civilized ku # 751 ~ Autumn color # 60 / on seeing

Kitchen chairs ~ Long Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenAs I move on to notions and ideas about how to make pictures of what you see, it is imperative to restate that, IMO, even though how a picture is "composed" is rather important, there are no rules of composition. And, furthermore, to repeat Edward Weston's dictum .... To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible.

Now, I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there are many who don't have a clue as to how to "compose in the strongest manner possible". I would go one step further and state that, for that matter, most don't even have a clue about what "the strongest manner possible" even means. And, in fact, many of those who not only know what it means but also how to do it, don't have a clue about to how explain how they do it.

That said, the best "explanation" of the process of composing in the strongest manner possible that I have come across is that offered by Henry Wessel:

You're suddenly seeing the coherence and the interconnectedness of everything, left to right, top to bottom, front to back. It's all connected, and, somehow, it's all in balance. And that's, of course, when you go, 'Yes!'.

Quite obviously, some of the key words in Wessel's statement are, "coherence", "interconnectedness", "balance", and (here's the kicker) "somehow". Yep, as fuzzy as it may sound, "somehow" it all comes together. Except that I don't think that the somehow of how all it comes together is really all that fuzzy ...

I think that the mechanics of how it all comes together is quite universal in the picture making world - while making pictures and looking through the camera's eye, a picture maker takes a step or two to the right, a step or two to the left, a step or two forward, a step or two backward, stands up straighter, slouches a little lower, or, for that matter, any combination of the preceding. Then, when it all "feels" right, you go, "yes", and then you press the shutter release.

IMO, to be perfectly clear - and this not too fine a point to understand - the real fuzzy part of Wessel's statement is in the word "balance" - one person's "balance" is another person's koyaanisqatsi. And, when it comes to making pictures that are good/interesting, the word balance is relative inasmuch as balance is attained when the balance helps sell the idea, noted and connoted, that is the picture maker's intent.

Have no doubt about it, intent is everything. Intent is the engine that drives the picturing endeavor. Intent determines not only what one pictures but also how one pictures. If a picture maker's intent is to sell "serenity/simplicity" then you can be reasonably certain that what and how he/she pictures will be quite different from what and how a picture maker intent on selling "chaos/complexity" goes about his/her picture making business. The "balance" exhibited in their respective pictures will undoubtedly be different.

Knowing, understanding, developing, and pursuing one's intent is what helps "composition" become (as Weston stated) "a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing" (my emphasis).

Update on Friday, October 29, 2010 at 12:29PM by gravitas et nugalis

As I progress in this on seeing endeavor, I know that it is disappointing to some that I do not "dissected" one aspect of my picturing MO or and another. I am deliberately avoiding doing so because, as this entry states and implies, the how of what I do is very idiosyncratic, aka: personal (not in the "private" sense of the word). Consequently, it is my belief that one should be much more concerned with developing their very own idiosyncrasy than they are in trying to understand mine.

Not to mention the fact that ....

It is not how I do my work, but what my work is when it is done, that should decide its claim to admiration and respect. - A. H. Wall

civilized ku # 742 ~ on seeing

Open motel door ~ Long Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 740, Larry stated: I am always questioning/searching, is this a copy? is this what I have learned as a good photo? where is the Larry in this photo? ... I want more from the picture, intrigue, questions, poetry.

What Larry wants - intrigue, questions, poetry, and soon on - are qualities that most picture makers want in their pictures. However, IMO, it is very unrealistic to expect the full greatest-hit bonanza in every picture one makes. Far from it. It takes time, effort, and patience for greatest-hit type pictures to emerge from one's picture making endeavors.

The production of a "greatest hit" is always the result of immersing oneself thoroughly in a project. To set out to make a "greatest hit" photograph will always fail ~ Brooks Jensen

IMO, if one is obsessed with making "greatest hit" pictures, that is when one stoops to tricks and gimmicks in order to juice things up. Next thing you know, you're banging out a bunch of flash in the pan tour de farces that are all flash and no beef.

I think of my greatest-hit pictures as the fruits of my long-term labor. And those pictures are never thought of, at the moment of picture making, as surefire fodder for my greatest-hits parade. In virtually every case, the realization that I might have struck gold comes well after I have processed, printed, and lived with a picture for reasonable length of time.

And that's the thing, really good / interesting pictures are most often considered as such because they have stood the test of time.

And, FYI, I think Brooks Jensen also had it right when he opined that ...

