Finding your subject. How?

[eddie]

More often than many wish to admit, the biggest obstacle to seeing clearly is that damned camera they are lugging around.
Ken

That was the biggest lesson I learned when I did it. No worries about formats, lenses, film, exposure, etc. Just seeing. I was freed from the "if I only had brought xxx lens, or xxx film" When you're unencumbered by equipment, you can visualize any image you want. In fact, while doing it, I "took" ULF photos, with a petzval, neither of which I own...

It's something I now do fairly regularly. At the end of May, I'll spend close to a month on a small Caribbean island (8 sq. miles) that I've been visiting for over 25 years. I know it well, and could probably find some of my old tripod holes. Still, for the first few days, the cameras will stay in the villa. I'll just walk around, drive around, sit around... I'll have a little note pad, and I'll make notes about locations- usually regarding a time of day I want to return.
As an aside, for me there's another positive result to this endeavor. I find that when I'm out to make images, my visual sense is so honed in that I often don't notice the other senses. Without the camera, sounds, smells, etc. are much more evident.

 

[blansky]

Easily the best, most practical and usable advice yet. More often than many wish to admit, the biggest obstacle to seeing clearly is that damned camera they are lugging around. Leave it behind. And with it all of the unavoidable expectations that it must be used right then and there. The camera should be one of the last steps in the process. Not the first.

The seeing part is supposed to come before the recording part.

Ken

I think a lot of photographers go out looking for the "big picture". And they miss all the little ones.

Freeman Pattersons book on Learning to See is great in teaching people to see things that aren't the Big picture. His concept of shooting a roll of film before getting out of bed in the morning teaches seeing shapes and light patterns and learning to see " common things in an uncommon manner".
( note, this does not mean shooting pictures of your dick)

Also what helps some people is just using a 35mm camera while doing this. Leave the large format thing at home.

 

[cliveh]

Keeping things as simple as possible also helps. Same format, lens, developer, etc. Photography can employ so many variables that it stops people seeing the wood for the trees. The prime importance is not the settings on the camera, or the multitude of chemical variations of production thereafter, but what you see through the viewfinder.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

You don't mention what format you shoot, but I think the large formats can be very restrictive for many people. It is a rare photographer who can compose ULF with the skill of a Kenro Izu; most ULF shooters, I think, "why bother?"

Medium format and smaller can be very liberating, allowing you a lot more room just to play and see the world without every frame having to be a masterpiece. Changing formats can have an extremely refreshing effect on your vision.

 

[batwister]

You don't mention what format you shoot, but I think the large formats can be very restrictive for many people. It is a rare photographer who can compose ULF with the skill of a Kenro Izu; most ULF shooters, I think, "why bother?"

Medium format and smaller can be very liberating, allowing you a lot more room just to play and see the world without every frame having to be a masterpiece. Changing formats can have an extremely refreshing effect on your vision.

Medium format. I've seriously felt recently that 35mm would better suit my sensibilities, as I'm starting to favour a more fluid compositional style. MF is a strange one in a way (the limbo format?) in that, with 35mm, you think of shooting from the hip, LF; meticulous compositions. I've found it difficult to get a handle on where exactly between the two MF sits comfortably, in approaching composition. Since moving to 67, it's almost as if I'm pretending to shoot LF. The viewfinder becomes restrictive in this mindset - it's aggravating when elements aren't quite kissing for example, or details that seemed inconsequential in the viewfinder become distracting when you see the negative. I've come to the conclusion that it's a fools errand to be too fastidious about composition with MF. Balance is perhaps more critical.

But anyway, I've come to understand, somewhat late in the game, that the most important thing with any deep investigation in photography is your concerns outside of it.
I've made a decision to get into a better mental place, and probably geographical, before carrying on with any intention, because I'll probably end up with psychosis.

I've found this, which is a very helpful read for anyone really, about subject matter:

Dead Link Removed

 

[Molli]

...
( note, this does not mean shooting pictures of your dick)

What a relief! I'm having enough problems already.

Batwister, thanks for starting this thread. There's a lot of advice in it that I need to heed, also.

I switched from writing to photography and I just don't feel it in the same way at all. I'm not making any connections whatsoever. I went from a very intimate, very raw medium to one that feels sterile by comparison. So, yes, any help in getting my head out of the way and my heart into the game is appreciated tremendously.

 

[jglass]

I think whether you find your subject or not, you are doing exactly what you should be doing: struggling to find your subject! The issues of different formats, and carrying a notebook, and going w/out your camera, etc. are just exercises in an attempt to find one thing: the thing you care enough about to photograph it (for now anyway).

