ku # 826 ~ Autumn color # 49 / on seeing

Red leaves / blue berries ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenWhile I was away I did have some time to ponder the notion of seeing and the most prominent conclusion that resulted was that neither teaching nor learning how to see is an easy undertaking.

That said, clues and hints, re: the act of seeing, can be found quite readily in the words and, quite obviously, in the pictures of those who are very successful at seeing as well as putting the results of that act into their pictures. And, make no mistake about it, seeing and making good/interesting pictures of what you see are 2 distinctly different skills.

To be perfectly clear on that distinction, I would opine that while many are very accomplished at making pictures, relatively few are very adept at seeing anything beyond what everyone else sees, aka: the obviuos. They are, in the words of Brooks Jensen, making pictures that represent what they have been told (or conditioned to believe) are good pictures ...

Real photography begins when we let go of what we have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what we see ~ Brooks Jensen

And, relative to the making of such "good" pictures, Jensen also states that ...

... eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives a technical plateau where production of technically good photographs is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit

... hence, the many who are adept at making "good" pictures but are failures, re: the act of seeing. They are very good at noting the obvious - what everyone else sees - but no so good at really seeing the not so readily apparent.

One reason (amongst many) that this is so was addressed by the American artist and teacher, Robert Henri, in his book, THE ART SPIRIT ...

The greatness of art depends absolutely upon the greatness of the artist's individuality and on the same source depends the power to acquire a technique sufficient for expression ... [T]he man who is forever acquiring technique with the idea that sometimes he may have something to express, will never have the technique of the thing he wishes to express ... [T]he technique learned without a purpose is a formula which, when used, knocks the life out of any idea to which it is applied ... technique can only be used properly by those who have definite purpose in what they do, and it is only they who invent technique. Otherwise it is the work of parrots ....

To wit, most would-be artists put the cart before the horse. Their efforts are first directed at acquiring / "mastering" technique when, in fact, they should be learning how to see. By first acquiring technique they become slaves to the technique and can only see the world through that lens (photographically speaking).

All of that said, you've read it before and I'll write it again - want to learn how to see?

STEP # 1 - remember to forget. Forget about all that you have been told is a good picture. Start to look at the world around you and begin to see what you can see.

STEP # 2 - one camera, one lens is the way to go. Simplify the technique / technicals and get on with the act of making pictures for the act of making pictures will help you to be able to connect with the act of seeing.

Comments

[Sven W]

Good points. It's too easy to be derivative of other people's images and even our own [previous] images. Personal photography is supposed to be about self-expression, isn't it?!

The images that please me the most are the ones I look at and think "Did I take that?" i.e somehow they don't look quite like the images I normally take (or what I expect myself to take).

I've heard of the one camera / one lens idea before, but you've made it very clear why it has a benefit. In my humble photography, I get by with a point-and-shoot (in program mode, it doesn't have full manual). Sure it puts limits on what I can do but I still keep taking photos I like. I spend less time thinking about lugging equipment and technical options and therefore more time on taking a [simple] picture of whatever catches my eye.

[A. Cemal Ekin]

I have read several posts related to this discussion since I came to your site from my site statistics reporting frequent visit from your site. I got intrigued, and here I am putting my two cents worth.

"Seeing", I believe, is not a static thing. It not only changes, or should change over time, but also gets affected by our experiences. I will also suggest that photographic seeing may very well differ from seeing in painting or sculpting. In sculpting, the sculpture is in the stone the artist removes the unnecessary parts, "subtraction". In painting the painter "synthesizes" the finished work by adding content. Where a photographer "selects" what to photograph, a process akin to analysis.

In the process of "seeing" one needs to refer to ones "database" of mental images, mental photographs. It is the connection of a detail, a gesture, a faint smile, to a mental image that generates the "seen" photograph. At the bottom of all this is a "prepared mind" equipped with some level of knowledge of photography, photographic tradition, the characteristics of the medium, some level of understanding the concept of art, and aesthetic sensibilities. One cannot see by looking harder but by learning about the issues I mentioned above.

I have several blog posts that relate to these issues, I will be glad to provide a list if anyone interested. This kind of discussion, interestingly, is one way of learning how to see. I will also recommend John Berger's "Ways Of Seeing" book, and if you can find the BBC program with the same title that he made in the 70s I believe, you will really enjoy the book.

I will close by paraphrasing Peter Galassi as told by him in one of his writings. He looked at Szarkowski's "Looking at Photographs" and said (I am paraphrasing) "John, these are ordinary pictures of everyday life". To which Szarkowski replied "what do you think photography is about?"

Cemal