Aesthetics

Ed,

I think that you brought up an interesting and important consideration. I took some time to think about this and I don't know that the photographers initial reaction always is transmitted to the viewer. It would be a nice ideal if it were to work that way. The other factor that is involved is the life's experiences of the viewer. That makes art very often an individual experience.

When I saw your figure study, I had no immediate reaction other then to admire the beauty of the human form. But then that could be a "male" thing. I honestly did not see how well exposed or how sharp your photograph was for that matter.

It is interesting, though, that I have realized similar reactions from a number of viewers of an image in a book that I have about Edw.Weston. This particular image is described most often word for word as "death and destruction". Now I have no idea if that is what Edward Weston saw and felt in exposing and printing this image. But that is what several people indicated at separate times and without knowledge of what others had felt or what others had said. That might make a case for your original hypothesis.

At any rate, interesting thread.

I'm the opposite of 'steve'. Although I like a beautifully made photo or painting as much as anyone I'm more excited and interested in the thought or idea in the piece. I like it when I feel a reaction, especially if the work is not about beauty itself. Beauty is overrated in photography IMO.

Art Vandalay said:

I'm the opposite of 'steve'. Although I like a beautifully made photo or painting as much as anyone I'm more excited and interested in the thought or idea in the piece. I like it when I feel a reaction, especially if the work is not about beauty itself. Beauty is overrated in photography IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree totally...but what then becomes of aesthetics?

Donald Miller said:

I agree totally...but what then becomes of aesthetics?

Click to expand...

This is why I realized that I couldn't properly address aesthetics because of the definition. If I really think about it, the images that strike me must have an aesthetic quality that works on me without being too noticeable. Probably it would be the overall composition even if the subject matter, or the superficial quality of the print is not what would normally be considered aesthetically pleasing. Some of the images by Paul Graham are like that for me. The snapshot-like quality adds to the disturbing undercurrent of his images of The Troubles in Ireland.

I think that there are photographs where it is pretty apparent to see what motivated the photographer and therefore really connect with what he must have felt at the time.

One such image for me is by Steiglitz called Venitian Boy, 1897.
http://www.geh.org/fm/stieglitz/htmlsrc/m196701200001_ful.html#topofimage

I believe that this is one of the most beautiful portraits ever made by a photogrpaher. The image is of a young boy, perhaps 10 years old with tight curly locks of either light brown or blond hair, seated on what appears to be a step. He wears somewhat ragged clothes and a rope is used for a belt. The thing about this portrait is the eyes. The lens shows the hair and eyes razor sharp, but those eyes have a look, the look of a boy who knows of a world far beyond his years. They literally drill into the camera lens and it becomes almost impossible to take your eyes off of his. Every time I see this portrait in a book I have, I am always asking, what do you know? What is the story behind those eyes that look so defiant and yet so scared?

I can feel the excitement that Steiglitz must have felt as he composed the image under the ground glass. And still those eyes, if you look at the picture long enough, can haunt your over 100 years later.

When I look at a photograph, I mentally shut down critical thought and experience the picture. Then I look again critically and dissect a bit, then a bit more.

However if a photograph is technically poor (obviously, in my opinion) it tends to end the non critical evaluation very quickly, and I move rapldly into critical mode.

That being said, I have to say that the experience of the photographer making the picture, and the person later viewing the picture will and probably should be far different. The process of photographing a person, is not just the split second of the shutter but also in a lot of cases of getting to know the person, talking to them, usually enjoying their company, in the case of nudes there is the obvious human pleasure of enjoying their nudity, as well as the trust involved in them showing their nakedness.

In a portrait setting there is an intimacy and a connection going on between the photographer and the subject. During that intimacy a collaboration is taking place that may metamorphosize into a successful portrait that may or may not be a deeply emotional instant or could even be just an acting job by the subject to place on an expression. How the viewer sees that is probably different with every viewer.

In any case, it is an event for the photographer and the subject, and often takes minutes and hours to achieve this picture as well as perhaps the 20 to 100 or so pictures that you take at this time.

The same could be said for people doing scenics who are out in the great outdoors and experiencing the the weather( hot or cold perhaps) as well as the surrounding sights and sounds, and the magic of nature.

