civilized ku # 789 ~ unintelligence / on seeing

A water world of sorts ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen

The unintelligence of present-day photographers, that is of so-called pictorial photographers, lies in the fact that they have not discovered the basic qualities of their medium. ~ Paul Strand

As noted in civilized ku # 781, Paul Strand also stated that ...

The photographer’s problem is to see clearly the limitations and at the same time the potential qualities of his medium ...

Now, it should be noted that anyone can do any thing he/she chooses to do with the medium and its apparatus. And, by virtue of the modern digital domain, there are easily "mastered" cheap tricks aplenty with which, when used, one can pretend to be "creative". But, really, how much creativity does it take to, as an example, move the Hue / Saturation slider to "11"?

That said, it should also be noted that many of the cheap-trick pretenders - like, say, so-called / self-described artistic nature photographers - do, in fact, make some visually pleasing Decorative Art. The fact that most of that Art is very formulaic and concerned primarily with the surface of things (albeit an excessively distorted representative thereof) makes much of that Art eminently forgettable. On the whole it tends to disappear into the fog of so many one-dimensional crowd pleasing look-a-like pictures.

If the forgoing sounds like a put-down of Decorative Art, it should be stated that, in the Fine Art world, it most definitely is. In my Art world, Decorative Art has a valued place but, make no mistake about it, that "place" is, IMO, a step or two below Fine Art.

In the Fine Art world, pure snobbery aside, Decorative Art is demeaned, diminished, or dismissed because ...

A decisive turning point in artists' protracted struggle over status occurred with the establishment of the Academie Royal de Peinture et de Sculpture (Paris, 1648) and then the Royal Academy (London, 1768). The painter-theorists who directed these institutions established "rules" and precedents that were designed to assert the intellectual (emp. mine) content of their work and raise the standing of their art ...

The value and rank of every art is in proportion to the mental labour employed in it, or the mental pleasure produced by it. As this principle is observed or neglected, our profession becomes either a liberal art, or a mechanical trade. In the hands of one man it makes the highest pretensions, as it is addressed to the noblest facilties: in those of another it is reduced to a mere matter of ornament. ~ an excerpt from PHOTOGRAPY - A Very Short Introduction by Steve Edwards

This rule / precedent was a prime motivator in the emergence of Pictorialism in the medium's early years - a time when the nascent medium was laboring under the dismissive cloud of being a "mechanical" endeavor. Consequently, many early practitioners resorted to emulating, by the use of then readily available "cheap tricks", the painting and etching of the times - in essence, photography as art simply because it looked like paintings. That and the fact that the hand, not the mind, of the artist was everywhere evident and obtrusive. All of which was a wonderfully fine example of missing the point, photography wise.

IMO, and that of the Fine Art world (in general), if a picture does not produce "mental pleasure" in equal or greater measure than that of the visual pleasure it produces, it is "reduced to a mere matter of ornament". But, on the other hand, IMO, and most definitely not that of much of the Fine Art world (photography wise), if a picture is all "mental" and lacking in any visual pleasure is tips too much in the opposite extreme - an intellectual exercise that lacks wall appeal.

All of that said, IMO, the best pictures are made by those who have learned about and understand the medium and its apparatus, its strengths and limitations, and who adopt and adapt that knowledge into making pictures that both illustrate and illuminate in equal measure.

And therein is the medium's real challenge - that which Strand called the "photographer's problem": a "problem" the solving of which is ill-suited to the "unintelligence" of present-day pictorial-ist photographers.

civilized ku # 783 ~ a real life still life

Lingerie chest top • click to embiggenRelative to the still life idea / exercise in the still life # 14 entry, it is worth mentioning that many of the surfaces in our house are, IMO, nothing more than a platform for still life arrangements of one thing or another.

civilized ku # 781 ~ inexhaustible subject matter / on seeing

Listerine light and screws • click to embiggenPicture-worthy referents are everywhere. If you find yourself in a "creative" slump, picture making wise, IMO you're sleep walking around with two eyes closed. You need to wake up. At least that's how I see it.

Subject matter all around me seemed inexhaustible….Yet what makes these photographs is their objectivity. This objectivity is of the very essence of photography, its contribution and at the same time its limitation. The photographer’s problem is to see clearly the limitations and at the same time the potential qualities of his medium, for it is precisely here that honesty no less than intensity of vision is the pre-requisite of a living expression. The fullest realization of this is accomplished without tricks of process or manipulation, through the use of straight photographic methods. ~ Paul Strand

civilized ku # 780 ~ taken in / on seeing

Grand Union ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

Of all my photographs, the ones that have most meaning for me are those I was moved to make from a certain vantage point, at a certain moment and no other, and for which I did not draw on my abilities to fabricate a picture, composition-wise or otherwise. You might say that I was taken in. ~ Paul Caponigro

I made this picture "from a certain vantage point, at a certain moment and no other, and for which I did not draw on my abilities to fabricate a picture, composition-wise or otherwise." Indeed, you might say that I was taken in.

