ku ~ a brief "batty" history
Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 10:48AM 
Well, well, well. Scratch my back with a hacksaw. I have always believed that there is very little new under the sun, but thank you, Peter Henry Emerson (courtesy of Steve Edwards and his book Photography: A Very Short Introduction) for making it perfectly clear.
Peter Henry Emerson (1856-1936) is considered by many photo historians to have made a greater impression on Victorian photography than any of his contemporaries. His photography and ideas about photography succeeded in laying down the foundations of a new, unsentimental type of work, and laying the groundwork for the Photo-Secession movement. Heavy stuff, that.
Emerson's big idea at the time was "Naturalistic Photography" - his main claim was that one should treat photography as a legitimate art in its own right, rather than seek to imitate other art forms; imitation was not needed - it could confer its own legitimacy without it.
Emerson's feeling was that pictorialism was becoming somewhat bogged down due to sentimentalism and artificiality. At the same time, others were becoming dissatisfied with the fact that the Photographic Society had become too concerned with scientific rather than with artistic aspects of photography.
Emerson urged that photographic students should look at nature rather than paintings, that one should look at the range-finder or focusing screen and see what kind of pictures this created. He felt every student should "..try to produce one picture of his own...which shall show the author has something to say and knows how to say it; that is something to have accomplished..."
Sound familiar?
Emerson also argued that a photographer should imitate the eye. He claimed that one only sees sharpness in the centre, and that the image is slightly blurred at the periphery, and therefore suggested that one should make a photograph slightly out of focus in order to achieve that effect, merely ensuring that the image in the centre is sharp. In his book he wrote: "Nothing in nature has a hard outline, but everything is seen against something else, and its outlines fade gently into something else, often so subtly that you cannot quite distinguish where one ends and the other begins. In this mingled decision and indecision, this lost and found, lies all the charm and mystery of nature."
Had a good look at my photographs lately?
In Photography: A Very Short Introduction, Edwards states (regarding this imitate-the-eye approach to photography) that "'[i]t ought to be apparent that Emerson's attempt to model the photograph on a particular conception of the retinal image was quite batty (though, it is no worse a a picture for that). Interestingly enough, it is this very approach that I take to my photography that also drives most camera-clubbers batty. It also drove many of Emerson's peers rather batty as well.
And, for the NPNers in the room, Emerson was not the easiest of people to get on with, and was inclined ... to make sarcastic and vitriolic remarks...
Sound like (ocassionally) somebody you know?
PS - I have finished Photography: A Very Short Introduction. It's an easy, informative and thought-provoking read and, for the most part, avoids any protracted dips into academic obtuseness. Consequently, I am upgrading my previous Must Read Alert to a MUST READ MUST READ - that's a rare double-dog MUST READ alert for this book. I will be bloviating on various ideas and issues raised in the book for quite awhile.
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote (in part); "... the stuff about "imitating the eye" (Emerson) is unadulterated nonsense. The eye may, in fact, see that way (in much the same way that it "sees" things upside down), but the brain doesn't interpret the image that way. It fills things in. Even if the outer regions of the "picture" in reality are out of focus, the brain (and you) sees everything in focus. Saying that a photograph that's fuzzy on the edges and includes very obvious vignetting is "more like we really see" is simply not true...."
Featured Comment: Steve Lawler wrote (in part); "Add me to the Emerson camp. The thing that struck me while following this thread is that in many respects we're discussing the difference between "looking" and "seeing," between the physical capabilities of the organism and the image we "feel." ... Photographic technology of allows us to create sharper images than ever before, yet more often than not, I prefer the impressionistic approach..."
publisher's comment: Mary D., you're totally freaking me out.
Reader Comments (10)
Well, you almost had me "hooked" yesterday with the diatribe against AA, but then he's never been one of my favorites anyway, so I figured what's the point in commenting. Nor was I going to be foolish enough to weigh in on "what's art and what's not". That debate will go on forever. I will say, however, that I really don't agree with your take on "idealized forms" (although I'm not completely certain of your definition of the term).
But today's post - now that deserves a response. Some of it is just plain silliness. I have no problem with photographers who are trying to depict the world as it exists (in all of its bland, natural messiness). That's their business. It doesn't move me at all, but that doesn't mean it's in any way "artistically" deficient. As always, it's a matter of personal taste.
