A matter of discovery--The objective and the abstract

[Doug Bennett]

I think that this thread goes to the heart of the question: what is it that makes B&W photography special? What is there about it that speaks to people? Because it does speak, in a special way.

Maybe the unseen and unknown is this: it’s the light. I’ve had discussions, some heated, both here and over at ph*t*.net, about the quality of light. Many people express the opinion that there is no “good” or “bad” light. I heartily disagree. My favorite prints are the same ones that friends and family like, and are the same ones that have sold the best. The common denominator: they were taken in beautiful light, and I got lucky and managed to translate it first to the film, then to the paper.

I hate to always go back to old Ansel, but he said it well: “I was suddenly arrested in the long crunching path up the ridge by an exceedingly pointed awareness of the light.... I saw more clearly than I have ever seen before or since the minute detail of the grasses, the clusters of sand shifting in the wind, the small flotsam of the forest, the motion of the high clouds streaming above the peaks."

I think that in those moments of light, something of the Divine is revealed to us, and if we are technically adept and/or lucky, that moment can continue to speak to us from a print hanging on a wall.

So I’m fine with either a “pretty picture”, or one of paint peeling off a plaster wall. Either one has the potential to reveal the unseen and unknown. As I posted previously, though, I think that this medium that we are using, i.e. viewing a scanned and compressed digital approximation, on a computer monitor, makes it tough to really “see” what is going on in a print.

Also: Ed, I totally agree with you about the worry of being “derivative.” That has to be the most useless, self-defeating path that an artist can go down. For crying out loud, blues musicians have been using the same three chords for decades. Yet I heard a new Charlie Musselwhite song the other day, with those same chords, yet it was fresh and original.

What a liberating thought: every photograph is different, indeed has to be different.

 

[mark]

Lets go backward and bear with me.

When the whole of a contrived and oft duplicated scenic composition is presented, beyond the actual location and technical matters...what meaning does the image convey?

Maybe it portrays beauty, serenity, ruggedness of nature, The ever changing scene. Maybe it conveys the wonderment of not knowing what is just beyond the trees, or it could be the joy of a destination or the start of a new journey. Maybe the meaning is the absence of thought and the enjoyment of being.

Your really big bold letters do not answer my question. What questions do you want asked? And what questions do these pretty pictures not ask or answer, and why is it necessary? How do they not make someone think? Or do you mean they do not make you think? Before you say "they have already been done and we see them everywhere" stop to ask yourself how many windows have been shot through and portrayed in an abstract fashion? I am looking for specifics. You ask if people are afraid to think, I am asking what are we supposed to think about? If we are supposed to think about the meaning of life then why can't I, or someone else, do it while looking at a stream with trees and rocks.

I remember hearing somewhere that life death and all that happens between can be seen in one blade of grass. One blade of grass, one tree, one valley, one scene of streaked plaster with a broken window framing another window, what is the difference? What all important questions can be asked or answered in the latter and not the former or those inbetween? Not having seen the photos in question I cannot say for sure but isn't a shot through a window an "oft duplicated composition." In many ways that type of composition can be considered much more generic because it has no specific place, or time, it could be anywhere.

It would take a really big camera and unbeleivabley wide lens to take the whole of a scene. The curvature of the earth and big mountains would make things problemeatic as well. There is always going to be something unseen outside of the frame. by definition, as has been said before, every photograph is an abstraction of reality. A BW photograph is even more abstract because it removes the familiarity of color from the scene. It forces the viewer to see the texture, the parts.

I probably give the abstract more importance in this particular discussion because the "pretty picture", if I am being honest, arose out of a desire to emulate the work of other landscape photographers. The second image depicts a streaked plaster wall with a window opening that frames another window opening. This image occured during a period of immense personal struggle in my life. I would say that out of this struggle and the angst of that time that this image is more genuinely arising from myself. Thus I feel that I have a valid position from which to draw a personal comparison and also to draw a comparison of the interests of other viewers.

I cannot imagine why trying to emulate the masters is a problem. You did not learn to walk and talk without emulating the masters. What is the problem with learning landscape photography this way? Isn't that why photo workshops exist? Watch a young child. They walk like the parent they have the closest relationship to. As they grow they step away from their parents and have their own walk. There may linger a hint of that master's style but the walk has become theirs. This is true of photographers as well.

