Can photographic "vision" be taught?

[Michael A. Smith]

No, Ed, I'm afraid you have misunderstood entirely. By photographic seeing I mean nothing technical in any way and certainly nothing in the way of "previsualization" the way you describe it--knowing exactly what the print will look like. If I ever knew exactly what the print would look like I would not make the picture because it would be a boring experience. Why do something that you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would not be there. I never know what a negative will look like until it is printed--it is always a surprise, and I certainly never know when I am under the dark cloth.

Photographic seeing involves taking into consideration, visually, every part of the picture so that what one sees is a unified whole, spatially and tonally, not a bunch of parts. The point is to make a photograph the way a composer writes a piece of music--no extra notes (and none too few either).

Michael A. Smith

 

[Donald Miller]

In this instance I agree with Ed's perspective on this matter. It appears to me that "seeing photographically" involves composition. Or perhaps more precisely composition is the means by which we can produce the cohesiveness of our "seeing". That I agree would be a skill capable of being taught.

Vision, it would appear to me, is an entirely different matter...it is personal with no two people sharing exactly the same vision.

Which is the primary of the two? I would think that without vision there would be no desire, hence no interest in seeing.

As an example, if I had a sibling who had died of AIDS, I may possibly have a very strong interest in and desire to portray the suffering and death of AIDS victims. I would have a vision about that matter. My sensitivity to the plight of those victims would allow me to see. If on the other hand I had no sibling so afflicted and in fact had a strong prejudice against homosexuals I might very well have an entirely different vision, then in the first example, and my seeing would be supportive of that second vision. In both of these instance, the images I made would most probably not portray much in the way of readily recognizable "conventional beauty". In fact no matter what those images which supported my vision were, there would be a group of people that would be strongly affected by my images. Perhaps the effect would be one of sympathy, or anger, or disgust. Is this not photography as well as images that I create of "rocks, trees, and manifestations of this world" that I compose in carefully construed fashion so as to portray "beauty"?

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Don: "I would think that without vision there would be no desire, hence no interest in seeing."

Yes, that would be true.

No one istalking about conventional ideas about beauty or about rocks, trees, etc. Gene Smith's Minamata picture is a great one. Nothing about "conventional" beauty in it at least as most photographers understand the term. but it is beautiful and it is through that beauty that the vision is able to communicate. As I said earlier, there are as manyways of seeing as there are individuals. My idea of what is beautiful may not be yours and vice-versa, but there must be complete seeing or the work will fail IN ITS OWN TERMS.

As I have ssaid before, "It is how one sees not what ones sees that makes any photograph interesting." No matter how one sees, and no two mature artists will see alike, the seeing must be complete.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Ed Sukach]

No, Ed, I'm afraid you have misunderstood entirely. By photographic seeing I mean nothing technical in any way and certainly nothing in the way of "previsualization" the way you describe it--knowing exactly what the print will look like.

Photographic seeing involves taking into consideration, visually, every part of the picture so that what one sees is a unified whole, spatially and tonally, not a bunch of parts. The point is to make a photograph the way a composer writes a piece of music--no extra notes (and none too few either).

Michael A. Smith

Then I stand corrected.

That approach could be descibed as "Holistic" as opposed to "Deconstructionist". I am totally comminted to a "Holistic" approach.

However, I still see this - "no extra, nor insufficient, notes", as striving towrds the goal of "efficiency."

This is interesting - Is there a good example of a photograph that satisfies the criteria of "just enough elements" here in the galleries - or do you know of a muscal composition that does?

 

[Ole]

Far too many notes, my dear Beethoven!

Tastes change - not only over time, but from person to person. Personally, I prefer diversity to consensus.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Far too many notes, my dear Beethoven!

Tastes change - not only over time, but from person to person. Personally, I prefer diversity to consensus.

I think I have posted this link before but if not, for those interested in tastes......
http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Not efficiency, "elegance" the way a mathematician would use the term.

