archetypes

removed account4 · Dec 17, 2017

we all use a camera for different reasons ..
is one to make archetypes ?

what i mean is
film, composition, processing previsualization, translation
revisualization burning, dodging, contrast enhancement, tonality ( color or b/w boost )
none of it was there that way, its all us putting our own spin on things...
i don't know how many times i have heard comments about photographs or scenes being perfect
are these things really perfect or do we just want to, in order to make sense out of our own
disorganized, no so previsualized, revitalized, not so contrasty, not so tonal-boosted lives.

it doesn't matter the subject, dessert ( or desert ) landscape with cacti and puffy clouds,
a lake and weeds and fish rising to eat bugs, portraits of friends, family or strangers, street photography
architecture, even abstractions ...

thanks

BrianShaw · Dec 17, 2017

Good morning, John.

Billy Axeman · Dec 17, 2017

Yes, I guess the act of photographing our environment by so many people is creating an archetype. It is a universal principle which applies to every repeated action of humans. But I think it is not a very strong one, because photography isn't a very important activity.

I wonder why you want to know if photography is creating an archetype. What are we doing with that, practically.

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 17, 2017

John< Please expand on what you mean by using our cameras to create archetypes.

MartinCrabtree · Dec 17, 2017

I don't photograph for any such lofty goals. It's a pastime from which I occasionally derive great joy and other times nothing more than simple documentation.

Billy Axeman · Dec 17, 2017

MartinCrabtree said:
I don't photograph for any such lofty goals. It's a pastime from which I occasionally derive great joy and other times nothing more than simple documentation.

Well, that's ok, but then you would be surprised that your results are not alone an act of yourself but also influenced by an archetype, or the 'collective unconscious' of many other photographers (as defined by Carl Jung).

Patrick Robert James · Dec 17, 2017

It depends on the photographer. I'd say the vast majority of amateurs and even some pros photograph for popularity. They see a good photograph and then they want to take the same thing, like they are part of a club or something. I saw a video of people lined up in the same spot at Yosemite to photograph one of the falls in the light that happens once a year. Literally hundreds of them with their tripods all crowded together. What exactly are they expecting that hasn't already been done a million times? They will all, every single one of them, go home and post the image on Facebook like they just discovered the Holy Grail.

MartinCrabtree · Dec 17, 2017

Billy Axeman said:
Well, that's ok, but then you would be surprised that your results are not alone an act of yourself but also influenced by an archetype, or the 'collective unconscious' of many other photographers (as defined by Carl Jung).

Freud,Jung,Breuer,ect...........nothing more than ramblings of men who believed they could predict others behavior.

removed account4 · Dec 17, 2017

BrianShaw said:
Good morning, John.

mornin' ( i mean evenin' )

Alan Edward Klein said:
John< Please expand on what you mean by using our cameras to create archetypes.

hi alan

not just the camera but the whole slew of techniques people have,
even when having a pro lab process or print the film
printing, its an interpretation of the scene to show some sort of ideal
atmosphere, cropping, situation, tonality, subject matter.
i have read over and over and over photographers talking about
sensiometric data points, expansion / contraction development
the concert vs the score and making an expressive print.
or a portrait that is beyond a snapshot.
granted there are people with cameras that just push a button hand it to a minilab
which makes all the choices its the machine's ideal settings for the film and print, not
the interpretation by the person who took the photograph.
if it isn't some sort of ideal or archetype that the photographer makes when he or she
makes all the decisions about composition, exposure, focusing camera movement, (in camera manipulation)
the processing decisions and then the printing decisions what is it then ?

not sure if any of that makes sense?

Nodda Duma · Dec 17, 2017

My primary goal is to put pictures on our walls that my wife thinks is nice.

Everything else about photography is relativistic crap.

There's many variations on that externalization theme which I think disproves your theory (but it's an interesting one, don't get me wrong).

removed account4 · Dec 17, 2017

Nodda Duma said:
My primary goal is to put pictures on our walls that my wife thinks is nice.

Everything else about photography is relativistic crap.

There's many variations on that externalization theme which I think disproves your theory (but it's an interesting one, don't get me wrong).

minor and answell are ticked off
after all so many people preach
previsualization and expressive printing
what is it they are previsualizing if it isn't some ideal situation?
IDK i don't previsualize, i have a hard enough time processing film within 6months of shooting it
to remember how and why it was exposed ...