So what I'm saying is that the viewer is not involved in this process and one would not expect them to feel the same way as the photographer. I've taken hundreds of thousands of portraits and in each one of the pictures I can look back on them and remember vividly the experience of the taking of them. It was a part of my life for that hour or so. I was connected to another person for that period of time.

Then there is the emotional part about spending the time working on the print in the darkroom. That is also an emotional experience to some extent that the viewer has no part in.

I believe that some very successful documentary type work like say Migrant Mother or combat type work can evoke close to the same response to the viewer as the photographer I just don't think that carefully set up scenics and portraits can necessarily do that.

We can look at an AA picture in Yosemite and experience some of what Ansel felt but we can not experience the experience he had making the image and I believe the same can be said for any portrait.

One last thing, I take portraits of a lot of children, and although I may have a great time playing with the kids I will never have the same response as the parents of this child who carries with him/her memories of every moment of the childs life and all that that entails, when she is viewing my pictures for the first time. I can look at the picture and say that it is a cool picture of a kid but the parents look at it and say, this is my child, my creation, my hopes for the future, my genes, whatever, but none of this, I am or can be, really a part of.

Sorry for being so long winded.


Michael McBlane

One thing that does baffle me here is where does it say that a photographer has to feel emotional when telling a story with a photograph? How many pictures have been shot and published throughout the world where although it has had an impact on the viewer, the photographer actually shot it objectively and with no other feelings than doing their job. In those situations there are no emotions or feelings other than our own as viewers.

I have been giving this a lot of thought as I completed this week's honey-do list. I have had a week off work and of course had to work at home. Laundry and furniture moving allow a lot of time to think. I could not come up with anything, until I came up to my classroom a couple of hours ago.

I have a door to the outside and the weather is perfect enough for me to have the door open. Our Fall winds have not started yet but there is a breeze. I was grading papers when I heard a scraping and caught a flash of yellow in my peripheral vision. Then it was gone. A minute later it was back. I looked up and there was a small piece of yellow paper sitting in my door. It is folded in half and the breeze was opening it and closing it. As it opened it caught the light so it was flashing from shadow to brilliant. Then the breeze got a little harder and it blew away but returned a minute or so later and repeated the process, then disappeared again. Because of the way the breeze is blowing, the shape of the building, and the location of my outside door, this paper is swirling in much the same way a small twig would if caught by a waterfall. I think it is called an eddy. I must have watched five cycles, before something happened that released it and it blew over the fence. Don't ask me why but I found the whole thing....well...beautiful, pleasing and emotional...perfect. Then I thought of this thread and realized that I also understood what aesthetics are, at least for me.

for a photograph or painting or sculpture or piece of folded yellow paper to stir an emotion, spark an interest, or cause a second glance many things have to fall into perfect alignment. The art and craft have to work together in balance to create an aesthetic experience for the viewer.

Whether we display our photographs for others to view or we keep them to ourselves, they are meant to be viewed, otherwise we would never process or print our photographs. If the technical side (craft) was not appropriate to communicate the desires of the photographer then the image will lose some if not all of it's aesthetic value no matter how well thought out and executed the art portion is. Conversely, if the photograph is technically perfect and the negative is "perfect" but the art side of the creation has had no thought or is just executed poorly then the photograph will lose most if not all of it's aesthetic value. No matter the medium, the art and craft are so intertwined that the failing of one will lead to the failing of the whole.

blansky said:

When I look at a photograph, I mentally shut down critical thought and experience the picture. Then I look again critically and dissect a bit, then a bit more.
However if a photograph is technically poor (obviously, in my opinion) it tends to end the non critical evaluation very quickly, and I move rapldly into critical mode.
That being said, I have to say that the experience of the photographer making the picture, and the person later viewing the picture will and probably should be far different. The process of photographing a person, is not just the split second of the shutter but also in a lot of cases of getting to know the person, talking to them, usually enjoying their company, in the case of nudes there is the obvious human pleasure of enjoying their nudity, as well as the trust involved in them showing their nakedness.
....

Sorry for being so long winded.

