civilized ku # 43 ~ dead end thinking

Sidewalk and shrubs • click to embiggenIt has been opined elsewhere that ... photography is about creating meaning from one fleeting instance, where all events preceding and following it are irrelevant ...

IMO, this fuzzy-headed statement is a rather succinct definition, probably an inadvertent one, of pictures which are created for 'entertainment' - i.e., as decorative art. Pictures which have no depth of meaning whatsoever other than what a fast and furious glance might reveal.

While photography certainly has a unique relationship with 'time' which differs radically from all the other visual arts, one which rips and isolates a single moment from the stream of time as we know it, to say that that one moment is all that matters is rather ridiculous. Why? Because, with a kind of cause-and-effect manner of thinking, much of the meaning and depth of a picture comes from its time-fragmented relationship to what has come before and what might follow its "frozen" moment and how all of that relates to what it means to be human.

This characteristic of pictures as Art (as opposed to decoration) works together with photography's other characteristic of framing (which rips and isolates a single fragment of space from the physical universe as we know it) to weave a spell of an implied/suggested relationship to time and space. In most cases, it is precisely what came before and what might come after the 'decisive' moment that a skilled photographer is trying to help us 'see'.

This is exactly what happens for those with an imagination and curiousity when they view a picture which is created to engage rather than deaden a fuller range of the senses and the mind.

Think about it.

Update on Monday, July 9, 2007 at 10:15AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote; ... I would suggest that even the most mindlessly snapped image does have some context (although admittedly the "snapper" is probably totally unaware of it) ... Context. My point, I guess, is that it's there even when people aren't looking for it, or more importantly, even when they aren't trying to express it.'

My response: Paul, IMO, it is ever thus with photography because of one of its other characteristics - the one that distinguishes it from the other visual arts - its relationship to the referent, the thing which is pictured. With the exception of pure abstractions, every photograph has a context with time, space, culture, etc. This is true whether the maker of the picture, as you point out, is aware of it or not.

urban ku # 77 ~ two chairs

Two chairs on the 4th of July • click to embiggenHey, Joe, this one's for you.

On urban ku # 76 Paul Maxim wrote: "... On a lighter note, I loved your "left brain wall" comment in the previous discussion. I've been reading Adam's book for that very reason - trying to figure out what makes people take (or make) photographs. If photography is a form of visual expression, then those who make images must be trying to "say something", right?"

Right. Although, most rarely get by saying "wow" and "ain't this pretty" over and over again.

Consider this from an interview with photographer Robert Holmgrem (thanks to Joe Reifer) - We struggle to explain what what we see. Photographers observe what other photographers do and we see that serious work tends to get high-minded analysis that seems to suggest events outside of the frame. Sometimes this is expressed as social criticism, psychoanalysis or revisiting some historical period of the medium with new eyes. It gets to the point where you begin wondering if any value exists without the aid of art critics. I'm a fan of Garry Winogrand's pictures, but I have no concern for what others think they mean, nor do I believe did he. Winogrand famously said that he took pictures "to see how things would look as photographs". It was a model of plain spoken. The pictures did the speaking and still we struggle to explain.

PS - a word of advice from Holmgrem - "Never throw out your mistakes. I'm surprised to find out how good I used to be before I got better.

Update on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 11:40AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bill Gotz wrote (in part): "... Or for an example of how a left brainer can suck (I mean destroy) most of the meaning out of an image leaving only some critic speak words, see the chapter "How Do We Read a Photograph? in Graham Clarke's book The Photograph.

It is an interesting book, but he does fail to understand the visual language of design and the deeper meanings available to the connections available to right brain thinking. A few paragraphs of words just can't come close to the degree of meaning we can get in a few moments with our right brain and non-verbal understandings. (Or maybe a left brainer has no interest in the visual language and rejects it for only that which can be named.) ..."

urban ku # 76 ~ July 4th

We, the people, must redeem
Our land, the mines, the plains, the rivers,
The mountains and the endless plain -
All, all the stretch of these great green states -
And make America again!

~ from Let America be America Again by Langston Hughes

Update on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 08:32AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Paul Maxim wrote: "...Oh, and thanks for the reference to "The Point". Hadn't thought about Oblio and Arrow in years and years. I wonder if that music is still available? It was such great political and social farce."

My response: Paul, I just ordered the The Point on DVD at Borders. The sound track cd is also available.

BTW, my oldest son, Jason, barely escaped being named Oblio. On the other hand, we did name one of our dogs Arrow. I have also spent a lot of time throughout my life trying to find the 3 fat sisters (whose point was merriment and fun)

ku # 478 ~ lichens (only god can make a tree)

Lichens on bark and rock • click to embiggenI have been reading entries on a few blogs dealing with digital workflow. On one in particular, the author stated that, in the digital domain, at no point between pushing the shutter button and getting a print is there anything which is fixed. There is never anything which you can see without the filter of a piece of software and a monitor.

