Has it got Soul?

A few years ago my wife and I designed and built our own home. When it was completed, it was a thing of beauty. All who saw the house remarked about the beauty of the finished product. Only my wife and I knew about the mistakes that were contained in the house. We no longer own that house; but we judge all houses by the standards to which that house was built. The only way we will ever be satisfied by another house is if we build another ourselves.
I have yet to achive this level of achivement with my photography. So I continue to learn and try new techniques.

and I like what Cheryl had to say.

I can't nail it down to one frame that changed my photography but it I know what roll it was when it all clicked for my 35mm work. and I know the day when my Large Format photos changed forever.

Both were rooted not in technical details but in personal motivation and in connecting with why I was taking the photo.

Does it not all stem from a passionate response to what you see? The follow through to be able to work that passion further? The challenge? The time? The care? The frustration? The work!

I was shooting a project monday and tuesday, The second day my assistant came to me after the shot was about 80% set we were waiting on the models to get ready. She started wanting to work the details, I asked her to wait till the shot was underway. A little frustrated with me she asked "why do you always do that?" "it would be so much more efficient if..." At the time my response to her was, " just have the equipment set up and available, when we get into it I'll have a better understanding as to exactly where I want it, and at what value it needs to be". Though both of us knew pretty much what was going to happen and where everything belonged it just seems, to confining to make permanent decisions when the moment has yet to arrive. Her argument was, " it would be less stressful if everything was absolute" This thread got me to remember this discussion, She was right of course, but something in the last minute activity of an image creates for me an alertness to see things I might miss if everything was already cast in stone and we are trying to make things fit to a pre-conceived moment. Being flexible allows for us, the freedom to happen onto opportunity. This my be where the soul lies, I don't know.

You know, trying to define or categorize "soul" or "art" in photography is quite elusive at best. It reminds me of a high school professor back in ’50. We had a physics class with some football athletes upon which he looked with some disdain because of their seemingly casual approach to science specifically and learning in general (his thoughts – not mine). Upon observing that one student was falling asleep in mid lecture, he interrupted the athlete’s reverie with a question.

Prof.: “Ok, what is electricity - Mr. Milo?”
Milo (prompted by pokes and jabs of his teammates): “Uhh…I don’ kno’.”
Prof.:: “Did you read your assignment, Mr. Milo?”
Milo: “Yezzir, I knew then, but I forget.”
Prof.: “WHAT? The only man in history who knew the what electricity is and he forgets???!”

doughowk said:

Learning technique isn't a prerequisite to taking soulful pictures, rather technical proficiency cuts down on the number of those images ruined by poor technique.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. My best shots are the ones I took right after my first photo class. Indeed, 4 months after I started shooting at all. (not that I claim any profeciency) Most of those shots were processed by the cheapest lab I could find, since I did not have access to a darkroom, and therefore have terrible densities.

But the shots are good. They say something.

For me, the trick is caring about the people I photograph. Or being interested, which ever one it is that I am. Or maybe it's being curious. I don't know, it's mostly emotion...

Regardless, I've been told that I think too much about my photographs. Heck, I think too much about everything. But now I'm ranting.

I'll post an example in the standart gallery, and you can tell me if it has soul or not.

P.S. I was trying to help, not promote myself...

There are some things God made not to be described, but to be felt. To say whether some picture has soul or not is a rather difficult task. Perhaps we could evaluate that (as said once Andreas Feininger) by one of the symptoms on the beholder: the stopping power. If the image is able to freeze the beholder for at least 30 seconds with pleasure, we could conclude there are soul/emotion/quality on it. As said Dr Bob : "We don't know what electricity is" but we know its symptoms.

I've been reading "The Elements of Color" by Johannes Itten:

"Between black and white there throbs the universe of chromatic phenomena. So long as we can perceive them and recognize their relationships; their inner essence remains concealed from our understanding, and must be grasped intuitively. Hence rules and formulae can be no more than signposts on the way to color fulfillment in art.
In his Trattato della Pittura, which sets up a formidable array of rules for painters, Leonardo (Da Vinci) remarks, "Didst thou attempt to create by rule, thou shouldest accomplish nought, but devise only confusion." Thus he relieved his readers once more of the encumbrance of knowledge, and encouraged them to follow their intuition.
It is not the means of expression and representation that count in art, but the individual in his identity and humanity. First comes the cultivation and creation of the individual; then the individual can create."

