man & nature # 61 ~ love sick for wow - that's not amoré
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 08:18AM 
Clinging vine on chain link fence • click to embiggenI always enjoy checking my stats, especially the Recent Came From category which tells me where a visitor came from if they came via a posted link on another site. Knowing where visitors came from and reading what others are writing regarding The Landscapist, my photography, my thoughts and ideas, and, on occasion, regarding what they think about me is both entertaining and informative. It is also gratifying to know that The Landscapist has followers from all over the planet.
It also pleases me in no small way that most of the Recent Came From links are from sites/blogs on which there is a fair amount of thoughtful commentary and interesting pictures. This doesn't come as much of a surprise in as much as my commentary and my pictures are, if nothing else, intended to provoke thinking.
That said, it's on to ISSUE NO. 2 - impact. Recently, while checking out a Recent Came From link, I came across this comment about my pictures:
... messy creation : no stronger impact and no immediate emotion.
The comment reflects a rather common reaction to my pictures (as well as to most of those pictures (by others) that would be considered to be Fine Art photography). This reaction is most common amongst the rank and file of the "serious" hobbyist photography world. Rarely do I hear it from the non-photographers who view my work. Rarely do I hear from that same group when they are viewing many of the Fine Art photography books that sit on surfaces all around my house.
What I hear most often from those who are not "photographers" is something along the lines of - "I would never have thought of taking a picture of that", and, "I'm not sure I get it but it's interesting".
IMO, in this case what distinguishes the non-photographers from the "photographers" is the fact that the non-photographers just simply look at pictures with absolutely no expectations other than to see what is depicted. They are not looking for any of the usual photography world rank and file suspects, so what it comes down to for them is whether or not what is depicted has any interest for them (or not). There is no photographic "pane of glass" between them and the subject.
Now I am not suggesting that non-photographers are not "wowed" at the "immediate and strong" impact of dramatic, color-saturated, camera-club fare of standard iconic referents, but what I am suggesting is that they seem to intuitively understand the premise that a picture maker who hasn't follow the sacred photographic proscriptions has nevertheless presented them with an image of something that he/she (the picture maker) deems worthy of their (the picture viewers) attention.
I can actually see them "working" at trying to "get it". They really do seem to be trying to, as W. Eugene Smith stated, "get inside and know the subject".
Without any photographic expectations pane of glass between them and the picture, they seem to get what Garry Winogrand's intentions were when he made pictures:
For me the true business of photography is to capture a bit of reality (whatever that is) on film ... if, later, the reality means something to someone else, so much the better.
In attempting to find something meaningful in a picture that doesn't have an immediate and strong impact, they seem to intuit that the picture maker had something to say and that, if they think about it, some kind of understanding will result. They seem to intuit that a picture can be more than just a form of entertainment, more than just a bit of delicious eye candy that, one moment, you eat and, the next moment, you excrete and flush down the toilet.
These "thinking" viewers also seem to understand another of Winogrand's ideas about photography:
No one moment is most important. Any moment can be something, and, Anything and all things are photographable
In other words, impact of the lasting variety can be found in the most surprising places and that, to a thinking, curious, and seeking person, impact doesn't have to come screaming at you with the immediacy of onrushing locomotive. That, as long as you are not afraid of the "dark" (aka, the unkown), impact can creep up upon you like a ghost in the night to surprise and delight you in ways that you never expected or imagined.
To my way of thinking, the impact of discovering something new, especially so when I have to "work" at getting it, is so much more rewarding that the impact of seeing something, no matter how dramatically it is presented, that I already know.
IMO, for a picture to have impact, I don't believe that it has to hit you eye like a big pizza pie or make you drool just like a pasta fazool. At first sight, bells don't have to ring ting-a-ling-a-ling, ting-a-ling-a-ling and your heart doesn't have to play tippy-tippy-tay, tippy-tippy-tay like a gay tarantella.
No. Not at all. Those are not signs of amoré, those are the signs of infatuation.
When it comes to making pictures with lasting impact (something more akin to true amoré), I like Morley Baer's advice:
Quit trying to find beautiful objects to photograph. Find the ordinary objects so you can transform it by photographing it.
By doing so, one is much more likely to transform the way the viewers of your pictures see the world around them and maybe even transform the way they think about it.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Tommy Williams wrote: "I want to look at photos that I have to think about but I don't know enough about photography (or at least that's what it seems to me) to be able to distinguish the photos that are worth thinking about from those that are just poor photographs, or, perhaps more correctly, to be able to determine whether my inability to find a deeper meaning and intention is due to a lack of my own knowledge and understanding or because the photographer had no intention or ability to make a photograph with deeper meaning."
my response: I wrote about this back in June on my ku # 522 ~ it's matter of educated opinion entry. You may want to check it out.
Reader Comments (5)
You're in fine "voice" this morning Dean-O
thanks, Don but ... scuzza me, but you see, back in old Napoli that's amoré
This post reminds me of my years at university studying film. Man did that kill the magic of movies for me! The illusion is gone and left is a cold analytical approach to watching films.
However, I find photography to be very different, because to me it is all about the depiction of real things. The more real photography is the more impact it has on me. Reality is such a buzz - fiction is such a bore.
Naturally I've come to detest most of the overmanipulated photography that is becoming the norm among the conform-not-so-advanced-when-you-think-of-it-internet-amateur-photographers out there. The glorious Velvia like coulours, cartoonish mathematical order of things and Disneyesk romatication of nature is pure fiction IMHO. It's clutching at straws at best - The eternal story of humankinds futile obsession with making order of the world through science and religion.
I've just let go and accepted the fact that it's all a big mess, but that doesn't mean you can't find beauty and serenity within it. That brings me to your work which I feel kinda’ the same about. You share, through your nature work at least, a vision of nature "as is". It’s raw (=chaotic), yet there is always some kind of beauty (=hope) within (ref. recent kus #537, 536, 532 and 531). Your man and nature work play on some of the same tangents. Nature seems to always be in focus as to imply the insignificance of man and his creations which are usually only partly depicted.
I, too, love my "recently came froms" - fascinating (and sometimes a little depressing).
Last night I watched a TV programme on Love in Art (by the ever excellent Alan Yentob). One of the many observations was that true love defies separation. Good photography is like that (the amore you speak of). "Wow" stuff is instantly forgettable for me. I want something more, to have the picture in my mind when I walk away, to cause me to want to return. Your work is very much in that category - it sticks in my mind and wants me to come back and look again.
and on that note, I don't look at Flickr, an absolute waste of time: signal to noise way too low.
I want to look at photos that I have to think about but I don't know enough about photography (or at least that's what it seems to me) to be able to distinguish the photos that are worth thinking about from those that are just poor photographs, or, perhaps more correctly, to be able to determine whether my inability to find a deeper meaning and intention is due to a lack of my own knowledge and understanding or because the photographer had no intention or ability to make a photograph with deeper meaning.
Another challenge I have is my love of color: I just love color. I have little patience for the typical photos that catch the eye as a Flickr thumbnail but my favorite photos that I take have strong color components. And it's not because I want to produce eye candy because my compositions--when I let myself be free--are full of all kinds of things and I am always trying to put more things into the picture rather than simplifying.
I like complicated pictures with pre-school colors, I guess, and I don't quite know what to do about it--for now, I'm trying to do what I like and ignore what I think *should* be done, regardless of which aesthetic I think I might appeal to.