FYI ~ composition / surface - on seeing

While in Montreal, I visited Galerie Pangée were I was introduced to the work of Benoit Aquin - specifically, a few of his color photographs of le dust bowl chinois. About a dozen or so of his prints were in a portfolio box that was sitting on the gallery countertop and I took it upon myself to open it and have a look.

The prints were small - 11×14-ish images printed on 13×19-ish matte paper - and they were not for sale. The gallery had previously displayed his exhibition size prints - 30×40 / 40×60. I'm sorry that I missed that. Now I'm on the gallery's mailing list so I'll be notified of upcoming exhibits.

In any event, I was able to purchase his book, Benoit Aquin ~ FAR EAST, FAR WEST. In the book's Introduction by Olivier Asselin the subject of how Aquin conveys in print what he sees arises and, IMO, much of what is offered up applies to my picture making MO:

Aquin's photographs also possess extraordinary beauty, all while resisting conventional aesthetic forms. Their composition is discrete yet exceedingly subtle. Far from the formal simplicity usually associated with beauty, these images neither favor or avoid the centre, nor can they be reduced to a sweeping line or compositional form (horizontal or diagonal, rectangular, triangular, or circular), nor to an opposition of distant planes. Sometimes the composition is classic: the subject is centered, the sky and landscape well proportioned, the point of view frontal, with the lines of the motif echoing those of the frame, or they are precisely oblique, opening out to two vantage points. But more often than not, the composition seems arbitrary, with the subjects, including people, being cut by the frame

Key words/phrases: resisting conventional aesthetic forms, discrete yet exceedingly subtle, the composition seems arbitrary. IMO, these notions describe my approach to composition. But, there is another important element to composition - that of keen awareness of the 2D surface of the print...

.... in Aquin's work, there is a veritable fascination for surfaces. His work often integrates wide or flat motifs, which partially or complete obscure the view, bringing to the fore the flatness of the the image, in the form of a wall, a window in which another view is reflected, a curtain of plastic strips in a shop doorway, a car windshield, a tarpaulin delimiting an urban construction site, large signs covered in letters, an open newspaper, the roof of a tent, a line of men, a row of trees, etc. Alternatively, the motif is presented in such a way that it appears flat: the cracked earth, a bed of stones, a tiled floor, or an asphalt road, which, viewed from above, fills most of the frame, reducing the photographic space to the surface of the image ... the surface is also affirmed by the multiplication of motifs, by their homogenous repition, or, quite opposite, by a heterogenous accumulation of varied motifs ... these motifs, these colours and varied textures fill the images, animating it with constant visual movement, as in an all over composition, or a carpet

I have always considered one of my most favored qualities in the pictures that I find to be good / interesting is that of animation with constant visual movement - what I have always called visual energy. And, ever since my first use (40 years ago) of a view camera and its 2D focusing/viewing screen, I have been acutely aware of the corresponding 2D qualities of the surface of a photographic print.

I will admit to never having thought of my compositional MO as that of a carpet (now I will) but I have been very aware of the all over form of composition that is to be found in most of my pictures. And, by the nature of my very nature, I have been forever given to "resisting conventional aesthetic forms".

Now, if anyone wants specific info regarding any of my pictures, please name a specific picture and I'll do my best to "dissect" it.

Update on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 10:02AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: John Linn wrote/asked: Your crop of Benoit Aquin's photo is very nice, but do you feel it is right to modify someone else's art? Or is this how the photo was used on the cover of the book?

my response: The picture of the book cover is un-cropped - that's exactly how it is presented on the cover.

civilized ku # 758-9 ~ Wódka

Borsch ~ Stash Cafe - Old Montreal, Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhile in Old Montreal this past weekend, the wife and I had dinner at Stash Cafe, a restauracja polska, on rue Saint-Paul Ouest. Our very tasty dinner included borsch, bigos, krokiety, placki & roast of wild boar. And, of course, some Wódka - because, as the menu and place mats state:

Everything tastes better with Wódka. Including Wódka.

civilized ku # 759 ~ on seeing

Parking lot ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggenSince last I wrote about seeing, a number of comments have been made, re: writing about the subject...

I too am baffled by the direction of Mark's thoughts on this topic...I think it's clear that it is one thing to be a good photographer and another thing to be a good writer about photography. (Sven W) .... I doubt there's much that is instructive to be said in general about how to make good photographs (James M) .... I find that discussions of this nature just keep going round and round in circles, without really being very useful...and pretty soon gets to be boring (Anil Rao)

...the gist of which could be construed as I should put a cork in it and move on. However, those comments were amended (sort of) by Anil Rao's additional suggestion that ...

