civilized ku # 766 ~ left, right, left, right ... / on seeing

Reflections ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhen reading the various books on "mastering" one or another of the aspects of picture making, there is one key notion that rarely arises. That fact may, in fact, be due to the fact that the notion-in-question is one of those things that you just can do anything about but is, sort of, one of those "god-given" gifts. Or, at the very least, it seems to be a human factor that isn't totally understood and is rarely considered to be something that can be taught. Recognized and, in some cases, encouraged perhaps, but nevertheless, something that can not be taught.

The notion-in-question is that of the right-brain, left-brain manners of thinking. And, before we go any further with this notion let me point out the some (but by no means, all) of the distinctions between the two ways of thinking:

Right-brain characteristics; visual, random, impulsive, intuitive, subjective, less punctual, holistic synthesizing, looks at wholes

Left-brain characteristics; verbal, sequential, plans ahead, rational / analytical, objective, punctual, looks at parts

It has also been stated that ...

An important factor in understanding learning styles is understanding brain functioning. Both sides of the brain can reason, but by different strategies. and one side may be dominant. The left brain is considered analytic in approach while the right is described as holistic or global. A successive processor (left brain) prefers to learn in a step-by-step sequential format, beginning with details leading to a conceptual understanding of a skill. A simultaneous processor ( right brain) prefers to learn beginning with the general concept and then going on to specifics. from mathpower.com

Most individuals have a distinct preference for one of these styles of thinking. Some, however, are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain ones. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity. from funderstanding.com

It comes as no surprise to those who study such things that most, but not all, artists tend to be from the right-brain side of the aisle. It also comes as no surprise that right-brain thinkers - AKA: visual thinkers - are often 'problem' students in school because, on the whole, schools have traditionally been much more geared toward - both in what and how they teach - left-brain thinkers, AKA: verbal / logical thinkers.

All of that said, I believe that right-brain / visual thinkers do, in fact: have a "head start" on the road to making art; that I, as right-brainer, have a much easier time of it when comes to "feeling" my way around/in the world of composition; that a right-brainer (global thinker - looks at wholes) has an easier time with composition than a left-brainer (analytical thinker - looks at parts), so,consequently; that left-brainers tend to need the 'rules of composition' in their picture making because those 'rules' tend to break a picture's composition - both in the making and the viewing thereof - into 'parts'.

Now before anyone gets their knickers in a twist and jumps to the ill-logical conclusion that I have just opined that left-brainers are 'inferior' to right-brainers (re: composition-wise and/or any other things artistic) because they need or refer to 'the rules of composition', I would advise them to read the civilized ku # 763 entry wherein I clearly stated that "relying upon the so-called rules of composition is not a fatal picture making flaw". That is, as long as one is aware of the potential pitfalls associated with their use, most specifically, the problem of producing an endless succession of "sterile inventory" / "pictorial cliches".

In that same entry, I also opined that "If one has risen, through whatever effort and means necessary, to being the best that they can be, they have, IMO, accomplished much." If "whatever effort and means necessary" includes applying the so-called rules of composition, so be it. After all, if one can not intuitively 'feel' their way around/in the world of composition, one must rely on something to be their guide.

No matter how one arrives at the point of making good / interesting pictures, in the end, it's the pictures that matter most. And, for me with my seemingly preternatural right-brain disposition, I have arrived at that point by recognizing, understanding, and applying a trust in my intuitive ability to feel my way through the act of making pictures of what I see.

If that and much of my other writings on the subject of seeing and the making of pictures of what I see sounds a lot like ethereal malarky or some kind of hokey 'Zen and the Art of' BS, I make no apologies because that is exactly how I go about making my pictures. Hey, you asked and I am, to best of my ability and with considerable effort, trying to answer that question in a straight-forward and honest manner.

And, while I'm on that subject, let me offer a hardy and heart-felt "fuck you" to those who think this is all a self-serving exercise in narcissism and self-aggrandizement.

