urban ku # 75 ~ Sunday afternoon sky

Sunday afternoon at Stewarts • click to embiggenOn ku # 477 (immediately below) Paul Maxim stated, 'Last week, in fact, I posted a question on such a forum asking the photographer why they'd posted a particular image. What was the "message", I asked? I simply didn't "get it". I received a very curt reply that there didn't have to be a "message" - they just "liked it". Apparently, I'd hit some "artistic" nerve'

IMO, this has relvance to another recent photo forum post titled, Do we over analyze images?. The general consensus was that they did analyze (technique-wise) pictures to a fair-thee-well but that was what they were suppose to do on a site dedicated to "learning", which is accurate enough if you are only concerned, as this site is, with technique/technicals. The site does dwell on things technical/technique almost to the exclusion of all things dealing with intellect/emotion in the medium of photography - except, of course, for the ever-popular emotion of "wow". Get beyond "wow" with message/meaning on the site and, as Paul also states, 'Images that do appear to have some underlying "meaning" are rarely commented on. They seem to make people nervous.'

So, when Paul asked about meaning/message, I don't think he hit an "artistic nerve" as much as he ran smack-dab into the middle of a left-brain wall. Photography, as a hobby, has much to offer the left-brain crowd. For those who are inclined to look first at the pieces, then put them together to get the whole, cameras, lens, sensors, rules of composition and so on are full of pieces that can, in the camera club/hobbyist world, occupy the mind endlessly. Meaning/message, if it matters at all, definitely comes low on the totem pole. Even then, mesage/meaning is always wrapped up in a preoccupation with 'easy' meaning/message of "wow" and "pretty".

Speaking for right-brainers, one person offered a dissent of sorts by stating, 'I think humans over-analyze everything ... When you look at a photograph and start to analyze it for flaws, or color balance, or saturation, or a host of other qualities, do you realize that you have lost the connection to the image that drew you to it in the first place?

This was meet with this response, 'That certainly does not mean that we should not be stringent and very serious about creating as powerful an image as we can, but we do need to strike a balance between our emotional awareness of the beauty of an image and analyzing which criteria it does and does not meet.'

Apparently, in the left-brain world, if one wishes to create 'as powerful an image as [one] can', one must be 'stringent and very serious' about technique/technicals and then, when the picture is viewed,
'analyz[e] which criteria it does and does not meet'.

IMO, even though left-brainers have given the world much, most (not all) are at a distinct disadvantage in the world of Art. Just take a look at this right brain and left brain inventory and decide for yourself which 'inventory' is best for making Art.

What kind of brainer are you?

Addendum - so, does being a left-brainer make you a 'shallow' person? IMO, not necessarily - unless a person's make up is so utterly dominated by logic/reason that intuition, empathy, compassion are totally banished to the pointless forest (see The Point).

Update on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:39AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bret Kosmider wrote: "... I took the test ... Turns out I'm 70/30 right/left. Until now I'd classify most of my work as that shallow "wow" factor beauty-only crap. I still shoot that crap too. But according to the test my brain has a majority in the right column (and can overrule a veto too!) So am I merely fulfilling the "need to apply yourself to develop your potential" aspect of my right-brainyness? ... I should include that I've taken up the challenge to "apply myself" in the area of critical thought in my photography."

My response: I'm not a 'doctor' but I'd say you're on the road to developing your right-brain potential but always be aware that, if you wish your photography to be an extension of 'true' inner self, much of that 'critical thought' needs to be about yourself, not just your photography.

Comments

[Brett Kosmider]

I took the test, and once I got past the formatting errors in the right/left table I realized that not everyone is going to be 100% right or left. In fact, I think it would be rather odd if someone was. Turns out I'm 70/30 right/left. Until now I'd classify most of my work as that shallow "wow" factor beauty-only crap. I still shoot that crap too. But according to the test my brain has a majority in the right column (and can overrule a veto too!) So am I merely fulfilling the "need to apply yourself to develop your potential" aspect of my right-brainyness?

I should include that I've taken up the challenge to "apply myself" in the area of critical thought in my photography. Right now its sitting on my hard drive. At least I've exposed a few dozen rolls of film. They just need to cook a little longer...