For those who might wonder what the hell it was that took me in ... as I was returning to my car after making the Northern Insuring and RESERVED PARKING pictures, the relative warmth of the store interior - as suggested by "the light" therein - in contrast to the cold foreboding clouds together with the somewhat human scale of the store (with its "traditional" copula) in contrast to the looming and seemingly impenetrable brick wall (with it's "high-tech" satellite dish) just took me in and stopped me in my tracks.

You know - kinda like what it means to be human while standing in the shadow of the march of "progress".

civilized ku # 779 ~ irrelevant, humanly limiting exigencies vs. "the spirit of fact"/ on seeing

Northern Insuring ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

I am not trying to express myself through photography, impose my personality upon nature (any manifestation of life) but without prejudice nor falsification to become identified with nature, to know things in their very essence, so that what I record is not an interpretation—my idea of what nature should be—but a revelation or a piercing of the smoke-screen artificially cast over life by irrelevant, humanly limited exigencies, into an absolute, impersonal recognition. ~ Edward Weston

Now I'm not certain exactly what Weston means when he states that he is "not trying to express myself through photography". Perhaps it is a self-effacing attempt to not draw attention to himself because, in his mind, he is just a conduit through which "revelations" flow. Or maybe it's just his way of saying, "It's all about the pictures."

That said, I do appreciate the fact that Weston (in his picture making) did not to "impose [his] personality upon nature". That's a stance that stands in direct contrast, nature photography wise, to the "creatively interpretive" pretty-picture crowd about whom art critic / author Sally Eauclaire states ....

... Playing to the multitude of viewers who salivate at the sight of nature, such photographers ... [D]rawing upon the Hudson River School's legacy in painting, burden it with ever coarser effects. Rather than humbly seeking out "the spirit of fact", they assume the role of God's art director making His immanence unequivocal and obtrusive.

In any event, if the meaning of the word "nature" is expanded to include "the everyday world in which we live", I am, and have been, totally down (in my picture making) with the idea, of "a piercing of the smoke-screen artificially cast over life by irrelevant, humanly limited exigencies...".

You know, in the picture making world, it's kinda like in the real world wherein "the spirit of fact" is being trampled to death under the weight of the "truthiness" of half-baked beliefs.

still life # 14 ~ /on seeing

Still Life ~ Duquesne Light (Pittsburgh, PA) Ad • click to embiggenThis might be rather shocking to some, but, over the course of my 30 year commercial picture making, virtually all of my pictures were vertical rectangles - very few square pictures amongst them. Obviously, that's because every picture was for publication on pages that were vertical rectangles - magazine ads, annual reports, marketing brochures / catalogues, books, and the like. Other than some pictures made in the panoramic format (mainly for editorial and annual report work) and some square polaroid pictures (editorial work), the only exception to the vertical rectangle format was pictures made for use across a double-page spread which were made in the horizontal format.

That said, the reason for today's vertical rectangular picture is for the purpose of, once again, grappling with the notion of composition*.

Vertical rectangular format aside, the salient point about the picture, composition wise, is that it is a still life picture. A picture in which the composition is entirely manufactured. The act of combining parts or elements to form a whole (read * at the bottom of this entry) was entirely arbitrary inasmuch as there was no "map" or directive given by the client (Duquense Light - a transmission and distribution of electric energy company). The only requirement for the picture was "to make a picture that represents our company's services in support of contractors and architects".

So, after rounding up a bunch of appropriate props - many more than pictured here, I set about playing around with them in order to arrive at a visually pleasing arrangement. In doing so, I was assisted in no small part by my "sense of harmonic proportions" (see civilized ku # 773), not to mention about 20 sheets of 4×5 Polaroid film. Never once did I consider / consult "the rules of composition".

Now, lest anyone think this recounting is an exercise in self aggrandizement / promotion, here's the point ....

It has been noted that some of the picture-making instructional books have examples of various compositional rules / styles and that some of them also have suggested "exercises" that are supposed to help one improve / one their picture making skills.

Well, after posting the gourd & dry flowers picture in civilized ku # 776, I got to thinking about the thousands of still life pictures that I made in my commercial picture making days. Even though I used my seemingly preternatural sense of harmonic proportions to make those pictures - pictures that made my clients very happy, what occurred to me was to wonder whether the process of making a still life picture, composition wise, could be "reverse engineered" in order to help someone without a preternatural sense of harmonic proportions develop such as sense.