Yes YOU have a valid reason to draw a personal comparison, and you have a reason to compare the interests of the viewers. But You are not WE. The Author of the photo has no control over the baggage, or lack of baggage the reader/viewer of the photo brings with them to the photograph. You find much more importance in the window picture because as you say it is most representative of coming from the real you. Could it be that the viewer just saw a window, some messed up plaster and nothing to provoke thought what so ever because they had nothing of importance to tie to it.

Could it have been that the stream was more familiar to a person and thus they could attach meaning to it. Maybe a fond memory, or the memory of a bad time. Maybe they were hiking along and found their significant other in the arms another person in a scene such as your rocks and stream? Could it be that the familiar sparks an emotion and is not necessarily a thought, or an earth shattering revelation, but just as important. It is possible to view a piece of art without using your brain. Sometimes it is preferable.

I have no problem with you posting this thread, I never said I did. I was saying that you obviously did not post them to say Pretyy pictures suck and abstract thinking pictures don't. You did not say "see, here is a sucky picture and here is a good one. This is why the good one is good. You are obviously deeper than that. Sorry if I was not clear.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Really interesting, all of this. OK, most of this.

I usually don't respond much to these types of posts, but what the hell. I'm in a philosophical mood tonight, so I'm just gonna ramble. I don't guarantee you'll get anything out of reading this.

First, I think there's a difference between a 'pretty' picture and a 'beautiful' one. 'Pretty' to me implies a surface aesthetic appeal, whereas 'beautiful' implies much more. Physically unappealing things and people can be beautiful, but you wouldn't call them pretty.

Doesn't 'pretty' just completely depend on your personal tastes? And is it shallow to appreciate something that is simply (to your taste) pretty? I don't think so. I think that a simple 'pretty' is sometimes exactly what is needed. Personally, I tend to think and analyze far, far too much. More than I should, definitely. Images that make me think are good, but I need 'pretty' to make me lift my eyes and see that there is something outside of my own head.

Abstracts..... hmmm. Yes, I do like them at times. They make my mind work, they make me ponder, and at times, they make me question (things, myself, the world, whatever.) I'll confess that I am not generally a lover of abstract imagery. It usually leaves me a bit cold. I like to think, but I love to feel. An image that makes me do both is perfect, but if I have to choose, I choose to feel. It's rare for an abstract to make me feel.

Still life can very often make me feel. Not always. But really, when I analyze that (see??!!) it's probably because I am very much a people person, and still life more often than not suggests a human presence. There was a portfolio in LensWork recently with still life images from the photographer's mother's home after she passed away. One in particular, a brush with strands of her hair still tangled in it, hit me hard. It was incredibly emotive, yet thought provoking to me. The human presence. It was a very simple image. I wouldn't say it asked a question in any way. It just showed a fact and allowed me (the viewer) to interpret it, both within the context of his other images and the range of my own experiences and emotions.

Am I saying anything so far? I think I'm probably not.

I like what John (jovo) had to say. It is easier for most people to relate to what might typically be considered a 'pretty' image. Abstract (or whatever you want to call it) can be much more difficult for many people to appreciate because it is from a tighter perspective. I did some pretty whacked-out holga images a few years back. Tree roots close-up, double exposed and toned. To me, I saw bones and skulls in the roots, and it spoke to me of the circle of birth, life, and death. It spoke to.... oh, maybe one or two other people, and that's about it. Does it really matter? Is it my responsibility to worry about speaking to the masses through my work? Or to judge what should speak to viewers? Or to interpret their responses or lack thereof? I don't think so. It's my responsibility to make what moves me, and to appreciate the work that I appreciate.

That can change pretty frequently, by the way -- what kind of images speak to me. Hourly, sometimes. Sometimes I like dark and pensive 'deep' images, and sometimes I respond more to light, lacey 'pretty' stuff. I'm glad. It would be terribly limiting to only appreciate one kind of work.

OK, that's about enough of that.

 

[Donald Miller]

Mark,

I would interpert from the tone of your posts that I have struck a nerve. While that may or may not be true...by the tone of what you have said I would normally assume that to be the case.

My purpose as I have repeatedly stated was not to have a right or wrong viewpoint debate. My point was to examine the basis of one's photography...mine in this case. If you feel uncomfortable about that I am sorry, but that really is your problem.

Cheryl,

I appreciate what you said. A very balanced perspective as I receive what you have written. Yes sometimes images are best "felt" rather then "thought" and I think that there is certainly room for both.