Frankly, I don't see how this is at all different from the good old analog days. Between pushing the shutter button and getting a print there was always the multiple "filters" of film type, a zillion processing variables, a zillion paper choices, diffusion/condenser/cold light head enlargers and not to mention alternative-process printing and etc.

Sure, you could put a negative or transparency on a lightbox and, in and of itself, it was "fixed" but you still had to make a print. Give the same negative to 100 different photographers and you'll get 100 different prints. other than the mechanics involved, I just don't see how this all that different from the digital domain.

Sure, different RAW conversion software does produce different results, in some cases very different results. Add to that the variable of different workflows, and, guess what? If you give the same RAW file to 100 different photographers you'll get 100 different prints.

Moral of the story - there is no 'standard', there is no 'ideal', there is no 'perfect', and, nothing is 'fixed'. When it comes to RAW software, do your homework, make your choice, put your money on the table and then get on with it. Make prints that express what you have to say but always keep in mind that you are making 'traces', creating worlds, you are not making the 'thing' itself.

Consider yourself a poet and always remember - Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree.

Update on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 09:10AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Royce Howland wrote: "... Some photographers talk in terms of "getting it right in the camera", fixing the interpretation (allegedly) at the point of capture. Some don't mean anything more than that, while others mean that only image interpretation done in camera is "right". Personally I think just in terms of getting it right, period, where "right" means achieving my desired interpretation using whatever combination of tools, materials, media and techniques that seems appropriate ..."

urban ku # 75 ~ Sunday afternoon sky

Sunday afternoon at Stewarts • click to embiggenOn ku # 477 (immediately below) Paul Maxim stated, 'Last week, in fact, I posted a question on such a forum asking the photographer why they'd posted a particular image. What was the "message", I asked? I simply didn't "get it". I received a very curt reply that there didn't have to be a "message" - they just "liked it". Apparently, I'd hit some "artistic" nerve'

IMO, this has relvance to another recent photo forum post titled, Do we over analyze images?. The general consensus was that they did analyze (technique-wise) pictures to a fair-thee-well but that was what they were suppose to do on a site dedicated to "learning", which is accurate enough if you are only concerned, as this site is, with technique/technicals. The site does dwell on things technical/technique almost to the exclusion of all things dealing with intellect/emotion in the medium of photography - except, of course, for the ever-popular emotion of "wow". Get beyond "wow" with message/meaning on the site and, as Paul also states, 'Images that do appear to have some underlying "meaning" are rarely commented on. They seem to make people nervous.'

So, when Paul asked about meaning/message, I don't think he hit an "artistic nerve" as much as he ran smack-dab into the middle of a left-brain wall. Photography, as a hobby, has much to offer the left-brain crowd. For those who are inclined to look first at the pieces, then put them together to get the whole, cameras, lens, sensors, rules of composition and so on are full of pieces that can, in the camera club/hobbyist world, occupy the mind endlessly. Meaning/message, if it matters at all, definitely comes low on the totem pole. Even then, mesage/meaning is always wrapped up in a preoccupation with 'easy' meaning/message of "wow" and "pretty".

Speaking for right-brainers, one person offered a dissent of sorts by stating, 'I think humans over-analyze everything ... When you look at a photograph and start to analyze it for flaws, or color balance, or saturation, or a host of other qualities, do you realize that you have lost the connection to the image that drew you to it in the first place?

This was meet with this response, 'That certainly does not mean that we should not be stringent and very serious about creating as powerful an image as we can, but we do need to strike a balance between our emotional awareness of the beauty of an image and analyzing which criteria it does and does not meet.'

Apparently, in the left-brain world, if one wishes to create 'as powerful an image as [one] can', one must be 'stringent and very serious' about technique/technicals and then, when the picture is viewed,
'analyz[e] which criteria it does and does not meet'.

IMO, even though left-brainers have given the world much, most (not all) are at a distinct disadvantage in the world of Art. Just take a look at this right brain and left brain inventory and decide for yourself which 'inventory' is best for making Art.

What kind of brainer are you?

Addendum - so, does being a left-brainer make you a 'shallow' person? IMO, not necessarily - unless a person's make up is so utterly dominated by logic/reason that intuition, empathy, compassion are totally banished to the pointless forest (see The Point).

Update on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:39AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bret Kosmider wrote: "... I took the test ... Turns out I'm 70/30 right/left. Until now I'd classify most of my work as that shallow "wow" factor beauty-only crap. I still shoot that crap too. But according to the test my brain has a majority in the right column (and can overrule a veto too!) So am I merely fulfilling the "need to apply yourself to develop your potential" aspect of my right-brainyness? ... I should include that I've taken up the challenge to "apply myself" in the area of critical thought in my photography."

My response: I'm not a 'doctor' but I'd say you're on the road to developing your right-brain potential but always be aware that, if you wish your photography to be an extension of 'true' inner self, much of that 'critical thought' needs to be about yourself, not just your photography.

FYI ~ link update

Aaron's new and improved Cinemascape site.