After contemplating that possibility, I am convinced that such an "exercise" - making a still life picture - could be a tremendous aid in developing a sense of harmonic proportions.

Think about it. You start from nothing, gather a few items, and arrange them - from a fixed camera POV, not from your eye's POV - in an aesthetically pleasing arrangement. In the digital world, you can picture each and every arrangement variation (instead of using a lot of polaroid) for "analysis" on the camera's LCD (chimping) and on the computer screen, or, eventually, in print.

Think about it. In the absence of any guide / map, AKA - "rules", you have to depend upon the "feel" of how the things look / work together to form the whole. Some arrangements will look and feel disjointed, awkward or "wrong". Others will look and feel synergetic, harmonious, or "right".

Think about it. There is no hard-and-fast "right" or "wrong" in this exercise. Much depends upon your own innate / native sense of right" and "wrong" but that, in fact, is precisely the point - you will begin to identify your personal sense of "right" and "wrong". You will begin to sense / understand what works for you which should be the basis for developing your own personal way of making pictures of what you see.

Think about it. Developing the ability to make a successful still life "composition" and recognizing it as such, will eventually help you - out in the "found" picture making world - recognize / see, relative to your referent and your intent, a combination of parts or elements that form a visually pleasing whole.

Think about it, and, please let me know what you think about it.

*as stated previously, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "the rules of composition" but I don't know what word to use, other than "composition", when discussing the structure of a picture. So, when I use that word, it should be understood in the simplest manner - the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole. And, IMO, there are about a zillion-and-a-half ways of combining parts or elements to form a whole, picture making wise. In fact, when it comes to great / good / interesting pictures, I would venture that there are as many ways of combining parts or elements to form a whole as there are pictures.

civilized ku # 773 ~ a sense of harmonic proportions / on seeing

Bowl on table • click to embiggenOver the course of my Landscapist (the blog) endeavor, there have been quite a number of informed and insightful comments on various entries that have helped me - and I hope others - to learn a bit more about pictures and the making thereof. As I have stated many times, my hope for this blog is for it to be a 2-way proposition - good for me and good for those who hang around the place. For the most part, and IMO, I believe that objective has been and is frequently realized.

That said, one of the best comments (for me) was that from Barbara Fischer which stated in part ...

... Good photographers have an affinity with what they take photos of, they can see something of themselves in the pictures. They can relate to the mood, as conveyed by light, colours, subject matter, and it becomes personally meaningful.

Barbara also states that, in act of picture making, some photographers ...

... also have a better sense for harmonic proportions, they can just see them and maybe sabotage them if it suits the photo. This is a complex skill that can't be learned by applying a rule of thirds or some other mechanical composition guide lines.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that these comments are very complimentary to much of what I have been writing about, re: seeing, I must state that I have rarely heard / read a better description of the notion of "composition" - in her words, a "sense of harmonic proportions".

Simply stated, from my egocentric POV, Barbara has succinctly and, IMO, poetically given name to exactly how I see.

That said, I would also add that, after viewing Barbara's I like these flickr set, she also makes pictures that exhibit a very keen "sense of harmonic proportions". Her pictures are exquisite examples of Robert Adams' notion, re: great pictures:

Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? .... The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.

IMO, only pictures that appear to be "easily made" - or in many cases actually are easily made - are great pictures. That's because, if when looking at a picture the viewer first sees the composition / the technique employed / effects / "tricks of the trade", then he/she risks missing the forest for the trees.

In that regard, what I have noticed is that so many picture makers are the worst offenders when it comes to seeing the intent of a picture. The first thing that they relate to / look for is the "how" rather than the "what". IMO&E, that's because so many picture makers seem to first look at pictures made by others in attempt to discern and identify the "tricks of the trade" that were employed - even if none were actually used - in the making of those pictures so that they can then employ the same in their picture making.

Whereas, the first question in a viewer's mind should be - what's going on here / what's the picture maker's intent / what's being said?

However, as Barbara Fischer also stated ...

... some people have a very hard time relating to photography (or any visual art) beyond the literal things depicted in them. The "trick" is to open the mind up to associations, emotions, and then a picture will become rich and multidimensional.

I would extend that idea to include not only picture viewing but also to picture making - if you desire to make great or, at the very least, good / interesting pictures ("rich and multidimensional") that go beyond pretty pictures, you must, at the point of picture making, "open the mind up to associations and emotions" so that you "can relate to the mood, as conveyed by light, colours, subject matter" so that your picture making becomes "personally meaningful".