The talk about freeing the mind and focusing on what's important to you is right on point, I think. You might just step back and consider what's important to you as a person (not as a photographer), make a list of the first 3 or 10 or 50 things that you really care about, and then find one that's accessible AND that is visual. And then go make 10 to 25 excellent photos of it. This is the basic advice from "On Being A Photographer" by Hurn and Jay. Great book, you might get it and read the section on "Finding your Subject." I think it will help in your process.

But I hope you'll consider that, as an artist or as a photographer whatever you call yourself, you're exactly where you should be: working through what you want to show with your camera. The failed experiments are necessary steps in that process. Like printing, the garbage can is your friend. Same is true of shooting: chuck everything except what truly moves you. Sooner or later you'll find it. Then lose it. Then find it again?

I feel like I will always be in the process of discovering what I care about visually and photographically, and that when a photographer stops asking that question, his or her work slows down and maybe croaks.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

The talk about freeing the mind and focusing on what's important to you is right on point, I think. You might just step back and consider what's important to you as a person (not as a photographer), make a list of the first 3 or 10 or 50 things that you really care about, and then find one that's accessible AND that is visual. And then go make 10 to 25 excellent photos of it. This is the basic advice from "On Being A Photographer" by Hurn and Jay. Great book, you might get it and read the section on "Finding your Subject." I think it will help in your process.

That may be the best and most practical book on the creative process of photography (not the technical) I've ever read. Each time I come back to it there is some new insight.

Batwiser, put "On Being A Photographer" at the top of your reading list!

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

One problem we all share is that we tend to look for technical solutions for creative problems. That is, when things are tough creatively, we start looking at new cameras, films, developers, etc. Obviously there are certain things you can do with a view camera that can't be done with 35mm (imagine Robert Polidori trying to do his work with 35mm), but I hope you see my point.

 

[removed account4]

i think a problem a lot of people have is they over think EVERYTHING ...
whether they are a photographer who is engrossed in reading photography books
and going to photography exhibitions and buying and looking at critique of said work
and read and reading a lot into everything, or trying 50 different papers and films and cameras
and getting engrossed in looking for the silver bullet to make "perfect negatives and prints"

instead ... don't look at photo books, don't read critiques don't go to exhibits of photography
but look at other artwork instead ( painting, sculpture architecture &c ) and let your mind drift.
instead of putting yourself in a box, and a small one at that ...
just take photographs of what you want without thinking about how it fits into the big puzzle of your life
or the larger puzzle of the photography world or indexed art world &c ... don't let that stuff even enter the equation.

once you start taking photographs, lots of them, then sort them out to make a project of what you want .. and THEN continue
with what you want to shoot. you shouldn't have to force yourself .. it should just flow like honey off of a dipper,

 

[ntenny]

i think a problem a lot of people have is they over think EVERYTHING ...

That would be me. In many respects my biggest artistic challenge is getting my brain out of the way and feeling stuff.

I'll get some flak for this, but quite simply, I live in a lifeless place. I'm uninspired by what I see.

Do you feel like that about the place in general, or only wrt photography? It seems to me that, given a place to which you have an emotional connection, there should be something there that can be explored in photography (or any given medium)---but it's hard to create with raw material that doesn't light you up in any respect.

If you really do find the place soulless, it might be a worthwhile exercise to do a little mini-project about that alienation---the equivalent of the old writing trick of writing about writer's block. Or, conversely, assume the point of view of someone who *does* love the place passionately, and take that perspective out into the field and produce that hypothetical person's photographic love letter to the Midlands. (To me, both of those efforts seem like they could usefully take some inspiration from the New Topographics.)

There's an interesting book called _A Soprano On Her Head_, intended primarily for musicians but of interest to practitioners of almost anything, that's largely about avoiding the trap of too much thinking. It might be worth a look from your position.

-NT

 

[ntenny]

Or maybe there's a simpler answer like not everyone is an artist. Sobering. Maybe a little harsh. But that's the way it is.

Personally I'd tend to disagree. Not everyone has the native skills to be a *superb* artist, but I think everybody has some inner life that can be expressed artistically. It might not be groundbreaking, or of interest to anyone but the artist and perhaps their nearest and dearest, but that doesn't make their stuff not "art", whatever "art" means anyway.

-NT

 

[MattKing]

Or maybe there's a simpler answer like not everyone is an artist. Sobering. Maybe a little harsh. But that's the way it is.

Or more likely, many people are infrequently artistic.

I think everyone has some artistic capabilities - they just don't manifest themselves very often.

