The art of selection is not a creative act?
The art of selection itself to me is a creative act, because it resonates with somethign intangible within me, and that's my creative heart. My inner vision.
It starts within, and not without. And we all need tools to express this creativity. The object to be photographed can also be seen as a tool of sorts.
The without, the "what I see out there" is an affirmation of that intangible within me that is suddenly woken up in an "aha" moment.
The giving of myself to the visual and the receiving, the answering as-it-were, of the visual back to me creates an internal energy, a creative moment and flow, and is often the foundation for hours of this energized shooting engagement.
Also, shooting style, is a form of more than just selection. It says something about the mind, the creativity within, the inner vision of the photographer. For example, people have told me that I have a particular style. Is a photograph by Alfred Eisensteadt the same as one taken by Annie Leibowitz? Of course not. Style to me is creativity. Just like Picasso, Rembrandt; I see selection as mere process of the creative. Give those two photographers the same scene and see what they do with it; they will select according to their creative inner vision. This inner vision always precedes the actual scene to be shot.
Selection, as you call it, is therefore a primary act of creativity. A painter selects colors, brushes, canvas size, etc. Many (not all) photographers select scenes as part of their creative expression.
I manipulate images like crazy and you could say that I do graphic arts based on images I shot. I often shoot with a pre-conceived idea in mind and a then find and indeed select something appropriate to shoot. Yes, I then select, but at heart is a different more primary inner visionary process.
True, in that sense, all creativity is an art of selection. Like my brother who is a sculptor. He selects marble or granite, certain tools, hammers, etc.; he also depends on the material of what he can do with it (not all stones can be turned into what one envisions; there are limitations due to the inner structure of the stone).
I select in my mind what I want to achieve, what my creative mind desires. My choices. Choices are always selections,; selections of possibilities, even dreamed up ideas that cannot be realized. In that sense, this article uses the right term/word. But at the same time it just is so much more than that.
I improvise music on the piano. Is that being selective or creative? Isn't it both, all at once at the same time? Does one precede the other? I personally don't think so. One creative musical sequence leads to the "selection" of the next, and this process goes well beyond the issue of what comes first. I believe they are simultaneous. And when you improvise, who's in control? The tonality? The key? The mood? The style? Who's listening? The lights? Ambient noises? Feedback?
Often all of it!
In that sense, despite the otherwise intriguing point made, I still find the article a bit unnuanced, and I would encourage Andrew Molitor to expand it, refine it, and be creative with it.
Below is an image I shot this way on purpose with a 6x6 camera, with the express purpose of turning it into a composite of some sort. That is: I saw it, and then it got my creative juices flowing and then I came back to it with the right camera and shot it and then manipulated it later on. No creativity happens in a vacuum, but builds on what already exists and evolves it further with creativity. This is true for architecture, painting, music, etc.