But the stuff about "imitating the eye" (Emerson) is unadulterated nonsense. The eye may, in fact, see that way (in much the same way that it "sees" things upside down), but the brain doesn't interpret the image that way. It fills things in. Even if the outer regions of the "picture" in reality are out of focus, the brain (and you) sees everything in focus. Saying that a photograph that's fuzzy on the edges and includes very obvious vignetting is "more like we really see" is simply not true. As for the rest of what Edwards seems to be saying, well I guess I'll have to read the book first.
No wonder nobody liked this Emerson guy......
I have to disagree. As I write this, my eyes are focused on the screen and my brain does not tell me that my dog, which is off to the right of me is in focus. I can plainly see, "out of the corner of my eye" that she is out of focus unless I shift my attention that way, then the screen goes soft and slightly doubled, due to its proximity and angle. I am letting my left brain let go of trying to "make it look right" and actually "see" what is before my eyes. Of course, the one thing I have no control over is the upside down factor that my brain automatically does, as does everyone else's, but I do have control over whether or not my brain decides to "fill in" the rest of the information for me or if I let myself actually "see". What I actually see is a clear area of focus and the rest is soft.
First Mark, I'm not sure Paul Butzi would appreciate being the author of the quote you've attributed to him. He might not agree with it!
And Michelle, you're absolutely right. You can indeed force your conscious brain to see the out of focus areas in your overall field of view. Most of the time, however, we don't do that. When we see things out of focus (like we would if we picked up the wrong pair of glasses), the brain tends to rebel and trys to "correct" the problem. It very much prefers order and recognizable patterns. When you're not thinking about it, your dog will seem to be "in focus" no matter where it appears in your field of view (partly because your brain has a reference - you've "seen" it many times before). But thanks for making the point.
Paul,
I still have to differ with you and that may be because my brain is different, and again, that may also be because I wear glasses too, but my peripheral vision is always soft. My brain never forces things into focus and order. I guess over the years my brain has just accepted that the edges are blurred and that is the way things are. Then again, I just may be different all around. After all, I can write with both hands at the same time in two directions, so I guess I am hardwired differently than most.
I just picked up the Edwards book at the library last week, but got distracted with the Sally Euclaire book you recommended. Funny that some of Emerson's thoughts about photography vs. painting have striking parallels to the push for color photography's acceptance as an art form in the 1970's.
As far as imitating the eye by being blurry on the sides, Holgas and Lensbabies spring to mind. Where does science end and the mystery of our dreams begin?
Cheers,
Joe
Add me to the Emerson camp. The thing that struck me while following this thread is that in many respects we're discussing the difference between "looking" and "seeing," between the physical capabilities of the organism and the image we "feel." Personally, I only notice peripheral focus when I concentrate on that field of vision: it's almost as though it doesn't exist until then. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes to mind.
Photographic technology of allows us to create sharper images than ever before, yet more often than not, I prefer the impressionistic approach. A similar debate rages around composite images created with HDR (high dynamic range) tools such as Photomatix or EasyHDR. It's just an effort to depict what we see in our mind's eye...
Well, well, well, scratch my back with a hacksaw! I knew I recognized the name. It was last spring when the St. Louis Art Museum had a special exhibition called "Impressionist Camera--Pictorial Photography in Europe, 1888-1918" that I was particularly taken with an image (the original I believe) entitled The Snow Garden from 1895 by none other than Peter Henry Emerson! I had to look it up in the companion book that I bought at the museum and lo and behold, page 83! What struck me about this image at the time was it's utter simplicity and naturalistic feel. Loved it then and I love it now as I sit looking at it again in the book. In the text of the book there is a quote from Emerson's writing about photography that says the photograph was "as true an index of your mind as if you had written out a confession of faith on paper."
Photography that documents objects is different from photography that records an impression of a scene. Sharp focus gives the viewer the ability to see all the objects in the scene or most of 'em anyway, while an impressionistic photograph conveys what the photographer thought. BTW its not necessary to have dark edges unless you saw it that way. You might have looked around with clear eyes or you might have just been hit in the head. IMHO of course.
I think this is the one Mary is referring to...I like it a lot too!
http://www.geh.org/ne/str117/m197700180012.jpg
Yep, that's it Aaron! Thanks.