But, please stay tuned because, in the next installment, I intend to introduce some of the more important factors / things that have influenced what I see and how I go about my picture making. IMO, those items will be much more informative and instructive for anyone who desires to foster and develop their own personal way of seeing/making pictures of what they see than is trying to figure out the why, what, and how of me (or anyone else for that matter) doing my thing.

civilized ku # 763-5 ~ late fall rain / on seeing

Late autumn rain ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenSven W and, I suppose, others wonder why it is that I "seem to take a dim view of applying 'the rules of composition'?"

First and foremost, for those who need the 'rules of composition during the act of picturing, I do not take a dim view of applying them. You do the best you can with the tools / talents you have and you move on - read yesterday's civilized ku # 763.

Second, for my way of seeing and my way of making pictures of what I see, "rules of composition" simply do not exist. Therefore, I do not apply them. I compose entirely by "feel" and intuition and, when it looks and feels right, I make the picture. For me, it's as simple / easy as that.

Third, all of that said, there is a distinct danger in applying 'the rules of composition' and I am in complete agreement with Edward Weston's opinion ...

... Recording unfelt facts, acquired by rule, results in sterile inventory. To see the Thing Itself is essential ... [W]hen subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches.

Now, does that mean that there is no such thing as 'composition'? IMO, it absolutely does not, but consciously recognizing any form of composition in a picture and converting that observation into 'rules' is an after-the-picture-making perception. As E. Weston opined ...

... to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection and after-examination, and are in no way a part of the creative impetus.

'Good', 'interesting', or 'creative' composition may come to be recognized and appreciated while viewing a picture and in that process be dissected and broken down into individual compositional components. However, doing so, even in one's own pictures, helps very little (if at all) in the making of one's next picture - unless one's desire is to make the same picture over and over again.

In my picture making experience, virtually every picture I make requires a new approach to composition. If you need to think of it in terms of 'rules', in my case, each new picturing opportunity demands a new set of 'rules'.

I simply can not see things any other way.

And here's the thing, IMO, that is the hallmark of exemplary composition - when looking at a picture, the viewer doesn't even see the composition. All he/she sees is a good / interesting picture.

picture windows # 58 ~ on seeing

View from window ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenPaul Bradforth wrote on civilized ku # 762 : "I don't really feel I need to be advised to shy away from 'pretty pictures' though; I don't see anything wrong with pretty pictures, and I think it rather disingenuous to argue that anyone who likes them needs 'educating'

my response: Paul, I sincerely hope that the "clarification" in civilized ku # 762 helps dissuade you from the belief that, if "pretty pictures" are what you or anyone within the sound of my keyboard clattering aspires to making or appreciating, that I think that what they need 'educated'.

However, there are those who aspire to making pictures which "move beyond the pretty picture". That is to say, pictures that illustrate and illuminate. Pictures that have both the referent and the connoted. Pictures that, in the words of Roland Barthes - in his book, Camera Lucida - contain both the studium and the punctum.

It is for those who are interested in that aspiration that most of my writing(s) about the medium and its possibilities is aimed. It is within that context that I advise again being seduced by the "dark-side" - the slavish desire to take the easy road of making pretty pictures.

And, let me be perfectly clear about pretty pictures - pretty pictures are distinctly different from pictures that depict beauty or pictures that are beautiful (suggested reading: Beauty in Photography by Robert Adams). Pretty pictures are concerned mainly with the surface of things whereas, IMO, pictures that depict beauty engage the thoughtful viewer with what has been called the inner life of things, the 'life' that is beneath the surface of things ....

This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock ... The camera should be used for a recording of life,for rendering the very substance and quintessence of the thing itself, whether it be polished steel or palpitating flesh. ~ Edward Weston

FYI, if you are not familiar with Roland's writings, studium is defined by Barthes as the element that creates interest in a photographic image. Punctum is defined by Barthes as the element in a photograph that pricks or "wounds" the viewer - the misbehaving detail that challenges the photograph's dry facility and is something which reaches out and grabs you by the shirt tail.

