civilized ku # 90 ~ more on "plain seeing"
Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 09:12AM 
Folating things in a pool • click to embiggenA couple comments from Friday's entry, wherein I offered up the idea of plain seeing as a means to creating more meaningful pictures, touched on what I feel are related issues.
The question - If the plainly shown is the best way to draw connection to an underlying message, does one not run the risk of looking for meaning in every plain photo? (from Martin Doonan) - and the comment - Ruskin is not talking about "plain seeing", but rather plain retelling of what one saw ... there is nothing plain about seeing for Ruskin; he says 'see clearly' which is a skill he feels few possess. (from Mark Meyer) - that I feel are related have to do with a bit of confusion about what I meant by plain seeing.
Let me be clear from the outset that I agree with Mark Meyer when he states that seeing clearly is a skill that Ruskin believes few possess. Although, to address Martin's question, IMO, many a snap-shooter is capable of making pictures that are full of meaning (both for themselves and others) because most often they picture from the heart something that is important to them. And, lacking any art training or pretensions, they almost always picture in a rather plain manner. Anyone having any doubts about this should acquire The Art of the American Snapshot, a book from the traveling exhibition (of the same name) from the National Gallery of Art. I also wrote about it here And, PS - I don't think finding meaning in shapshots places you in the lunatic fringe.
That said, on to seeing clearly / plain seeing. I believe that plain seeing is a skill that is hard to come by as seeing clearly. And, while I agree that there is a distinction between them, I firmly believe that there is also a connection as well.
In order to see clearly one must approach the notion of seeing as free as possible from the affectations and preconceptions / expectations of the cultural paradigm of which one is a part. Unless one is possessed of a preternatural sense of seeing clearly (highly doubtful), one must discover the art of it by just seeing without feeling like you know the answers - notion that I would label, plain seeing.
Think of it as if there were a pane of glass between yourself and everything you picture. Do you think you would have a better chance of seeing clearly if the glass were clean and clear or if the glass were streaked with grime and dirt? Now think of cultural affectations, preconceptions, and expectations as grime and dirt. This idea is similar to that expressed by Eugene W. Smith:
Most photographers seem to operate with a pane of glass between themselves and their subjects. They just can't get inside and know the subject.
Dirty glass is a barrier to getting inside and knowing the subject.
I also that seeing clearly is an after-the-fact discovery for the photographer. For virtually every photographer who is making a body meaningful pictures, there was a process of discovery, of learning, about their chosen referent. The work we see is the work that results from an extended examination by the photographer of a referent that they now know something about - most likely only after a period of learning, the pictures that we usually don't get to see. Know any birds that fly right out of the shell?
My contention is that one can only arrive at seeing clearly by first employing plain seeing - a state of unaffected receptiveness, thinking without falling asleep - as a means to getting inside and knowing the subject.
In should also be understood that by plain seeing I do not mean picturing without a sense of photographic aesthetic. The best of plain seeing is manifested in the form of plain telling (the print) which may appear to be snapshot-ish and artless, when in fact, it is anything but a snapshot.
My pictures are often described as mere snapshots - meant to denote a failing. Comment such as, "looks like the shutter was tripped accidentally", or, "looks like you were shooting randomly - I don't know what the subject is" I intentionally cultivate that impression for reasons having to do with finding beauty and meaning in what our culture calls the "mundane", the "everyday". I want to create a plain telling that is as free of artistic barriers as possible.
However, what I do know about my pictures, is that, to the educated eye, they display a subtle and rather sophisticated sense of design which creates a sense of cohesiveness from what seems to be a disparate conglomeration of elements. Those who have a grasp of the mediums formal characteristics known that things that appear to be "random" are actually quite deliberated.
What I have found to be very interesting about this approach is that it is very successful at conveying meaning to the 2 ends of the viewing public spectrum - those with absolutely no understanding of Art at one end and those who do at the other end. Both seem to easily intuit and connect to what I am saying. Some go "deeper" than others but all seem to understand at least a part of the meaning I try to put into my pictures.
Equally interesting is the fact that those who have trouble connecting with / understanding/ appreciating my pictures is almost exclusively the domain of the "serious" amateur photographer. The ones who expect exactly what our cultural paradigm expects of its "art" - to be spectacular and to reinforce its conventional notions of beauty and the photographic "rules".
To conclude, I believe that seeing clearly comes from first engaging in plain seeing. They are indeed "different" notions but are, nevertheless, inexorably linked. Like Ruskin, I believe that the fruits of seeing clearly are best expressed (told) in a plain way - prints free of obvious technical excesses wherein the hand of the artist maybe subtly manifest - but never as the point of a picture in and of itself - in order to draw the viewer to what really matters most in the best of Art - meaning. And, yes, the ability to see clearly and tell plainly and do so deliberately, is a precious ability possessed by a relative few.
Reader Comments (6)
The "serious amateur photographer" is no more interested in art than the wood worker ordering plans from The New Yankee Workshop is interested in furniture design. They are interested in getting the technical aspects of there tools "correct" in order to match someone else's created idea. They just want to build the nice looking chair they saw Norm build on the show. Nothing wrong with that. It's a lot of fun for the hobbyist. It just ain't art.
Funny never felt a sens of randomness. On the contrary some times i feel a bit of constriction in the ways you put things together. For example this one seems a bit to much perfect.
The same happens to me sometimes with the decay series (but as you pointed out those pictures are for big enlargements so i am not in the position to comment upon).
About seeing, i am still elaborating on this theme. I am not so sure that one can suspend any kind of judgement while seeing, and i do not even consider the possibility of unconstrained seeing. Seeing is in large part training, there is no image before it's interpretation by the brain (a lot less than a raw file I would say).
Hi Mark,
I see your ku series is still going strong. Glad to see you found a place to chew on photographs in more detail.
-mk
My photography is nowhere near Marks or others on this site and my education as to photography and art are not on the level of those here, but my "seeing" has changed very much in the last year.
I compare my seeing as to driving a car. As the driver you are watching the road and other cars but as a passenger you see things all around you that you never noticed while driving. I feel it is the same way when making pictures. Anyone can see the scenic shot of a mountain but miss the real life around them.
If only for amusement, Zen has a take on perception:
http://tinyurl.com/62mtql
"The point of Buddhism is to just see. That’s all."
I somehow doubt any human can "just see", but it's certainly a toss of the iron filings into the Western philosophical circuitry.
In my opinion Buddhism has much to offer that directly applies to our western circuitry. I often wish I had the discipline and courage to really follow where it leads.
I like the word fresh better because I think it is more to the point. The idea of seeing fresh (clearly and plainly) I believe is contrary to the way our brain works most of the time. In order to deal with the vast amount of information that is constantly being fed to it by our senses it has to generalize and categorize so it can get it out of the way of the stuff it perceives to be important (correctly or otherwise).
I think (and my brain sometimes agrees!) that the practice of seeing fresh (hearing for a music lover, etc.) is an exercise (meditation) that will gradually refocus our vision (consciousness) over time.
I view each of my images (successful images that is) as the result of a number of meditations, much the way heating with wood warms one a number of times before actually burning it.