A photograph that does this. There are lots--most any Edward Weston or classic Cartier bresson for starters.

Michael A. Smith

 

[George Losse]

I was going to jump into this one yesterday, but the string was getting hung-up on the words. Words are sometimes a difficult thing for a visual person.

“Seeing,” “Vision,” “Composition” and now "pre-visualization" have been kicked around here. To me (and we are talking about opinions here), seeing and pre- visualization deal with the craft of photography. Craft can be taught, and it should be learned to the level of it being second nature while working.

Vision is more about what one has to say to the world. This usually comes through when looking at finished work. It is not something that comes up when actually working.

Composition is part of both craft and vision. A portion of composition can be learned (the craft side) and a portion of it needs to be “felt” (the vision side).

I like to think of photography as a means of self portraiture without the need to include your likeness in the image. Instead I feel we include ourselves by how we “see.”

Given the same subject mater, everyone here will shoot it differently; different equipment, different materials, different techniques (print mediums, film choices, processing choices) and more important from a different point of view (vision). That vision will grow and change as we grow and change on this wonderful journey of life. The way we handle a subject will change as we experience what life has to in store for us.

We reveal ourselves, our respect for the subject, our passions, our likes and our dislikes in every photograph we make. We choose what to shoot, what the viewer will see, how we shoot it, and that in turn gives the viewer and insight into our vision. It gives the viewer a window into who we are at that moment.

George

 

[Ed Sukach]

I searched for "not too much - just `right'" ... browsing through "Edward Weston - Forms of Passion" - Edited by Gilles Mora - I was thinking of one photograph - "Egg Slicer - 1930" that he *hated* - and wrote so in his Daybooks. Unfortunately, the critics *Loved* it, and wrote fawning praise ... Now what does one do ..?

I came across a "note to myself" -

"I cannot, never have been bound by any theory or doctrine, not even my own. Anything that excites me, I will photograph."

Edward Weston,

Daybooks II, 155.


That, to me, is "Vision" - being "excited".

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think in the "Egg Slicer" case (I like the "Egg Slicer"), one needs to recognize that the artist's intention, the meaning of the work, and the effect on the viewer are separate things, though they are all interesting questions.

The aesthetic value of the work is yet another thing, but I don't find claims about aesthetic value in particular cases to be worth arguing about. This is not to say that I don't have beliefs about the aesthetic value of particular works, but rather that I don't think I can convince anyone else of them by arguing "'The Egg Slicer' is a great work!" On the other hand, if I can communicate my admiration for some work by talking about how it affects me, and what it might mean more broadly, and what the artist intended as far as can be discerned, then perhaps others might come to a similar aesthetic judgment to mine of their own accord.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I think in the "Egg Slicer" case (I like the "Egg Slicer"), ...
This is not to say that I don't have beliefs about the aesthetic value of particular works, but rather that I don't think I can convince anyone else of them by arguing "'The Egg Slicer' is a great work!" On the other hand, if I can communicate my admiration for some work by talking about how it affects me, and what it might mean more broadly, and what the artist intended as far as can be discerned, then perhaps others might come to a similar aesthetic judgment to mine of their own accord.

I didn't offer ANY opinion of Weston's "Egg Slicer" - only *HIS* opinion of it.
The intesting part was his "philosophy" of "non-philosophy" ... a.k.a. "Free Spirit".

To caputure something of the "vision" of the artist - to try to imagine "how it works" in her/his "eyes" - to try to get some small idea of their pre-conditioning - the zeitgiest of the situation and times ... all theses CAN, (n/b. NOT carved in stone) - help us to connect with the artist, and modify our own vision a tiny bit. That can be helpul, but it doesn't come close to any sort of justification for overriding the concepts we have from our our own "being".

I don't know - all this is becoming a little too artsy-fartsy for my taste. I wish I had a better command of the English language. Maybe then I could explain all this simply and succinctly.

It DOES happen to be "what I believe".