Nodda Duma · Dec 17, 2017

Hah! Actually we have an Ansel (the fern) and a pic of Times Square up aside from my photos. So he's ok.

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 18, 2017

John, humans have similar tastes and aesthetic preferences such as fat and sweets when we're eating. However, they're is a huge variety of types of food that people can prefer. So while we're the same in many aspects, there's plenty of variables that make people different one from the other. The same could be said for art, music, and photography.

removed account4 · Dec 18, 2017

Alan Edward Klein said:
John, humans have similar tastes and aesthetic preferences such as fat and sweets when we're eating. However, they're is a huge variety of types of food that people can prefer. So while we're the same in many aspects, there's plenty of variables that make people different one from the other. The same could be said for art, music, and photography.

hi alan
i agree ..
hmm i thought i wasn't talking a universal archetype but a personal archetype ..
people make photographs that are meaningful to themselves ..
they make their own "kodak moments" .. obviously something that has
a deeper meaning ( maybe is an archetype / meaningful / ideal )
but now i think ( at least to me ) they are kind of the same,
i have the tools at my disposal to make that image
what i want the puppy on the parkbench eating the icecream cone reminds me of my
childhood and i can't believe i see it infront of me now .. im going to rid myself of all
the other distractions crop and shoot at a low DOF through a sheet of dirty plexiglass ( or big 1970s sunglasses )
and get rid of some of the low tonal details when i develop the film by adding 100% more developing time
(because i can) .. and when i print it i am going to use a split printing technique to give it a dream like quality
and vignette the edges. its a perfect memory ... maybe an archetype of my childhood with the pooch,
maybe a hallmark card or something for a mug or note pads too.
and i did it through camera work, previsualization, and darkroom printing.
im sure people reading this thread have used similar photographic tools to make photographs they
enjoy looking at, or sell at art fairs or give to people as meaningful gifts.
the things you mention make it easier for people to have connections with other people's condition ..
maybe archetype is the wrong word ?

Nodda Duma · Dec 18, 2017

It could be the wrong word, John. Archetype implies the artist's internal vision is unchanging over time, which I don't think is the case.

Consider your evolution of experience as a photographer and print-maker. In general, two things happen:

1) You gain (technical) experience which better aids you in realizing some internal "vision", improving its clarity to both yourself and to viewers of your creative output. At first, there may not even be an associated vision.
2) While a common thread may exist, that internal vision changes over time, sometimes quickly and sometimes glacially. Whatever the method, it is not constant, as the build-up of experience throughout your life opens your mind to new viewpoints.

Perhaps a better term is, simply, "vision", but perhaps that's not quite the term. It should combine both effects I describe above: Both the artist's internal goal and the techniques used to realize it (i.e. you recognize the common traits of an Ansel Adams photograph, and his desire to share the beauty of the Sierra Nevadas with folks back east), as well as acknowledging the artist changes over time.

Billy Axeman · Dec 18, 2017

I don't see what this discussion has to do with architypes, perhaps we should start a new thread with the title 'synchronicity'?

dpurdy · Dec 18, 2017

I am not sure I understand the question. However your statement that you meant personal archetypes makes it something I think I can relate to. I think a universal archetype could be merely called a cliche'.
I have spent the last year and a half going through all my work trying to identify the images that are significant to me and then printing all of them to make sort of a "master portfolio" of my own work. Except for a couple I need to re print I have just last week finished the project. What I learned from finishing all my previous work is that it could be said that I have made the statement over and over in various ways. Whether it is LF still life or MF landscape or nudes or whatever I was inspired to do, I can see now that I have been working with the same visual concept and aesthetic need for decades. In that way all my work has been towards the same archetype. Now I need and want to put that whole approach to bed. I have made the statement too much. So I am stewing over how to get off that beaten path and find a new way to think and see.

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2017

thanks for the responses..
i don't think it is synchronicity...i am thinking about..

maybe the word i was looking for was ideal ?
it is as if there is a pristine example of something
and when you see a scene or thing &c you are able to use
photographic"tools" to make that mental picture a reality...

so the photographs become representations of some sort of ideal
thing. like when a portrait photographer retouches blemishes or smooths
a complexion or uses a soft focus lens .. or a product photographer
takes a photograph of a box of kleenex .. or someone
photographs a bristlecone pine tree, or a waterfall down a cliff.

sorry its hard to put into words what i am thinking about

archetypes

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency