sort of magazine (virtual!). Where I supply the content. I think Issue 1 is about to be published somewhere - will keep you posted if it flies. I have begun Issue 2, which will be a refined version (with different material) of the original issue which is basically a flying test-bed of visual structural ideas - and having got this first one out of the way, I feel a greater certaintly about direction. I can tell you one thing: it is a damned sight more difficult to put together than any calendar design ever was!
Rob
-
I fear that the notion of communication is almost as vague as that of art. I find little interest in images that are secondary to words, while pretending not to be: that is what I think would be achieved if I had a pre-conceived notion of an idea I wished to communicate. If the image is explicitly to illustrate text, so be it, but that sounds more like technical illustration of a car repair manual.
What interests me are ideas that are captured within an image, more or less by chance, so that the image is primary. The image is what it is, and it stimulates ideas in the mind of the viewer (whether that be the photographer or painter or someone just viewing the result). It will likely stimulate different ideas in different individuals, or in the same person on different days, wherein the interest of an image rather than a description of what the image is "supposed" to be about. Further information may stimulate other ideas, but they are still coming from the image. For example, I saw a portrait of Isabelle Huppert by Eduard Boubat a few days ago. I adore the photo as it is; I am more interested because it gives me a little more info about the style of Boubat; the fact that Huppert is quite young makes me wonder if it was very early in Huppert's project of being photographed by a long list of famous photographers. Maybe even it was the first, or outside the series? Looking at the photo also suggests something to me about the interaction (or brief relation) between photographer and subject, and I can think about that relative to the other photos in the series.
So there is lots of information arriving in my head because of the photo, but it is being towed behind the photo, rather than pushing the photo from behind.
Then to turn this around, writing is itself more ambiguous than we often realise: the meaning a reader gives to a word is rarely the result of looking it up in a dictionary, but comes from the reader's experience of hearing that word in certain contexts, bits of which remain stuck to it. It's a huge problem for writing across languages, but even across cultures with nominally the same language. Those who've written technical or educational documents will have had the realisation that in many cases the words are never read, but replaced with what the reader imagines you wrote. Moreover, the same questions arise: does one lay out a plan for what one will write, or does one let characters create themselves in the writing, which then steer the narrative? My attempts of fiction have followed the second option, which seems to align with the way I take photos. That may not be coincidence.
-
Very nice statement, Graham, and beautifully put.
In essence, it all brings me back to one of my own prime tenets: the only truly interesting photography is about people, individuals, and/or what they produce. It also echoes much of what Russ writes here, too. Today, you find it only in some street and fashion - slightly in the latter and probably not at all in the realm of PR where one actress is a clone of the one beside her. And models fare no better. Obsessed as I may be with them, unlike during the 60s I find it impossible to identify them with any certainty; maybe Laetitia Casta still cuts it as an individual, a distinct personality. The rest have all been metaphorically merged in Layers, many Layers. Quite why the sytem doesn't twig that only distinct characters have much chance of continuity, I honestly don't know - Marilyn is remembered for being Marilyn, the character she invented and played for the rest of her life. In all kindness, who recalls Jayne or Mamie when the topìc of iconic blondes comes along?
The Isabelle photograph is so much in the vein of the many great shots I've seen of Françoise Hardy, all, in their turn, memories of Juliette Gréco. It was an era thing: 50s followed by the younger girls in the 60s and the start of Swingin' London.
Your writing style is, I'm sure, directly related to your photography, as I think is my own. These things are a product of our wiring, and I doubt we carry that many different platforms up there under the hair - or remnants therereof. So in conclusion, no, I don't think just coincidence.
Rob
-
Lovely piece of thought trails Graham~ Several nice koan-like bits for those who make room for the "sticky bits" of life and experience. Thanks for the thought flow~
Lumine!
-
I'm somewhat bemused by the direction this thread's taking. It started off with the promise of a certain fecundity, that it would lead to an interesting exchange of MOs whereas, to my disappointment, it seems to me to have drifted into that no-mans land just this side of attacksville.
To make my own position crystal clear: ...
I'm also bemused that as usual this thread has turned into the Rob's thoughts on photography discussion. And if participants don't formulate their comments and opinions that allow Rob a segue for that to happen, he sees it as a disappointment and somewhat of an attack.