Now, perhaps those ideas and notions are just too much "education" for the average picture maker. If so, that's fine by me. To each his/her own and all that.

On the other hand, understanding, appreciating, and educating oneself to those ideas and notions is, IMO, paramount to the understanding and making of good / interesting pictures - pictures that move beyond mere visual entertainment and that contain, at the very least, the possibility of connecting the viewer to a more complex, nuanced, and illuminated meaning(s) than is found in the typical pretty picture.

And FYI, in addition to the aforementioned, my issue with pretty pictures is not so much with the pictures themselves - although, I do indeed find most but not all of them to be rather boring and repetitive. My issue is with the near total and somewhat slavish addiction to them that is, more often than not, exhibited by the viewing public and with those who feed them with a constant diet of the same.

civilized ku # 763 ~ a clarification - on seeing

Barren tree in the rain ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenIt is almost always assumed by the Zedēophiles (see the Follow Up entry on civilized ku # 762) in the crowd that, when discussing the idea of "god-given" talents / gifts, there are only 2 sides to that coin - one either has it or one doesn't. There is no in-between.

While that reaction / opinion is often the result of someone's low self-worth or lack of self-confidence, nothing could be further from the truth. There are, of course, a zillion shades of grey between those who have it and those who don't. Although, in my experience, the more that the in-between shades of grey slide toward the don't have-it end of the spectrum, the more those in the picture making world tend to rely upon the rules when it comes to composition.

Now, it should noted - and I can not emphasis this enough - that relying upon the so-called rules of composition is not a fatal picture making flaw. There are many in the picture making world who, with a modicum of talent / "god-given" gifts are rather successful at making reasonably good / interesting pictures by following "the rules" (such as they perceive them to be).

And, let reiterate in slightly different words - I do not mean that as damning with faint praise.

If one has risen, through whatever effort and means necessary, to being the best that they can be, they have, IMO, accomplished much. That does not necessarily mean that I or anyone else will like and/or appreciate their picture making results but - once again, I am sincere is stating this - whether or not I and/or anyone else like and appreciate their pictures, they should be very happy and very satisfied with what they have produced, although ...

... IMO, no one should ever be satisfied to the point that they don't continue to strive to learn more and improve upon what they have accomplished.

That also doesn't mean that, if they present their work to the court of informed public opinion that, in fact, their work might be (figuratively speaking, of course) ripped to shreds, public opinion-wise.

And, let state expressly for the Zedēophiles in the crowd, that I include the results of my picture making endeavors as subject to that same court of informed public opinion. However, when it comes to picture making, as it does to so many of life's endeavors, if you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen.

art reflects/transports # 22-25 ~ the long and winding road goes on and on and on ...

Art reflects • click to embiggenThis past Friday while I was in Montreal working on securing a solo exhibition of my ART ~ conveys / transports / reflects series, I also managed to add 5 more pictures to that series. You can view them HERE - they are the second - sixth pictures, immediately following the first picture in the gallery.

FYI, over the years - in fact, over decades - I have had many of my fine art pictures accepted / exhibited in juried group exhibitions / competitions. Those juried exhibits / competitions have spanned the spectrum from local to international exhibits / competitions in scope. In several of the international juried exhibits / competitions, a few of my pictures have "won" or placed high on the awards list.

That said, it has not been until quite recently - after 4-5 years of concentration, almost exclusively, upon my "fine art" picture making - that I have felt that a couple of my bodies of work have "matured" to the point of being solo-exhibition worthy. Consequently, I have been spending a considerable amount of time (over the past couple months) fine-tuning and printing pictures from those bodies of work in order to create separate portfolios for presentation to galleries.

FYI # 2, over the next few days, I will be presenting those bodies of work - 1. ART conveys / transports / reflects, 2. Picture Windows, and 3. Decay & Disgust - in online gallery form à la the ART - conveys / transports / reflects gallery.

civilized ku # 762 ~ wherein I rest my case with prima-facie evidence

20th floor view ~ Ommni Hotel - Montreal, CA • click to embiggenHere's an "out-of-context" quote:

... saying so* in the art world was tantamount to asking to be crucified on the cross of effete elitism ~ Mark Hobson

Here's the "context" as "Zed E." (no link provided - as is always the case in a screed of this kind) sees it:

A long time ago Mark M. said this blog was either silly or insane. I say its both and very, very funny.