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I didn't say anything about your opinion of "The Egg Slicer," which you did not render as you say, but was offering a framework for understanding the disagreement between Weston and his critics who liked his work more than he did.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

From Ed,"That, to me, is "Vision" - being "excited".

Being excited is not vision, Vision is how you transform that experience into a work of art.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Jim Chinn]

This has been an interesting discussion but no one has really defined vision. Everyone seems to have a little different interpretation. So to provide some clarification i provide the following from Websters: VISION:

1. [The faculty of sight]- syn. sight, perception, percieving, range of view, optics, eyesight.

2. [Understanding]- syn. foresight, discernment, breadth of view, insight, penetration, intuition, divination, astuteness, keeness, foreknowledge, prescience, farsightedness.

3. [Something seen through the powers of the mind]- syn. imagination, poetic insight, fancy, fantasy, concept, conception, ideality, idea.

4. [Something seen because of an abnormality]- syn. revalation, hullucination, trance, ecstasy, phantom, ghost, wraith, specter, spirit.

I guess we are not discussing 4 but the confusion exists between 1,2, and 3.
So maybe the original author of the post can clarify his definition of vision and then we can discuss from a similar definition.

 

[Ed Sukach]

From Ed,"That, to me, is "Vision" - being "excited".

Being excited is not vision, Vision is how you transform that experience into a work of art.

Michael A. Smith

Obviously, I was misinterpreted. Vision is a noun. I have a/my "vision" - the product of a set of experiences, pre-conditioning, responses to stimulii ... There a innumerable factors that constitute and influence the way we "see" things.
We then "make" (verb) the final product - with "tools" and techniques - through our individual interpretive processes.

Both the "Vision" and the "Making" are not complete unto themselves - nor are they exclusive. Holistically, *BOTH* produce the work.

As *I* see it (your mileage may vary - and to tell the truth, I hope it does) -
"Vision" is essentially sublimninal, pre-conscious, "sub- conscious", not really subject to the rules of logic or reason; see the classic defintion of Aesthetic". It is "felt".

I "experience" works of art. Some - not all -will "entrance" me - causing a sort of mini-obsession. I find myself returning to that particular image, or sculpture or piece of music - over and over. I will close my eyes and "see" that work. Why? I'll confess - invariably, when I am so "entranced" I will NOT know why - it just DOES. I've tried to explain WHY that "entrancement" exists - I might as well try to explain "Art" or "Music" or "Beauty" or "Soul" or "Love" - or "Life", or "God".

I activte a light switch, The light goes on. I don't HAVE to know why - but that activation is the "'making." The desire for light - and what the effect of light IS - is "Vision".

 

[georgep]

The universe is an amazing system. It is complex, diverse, simple, and one, all at the same time. Seeing is like listening. If I am quiet I can listen. If I am thinking about what I am going to say, then I am not listening, or seeing. If I am quiet and still, I can begin to see, not as something that I do, but as something I am, participating in something that is always happening. The seer and the seen dissolve into seeing, being, without the boundary of “me.”

How much would it be worth to spend three days with Edward Weston, or Vincent van Gogh, or Kate Bush, or any person who has inspired you?

gp

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I don't get it jdef. Every one of your postings that refers to me refers to the fact that either I sell Azo or that Paula and I teach workshops and charge for it. And you disparage me every time. I cannot understand why you are obsessed with the fact that we earn money from what we do. If you don't think we are worth it, don't do business with us. But your constant pettiness and vendetta-like statements about me cloud the issues that are under discussion, and are irrelevant and off-topic. At this point, they are also a personal annoyance. If you persist with these off-topic comments that are really personal attacks, I shall ask the moderators to disallow your postings.

In point of fact, for those, like yourself who are ignorant of how one makes a photograph: one does not compose a photograph. Although that term is used by most everyone, it is an improper one. Composition refers to putting together elements, arranging things--notes, colors, shapes, lines. When one makes a photograph, a straight, "traditional" photograph, not a "directorial" one, one does not put together anything, one does not arrange anything. One sees a whole and extracts part of it for the picture. That is quite a different process.