Update on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 10:16AM by gravitas et nugalis

PS Thanks, Barbara

civilized ku # 771 ~ the early years / important influences

Hair brushes • click to embiggenIn a comment on cvilized ku # 766, scott offered his opinion (or, in my words, "opined") ...

... my opinion, for what it is worth, is that you are probably at a point where you do not have to think about what you are doing.

Scott's opinion (in my words, "opining"), IMO, was, in general, in response to my notion of "god-given" gifts / talent and, more specifically, in response to my feeling that I possess a seemingly preternatural right-brain disposition / intuition that guides me, by means of feeling, though the act of picture making.

Scott went on, using my hockey analogy, to state that he does "not have to think about them (his skating and stick handling) because I have been doing them for so long", which I take it to mean, by inference, is that I have arrived at my non-thinking / intuitive picture making point because I have been doing it for so long.

This is not an opinion with which I would vehemently disagree. For a fact, I have been doing it for over 40+ years. But .... even 40+ years ago, when I first picked up a camera, I made my pictures in exactly (as near as I can remember) the same manner as I do today. Let me amplify that statement ...

Long ago, in a place far way - 1969, in Japan / Okinawa Prefecture - after receiving my "Greetings from Uncle Sam", I purchased my first camera. Despite the fact that I grown up in Rochester, NY, virtually in the shadow of the Big Yellow Box, AKA: Eastman Kodak Co., all of my early artistic ability manifested itself in the form of drawing / illustration. From at least as early as 3rd grade, I was the go-to guy for school and event posters. In high school, I made a sizable chunk of change drawing pictures - almost exclusively in the style of Big Daddy Roth - on paper book covers and t-shirts. Never, at any time, was it suggested that I pursue picture making via the camera.

However, finding myself in a foreign land, I decided that I could make far better pictures of my experience with a camera rather than with pencil and paper. Add to that brilliant deduction the fact that I was in the land of camera makers and that those cameras were unbelievably inexpensive, I purchased a camera - a Kowa 35mm rangefinder which was quickly replaced with Kowa SET-R SLR.

At that time, my only guide to picture making was the camera manual and the current issue of Camera 35 magazine. Camera 35 magazine had a nice mix of picture making articles along with a very nice presentation of featured picture makers and their pictures - with an emphasis on the latter. That is why, when perusing the photography magazine selection at the PX, I chose Camera 35 over the other much more gear / technique oriented offerings (Modern Photography, Popular Photography, and the like). Even at the tender age of 19, in my first week of picture making, I thought that looking at good pictures was a much more important course of study than was reading about gear/technique. In any event, within a few months, I was making and processing - I processed both my very first roll of BW and color transparency film - pictures at a rather prodigious rate.

Needless to say, even at that point, I thought I was a pretty good picture maker but in order to test the court of public opinion I entered 3 pictures (in 3 different categories) in a photo competition. The competition started at the local level and progressed through successive regional - Western Pacific, hemispheric - All-Pacific, and world-wide levels. All 3 pictures were winners at the local and W-Pacific levels, and 2 firsts and 1 honorable mention at the all-Pacific level.

Based entirely upon that success, I applied for and received the military job of 2nd Logistical Command Information Specialist / Photographer. And once again, within the first month I was banging out feature articles for the regional military newspaper, several of which were picked up by the Pacific edition of the Army Times.

Now, here's my point - within 6 months of first picking up a camera and without any training of any kind - other than reading / looking at pictures in Camera 35 - I was making a living, militarily speaking, making pictures. And, I can honestly say that I owe it all to my seemingly preternatural right-brain disposition / intuition that guided me, by means of feeling, though the act of picture making - I didn't 'think about it' then anymore than I think about it now.

Can anyone out there explain it? The only explanation I can come up with is the preternatural / intuitive / feeling thing because, back then, I was completely obvious to anything resembling 'the rules of composition' or any other picture making rules.

All I was aware of was the impact that good / interesting pictures made on me. And, the first good / interesting pictures I was made aware of, from a picture making POV, were those that I viewed in Camera 35mm magazine - important influence # 1. That's why, to this day, I strongly encourage the continued viewing of good / interesting pictures, together with non-technical / non-gear reading about the medium and its possibilities, as one the absolute best ways of figuring it out for yourself.

And, maybe one day I'll tell you about the time that our adopted stray cat barfed up and crapped messy gooey globs of intestinal worms all over my only set of cleaned and pressed US Army khakis on the day I was going to get my awards from the aforementioned photo competition - in the office of and from the Commanding General, US Army, Ryukyu Islands, accompanied by my Company Commander and First Sergeant.