Click to expand...

I am not sure, at all, that the preconditioning one receives through the photographic criticism route is a "good" thing. If I enjoy, am moved, inspired, ... emotionally involved ... with a photograph, I consider that to be a gift, and the prime reason for coming in contact with the work. To me photography is not PRIMARILY (can't emphasize that "primarily" enough) an exersize in learning technical skills. The "connecting" with the viewer - experiencer is why I do this ... and when that happens it is happy time.
To me, the "way to do it" is still important, but is far easier to learn than the "way to connect".

I'll seize the "joy" in the work. I don't mean this as a mandate for all others, or even any individual, to follow ... but I will suggest that allowing a shift in concentration to the physical properties dilute that "joy" is a loss.

I DO have an interest in the techniques ... especially if I see something interesting that I may use in my future work.

No apologies are necessary for "long-windedness" here. Every response, including "I didn't feel anything" is of interest. Even "disinterest" defines something of our "being" - our aesthetical makeup.

BTW ... I realize at the production of a work in photography is usually a lengthy, involved process .. but still photography is either enhanced by, or limited by, the fact that each of our works in a representation of a certain slice of time. 1/125th of a second - or so - to capture an image that says what we want it to say. That 1/125th of a second - or so - is the critical period, the moment of truth.
Those who work with motion pictures - I see that there are a few here .. are in a slightly different situation .. in one respect easier, they have access to more time; and in another; more difficult .. there are many more decisions to be made about what to do in that extended time.

TPPhotog said:

One thing that does baffle me here is where does it say that a photographer has to feel emotional when telling a story with a photograph? How many pictures have been shot and published throughout the world where although it has had an impact on the viewer, the photographer actually shot it objectively and with no other feelings than doing their job. In those situations there are no emotions or feelings other than our own as viewers.

Click to expand...

I don't know of anything that says that one MUST be emotionally involved. I would say that most of the successful photographers were ... Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, Eisenstadt, Certainly Edward Weston ... Steiglitz, ...

Your question: "How many pictures have been shot without emotion ...?" I don't know. Can you give me an example?

No - "I don't know of a written rule. But - who wasn't emotional about her/his work? I imagine some of the School photographers ... the Mall "cheapo" portrait-takers, Mug shots ... Driver's Licenses ... I guess they might be done with emotional detachment. Who WANTS to do work like that?

No - "I don't know of a written rule. But - who wasn't emotional about her/his work? I imagine some of the School photographers ... the Mall "cheapo" portrait-takers, Mug shots ... Driver's Licenses ... I guess they might be done with emotional detachment. Who WANTS to do work like that?[/QUOTE]




I believe there is a difference between one's work(ie-the images you make and what inspires you)and "one's work"(ie-your job)unless they're one in the same.Although none of the above are my profession-if they paid the bills and I was emotional detached,that's fine with me.Just so long as that detachment didn't spill over into "my work".If "my work" was also my career than I would hope to keep the attachment to it that I now have and wouldn't let things like clients,deadlines,etc seperate me from what drives me.

jim kirk jr. said:

I believe there is a difference between one's work(ie-the images you make and what inspires you)and "one's work"(ie-your job)...

Click to expand...

I agree.

I thnk it's possible, out of necessity, some combat photographers may "shut down" emotionally to do their job. It might very well hit them later what they witnessed, but I'm not sure you could approach some situations without your emotional defense mechanisms up. Margaret Bourke-White spoke about it when she photographed bodies found in the concentration camps at the end of WWII. She had to shut herself down in order to make her photographs. They were certainly emotional photos for the viewer, and the experience may have haunted her, but I'm not sure she could have done her job in an overly emotional state.

Ed, In a way it was just one of those thoughts and I don't know of any from the masters of photography.

But as Jim says it depends sometimes on if it's a shoot for pleasure or work. I know that for some of mine (OK I'm not that good by any means) I shoot what is wanted. If it's say a protest demonstration which I don't believe in and there's money in the pictures then I look for shots that tell the story, after the local paper has scanned the negs i just throw them in the corner and forget them. But I still meet people locally who tell me that for them the picture was as it should be and some even thank me for telling it.