My dictionary defines "composition" in the Fine Arts as "The art or practice of so combining the parts of a work of art as to produce a harmonious whole." Whether a hormonius whole is produced or not, the essence of the definition is in "combining parts." In seeing photographically one is not combining anything, one is selecting parts and that is essentially a very different process. It is a process of seeing. That is not dissimilar to what you call "composition," but it is not the same thing.

As far as my teaching goes, the comments posted by many former participants in our workshops testify that their whole experience of looking on the ground glass is essentially different after taking our workshops. Paula and I do not teach anyone to "compose a picture." We do teach people how to see photographically. That you do not realize or understand the difference only serves to underscore your ignorance.

And as far as "getting money out of people" goes (what that has to do with the topic under discussion is a mystery to me, but I cannot let your attacks go unanswered): Our Vision and Technique workshops generally fill up shortly after we announce them and outside of a simple announcement on our web site and a notice to those who have signed up there we do no advertising or even announcing. We have had people attend from as far away as new Zealand, Korea, a number of countries in Europe, Alaska, California, and a number of other western states, including Idaho, where you are from. So not only do people pay close to $600 to spend time with us and learn from us, some of them pay quite a bit more for plane fares, car rentals, and lodging. No one is forced to attend. I believe that speaks for itself.

 

[RAP]

This sounds like the best debate I have seen here for some time. Composition vs photographic seeing? Making a living at photography? Interesting concept, making money at photography. Must be nice, I'm jealous!

As for composition and photographic seeing, the two are interchangable as is commonly used. The elements of the found image are arranged, composed, on the ground glass, as the artist sees fit. Moving the camera to the left and right, up and down, forward and back, changing lenses, are techniques all used to transfer the three dimensional subject of reality, onto a two dimensional plane of the ground glass, to the film and ultimatly to the final image. Making any change of camera position will alter perspective, juxtaposition of elements, light and dark, hide this, reveal that. The trick is to work at it so what you want to say is transfered from the 3 dimensional to the 2 dimensional. Here is where I think most miss the boat and need to learn how to make that translation, like spanish to english, or japanese to german. How to transfer their emotional experience with the subject, to the final two dimensional image.

As compared to the studio, table top, portrait, commercial, architectural photographer, arranging, adding and omitting elements is part of the process of compostion. Then there is the photographer who takes his image digital and manipulates, adds, subtracts elements, on the computer.

As for rules of composition, for me there are none, only vague grey principles. I shoot entirely by feel and intuition. I do not even know what the so called rule of thirds is all aboutnor do I care. Ocasionally when I am stuck, I think of one principle, that the center of the image is the most boring part, that nothing of importance should be centered, that everything should revolve around the center.

Teaching composition can only be taken so far. Yes you can teach technique, rules, how to compose. Like so many portrait studios around the world, commercial studios, where college classroom trained photographers apply standards they learned and crank out most of the static , redundant images that flood the media, stock houses today. However, true artistic originality, creativity cannot be taught, but has to come from the person within.

Well, enough for a nice Saturday summer morning.

 

[Ed Sukach]

In point of fact, for those, like yourself who are ignorant of how one makes a photograph: one does not compose a photograph. Although that term is used by most everyone, it is an improper one. Composition refers to putting together elements, ...
" In seeing photographically one is not combining anything, one is selecting parts and that is essentially a very different process. It is a process of seeing. That is not dissimilar to what you call "composition," but it is not the same thing.
That you do not realize or understand the difference only serves to underscore your ignorance.

I am afraid that , for the time being, you will have to include me in the category of "Ignorant Ones". I'm trying to understand... but I can, and far more often than not, DO, include or exclude - and reposition "elements" by assuming a different camera position, or focal length lens, or moving the "element" in or out, or around the frame.... or ....