As I view your images, there is one thing that comes through in "spades" and that is the conveyance of emotion. In fact I envy your ability to convey emotion through imagery.

I would ask this question, are emotions objective reality? I would think not...they are abstract. When someone tells me that they are happy or sad or angry. I have to extrapolate what that must mean out of my own personal experience. We can see another person's tears, but are they tears of joy or tears of sadness? The objective depiction of the tears in a photograph tells me none of that. The interpertation is up to me. In fact the absence of information of which motivating factor existed for the tears is what probably engages me to the greatest degree.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I would think not...they are abstract. When someone tells me that they are happy or sad or angry. I have to extrapolate what that must mean out of my own personal experience. We can see another person's tears, but are they tears of joy or tears of sadness?

I'm not sure I follow you here. If someone tells me they are happy or sad or angry, that is not abstract. I agree with that, if I've understood you correctly. If I simply see a person crying, I do have to interpret the tears based on my own experience. I agree there, also. I don't agree necessarily that emotions are abstract. I would say that they can be depicted abstractly by removing (or avoiding) context. I don't generally worry much about semantics, but I think this one's worth discussing.

I think it's important to note that tears of any sort for any reason are inherently emotive. I can't say the same for a window, or a rock. It's the human element. People are inherently emotive. (Duh. LOL) Objects are not (usually) inherently emotive, but can become that way because of human experience. (i.e. a crying person is emotive to (nearly) everyone, while a hairbrush is emotive only if my experiences and memories make it so.)

Too much heavy thinking. The merlot is crying out to me.

 

[Donald Miller]

Cheryl,

In the example that I gave and that you responded to...My thoughts are that while the tears are the objective evidence of the existence of an emotion the emotion itself is not objective and can not be objective since it is a feeling. The tears are not the feeling.
I would classify the emotion itself as an abstraction since it can not be seen and is up to me to determine if I observe the evidence in another.

As a further example...if I see someone blush (face becomes flushed). That, to me, would be the objective evidence of the existence of an emotion. The emotion itself is not objective...it can be anger, it can be embarrasment or probably other emotions as well.

 

[photomc]

Doug, I have to agree with you about the light..It has only be recent that I have begun to 'see' good light. It has always been there, and perhaps on some sub-conscious level I was aware of it, but now I marvel at light and the 'quality' of light. Early mornings and late afternoon and evening...Spring and Fall, seem to be the times I notice it most.

It is for that reason alone, I might go to some of the same old tired places where so many others have gone, not to use their tripod holes, but to make new ones, to 'See' the place they brought back for me to see, and to show them what I saw...we all know of workshops with 5, 10, 15 photographers shooting the 'same' subject, but each revealing themselves with their own vision of the subject.

As for TEARS....Sometimes tears are just tears, there are tears of pain, relief, anxiety, frustration, even for medical conditions (note it is springtime)..nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and by the same token, nothing is really as complex.

Just more random thoughts. I would rather make a Great 'pretty' image, than a crappy abstract one..but that is what works for me. Your results WILL vary.

 

[mark]

Ed

Donald is a thoughtful photographer. His three photographs in the gallery show this. Apparently I was not able to convey this....oh well.

Donald

No problem here and no vibrating nerves. Good luck on your journey of self-discovery.

 

[Tom Duffy]

A matter of discovery -- the derivative objective and the derivative abstract.

At this point (150 years since the birth of photography), it would take a friggin' great landscape or abstract, especially on a computer screen, to elicit much of an "Oh Wow!" reaction from me. Yet as I looked through the APUG galleries there are a number of pictures that do elicit a response. And most of them are by the same few people and I think, if we excluded ourselves, most of us would agree on the list. Why do these people "see" consistently better than the rest of us? That's probably the crux of the matter. In that light, I view the issue of objective/abstract, as irrelevant.
Ironic that most large format photographs are so mediocre - maybe because the bar is so high for that type of picture, or maybe since so few pictures are taken with large format. Also kind of funny that most of the world's great pictures are taken with 35mm cameras since most of the world's pictures are taken with 35mm. Follow that to its logical conclusion and soon most of the worlds' great pictures will be taken with digital cameras since most of the world's cameras will be digital. the "f8" part isn't as important as the "be there" part.

I liked Jorge's comment concerning his pictures that people liked - "what I heard the most was " I feel like I am there, like I could touch the earth/wall/object". " Jorge is playing to the strength of his view camera - detail one level abstracted from reality, since it's black and white. Or maybe two levels being platinum, as well. Did Jorge pick his camera based on the subject or did he pick his camera, which then determined his subject?

I think for smaller formats viewers most appreciate sharing a "slice of life" that the smaller, portable camera makes possible to record.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Before you read the following keep in mind that I do not claim to state the truth, these are just my opinions/propositions at this time....

1) Good photography relies both on a good photographer and a good audience. One must have something to say, the other must be willing (or at least capable) of understanding. Without a message, be it rational or not, a photograph is empty. Without an audience the message might as well not exist.
a)sometimes the photographer is unaware of his audience and/or message
b)sometimes the photographer is his audience

As far as abstract/objective goes:

2)Abstracts are irrational, and so are emotions. Sometimes an abstract coincides with an emotion. In that case the emotion is (at least part of) the message being conveyed by the photograph.
---OR---
2a)Abstracts are riddles, therefore they appeal to our rational minds. Sometimes (everytime?) we try to reason through our emotions. In that case the riddle might be (at least in part) about emotions.

3) An abstract that carries no message, or misses it's audience, is an empty picture
a) the pretty picture mentioned by Donald carried (at least to me) no message. It was therefore empty. This can and does happen to most art (abstract or not).

4) The message carried by a photograph does not need to be understood by the audience, only acknowledged. That is enough to hold the viewer.

5) Sometimes a viewer sees in a photograph something the photographer did not. This does not detract from either one.

Therefore, if one is his own audience, and one likes his work, he is a succesful photographer. If, however, one bases his success on the perceptions of others, he is bound to be dissapointed at all times (for one cannot please everyone at once).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that I'm 20, have only published 1 photograph (for free) and have no idea of what goes on outside my own (problematic) mind.

 

[Foto Ludens]

wow! no responses! Was I that much off topic? Were the spelling errors so great (I just corrected a few)? Or did I simply not give it enough time?

 

[Bruce Osgood]

wow! no responses! Was I that much off topic? Were the spelling errors so great (I just corrected a few)? Or did I simply not give it enough time?

I get the feeling the horse has been beaten enough for now. Undoubtedly the nag will rise again in the future and we will have another go at her.

 

[clogz]

Andre
I agree with your points 2a & 4. The proof of the pudding: look at the galleries and notice that abstract photos get a lot fewer reactions. People that designs adverts and TV commercials know this. Put in some flowers, a puppy and a baby and your product is bound to sell.
On the other hand: an abstract that puzzles the mind causes an emotion but one we cannot easily determine.
Hans

 

[doughowk]

Abstracts are both too easy & too hard. Easy, just slip on a macro, get close to your subject & start clicking. Hard, in the sense of creating something that will grab you as a viewer. There are several pitfalls to avoid:
1) image asks what am I - who cares, you're just a print.
2) what do you see in me - do we need more rorschach tests. We're already too self-focused, self-indulgent, etc...
3) abstracts that emulate other art forms. Finding a Miro in the urban landscape is too intellectual of a pursuit.
4) minimalism as a goal. As above, if it looks like a Japanese picture, what have you proved?
5) Beauty in the microcosm - thank god Ed Weston didn't buy a microscope.

 

[Ed Sukach]

You did say the these were your opinions ... and acknowledged that the might not be the "truth" - that is unarguable.

This is my opinion, with exactly the same caveat:

About point #3 ... "An abstract that carries no message ..."

*Every* photograph - and - every work of art (unbelievably good - or equally unbelievably "bad") carries a "message". Whether or not it is the intended "message" is another issue. Humans, being what they are, may well have different interpretations of its content - and the emotions induced may be (and usually ARE), different for each individual. "Abstracts", especially, can be accurately described as non-standard permutations (very "non-standard) of Rorschach Ink Blots. Clouds are examples of "natural" abstractions ... how rare is it for two people to perceive the *same* image in any cloud?

Hmm ... If, given that every art work carries a message and, still, there is no one to receive it ... it is "Empty"?
I cannot read Sanskrit. A poem can be written in Sanskrit - and I will not be able to receive(interpret) it.
That has *nothing* to do with the poem itself. Someone fluent in Sanskrit - or having Sanskrit as their native language (?) may be struck with unending passion, overjoyed, devastated of moved to tears as a result of contact with that poem ... but *I* am not. The question here is "How does - CAN - one tell ... with *no* knowledge of Sanskrit? BUT -- that would be MY deficiency - not that of the poem.