For shoots I'm interested in then I get too possessive and protective sometimes as they are part of me and yep my emotions are there if I nail it.

I'm not unique so I guess there are others the same. Sorry for having to use myself as an example, it's not self promotion just why I got thinking after your post.

Suzanne Revy said:

She had to shut herself down in order to make her photographs.
... but I'm not sure she could have done her job in an overly emotional state.

Click to expand...

Doesn't "shutting down" infer control over emotions, rather than being devoid of them? If those emotions were not there, if she was not involved, if she did not "feel" anything, there would have been no need to exert conscious effort.

Suzanne, I can relate to that as I spent 4 years in the Police Force here and as the line in Blade Runner (the film) goes "if you could see what these eyes have seen" (or something very similar). Everyone in the emergency services learn to use the cut-off or they couldn't do their job, so I guess the real photographers are the same.

Ed Sukach said:

Doesn't "shutting down" infer control over emotions, rather than being devoid of them? If those emotions were not there, if she was not involved, if she did not "feel" anything, there would have been no need to exert conscious effort.

Click to expand...

Very much so but the control hopefully removes any emotions felt by the photographer as they are in effect shot without feeling and simply as a story. That's not being derogotary but in a way shows their professionalism.

Yes, indeed, Ed, I think control over one's emotions is probably a more precise way to put it. I think many such photographs are the ones that may generate the most universal emotional response from viewers than fine art photos which work on a much more personal emotional or aesthetic level. Each viewer may have a very separate response. I just think it's interesting that the work may come from a photographer who may be in a state of not letting his feelings get in the way, if you will. I think I've repeated myself here, because, as we mentioned before, "Guernica" is one of those paintings that seems to bring a universal response to everyone who looks at it, although Picasso may have harnessed some anger to get it done, but I think he would have had to keep it under control to complete such a masterwork.

Suzanne, I think artists like Picasso and indeed Robert Capa controlled and harnessed their emotions to produce the final picture. But what if the shutting down means that at the time no emotions are felt? If the shoot becomes a "sterile recording" of events would the viewer still feel emotions due to the content?

Well, I'm not sure a sterile recording of events can really happen in certain situations. I would have to concede that controlling emotions, and harnessing them is probably what Robert Capa needed te do to make good photographs of some of life's horrors. And his viewer will respond, I think both emotionally and intellectually. A truly sterile recording of something photographic. like say a driver's license of passport photo, and yea, my response is often one of abject terror upon seeing the results! Of course, no one else would necessarily have that same response. Or any response emotional or otherwise.

This thread has got my brain working, for a change. Thanks!

Cheers

Ed wrote...

I will propose that a successful photograph, through some process that I really do not understand - possibly, some sort of mystical osmosis - will produce the same emotion that the photographer felt - perceived - at the time s/he tripped the shutter


Ed, I believe your original premise is that usually the viewer of the photograph should/would feel somewhat the same as the photographer when he took the image. As I stated in my drawn out thesis, I don't really agree.

I will give a couple more examples to mull over.

Ed said,

No - "I don't know of a written rule. But - who wasn't emotional about her/his work? I imagine some of the School photographers ... the Mall "cheapo" portrait-takers, Mug shots ... Driver's Licenses ... I guess they might be done with emotional detachment.

I agree that they may be done with emotional detachment but they can also have great impact.

Lets take the example of a school photographer who by remote control shoots a few hundred kids a day. But the joy that some grandmother gets when she sees the picture is far different from the way the photographer felt.

A drivers license picture in the paper of a young person killed in a car crash. The DMV person would not feel these as the sad feeling you feel when seeing the waste of a life.

How about a lineup of the school pictures of the kids killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. These images with less than stellar craftmanship can have a huge emotional impact when viewed this way.


How about the photographers of 9/11 and the sick feelings that they felt while they photographed the destruction, and the joy that was felt in parts of the middle east over the viewing of the same photographs.

One person my feel horror at the photograph of a muslim fighter dead in the streets of Iraq and someone else may say "good'.

I'm just not convinced at all that what the photographer feels at the time of exposure is at all necessarily the same thing that one or more people would feel as well.