 

[tron_]

I think everyone is born with artistic capability but it's something that needs to be cultivated in order to grow into something bigger. Unfortunately many people either a. are not in the correct environment to hone that skill or b. fall into that trap of "oh i suck, time to quit."

With that said, it seems like you're struggling to find inspiration because where you live and what you see isn't what you want to photograph correct? I can understand this to a degree because I will see compelling images from Europe, the Middle East, Asia, etc and I will want to go there to photograph in a similar style. But then a voice in the back of my head says "no, those are THEIR photographs. Not yours."

Then I realize that drawing inspiration from the work of other photographers is definitely a good thing, but trying to duplicate is not really the best method to cultivate artistic creativity. My advice would be to not look at other artists work and think "that's what I want to shoot," because when you go out you will only look for similar scenes. Keep an open mind and shoot lots of different things, you never know when the next photograph is going to drastically change your style and preference. And that's something you may have missed with your previous (for a lack of a better term) tunnel vision.

Go out and shoot! The world is an amazing place

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This will likely offend and piss off a lot of people...

Good for you. You have just enumerated the normal distribution (bell curve) argument. Most people in society won't touch that argument with a ten-foot pole. At least in public and on the record. Why? Because it says that all men are NOT created equal. And that's a core fact that we all too often choose to ignore. Even though we all secretly know it to be true.

Even if it's only true for the other guy...



Ken

 

[batwister]

I don't know, guys. Maybe it's because I come from a music background (where it is sometimes a little more obvious when someone just doesn't "have it" no matter how much analysis, practice and effort they put it), but while it is perhaps slightly too strongly worded to say not everyone is an artist, it's not far off. Certainly we can at least apply it to individual branches - ie not everyone is a photographer. Someone might love photography, but ultimately not be much of a photographer no matter how hard he/she bangs his/her head against the wall (or doesn't).

In the end a very small proportion of people practicing art are great artists. When someone tries to be way overly analytical about why it isn't working, trying to figure out how to discover his artistic subject, voice etc, some additional - even tougher - questions may be in order. We need to ask ourselves what our goals are. Do I have the talent to truly take this as far as I want it to go? Or should I just try to enjoy it as a hobby, do the best I can, maybe reassess at some point, but enjoy it.

Being an artist and a craftsman is hard work regardless of how much talent or vision someone has, but the hard work will take different people to different levels (as it does in music, athletics etc). So with all due respect I find it pretty simplistic when people suggest the answers to the creative problem expressed here lie with using less equipment, looking at less art, freeing yourself etc.

This will likely offend and piss off a lot of people, but that's art.

I agree about music - which works best when it isn't analytical (classical and some jazz aside). It can be more difficult in art however to recognise the *showings* of 'greatness' I think (maybe we shouldn't use that word). There are plenty of examples of precocious upstarts who were shot down in the beginning - whether it be actors, painters, photographers - who went on to have success. This is just my view of the myths of genius and greatness. We all start out with an idea of a shortcut to success, and maybe, I'm searching for a philosophical magic bullet. I'll admit I'm lazy.

Personally, I'd be quite happy if I only ever had a small following - so long as they have taste!

Some creative types simply don't have taste, visual taste, and are ignorant or disinterested in the work of others and the broader arts. They might have the 'urge to create', they might be productive, but I think everyone agrees that's not enough. You can make a prediction about potential here I think, mostly based on that personality type - the comfort they find in simple productivity and validation - it really is like a child with crayons. I won't mention her name, but there is a popular photographer on Flickr, whose work still has the same tremendous following, but hasn't matured at all in the 4 years since I left that website. It's quite odd really, considering she clearly did have a natural artistic soul and showed promise to begin with. It's also strange to recognise that I loved a few photographers on Flickr when I started out, but now see much of it as naive, visually illiterate even, as my tastes and knowledge of the art have developed. Some people clearly don't move beyond 'the Flickr stage', shall we call it. They will never be serious photographic artists.

I'll say that I've had encouragement from talented artists, but I still think "what do they know?". Because they've only seen what I've done, rather than what I *think* I'm capable of! I won't say that mentality separates the creatives from the artists, but I am surprised how many don't harbour that need to keep pushing to new heights. But desperation can set in when the summit is always obscured by fog, and sometimes you have no choice but to set up camp for a while! That's where I'm at. The clear headed comments here have helped me recognise this. I'll probably head back to basecamp if it doesn't clear, but I'll say I have seen glimpses, which is why I keep going.