There is another "classic" question, "Is it art if no one sees it?"
My answer: no. But the idea that "no one has seen it" is as close as one can come to being an impossibility - the artist, themselves, *WILL* have seen the work ... and that, in my book, is enough.

 

[Donald Miller]

I agree with some of what has been said about abstractions and I don't understand other statements that have been made. However, they have brought me to a point of view that follows.

There is a universal system of language that underlies all language. This language speaks at a much deeper level and for that reason photography (and other visual arts) have the ability to transmit that language when the spoken language (Ed's example of Sanskrit) can not.

Will all who are exposed to this language receive or for that matter understand it...obviously not. Does that make it a failure of the language or of the potential recipient?

This language would appear to be symbolic rather then literal. It speaks of things that are present but largely unseen. This language is not the language of thought but rather the language of emotion at a very deep level.

So perhaps in the rendering of abstraction...the language of the unseen we should pay attention to emotion rather then thought.

What are your views on this?

 

[juan]

Seeing is being not thinking.

We are after abstractions not abstracts.
juan

 

[Foto Ludens]

There is a universal system of language that underlies all language. This language speaks at a much deeper level and for that reason photography (and other visual arts) have the ability to transmit that language when the spoken language (Ed's example of Sanskrit) can not.


This language would appear to be symbolic rather then literal.

All language is symbolic, since it is a representation of something else, or of an idea of something else. It's all metaphors: a picture of a mountain, or the word mountain are not the actual mountain, but representations of it. Language does not mean spoken/written language alone, but any system of communicating ideas.

There are linguistic conventions that systematically apply certain meanings to certain uses of certain forms of language (if that does not make sense, read it over ). In photography, the conventions are much more obscure than say, English or Polish. There is no dictionary to refer to when in doubt of a certain symbol in a photograph.

Having that in mind, a photograph that fails to communicate it's message to a certain person is empty as it refers to that person. It may be perfectly succesful regarding someone else, one does not invalidate the other. Just as a poem is meaningfull and significant to some, and empty and boring to others. The more symbolic and metaphoric a message is, the higher its rate of failure.

As far as the deeper language you speak of, that seems very idealistic (very "Plato" of you) but highly improbable. The transmittion of ideas is what (in my opinion) binds language together. If this is what you mean, I agree fully. If not, I respect your position anyhow.

 

[Donald Miller]

There is a universal system of language that underlies all language. This language speaks at a much deeper level and for that reason photography (and other visual arts) have the ability to transmit that language when the spoken language (Ed's example of Sanskrit) can not.


This language would appear to be symbolic rather then literal.

All language is symbolic, since it is a representation of something else, or of an idea of something else. It's all metaphors: a picture of a mountain, or the word mountain are not the actual mountain, but representations of it. Language does not mean spoken/written language alone, but any system of communicating ideas.

There are linguistic conventions that systematically apply certain meanings to certain uses of certain forms of language (if that does not make sense, read it over ). In photography, the conventions are much more obscure than say, English or Polish. There is no dictionary to refer to when in doubt of a certain symbol in a photograph.

I would agree with your position insofar as what you have stated. However it is the agreement upon sounds and meanings assigned to those sounds that give various languages/dialects their agreed upon meaning at a conscious level within a societal structure. I would go a bit further then you do in your explanation because seemingly you do not allow for communication beyond that at a conscious level. It seems to me that in the realm of uttered sounds what man has attempted to do is to divide, to indentify and to label. If we take an alternate viewpoint that the sum of all of these parts is a whole then what we have done with all of our advanced studies of various matters is to attempt to put legs on a snake. Obviously the snake requires no legs.

Having that in mind, a photograph that fails to communicate it's message to a certain person is empty as it refers to that person. It may be perfectly succesful regarding someone else, one does not invalidate the other. Just as a poem is meaningfull and significant to some, and empty and boring to others. The more symbolic and metaphoric a message is, the higher its rate of failure.