A good photograph, when first seen, hits you like a ton of bricks. A better photograph is often almost unseen at first but comes back to mind over and over again long after you have stopped looking at it.

Update on Monday, October 25, 2010 at 12:05PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Seven W (no link provided) wrote: "You mentioned earlier the benefit of simplifying gear / technique to help focus the mind on seeing. What about B&W? Does eliminating colour from the process help with seeing or is it introducing another [unwanted] element?

my response: B/W picture making and color picturing making are entirely different methods of making pictures. Independent of your pictured referent, the former depends upon tonal relationships and their use within the frame whereas the latter depends upon color and its use within the frame.

So, if you make B/W pictures, you need to think and see - again, independent of referent - in tonal values and their relationships whereas. if you make color pictures, you need to think and see in color and their relationships.

Making B/W pictures, if that is not your medium, in order to improve your seeing seems, at best, counter-intuitive / productive, at worst, a near-total waste of time and effort.

civilized ku # 729 ~ Autumn color # 50 / on seeing

Lawn, car, branch, and bushes ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIn yesterday's entry, ku # 826, I deliberated upon the distinction between seeing and making a picture of what you see. IMO, seeing and making a picture of what you see - although very obviously related acts - are actually quite different activities.

One could spend the better part of an hour (or a day) seeing things without making a single picture of what was seen. Or, conversely, one could spend the better part of an hour (or a day, or, for that matter, a lifetime) making pictures that are little more than the work of a parrot, no seeing required. FYI, I would opine that the former activity is time well spent whereas the latter is simply time spent.

That said, let's get on with the notion of seeing - IMO, the whole of seeing is presented in very succinct fashion in the previously proffered (civilzed ku # 725) quote by Stephen Shore ....

.... what the world looks like in a state of heightened awareness ... it’s that awareness of really looking at the everyday world with clear and focused attention ...

It should be noted that being in a state of heightened awareness with clear and focused attention on a constant basis might just be a recipe for sensory overload. On the other hand, I am not so sure that that state can be switched on and off at will. Nor do I believe that is some mystical state that requires the mixture of Zen and the ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms - although, for the terminally inhibited, that might be the only course of action.

IMO, and in my personal experience, attaining a state of heightened awareness is best achieved by living a life of simply paying constant attention to the world around one's self - simply being aware of what the hell is going on in your world. No more slouching towards Armageddon. Sit up straight, open your eyes and mind, and pay attention.

an ASIDE: Exactly what you might choose to pay attention to, picturing making wise, is completely up to you. Some might be interested in the social life of ants while others might be more interested in the color red. What piques your picture making interest(s) doesn't really matter as long as you have a genuine interest in something with which you have a very personal connection.

To avoid sensory overload (both mental and visual), I keep my paying-attention-dial set to "moderate" which makes it relatively easy to dial it up to a higher setting when something in my world pricks my attention. Other than the fact that I prefer living life in an aware state of eye and mind, picture making wise I find it much easier to move the dial from moderate to heightened than I do from off to on.

Now, if all this seems a bit elementary, just let me state that I am continually surprised - one might even say, "dumbstruck" - by the number of people, picture makers included, who seem to regularly miss even the most obvious of stuff. While they do manage to avoid running over pedestrians in a crosswalk, what they don't see could easily fill a 16GB CF card.

So, if you are afflicted with a paying-attention disorder, how do you develop and encourage a greater - or fledgling, if that is the case - sense of awareness of the world around you - aka: seeing, as opposed to just looking?

In many of the how-to photography books (with the word "mastering" in their titles), there are a host of "exercises" devoted to attaining a great awareness. Things like going into your bathroom and making 20 pictures, or, if making 20 pictures is easy, then making more pictures up to the point where there are no more pictures to be made. Or, at least until the point where it becomes difficult to make any more pictures.

IMO, this is a pointless exercise, re: the act of seeing. If you want to hone your ability to see, the next time you go into your bathroom to sit on the toilet, spend some time looking at things with the aim of getting a feel for the place and the things in the place. Pay attention to light, color, shape, textures, the relationship of one thing to another or the relationship of one thing to the whole of it all.

And then, instead of making pictures of it all, think about / ponder all that you have seen. Let it seep into your bones because, while the camera is a tool for recording what we see, so is the intellect. The camera does not bestow purpose, only the intellect, assisted by emotion (aka: passion), can encourage and develop that critical-to-the-act-of-seeing ingredient.

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.