What kind of a person starts his tome "on seeing" by calling other professional photographers talentless hacks but then claims he is so sensitive (to corrupting your own personal vision dear and gentle reader) that he is afraid to explain his own photographic process to you?

What kind of person spends multiple blog posts blessing you with his wisdom on seeing and rants about how dangerous it is to make pretty pictures, look at pretty pictures, or take advice advice from pretty picture makers - then - after all of the drama queen ranting - finally gets around to telling you dear and gentle budding photographer that all along he ultimately believed that unless you were born with the artist's eye (like he was) that you are just wasting your time listening to anything he or anyone else has to say about the how or why of the art of photography?

What kind of a person takes the foreword from another photographer's monograph and uses it as a way to congratulate himself about what an amazing artist he is?

What kind of person introduces his own blog post with a self congratulatory nod for being able to see great pictures at 65 miles an hour?

I would keep going but I am laughing too hard now to keep typing.

Mark - why don't you try making good on all of your narcissism and self aggrandizement by having a show of your work at a major gallery or getting a monograph of your fine art work published by someone besides Shutterfly?

Or why don't you post some testimonials from all of the students you have inspired at your Picturin' Chautauquas?

Anyone with two brain cells in their head to put together knows whats going on here:)

Anyone else that takes anything written here seriously deserves whatever they get.

I can't thank you enough for all the laughs!

Considering all of the above I have one suggestion. If you ever change the name of the blog I think either - The Feedback Escapist - or - The Hobson Quote Mining Company - would work just great.

Oh and here a couple of requests. Even though I know now you think we are all hopeless from birth and I know now that I will probably never be able to see at even 30 miles an hour - please, please, please don't ever quit your heroic efforts to protect me and all of the other little photographers from the big pretty picture boogie man.

And please keep quoting out of context as much as possible. I love that!

Thank you again.

my response: no response required because, after all, it's all good.

BTW & FYI, stay tuned later this AM for more of my rough draft / thinking-out-loud thoughts and opinions, re: on seeing.

*some people have a "god-given" gift, whereas, some people just weren't in that line when the gifts were being doled out

Update on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 12:45PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: even though I wrote: "no response required because, after all, it's all good ...

My response: .... I should point out that, over a number of future entries, I will refer, directly or obliquely, to a number of the ill-informed, un-formed, or downright ignorant statements made by Zed E. In fact, I am considering the coining (and subsequent use thereof) of the word(s), "Zedēistic" or "Zedēesque" to denote ill-informed, un-formed, downright ignorant, and/or animus-istic statements / comments (whenever / where ever they arise)

Update on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 01:52PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Scott Hussy wrote, re: my sports analogy (in civilized ku # 760): "I think it is debateable if a team made up of only Mario Lemieuxs would be succesful. For starters, I am not sure Mario Lemiuex would be a very good goaltender...

my response: when I expressed the idea of a sports team made of "superstars", I meant a sports team that was made of all-stars - the best forwards, the best defensemen, the best goaltenders,etc.

I would also note that Mario Lemeiux relied significantly upon his exceptional and prodigious "god-given" talent/gifts (which should not be misconstrued as a lack of commitment or dedication on his part). His injury-plague hockey career was due in large part - his bout with cancer excepted - to his oft-criticized early-career failure to tend to "off-ice time spent working out" which, in fact, because of his failure to do so, resulted in a career of "show(ing) up on game day and play(ing) without practicing".