Am I gaining the understanding of your "visioning process" somewhat?:
I should first view my entire studio as a whole ... then narrow my virtual "frame" to include only the model... and ... If the position of her hands is to me, not the most expressive, I should ... do what?

 

[SteveGangi]

Words and semantics. People talk about their "vision", to try and describe the process by which they see something and have an idea how they want to capture it. That's all they mean by "vision". Some people are better at it than others and everyone is different, that's a given. Two equally good (or bad) photographers may have completely different "visions" of the same thing and it determines what they do with whatever they photograph. It is why you can recognize someone's work (with a little practice) before anyone tells you who did it. Composition is also just a word. We talk about it do describe how we frame / crop, how we ballance or unbalance elements, what we include or leave out. It's easier to just say "composition" than trot out the lundry list of decisions that were made. Painters compose by deciding what to put in their painting, and where it goes. Photographers "compose" by deciding what to include and more importantly what to leave out and they use the same word for convenience.

 

[mvjim]

Paul Klee once stated that every artist has at hand only two means of expression reguardless of their medium - "...their material means and their ideal means....." In their case, he would explain to his students, their material means were; paint, pigment, canvas, brush, composition, light, objects, etc. In other words whatever elements made up the total of their medium.
Their ideal means was (you could say) their "vision" - their inner response to whatever they chose as their subject and that this is could only be accomplished through their gaining as deep an understanding as was possable of themselves and the (as he called it) "the essence" of their subject(s). That the "accomplished" artist was capable of the exacting marriage of these two means.
He demonstrated that the "material" means could be taught, even to a rather high degree of accomplishment. But that this had nothing to do with gaining an understanding of the essence. (in our medium, witness the rather large number of photographs one sees that are technicaly beautiful and well seen but void of any emotion or understanding of what is being seen, beyond the observation that this subject, presented in this way, makes for a "good"photograph)
He also demonstrated that learning the "ideal" means was a completely seperate issue. That students could be lead to gain a better understanding of this concept, (but not necessarly personally accomplish it), but only after giving up their learned ideas of what made up a "good" (acceptable) painting/drawing,etc.
Photography seems to be one of the most unique mediums, in that most people who come to it begin with the believe that they know what a "good" photograph is suppose to look like. This is through no fault of their own, its just that there are so many unspoken "standards" of what is correct or right in; technique, composition, anti-composition, format, etc., etc., etc. All of which in most cases, if followed, adds up to hinder the development of real personal "vision".

 

[Jorge]

Well, this is getting tricky. I suppose this is a question that falls on the same box as "what is art?"

It seems to me that when someone talks about "photographic vision" people are thinking of some "quality" or god given gift that ensures a succesfull photograph every time. IMO this could not be further from the truth, I think most would agree that photographers like Weegee, Man Ray, Bresson, had "photographic vision" but nevertheless I dont like all of their pictures. Sure, some of them are amazing but not their entire work. So this "vision" has to do with what we like and how we choose to express ourselves through the camera. I still say this is a by product of endless years of practice and many, many negatives which have shown the photographer what works for them and what does not.

One of the many "concepts" that I disagree with Michael (no surprise there uh Michael? ) is the fact that he states one should never return to the same spot to re do a shot. If I understand him correctly, I beleive he is implying that given a "photographic vision" and technical skill that once the shot is taken this should be a succesfull shot or why take it? Which I think is part of his approach that one should be able to take a "succesfull" picture no matter where we are. Another concept which with I disagree. BUT...here is the thing, Michael has been taking pictures for almost 40 years, he has found what works for him, what does not and I assume that his workshop labeled "Vision and technique" means "photographic vision." To those who like his style and his photographs he has this "vision" to those who dont he does not. Again is a matter of taste.

As far as composition goes (and you better sit down here Michael) I do agree with him, if one has chosen the field of landscape photography we really dont "arrange" the landscape to suit our vision, we pick and choose those parts we find attractive and capture them. If I pan my camera 5 degrees to the left to exclude a light post, this is not a compositional move, I have merely substracted the pole from the image, but I did not literaly dug up the post and move it so the photograph is better. Perhaps Michael is being "too" literal, but I do agree with his explanation.