Please watch this to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2ftCitvyQ

(and oh, it's Yosemite in the video too! Quite aptly )

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Very wise advice

It is okay to occasionally vue other artists work to get "inspiration" but you really need to dig deep into yourself for what you want to portray to others through your work.

It's one of the toughest thing for me to do as an artist. Finding my own voice. But the key is to keep on shooting.

 

[removed account4]

It's one of the toughest thing for me to do as an artist. Finding my own voice. But the key is to keep on shooting.

( i obviously added the emphasis )

EXACTLY !

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I don't know, guys. Maybe it's because I come from a music background (where it is sometimes a little more obvious when someone just doesn't "have it" no matter how much analysis, practice and effort they put it), but while it is perhaps slightly too strongly worded to say not everyone is an artist, it's not far off. Certainly we can at least apply it to individual branches - ie not everyone is a photographer. Someone might love photography, but ultimately not be much of a photographer no matter how hard he/she bangs his/her head against the wall (or doesn't).

In the end a very small proportion of people practicing art are great artists. When someone tries to be way overly analytical about why it isn't working, trying to figure out how to discover his artistic subject, voice etc, some additional - even tougher - questions may be in order. We need to ask ourselves what our goals are. Do I have the talent to truly take this as far as I want it to go? Or should I just try to enjoy it as a hobby, do the best I can, maybe reassess at some point, but enjoy it.

Being an artist and a craftsman is hard work regardless of how much talent or vision someone has, but the hard work will take different people to different levels (as it does in music, athletics etc). So with all due respect I find it pretty simplistic when people suggest the answers to the creative problem expressed here lie with using less equipment, looking at less art, freeing yourself etc.

This will likely offend and piss off a lot of people, but that's art.

This is all too true.

When you watch the American Idol top ten, you can already pick out the top three, because everyone else looks like a chump by comparison. Sad, but true.

Back in college, I studied classical guitar and briefly flirted with the idea of becoming a music major. But a quick glance at my classmates and an honest, sober assessment of my skills told me this was not to be. Could I have been as good a player as them? Maybe. (One of them now has seven records and regularly plays at Carnegie Hall). Did I have the love and willpower to work as hard as it would take? Probably not. I could impress people who knew little about classical guitar, but not anyone who had more than a passing familiarity with the instrument.

As Dr. Evil would say: Just one calorie, not evil enough.

Not everyone can be Mozart, Bach, or Chopin. For every one of them there are countless millions of others who will be forgotten. Sad, but true. We shouldn't kid ourselves.

 

[ntenny]

I don't know, guys. Maybe it's because I come from a music background (where it is sometimes a little more obvious when someone just doesn't "have it" no matter how much analysis, practice and effort they put it), but while it is perhaps slightly too strongly worded to say not everyone is an artist, it's not far off. Certainly we can at least apply it to individual branches - ie not everyone is a photographer. Someone might love photography, but ultimately not be much of a photographer no matter how hard he/she bangs his/her head against the wall (or doesn't).

I come from a music background too, and I think it's wrong in that context too. IMHO, this line of thinking confuses "being an artist/musician" with "being a *really* *good* artist/musician", and I think it's actually a harmful confusion that prevents a lot of people from finding things that they and an artform can do for (or to) each other.

-NT

 

[Alan Klein]

Molli...I switched from writing to photography and I just don't feel it in the same way at all. I'm not making any connections whatsoever. I went from a very intimate, very raw medium to one that feels sterile by comparison. So, yes, any help in getting my head out of the way and my heart into the game is appreciated tremendously.

Why not do a photo essay where you can combine both photos and text into a story book. Pick a subject that has deep meaning to your soul and let go.

 

[tkamiya]

My suggestion to OP is that not to think too much about this. As I mentioned in my first reply, this isn't something you can force yourself to do, until something strikes you. You may see a pattern in the work you do. You may find a cause you feel passionate about. It'll come to you.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

At last year's Atlanta Celebrates Photography portfolio review, I had a chance to show my work to Chip Simone, who studied with Harry Callahan. He said Harry always told him "to work on the pile." Meaning, don't think too much, just work like a dog, pile up prints and then sort it out later.

We all have these periods where we question our ability to make a meaningful contribution to the magnificent medium of photography. Going too far down that road leads to paralysis. Looking back over the past 22 years, I frankly wish I had thought less about art and had just made more snapshots of my family and friends.

 

[removed account4]

batwister

fame is not the same as success ...

not sure which it is that you are looking for.
success requires working hard, fame requires connections

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here's something relating to Rick A's post.

http://www.creativecreativity.com/2008/01/miserable-artis.html