The ability of a symbolic or metaphoric means to communicate is dependent, it seems to me, on a variety of things. The first being that the person exposed to the symbolism having had life experiences to that point that allow for symbolic language. Beyond that the person's willingness and ability to receive a given symbolic message must certainly include the ability to exhibit intuitive tendencies and a willingness to explore beyond the realm of conscious experience. All of the foregoing address this matter from a more or less conscious level. I believe the conscious consideration alone is very, a very, limited viewpoint.

I would go further then even that what I have previously stated in consideration of what Dr. Karl Jung wrote of the universal language of symbolism that transcends societies and cultures in his work "Man and his Symbols". If you have not experienced that work then I encourage you to visit it.

As far as the deeper language you speak of, that seems very idealistic (very "Plato" of you) but highly improbable. The transmittion of ideas is what (in my opinion) binds language together. If this is what you mean, I agree fully. If not, I respect your position anyhow.

Communication through symbolism is capable of a great deal more then the transmission of ideas. It can also be quite effective by posing unanswered questions. These questions that exist may not have been consciously considered or formulated. Beyond that it can also very effectively directly transmit knowledge that goes far beyond the synthetic knowledge that most of mankind is engaged in.

Obviously for one who has not visited France, for instance, it is difficult to consider the possibility of things that are found within the city of Paris. While this may sound foreign to you at this time, I encourage you to not shut your mind to it's possible existence forever.

 

[Foto Ludens]

"Communication through symbolism is capable of a great deal more then the transmission of ideas. It can also be quite effective by posing unanswered questions. These questions that exist may not have been consciously considered or formulated. Beyond that it can also very effectively directly transmit knowledge that goes far beyond the synthetic knowledge that most of mankind is engaged in.

Obviously for one who has not visited France, for instance, it is difficult to consider the possibility of things that are found within the city of Paris. While this may sound foreign to you at this time, I encourage you to not shut your mind to it's possible existence forever."

Perhaps ideas was the wrong word to use. But what is knowledge if not the idea of something, the mental representation of something (be it material or not)? I did not mean ideas merely as thoughts original to the mind, but as everything that goes on in the mind. This includes knowledge, emotions (at least when we think about them), from the most basic to the most complex action of the mind.

As for the knowledge that lies beyond the synthetic one, as you refered to it, I do not shut my eyes to it. A person who has never been to France cannot imagine what the wind smells like at 5pm outside a bistro, but he can extrapolate it from previous experiences and acquired knowledge.

As I write this I think that you and me may write about things differently, but if we break our ideas down enough, we speak of the same things.

This has been (and hopefully still will be) a very good discussion

 

[Donald Miller]

Andre wrote:
"As I write this I think that you and me may write about things differently, but if we break our ideas down enough, we speak of the same things.

This has been (and hopefully still will be) a very good discussion"

Andre, I would agree. Someone once said "Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists...therein lies peace."

This is reminiscent to me of the three blind men who were asked to describe an elephant. The first said an elephant is like a tree...it has a trunk that attaches it to the earth. The second replied "no you are wrong, an elephant is not that way at all. It is like a building. It has a broad wall. The third replied " Oh but you are both wrong. For you see an elephant is like a rope."...many times we all grasp only a part of the whole and believe that to be the totality of truth. That is true for me and that is true for all of us. Peace.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Peace it is. This discussion only displays *possibilities* - there must be an absolute truth - somewhere - but it may not be within the range of mortal wo/man to find it.

Another One of My "possibilities":

A poet friend of mine - with his obsession toward poetry once aid that "All art when divested of its embellishments will eventually be found to be poetry."

I could suggest that the media we choose is really the carrier for our emotional content; the framework for our (reversing) embellished poetry.
Photography is one of many languages - and the fluency in that language *could* be a help in experiencing "photography" ... surely anyone who has worked in a certain area - mine is Figure Studies (read: naked women) knows something of the trials and tribulations involved (I could write a book ...), so we invariably will have something of a different reaction to figure studies than those who have never been "there".

At the same time there is some universal quality that even if not understood, has its influence. I don't understand much Latin; I understand even less "spoken" Latin - yet, the Carmina Burana has a definite effect on my mood.
Some poetry has no rational interpretation ... yet it "works" - Lewis Carrol, etc..

Music is probably a prime example of an embellished poetry that "works" without satisfying any requirement of "being understood". Certainly formulae have been developed in an attempt to formalize works - I know very little of them - yet listening to Sibelius always creates in me a vision of dense, dark, coniferous forests.