When I first started photography I took some of the most horrible, boring pictures known to man, but as I practiced more, my pictures improved, to the point that after many years I can walk around and say to myself "this will make a great picture" when I am walking around or driving. This does not mean I have acquired a "photographic vision", only that I have learned through practice to recognize what works for my style and taste in photographs.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

So much to try to respond to. I'll try.

From RAB: "Making a living at photography? Interesting concept, making money at photography. Must be nice, I'm jealous! "

It is nice, but precarious, always. I have been supporting myself from print sales to collectors and museums since 1975. No commercial work. No workshops except for two from 1975-1999. Only began teaching workshops in late 1999 in response to so many requests to do so. Publishing books breaks even if we are lucky. Ditto for Azo sales.

I know no rules of composition. I, too, do not know what the "rule of thirds" is, or even that there was such a thing. Nor could I tell you what the "golden mean" is. Photographing is always by feel and intuition and is never based on ideas, although it is informed by intelligence.

Again, no rules. Not even that the center is always boring, (See, RAB, you made a rule out of it.) When I taught photography back in the late 1960s and early 1970s I would on occasion tell my students (somewhat seriously) not to pay too much attention to the center of the picture because that was nothing they could do about it, but to pay close attention to the edges, where moving the camera even a millimeter would make a significant difference.

RAB: "Teaching composition can only be taken so far. Yes you can teach technique, rules, how to compose."

Teaching composition cannot be done. Or, on the other hand, it can be done, but only at the cost of killing the creative spirit in the student. Again, as I see it, there are no rules of composition and although technique can be taught, how to compose cannot be and should not ever be attempted. Only an uncreative person would try to do so.

I have addressed the issue of what can be taught in my article "On Teaching Photography," which appeared in the Journal of the Society for Photographic Education in 1976. It is reprinted on our web site at www.michaelandpaula.com under articles.
Ed: "Am I gaining the understanding of your "visioning process" somewhat?:
I should first view my entire studio as a whole ... then narrow my virtual "frame" to include only the model... and ... If the position of her hands is to me, not the most expressive, I should ... do what?"
Sounds like you are getting it, Ed.
Ed: "If the position of her hands is to me, not the most expressive, I should ... do what?"
How would I know? "Hold them!" would be my best guess, especially if you are single and find the model attractive.
Thanks MVJIm, for paraphrasing of Paul Klee. Extremely clear and right on.
Posted: 28 Jun 2003 16:19 Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jorge: "It seems to me that when someone talks about "photographic vision" people are thinking of some "quality" or god given gift that ensures a successful photograph every time. "

No Jorge, I must disagree with you here. Everyone has "vision." That has nothing to do with how good or successful a photograph is. Some may have a vision that is chaotic, and incoherent, but it is still their "vision."

Jorge: "I still say this is a by product of endless years of practice and many, many negatives which have shown the photographer what works for them and what does not."

It may or may not be. Some artists seem to have their mature vision right from the beginning, with others their mature vision evolves over many years.

Jorge: "One of the many "concepts" that I disagree with Michael (no surprise there uh Michael? ) is the fact that he states one should never return to the same spot to re do a shot. If I understand him correctly, I believe he is implying that given a "photographic vision" and technical skill that once the shot is taken this should be a successful shot or why take it?"