I do however feel that at times both the viewer and photographer feel the same thing but firstly, I don't think that this necessarily determines a "successful picture", and secondly I don't think it necessarily happens all that often.

Michael McBlane

blansky said:

I'm just not convinced at all that what the photographer feels at the time of exposure is at all necessarily the same thing that one or more people would feel as well.
I do however feel that at times both the viewer and photographer feel the same thing but firstly, I don't think that this necessarily determines a "successful picture", and secondly I don't think it necessarily happens all that often.

Click to expand...

I agree. The word "necessarily" is the key. I know that any given work will connect with some and not with others. I think though, that a study of why it DOES happen is useful. Certainly, this is producing a LOT of introspection and thought among the participants here.

The frequency ... ? I don't know ... I'd say that about 25% of the images *I* see (including my own) produce *some* level of emotional response in *me*. I recognize the idea that it would depend on each individual's level of sensitivity, and "openness" .... something I'm trying to cultivate and increase in ... me.

What about it, gang. What fraction of the photographs that YOU see have "an effect" on you?

BTW ... I think Picasso had a great deal of trouble containing his emotions, especially "rage", when he painted "Guernica". From what I've read, he attacked that canvas like a maniac. I think, probably he was temporarily "insane" ... or at least, more so than usual. I personally can't think of a work that has more raw... and intense emotional content.

Ed I can't decide if I like or hate you at the moment as this thread really has made me think far too much and being honest only about 10% of my pictures have any emotion in them from myself.

Maybe all the greats were driven by controlled and directed rage. Everything I have read and heard about Robert Capa says that he was driven by his hatred of fascism!

As I think I've mentioned here before, the most influential photos of 2004, the ones that will last the longest in the history books, are simple little snapshots from Abu Ghraib Prison. The photographer intent and viewer reactions, both emotional, are worlds apart.

Were these photos a "success"? The photographer ended up in the brig. Like viewer reactions themselves, "success" is a highly relative term. For these reasons it's very difficult to simply make blanket statements about photos or their intents and reactions. All a photographer can really do is stay enthusiastic about the work and hope that over time an accumulation of images will get at The Real Intent.

Ed you mention obliquely, and Michael more directly, the process of redaction, the most overlooked part of photography. If Michael burns five rolls during a morning shoot, and ultimately prints one large frame, how is the emotional intent separated for this one versus the other 59 shots? It is not a neatly-packaged quantity like focus or exposure. No, there are dozens, maybe thousands, of nonverbal and complex criteria that go into a final selection. Some of them may not even be known to Michael at the time, if his clients look at proofs -- he may never know that the real reason they loved shot 8B so much was that in 8B little Jessie looks so much like his departed Uncle Jeff -- an uncle Michael never saw nor heard of.

It is sorely tempting to think that photographs are art and then to apply painting-like criteria and metaphors ad nauseum. Stop it. Photos are photos, neither raw documents nor "art," but instead inhabit their own adjoining mental neighborhoods. Emeryville and Napa are both 'Frisco but you'd be hard pressed to confuse the two.

bjorke said:

It is sorely tempting to think that photographs are art and then to apply painting-like criteria and metaphors ad nauseum. Stop it. Photos are photos, neither raw documents nor "art," but instead inhabit their own adjoining mental neighborhoods. Emeryville and Napa are both 'Frisco but you'd be hard pressed to confuse the two.

Click to expand...

"Stop it"??? Is that a direct order? Wait ... I just checked ... I still have that piece of paper with the big eagle ... with the title "Discharge From The Armed Forces of the United States".

*I* see quite a bit of the SAME elements in painting and photography. Certainly, "compositional" elements appear to be much the same... The interaction between the Ar ... OK, "producer" and the viewer, I think (no proof) are much the same. Not much difference in the effect of the Critic in either area, either.

I'm trying to investigate and discuss the emotional "connections" between me, the guy taking the photograph, and the person "consuming" it, visually, on the other end.

No, I don't think it is a good idea to stop.

"Confuse" the two? I'll watch it. Not anything like what I intend to do. Searching for common ground does not necessarily imply "confusion", does it?