civilized ku # 3032 / diptych # 2003 ~ what he said

wind turbine ~ , NY • click to embiggen
meters ~ Pittsburgh, PA / Saratoga Springs, NY • click to embiggen

It was Garry Winogrand who said:

I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.

And, for good measure, he also mentioned that "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed .... by me." I mention these Winogrand quotes as an intro to some thoughts on the notion presented on the refrigerator magnet as seen in yesterday's entry:

EVERYTHING HAS BEAUTY

On that entry, Jim Roelofs wrote, ".... my take is that there's a lot of beauty in this world ... and then there's stuff like warfare." Relative to part of the comment, re: "then there's stuff like warfare" - and without too much parsing of the word "thing" in the Confucius quote - my reading of the quote is that thing refers to tangible / tactile physical objects, not to human events, occurrences or conditions.

Whether or not that's how Confucius meant it - I'll leave that to philosophers, scholars, and language experts to theorize and argue over - that is how I will address it in this entry.

In my picture making I am all about how a thing looks photographed and I picture things as a literal description or the illusion of literal description of the thing pictured. I do so because I belief that there is beauty all around us as can be witnessed in the predominately commonplace / quotidian world that we inhabit. HOWEVER ...

.... as my awareness of what the hell I am doing, picture making wise, I have come to understand that there is no intrinsic beauty, at least not in the conventional sense of beauty, in many (or most) of the referents I picture. I mean, as just one example, most people and quite a few picture makers probably wonder about what it is I see in a kitchen sink drain stopper with green bean, mushroom slice, noodle and oatmeal flakes.

Nevertheless, I am drawn to picturing things for more reasons other than what the referent is. My eye and sensibilities are attracted to the possibilities of making something beautiful - the resulting print, in and of itself as a thing, of my picturing encounters with all kinds of referents. In a sense, that is to write, quotidian referents are just a readily available excuse to make pictures.

The pictures I make, if they are successful in meeting my expectations - as Winogrand said, "The photograph should be more interesting or more beautiful than what was photographed" - they do so because of the Form (on the 2D surface of the print) within the Frame that I have seen, captured and subsequently presented to those who view my pictures. Form wise, that is to write, the visual energy which results from the organization of shapes, colors, lines, tones (aka: highlight and shadow values), and the like within the Frame that I have chosen to contain / restrain the arrangement of such visual elements which make up the Form in my pictures.

To my eye and sensibilities, the fulfillment of those expectations, independent of the depicted referent, is what constitutes a good picture.

FYI, the complete Confucius quote is:

Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.

Perhaps that is why those who see only the referent in my pictures, but not the Form, are disappointed in what they see.

Comments

[Jim Roelofs]

Dear Mark, I can't help but buy in on this post but at the same time (as usual) am highly respectful of your opinions. That respect of your opinions hopefully buys me the right to express mine.

I frequent a beautiful national park (Alpine NP) not far from my home in south east Australia where I feel like I'm wandering in paradise. Mesmerising trees called snow gums (Eucalyptus pauciflora) are found above the snow line and nature's handiwork with light, seasonal weather result in my need to celebrate what my eyes and mind are privileged to witness.

Sincerest regards and happy new year to you and all your cherished loved ones, Jim Roelofs