But since he's now mentioned he may not have time left to write a book, I have to wonder now if I'm abusing the infirmed. I don't know where I'm at in this thread.
Every photography forum I try to find online that I can meaningfully engage in either turns out to be a kindergarten of millennials ankle biting each other or a back rubbing for dusty, retired photographers.
And as usual there are over 1000 views of this thread and yet only 2 to 3 views of the posted image examples which tells me most of the folks reading this thread aren't logged in to LuLa.
-
I'm also bemused that as usual this thread has turned into the Rob's thoughts on photography discussion. And if participants don't formulate their comments and opinions that allow Rob a segue for that to happen, he sees it as a disappointment and somewhat of an attack.
But since he's now mentioned he may not have time left to write a book, I have to wonder now if I'm abusing the infirmed. I don't know where I'm at in this thread.
Every photography forum I try to find online that I can meaningfully engage in either turns out to be a kindergarten of millennials ankle biting each other or a back rubbing for dusty, retired photographers.
And as usual there are over 1000 views of this thread and yet only 2 to 3 views of the posted image examples which tells me most of the folks reading this thread aren't logged in to LuLa.
Care to amplify?
Is the objection that I don't agree with everybody else; is it that I have that awful complex - an opinion of my own?
FWIW, my disappointment is not that views differ (from mine) but that I seem to be dealing with some of the wilfully blind. Of course, it might be that I lack the ability to express myself well enough - in which case - not much I can do about it. Unless, of course, I just play politics and say yeah! wonderful idea from Mr X, even if I think he doesn't get the point by a million miles?
Or, I could just say a pox on all your houses. But that would mean I'd miss a few folks I appreciate. One or two have already walked. Tough life for us dusties.
Time: who can tell how long each has? Who would want to know? I can only go by the average, and the knowledge that I'm probably one of the last men standing of my group. Not a cheery thought.
;-)
Rob C
-
FWIW, my disappointment is not that views differ (from mine) but that I seem to be dealing with some of the wilfully blind.
Rob C
That's just another way of saying you think others have not brought new information to Oscar's topic by calling the photogs here as willfully blind. So why even post any replies if you have this opinion of the contributors? But yet you went on over and over and then needing to clarify again this useless obvious point that doesn't even address the topic...
I just did my best to produce as good a technical end result as I was capable of producing - I didn't want to lose clients and I needed the work. My head was seldom filled with preconceived notions of what the images were going to look like: I simply winged the whole thing.
Every time we posted our opinions we thought were interesting and added new info on the topic, you reminded us again that you shoot like you did when you worked as if you thought we were correcting or arguing with you.
If you want an interesting topic then you need to step up as well and not post with a dismissive tone to the rest of the contributors and bad mouthing other famous photographers as if you knew them in relation to how they shoot within the context of Oscar's topic. No one asked your opinion on these photographers with such comments as I don't care for XXX photographer. What the hell does that have to do with the topic?
-
That's just another way of saying you think others have not brought new information to Oscar's topic by calling the photogs here as willfully blind. So why even post any replies if you have this opinion of the contributors? But yet you went on over and over and then needing to clarify again this useless obvious point that doesn't even address the topic...
1. Every time we posted our opinions we thought were interesting and added new info on the topic, you reminded us again that you shoot like you did when you worked as if you thought we were correcting or arguing with you.
If you want an interesting topic then you need to step up as well and not post with a dismissive tone to the rest of the contributors and 2. bad mouthing other famous photographers as if you knew them in relation to how they shoot within the context of Oscar's topic. No one asked your opinion on these photographers with such comments as I don't care for XXX photographer. 3. What the hell does that have to do with the topic?
1. "Every time we posted our opinions we thought were interesting and added new info on the topic, you reminded us again that you shoot like you did when you worked as if you thought we were correcting or arguing with you."
How odd; I was simply explaining why I believe as I believe. The only validation of point of view is that found in what we actually do; I'm sure you could write any number of theoretical variations on that, as could I, but the reality is inescapably in what we do.
2. ?
3. I'm left wondering what, exactly, the topic has become.
"And as usual there are over 1000 views of this thread and yet only 2 to 3 views of the posted image examples which tells me most of the folks reading this thread aren't logged in to LuLa."
Is this a complaint that few have waxed eloquent over your landscapes? FWIW. the most interesting photograph, for me, has been the Boubat one, and I did respond to it.
Rob C