civilized ku # 2047-48 ~ separated at birth
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 11:22AM 
Whiteface flags and poles ~ Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
St. Patrick's Cathedral and street signs ~ New York, NY • click to embiggenDuring a recent drive, errand wise, I was halfheartedly listening to NPR (National Public Radio). There was an interview going on with Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the book on which the movie of the same name is based.
The only thing I took away from the interview was a quote from the author:
I look at what I write to find out what I am thinking.
Without quibbling over the author's use of the word "look" - I am certain, in the complete context of his statement, that the word "read" would have been a better choice - I immediately thought that, with the change of the word "write" to the word "picture", it was a very thought provoking statement about pictures, as in ....
I look at what I picture to find out what I am thinking.
It has been stated, IMO correctly so, that the best pictures are most often made by a picture maker who discovers, listens to, and the follows his/her inner voice. The result of that following is labeled by most as vision. Thus, a frequent form of picture making advice, re: finding your vision, is to picture what really interests you and to picture what you see in the personal manner in which you see it.
However, I do wonder if picture makers who discover and listen to their inner voice actually know where that voice is coming from, in a know-thy-self kind of way. IMO, hearing the inner voice and understanding / knowing its conscious and subconscious roots are 2 separate forms of self awareness.
I would also opine that a picture maker who hears his/her inner voice without knowing where it's coming from, is fully capable of making good meaningful pictures. That is possible when a picture maker pictures in a manner which could be labeled as intuitive picturing. That is, picturing a subject (actual or inferred) without knowing exactly why one is drawn to picturing it.
That said, there are those (myself included) who believe that making pictures which are the result of "intuitive" picturing can be part of a process of self-discovery, aka: getting to know one's self. Think of it as form of therapy without the the therapist, albeit not necessarily less expensive.
I got to thinking about all of this because the quote from that interview coincided with a Oneowner blog entry. DOES STYLE CHANGE by Ken Bello. In that entry, Ken stated:
... Internal and external influences and environment can and do exert some control over a photographers’ work but I think a lot of photographers cultivate a style that they want and stick with it. Since this photo was shot the digital era revolutionized photography and that alone can have a profound influence on on one’s work. But if the photos are a form of self expression, then it would be difficult to change photographic style unless you change yourself ... Or I could be wrong.
As with the use of the word "look" in the aforementioned quote, I believe Ken would have been better served by the use of the word "vision" in his question and statement - although, that said, the notion of "style" and what that word means in the context of the question was visited in some of the entry comments. And, in fact, it is not my intent, in any, shape, or form, to quibble about the use of the word "style".
Ken raised his question as a result of scanning and posting a picture he made over 25 years ago. He stated that he would most definitely be attracted to and make a picture of the same referent today, although, he "might not use the exact same framing". Ken further stated that, even today, he was "proud" of the picture. Consequently, his first question to self was, "... how can we hope to do better if we are drawn to the same material all the time?"
IMO, being drawn to the same material is not necessarily a deadly sin, picture making wise. The real question regarding that proclivity should be, why am I drawn to the same material? Which, as far as I'm concerned, is also part and parcel of the question, why do I make pictures?
I suspect that, for most, the answer to those 2 questions is actually rather simple. They make pictures because they enjoy making pictures. It's a fun hobby. They enjoy making pictures of which they can be "proud". Pictures which, to most viewers, look good on the wall. Consequently, they are drawn to the same material - "material" which they have been told will make good pictures - over and over again because ... well ... they are primarily concerned with making pictures that they have told are good pictures.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH EITHER THESE ANSWERS OR THE RESULTING PICTURE MAKING ACTIVITY.
I have previously stated on many occasions that I believe pictures fall into one of 2 categories: Decorative (a lot of illustrative qualities but rather short on illuminative ones) or Fine Art (illustrative and illuminative). That is not to deny that some pictures fall into a kind of betwixt-and-between category which resides along the fringes between the 2 categories.
For those picture makers of a Fine Art persuasion, the answers to the 2 questions are most often decidedly different from those of the Decorative picture makers. They make pictures because they have to make pictures - their inner voice comes from a much deeper place than that of the Decorative group*. Even if they do not recognize where that voice is coming from, they know it to be demanding of both attention and action. It is imperative that the voice be explored and expressed.
It is also common amongst the Fine Art crowd that they are most often drawn to the same "material". However, that "material" is most often that of the illuminative variety rather than the purely illustrative variety. The implied, aka: the idea(s), to be found in a picture is as important, if not more so, than the illustrated referent in a picture. For them, a picture, specifically their picture(s), is always much more than just a picture.
Which brings us right back to where we started - many Fine Art picture makers discover where their inner voice is coming from when they look at what they have pictured to find out what they are thinking.
Anyone out there want to answer the questions?
*Yes Virginia, some people do dig much "deeper" than others. People are different from one another after all.
Reader Comments (4)
Two comments, neither of them very enlightened:
>>some people do dig much "deeper" than others.
I guess that is one difference between you and me... this discussion is interesting to read, but I am the shallow guy.
And second... when did the blue line get redrawn to include Manhattan and St. Patrick's?
John - 1 response each to your 2 comments: 1) just keep on trucking, and, 2) copy and paste, copy and paste, copy and paste and don't proof read.
As usual, I come away a little bit better informed after reading your posts. One of the things I love about photography is that it allows for self expression without using word. Words sometimes fail me so I like to rely on the photos. But it's nice to be able to have material (such as this blog) to find some thought provoking subject mater that is grounded in common sense from a source that I respect. I agree that photography is a great way to express yourself but, at least in my case, I wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't fun. Every aspect of it. When I processed prints in the darkroom, I loved to watch the picture emerge on the paper in that dim red light. It was magic, even though I had a thorough understanding of the chemistry involved. And it has never stopped being magic for me.
With respect to the second question I would say I am on the same page as you. As to the first question I would like to add something if I may. Firstly I am not sure that the answer to the question will be markedly different between the people who go for decorative art as opposed to fine art. It may be that we are all drawn to certain qualities which art tends to express in a concentrated form. This is what we might inwardly define as beauty; a concentrated expression of a quality we hold dear. And so a particular subject may draw us in for some quality it holds even if it is only picked up on some subconscious level. Once drawn into it we will be driven to express it by whatever means we have at our disposal and our audience may grasp what we saw or not. They may see it as decorative or fine but either way, from the artist's point of view it is an expression of beauty as defined above. Maybe. I don't really know.
In any case the first question leads to another. Are we attracted to that which is a reflection of ourselves or to that in which we are deficient? Philosophers have debated this since Adam was a boy and I do not have an answer but it is a worthy question to ask ourselves if we are the type who likes to dig deep. It has been suggested that we are attracted to artistic styles that remove us from what we fear and drives us towards what we crave. In other words, it is suggested that we gravitate towards styles that hold the right amount of our missing virtues. Again, maybe, I'm still digging.
On a personal note, any art work, in any style, that has an effect on me, negative or positive, leads me to believe that much of who I am has yet to be explored.