Interesting focus, thorugh the archaic English, on individuality.

Comments?

Interesting quote from Da Vinci. Especially considering that he was such a stickler to the rules in his paintings. In fact, I was told by an Art professor that Da Vinci, in his opinion, was the perfect example of classic compositional rules.

I just reread the quote. Are you sure he wasn't saying: If you paint only by the rules you have not accomplished anything.

I am not sure if he is releiving the readers of the encumberance of knowledge. I think he is was saying that for the knowledge to be useful that it must be used in conjunction with intuition. This of course is only based on the little that you have provided and a quick search on the net.

I know the rules to play piano. I can read the music and play the notes but that is not enough. It is pure. All feeling is removed. The emotion is not there. I know that a D# is a D# and the next note is an A flat but that is nothing without the intuition to fill those two notes with life. Inversely I cannot just intuitivly start pounding on the piano and make music. I have to have prior knowledge of the workings of a piano and even what a piano is before I can make it "come to life". There are of course exceptions, but they are an extreme rarity.

Is there a non-old-english translation of this book. I gave up old english in college. To damned mind numbing. I lose the meaning of the words as I try to pronounce the words.

the quote hints at a purpose beyond the rules but in no way says the rules are not essential.

Hope this makes sense.

Maybe this is ‘way off topic, but I think (may be wrong…) that G-sharp and A-flat are the same note on a piano. In vocal music, they may vary slightly depending on the basic key (as in well-tempered… et al.). Sorry, I had to do this – three concerts in a row this weekend – all a cappella.

mark said:

Interesting quote from Da Vinci.
I just reread the quote. Are you sure he wasn't saying: If you paint only by the rules you have not accomplished anything.

I am not sure if he is releiving the readers of the encumberance of knowledge. I think he is was saying that for the knowledge to be useful that it must be used in conjunction with intuition.

Click to expand...

I take the Da Vinci quote as applying to the "creative" - conception part of the "art" process - The part that Helen Van Wyk called the "What to do"; aesthetic - driven; as opposed to the "easy" part (relatively) or "How to do" as in "technique".
I'm not suggesting anything like a distinct boundary between the two; they are, to some extent, interdependent. I think it does contain the admonition of, "the artist Must recognize the necessity of freedom - and that the rules exist as tools to be used whenever the human being (a.k.a. "artist") chooses to use them."

Itten commented on Da Vinci - carrying *his* interpretation somewhat farther: he characterizes the slavish adherence to, "That which we can define - and understand", as a burden - and that intuition was of greater importance - not exclusive the only consideration, but more important.

Itten offers that as a moderation of "The Elements of Color", which really analyzes the living daylights (Hah! How's that for a simile!) out of color and its effect on human perception - coldly, clinically and with few areas left open to "In My Humble Opinion."

Maybe this is ‘way off topic, but I think (may be wrong…) that G-sharp and A-flat are the same note on a piano. In vocal music, they may vary slightly depending on the basic key (as in well-tempered… et al.)

Click to expand...

Finally something I can answer in this thread. G sharp and A flat are the same tone. They look differnt on paper, but are indistinguishable to the ear.

Ah, my work here is done.

Cheryl Jacobs said:

They look differnt on paper, but are indistinguishable to the ear.

Click to expand...

Not to me... It depends on what the note is "doing", and in which key. The tempered scale was a brilliant innovation which allowed changer in key without having to retune. This was done by making all notes ever-so-slightly off. You won't realise how much until you've heard an untempered instrument - and tried to play it!

My wife always wonders why I take so many pictures, frequently of the same subject. I take these pictures out of interest and for just plain fun. I try different angles, composition, etc., and don't particularly worry about what is the "best". Later, when I finally get in the darkroom to develop and contact the negatives I am frequently sureprised at which seems to "work". Also, many times I will go back to old negatives and find a "diamond in the rough" so to speak. To me, this is photography as a hobby and means of relaxation as well as expression. If this is "soul" for me then so be it.