counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
« civilized ku # 2160 ~ READ BEFORE OPENING | Main | civilized ku # 2159 ~ more Spring light »

the life in my kitchen* ~ imagination

Kitchen window ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen1044757-17655145-thumbnail.jpg
# 2• click to embiggen
# 3• click to embiggen
# 4• click to embiggen
# 5• click to embiggen
# 6• click to embiggen
# 7• click to embiggen
# 8• click to embiggen
# 9• click to embiggen
# 10• click to embiggen
# 11• click to embiggen
# 12• click to embiggen
# 13• click to embiggen
# 14• click to embiggen
# 15• click to embiggen
# 16• click to embiggen
# 17• click to embiggen
# 18• click to embiggen
# 19• click to embiggen
# 20• click to embiggen
# 21• click to embiggen
# 22• click to embiggen
Recently, I've been reading, in print and on various blogs/sites, a lot about the notion of imagination, re: picture making. IMO, some that writing is pure tripe, while some of it is good enough. However, again IMO, all of it misses a very pertinent point about the use of imagination in the employ of making good pictures.

Let's start first with a definition of the word itself:


1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery.
4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.

A lot of picture making advice, re: using your imagination, tends to focus upon the idea of coming up with (imaging) a new way of seeing something, or, to reiterate the word of the day, an imaginative way of seeing something. In doing so, or so the conventional wisdom goes, one can find their voice, vision and style - the supposed Holy Grail of picture makers the world over.

While there is something in that idea, and some have to followed it to interesting and productive ends, what is more likely to result, "serious" amateur wise, are pictures which are little more than visually strained implementations of one overwrought photo effect or another. The pictures so produced have effect everywhere apparent, affect, not so much (see #4 above). A picture viewing reaction of "wow" is the most sought after intent amongst this picture making crowd, who, upon garnering such a reaction, chalk it up to their skill in using "artistic license" (if you listen carefully, you might actually hear me making a contemptuous sound [farting sound] made by vibrating my extended tongue and my lips while exhaling, aka: blowing a raspberry).

an aside: FYI, harking back to the aforementioned definition of imagination, in my picture making I most often engage in: # 1) the faculty of forming mental images of what is not actually present to the senses. That is to say, I form a mental image (an approximation) in my minds eye of what a 2D representation of the 3D referent before my camera's gaze will look like on a print - a print not actually present to my senses at the moment of picture making, and, # 3) the attempt to produce an ideal creation consistent with reality, as in literature (see yesterday's question), distinct from producing decorative imagery.

That said, IMO, the rarely mentioned aspect of using one's imagination, picture making wise, is using that faculty in deciding what to picture.

Most "serious" amateurs are locked into the "normal" repertoire / the standard list of referents which have deemed acceptable / suitable for picture making. Whether that situation is the result of fear of risk taking, a much diminished state of curiosity, or the utter lack of imagination is open to question but I suspect that all of those conditions are causal (in some relationship to one another) in most individuals so afflicted.

If only more picture makers were more attuned to the curiosity of Garry Winogrand - "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed" and the openness of Robert Frank - "You can photograph anything now", because, when you get right down to brass tacks, those 2 attitudes, curiosity and openness, are all one needs to greatly expand one's picture making possibilities. And, IMO, one's imagination will get a kick in the ass as well.

*These are the the life in kitchen selects. Although, my desire is to have 20 pictures as opposed to the 21 presented above. So I guess 1 has to go.

Reader Comments (3)

"I form a mental image (an approximation) in my minds eye of what a 2D representation of the 3D referent..."

After selecting a candidate image (from the 3D world), this 3D to 2D transformation is an important consideration in the end result. However, I do this without conscious thought and usually have a good result i.e the 2D image is a good representation of the 3D original. Based on my current thinking of "good", anyway!

Do you go through any explicit mental / visual processes for the 3D to 2D transformation?

April 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSven W

An interesting topic that needs serious discussion. Unfortunately, you lost me here.."(if you listen carefully, you might actually hear me making a contemptuous sound [farting sound] made by vibrating my extended tongue and my lips while exhaling, aka: blowing a raspberry)." Are you going for the "effect" or the "affect"/

April 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterLarry

Garry Winogrand - "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed"

Do you think it was curiosty that drove Winograd? From reading about the guy, he strikes me as pessimist and an obsessive-compulsive. A lot of his photographic negatives where neither developed nor printed [by him], so how much did he care about the images?

April 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSven W

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>