So - photography ... Let the Band Play On!! My goal is in some way to affect MY moods and emotions. If it works to induce the same - or even an unexpected - significant change in another human being - GREAT! - If not - well there is always another selection to play.

 

[Ole]

At the same time there is some universal quality that even if not understood, has its influence. I don't understand much Latin; I understand even less "spoken" Latin - yet, the Carmina Burana has a definite effect on my mood.

This reminds me...

When a local choir was rehearsing Carmina Burana, they were evicted from the church they usually rehearsed in. The bishop had happened to be there one day - and he understood mediaeval Latin!

 

[Jim Chinn]

I have been gone awhile so I skimmed through the replies and will add a few comments of my own.


With regards to the two pictures, I think I liked the first image because of the balance and composition of the various areas of tonality. Perhaps seeing an actual print or a large print might not provide me the same perspective, but there was a certain balance to the elements that made the image a strong one IMHO. The second I did not comment on because that was the one I thought was derivative. I think I could look through my library and find several examples of the same subject matter in a variety of compositions and contexts. It is interesting but does not improve or add to the dialogue of broken glass window pictures.

The important thing is to keep exploring and experimenting. Challenge yourself to work in new ways and new subject matter. Maybe the issue is not the really wonderful landscape images you make, but the dozens in between the good ones that make shooting become a chore and a mechanical exercise. If you look at the greatest photographers they always evolved. The Weston's, Callahan, Siskind, Minor White, Evans, Bullock all moved beyond initial ideas and subject matter. Most great artists of any medium that last beyond the 15 years of output do so because they move from one phase or work to the next, rarely looking back and working with previous styles again.

Of course to move from a familiar subject matter, format, medium or style can be a daunting experience. On one hand one may have mastered the language of a certain style, even put their own unique "twist" on it. On the other hand that is probably when the 15 year rule kicks in which is probably the effective time span that it takes to exhaust ones creativity and excitement.

Ideally one needs to admit that they have pretty much ended that phase of their creative life and create new challenges. I think one can still return to old subjects and styles, but the main focus needs to be in new directions.

From your original comments Don, it seems this is where you stand. Realizing that to continue to create art, you need to move beyond where you are now. I hope you do move on to explore the more abstract. It was the next phase or addition to the works of most of the photographers I mentioned earlier.

 

[Ed Sukach]

The important thing is to keep exploring and experimenting. Challenge yourself to work in new ways and new subject matter...
... On the other hand that is probably when the 15 year rule kicks in which is probably the effective time span that it takes to exhaust ones creativity and excitement.
Ideally one needs to admit that they have pretty much ended that phase of their creative life and create new challenges. I think one can still return to old subjects and styles, but the main focus needs to be in new directions.

Of corse this is a valid argument: One *must* always "strive" to improve - but there is always a "flip" side... and this involves what "striving" means.

With me, "challenging myself" - implying both the "carrot and stick" approach ("Nothing is EVER good enough) and the idea of ascetically FORCING "an improvement - has never worked.

My "best work" - in my eyes - who else matters? - has always been the result of some "free act" - nearly an out-of-body experience, where I don't over-rationalize. Call it "looseness" or "stream-of-consciousness"... or ... "fluency".

I'll draw a parallel to driving an automobile. We certainly all WANT to drive well - but to try to FORCE the "right" action will only result in "white knuckles on the wheel" - a "tightness" and hypersensitivity that will slow our reflexes and ultimately degrade our performance. Where we will do our best is in the familiarity with the skills necessary - and we will probably not think much - at least not be obsessed - about what we are doing, and each individual, minute detail. In doing this we are not slacking off - we are really trying to "do our best"."

"Challenge"? I DON'T try to "challenge myself" each time I drive --- some do, I guess ... In the words of Charlie Brown, "Good Grief". Someone once said, "God MUST love Massachusetts drivers - there is NO way they'd last more than five seconds if he didn't."

As for photographers "evolving" - True - they do... if "evolving" means "changing". Whether or not that change-evolution is always for the better - that question opens the possibility for a great deal of discussion. Some of the "Greats" you mention strike me as having produced ... uh ... "better", more emotionally affective - more "significant" work - in MY eyes - during the early periods of their art. As they changed they became more hardened - stiffer and less free. The elements of genius that caused them to become famous faded.

I try to do my best - I don't consider that at all unusual. To me that means always trying to "see" through the eyes of a child ... open and receptive to the wonders that abound in this world.