And, while it is true that, as you state, "Mario Lemieux did not turn 18, put on a pair of skates, and start playing in the NHL", it is true that, when he did start playing hockey at a very young and tender age, he did step onto the ice and start playing at level that was far and away very superior to that of "mere mortals".

civilized ku # 761 ~ mission improbable

Ship and pier ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggenOnce again, I'm back in Montreal for a couple days, this time because the wife is here to attend the annual retreat for the North Country Chamber of Commerce in Plattsburgh (NY). She is a board member-elect, waiting for her term to begin on the new year.

I must admit that every time I hear the phrase, "the wife, Chamber of Commerce Board Member-elect", I tend break out in a fit of uncontrollable laughter. That's not because she is not going to be a worthy board member - I'm quite certain that she will be a valued board member. It's simply because neither of us ever thought we would ever hear that phrase - it's a kind of Mission Improbable thing.

civilized ku # 760 ~ gifted / on seeing

Reflections • click to embiggenLast evening as I was chatting up (some might say, "chattering up") some folks at the North Country Chamber of Commerce Board Members Annual Retreat, I came across a retired teacher. To be more specific, a retired art teacher.

Naturally, I raised the idea of my on seeing endeavor which, rightfully so, I consider to be a form of teaching. After explaining to her what it is I am attempting to accomplish, I asked the question, "Can art be taught?" Her answer was an immediate and rather resounding, "No."

She went on to explain that, in her experience, some people have a "god-given" gift, whereas, some people just weren't in that line when the gifts were being doled out. My response was that I concurred but with the caveat that saying so in the art world was tantamount to asking to be crucified on the cross of effete elitism because, as we all know, in the words of Bob Dylan, "It's all good".

In the world of sports, managers and coaches have a phrase that is used whenever they come across an athlete with exceptional abilities - since I'm in Canada I'll use Mario Lemieux as an example. Such athletes, in addition to their outstanding skill set, are said to possess an intangible "something that you just can coach/teach". After all, if it were coachable / teachable, then every team in every sport would be made up of superstars. The rest of us, hockey-wise, would be relegated to the cheap seats where we would suck beer and eat nachos covered in near-toxic cheese-like goo - and, it's worth mentioning that, IMO, we'd all be quite delighted to be there.

I mention all of this because I am still not certain that what I have to teach can be taught. I'm still going to try like hell to find out but, as an example, consider the idea in yesterday's entry about over all / carpet composition.

Now that that idea has been explained to you, it's quite possible that some of you, perhaps even all of you, can actually see it in my pictures (and those of Benoit Aquin, if you took the time to check out his work). However, even though I make pictures with an over all / carpet compositional form, I doubt whether I can explain exactly how I do it. For me, creating such pictures are a nearly preternatural ability that is embedded somewhere in my sub-consciousness.

To wit, I see things that prick my unthought known and a considerable part of that pricking is my rather immediate and subconscious recognition of patterns and relationships of colors, shapes, forms, tones, and the like in the world around me. When I put a camera to my eye, it doesn't take much effort to isolate and fix those qualities onto the camera memory card.

All of that ethereal malarkey said, the teachable moment in all of that may just be found in the act of putting the camera to my eye, which in fact, is not exactly the case - I actually bring the camera's rather 2D LCD screen close (semi-folded arm's length) to my eye wherein I see those aforementioned qualities as a miniature flat-plane representation of the eventual flat plane of the the photographic print.

What I see on the LCD screen, as opposed to seeing the same thing through the viewfinder of a DSLR, is not the world in front of me, but rather the representation of a picture (which itself is a representation) of the world in front of me. This about as close as I get to the idea of "pre-visualization".

If I were to suggest an approach to developing an ability to seeing a representation of a picture during the act of picturing, it would be to spend a considerable about of time under the focusing cloth of an 8×10 view camera - a 4×5 vc or even the viewing screen of a TLR will do in an 8×10 vc-deprived pinch - looking at what you are about to picture. What you will see on the focusing screen is the image upside down and reversed. At that point, patterns and relationships on a flat plane are just about all that you see.

Once you are acclimated to that way of seeing a representation of a picture, it is quite easy to see a representation of a picture in nearly the same manner when looking at an LCD screen or even through the viewfinder of a DSLR.