Well, I haven't stated that here, but I will respond nonetheless. I never said that one should not return to the same spot to remake a picture that was not successful the first time; I did say that I do not do that. That I do not do so has nothing to do with whether the photograph was successful or not. My point is that for me the process of making photographs involves discovery. Once I have discovered something and have photographed it, it really does not matter to me if the photograph is successful or not. From long experience I know that enough of them will be successful. Those that are not--c'est la vie. If I were to photograph from that spot again it would only be for one reason--to make a good picture. And that is never the reason, never my motivation, for making photographs. I photograph only when there is emotional excitement. I consider the photograph to be a bonus. If others like it that is a double bonus and if they want to buy a print of it I consider that the ultimate bonus, but it is still a bonus and has nothing at all to do with the reason to make a photograph. If I were to photograph something for a second time because the first one did not turn out--let's say the film got fogged or the camera moved, or I just "missed it", whatever the reason--the emotional excitement in the discovery process would not be there and hence there would be no personal growth. Making the photograph would just be a technical or a mechanical exercise to try to "get a successful one," and I try not to waste my time doing that. Personal growth is what it is all about. As I have quoted before, " . . .an artist, whose every agony is to grow." e.e. cummings.


Jorge: "Which I think is part of his approach that one should be able to take a "successful" picture no matter where we are. Another concept which with I disagree."

Yes, an accomplished photographer, a seer, should be able to do that, and easily. (Someday we'll meet and I'll demonstrate that for you. You pick the spot and the direction I must be facing in.) But that does not mean I do that, at least not on a regular basis--about every 11 years, I have done it, I think. Think about it, Jorge: Minor White said that a fully sensitized photographer who had his camera and was alert to photographic possibilities who was walking down a city block would not reach the end of that block in a lifetime. (And I don't believe he was referring to someone so engrossed in photographing that he would not see the car jumping the sidewalk and coming at him (or her) and making that lifetime extremely short.)

Jorge: " As far as composition goes (and you better sit down here Michael) I do agree with him, if one has chosen the field of landscape photography we really dont "arrange" the landscape to suit our vision, we pick and choose those parts we find attractive and capture them. If I pan my camera 5 degrees to the left to exclude a light post, this is not a compositional move, I have merely substracted the pole from the image, but I did not literaly dug up the post and move it so the photograph is better. Perhaps Michael is being "too" literal, but I do agree with his explanation.

Well, I am floored and I thank you, Jorge. Well sure I am too literal. My choosing to use a view camera was not an accident. The passion is in the precision--at least some of it. Precision does not mean "tight." If anyone ever photographs with me or spends time in the darkroom with me they will find that I am completely relaxed and pretty casual about the entire process--except for the part of what I see on the ground glass. Nothing casual about that, although usually the decision on what to include in my photographs happens in less than a minute--it is all intuitive--never analytical.

Michael A. Smith

 

[clay]

Great posts. Of course, talking about something like ?vision? is like trying to nail jello to a tree. But that won?t stop me from throwing in my two cents worth. In my mind ?vision? is the ability of an artist to ferret out the profound, mysterious, strange or wonderful things in the world that are there for everyone to see, but for some reason, no one else does in the same way as the artist.

If the final result, whether it be painting, sculpture or a photograph, allows others to see and feel and appreciate what the artist feels or felt, it is probably verging on being art. I think this is the primary reason that ?freshness? is so valued in the art world. Imitative ?art?, even if technically superior to the original does not give the viewer anything new to learn.

I read and interesting book a few years ago that is pretty old, but I have found to be useful in thinking about what we may be trying to do. It is ?The Sacred and the Profane? by Mircea Eliade. The theory is that we are always surrounded by the profane, everyday, humdrum world, but that occasionally, we sense that there is more there than meets the eye. Artists, writers and crazed monks all sense this hidden connectedness of the world in front of our noses. A successful artist may be the one who is able to create this feeling, for others, in a physical form that is not dependent on being at a particular place at a particular time. Whether the particular feeling is worthy or interesting may be another matter entirely. For those interested in reading this short book, here is a link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-4767275-6019811?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

To all the people posting so far: keep on posting. I find it fascinating to hear all the different opinions about a seemingly simple word.


Clay

 

[Jorge]

In my mind ?vision? is the ability of an artist to ferret out the profound, mysterious, strange or wonderful things in the world that are there for everyone to see, but for some reason, no one else does in the same way as the artist.


Clay

Nuf said....precesely what I wanted to say....