ku # 541 ~ that which stands in the thin shadow of what I know
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 10:41AM 
Ice, twiggy things, a few leaves, some leftover grasses and some things that lie beneath the surface • click to embiggenPicking up on the "pure" picture thing, Andreas Manessinger left this comment regarding seeing with the eyes of a child:
...For me it means to see things without their attached meanings, seeing them pure, without context, without any judgement that is beyond the realm of the visible ... if my meaning of "pure" correlates with yours at all, then seeing "pure" is only a beginning. I see something, bereft of meaning, but when I make it an image, I put meaning into it, and that can be completely unrelated to what normally would be associated with the subject ...
Well, let me state, right out of the gate, that Andreas' meaning of "pure" does correlate to a great extent with mine.
Without a doubt, when I am out and about making pictures I do respond almost exclusively to the world around me in a cognitive manner that is purely in the "realm of the visible" - on a cognitive level, I make pictures of things because of how they look. On that level it really is that "simple".
On another level, I am also very comfortable with my purely subliminal unthought known regarding what it is that I find interesting about the way things look - those things that I am seemingly preternaturally attracted to during the act of picture making. In other words, I don't think about why I picture the subjects I picture, I just picture them. To use Andreas' words, at the moment of picturing, my referents are essentially "bereft of meaning".
Andreas also stated that "...when I make it an image, I put meaning into it...". I tend to agree with that idea in as much as when I make an image, I have, at the very least, elavated the particular referent in question to a status of being worthy of my attention.
In a very real sense, I am randomly collecting "specimens" for later study and inspection. And, for me, that's where the medium of photography gets really interesting.
Sure, sure. I really do like to just look at my pictures. I find them to be very visually engaging, interesting, and attractive. To be, in fact, quite beautiful. They look very nice hanging on a wall or in a POD book. But, of course, as I have frequently stated, I prefer pictures that both illustrate and illuminate. So it should come as no surprise that it is the illuminating qualities of my pictures that I find quite interesting.
It is on that level, the one in which I start to discover meaning(s) in my pictures "that can be completely unrelated to what normally would be associated with the subject" that I begin to really connect with my pictures. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that, the more I can be engaged in the process of discovery of meaning in my pictures, the more I think that I have made a "pure" picture. It seems that way because any given picture that so engages me seems to be drawing me in because it is telling me something about my self and and my self's relationship to the world.
All of that said, it appears that my notion of a "pure" picture is coming a bit more into focus.
FYI; Lest you think that I am engaged in photographic form of extreme narcissism, it should clearly understood that I find many of the pictures made others to hold the same pureness that I find in my pictures. Their pictures often engage me in a similar process of discovery in ways that are every bit as illuminating as any of my pictures are to me.
An outstanding example of pictures made by others that engage me - in this case, those of Michael Lundgren - can be found here. Be certain to read the his statement.
Reader Comments (3)
In thinking about this I have realized how impure my photos are and how they become more impure all the time. I go through the cycle of taking pictures and thinking about them and then taking more with that new insight. I have realized that my thoughts about meaning and themes are central to my pictures. At one time I thought that I was a pure photographer, that I was responding purely visually to my subject. But I realize that even those older pictures that I considered mainly visual at the time were actually controlled by ideas and themes. I thought about meanings and ideas all the time. I have never been a pure photographer. In the moment of shooting at times it may seem to be pure, but my ideas and thinkings are there. It may not be fully conscious, it may be just on the edge of my conscious, but it is always there. It informs what I find interesting to photograph and what I respond to. It informs where I go to take pictures and what I take pictures of. It is my context.
I did not decide to photograph The Mississippi in St. Paul, for instance, because of a purely visual experience. I found it interesting because it related to pictures, formally, that I had taken in the backcountry of Yellowstone and to pictures along roads in rural Minnesota. And intellectually (and visually I suppose) it was interesting in that it was both a natural thing and a manmade thing, a monster I suppose half alive half machine. And it is about transportation and waterways, two things that in thinking about my previous pictures I realized those pictures where about.
One of my interest is in taking pictures of ugly and uninteresting thing, but they don't turn out ugly and uninteresting. Why is that?
I am realizing just how conceptual or "impure" my picture taking has become.
Do I dare stir this up. A line in the article about Michael Lundgren relates to the conversations we've had here about artist statement and words with photography.
The important phrase to me is "artistic context"
Mark,
I've had no time to comment much, but I have to say the "layers" both expressed and implied in this picture give it remarkable depth despite the fact it is looking at the "surface."
With regards to "purity," I was thinking of pictures I had taken that spoke to some sense of pureness. At first I thought of images that contained minimal elements, but these really aren't "pure," because they're hiding behind a veil of abstraction. Can a very simple photo - with its subjects reduced to graphic shapes, tones and colors - be "pure?"