I think it is important for this dicussion that you share with us some of your thoughts behind the making of your pictures. I am sure that a lot of us would really appreciate this insight in your photography.

What I find interesting about these comments is that most are pining for commentary on "the making of (my) your pictures". IMO, the reason for the desire for this more "concrete" information, as opposed to the rather ethereal commentary I have been presenting - commentary about "feeling" and digging deep inside one's self / psyche in order to "invent" your own personal manner of seeing and making pictures of what you see, is the result of a kind of fear.

Fear of having to make the long and arduous effort of coming to grip with and understanding one's inner self and how that applies to what one is trying to accomplish in his/her picture making endeavors. Fear of failure. Fear of letting go of old habits. Fear of addressing the unknown.

After all, if art - the good, the mediocre, and the bad - is the measure of the man/woman, there is an inherent risk/fear of letting it all hang out, aka: the fear of rejection. Rejection, not only of the art you make, but rejection of one's image of one's self.

All of that (ethereal malarkey) said, there was one comment from James M with which I totally agree ...

... one of the best ways of learning how to "see" better is to immerse yourself in good pictures. I just keep looking, and hope that something will sink in.

However, the key word in that notion is, "immerse" - one needs to immerse one's self in good pictures but the immersion must include understanding why one likes and/or dislikes good pictures. That is to say, to come to an understanding within one's self about why one likes or dislikes the pictures one views.

If, when viewing pictures, all one does is "hope that something sinks in", you're going to be hoping for quite a long time, maybe forever. What's needed is a more active approach to Making something sink in.

I have often suggested to picture makers who want to move beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment (as stated in the sidebar, About This Website) that they write their own critique about those pictures to which they are attracted or, conversely, from which they are repelled. And I do mean to actually write - put some thought into it and put one's thoughts and reactions down on paper. That activity is a very important part of self education.

Now, all of that said, I am not completely adverse to discussing the making of my pictures. However, if I am to do so, I would like to avoid those discussions that are gear / technique driven. Which is not say that those issues are not part of the making of my pictures but I would be more inclined to discuss the why rather than the how of my picture making.

In the meantime, I will continue with my writings on the subject of seeing and, as I was about to commence, on how to make pictures of what one sees - at least, inasmuch as I see it.

civilized ku # 758 ~ inside, out & outside, in

Reflections ~ Rue St. Paul - Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 757 ~ atmosphere

Face & heads ~ Narcisse Bistro-Bar à vin - Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggenAmongst many other things think of this entry's picture as a test of your monitor's calibration - if you don't see lots of subtle detail in the dark areas of the picture, you're missing a lot. And I don't mean "a lot" just about this picture.

art reflects/transports # 1-21

Yellow landscape ~ art reflects/transports • click to embiggenHad a very enjoyable, with-the-wife wise, and productive, picture-making wise, weekend in Old Montreal.

All of the art reflects/transports pictures were made on Rue St. Paul in Old Montreal. View all the pictures HERE - comments appreciated.

civilized ku # 753-56 ~ big boats

2 ships ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Ship / hedge ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Ship / fence ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Ship / hedge ~ Old Montreal / Montreal, CA • click to embiggenWhile in Old Montreal this past weekend, I gave a 45 minute photo workshop to Fred (our friendly photo enthusiast doorman/greeter/bellhop/concierge at the Auberge du Vieux-Port).

Knowing that Fred is a photo enthusiast and knowing that Matthew - the other friendly doorman/greeter/bellhop/concierge at the Auberge du Vieux-Port - regularly visits The Landscapist, I brought along a print of one of my art reflects/transports prints - the one in my last entry - because I suspected both Fred and Matthew would be interested in the series, albeit each for different reasons. That said, both were very interested simply for the reason that all of the pictures in the series were/are made on Rue St. Paul which is the street at the rear of the hotel.

In any event, when I showed the print to Fred, he spent 5 minutes just looking at it and then, after expressing his various thoughts and opinions about the picture, he launched into a series of questions that took us into a how-I-process-my pictures discussion. He was also quite amazed that a picture with such detail, sharpness, color and quality was made by "that little camera you carry around".

Fred was very appreciative of the time I spend with him - as opposed to the wife who was cooling her heels in our room while waiting for some action.