MattKing
Moderator
Emphasis added.
No - you want to let the magic reveal itself to you.
Don't look closely at the subject.
Open yourself to experiencing the light instead.
I'll bring a camera to a couple of jobs next week and see if I can make any magic happen.
Find a subject that compels you (you probably know what it is already) and make pictures of it.
That's a very good point, although I believe society will eventually have had enough big rocks, if it hasn't already.Good advice. However, to an extent, existing, well-regarded photos and photographers have a lot of influence and power over what kinds of things one may or may not find compelling - and therefor the kinds of subjects suitable to be photographed at all. The idea of a "traditional subject" for visual art is quite strong. You have the big rocks, the nude women, the flowers, the cats and dogs, the children, the decaying rural landscape, the decaying urban landscape, the cars, the beaches, the birds... All of those are potentially compelling subjects but possibly because one knows those have been compelling subjects for others who have highly regarded work. "People like pictures of ____" is also a powerful motivation for someone with a camera and an itch to point it at something.
...
What I think is rare is when the attitudes and ideas of the photographer truly determine what the subject should be and how it should become an image. So it's not so much that Plowden went out and took photos of trains - he went out and made those photos to express the ideas that he had about those trains. So that's serious work.
Maybe a lot of us are not really serious enough to do such work.
What I believe you are saying is that some approach photography as an art form, while most do not.
The advice that rings true for me is to photograph what interests you, and then if you look back at a few year's worth, you will see who you are and how you differ from other photographers. Neither may be quite what you want, but at least you have a reference point for change.
And in the case of the latter, they may end up with something that can be considered art (that doesn't mean it's not art) but was not the result of an informed reflective practice.
...
What do you mean by that?informed reflective practice
What do you mean by that?
I take it to mean that you’ve seen some other photography and thought about what you are doing yourself.
What do you mean by that?
Good advice. However, to an extent, existing, well-regarded photos and photographers have a lot of influence and power over what kinds of things one may or may not find compelling - and therefor the kinds of subjects suitable to be photographed at all. The idea of a "traditional subject" for visual art is quite strong. You have the big rocks, the nude women, the flowers, the cats and dogs, the children, the decaying rural landscape, the decaying urban landscape, the cars, the beaches, the birds... All of those are potentially compelling subjects but possibly because one knows those have been compelling subjects for others who have highly regarded work. "People like pictures of ____" is also a powerful motivation for someone with a camera and an itch to point it at something.
I think once you get fully wrapped up in it, what's compelling for a lot of people is just taking photos. So very many people remain directionless. And I think others just direct themselves in the taking of "nice" photos (described in the paragraph above).
What I think is rare is when the attitudes and ideas of the photographer truly determine what the subject should be and how it should become an image. So it's not so much that Plowden went out and took photos of trains - he went out and made those photos to express the ideas that he had about those trains. So that's serious work.
Maybe a lot of us are not really serious enough to do such work.
In context, "informed reflective practice" refers to the directed activities of the artist, attempting to create a specific work of art through applying his or her own ideas and skills to whatever his or her work object is, toward whatever the subject is, which implies an awareness of the efficacy of technique and material choice and method.
So not taking photos willy-nilly.
Not sure where the "reflective" part comes in
Perhaps as a contrast to "reactive practice" - which might better describe people who are more into "street" photography, and the like.
No - reflective is not really contrasted to reactive, but more in line with Schiller's idea of "sentimental" poetry, rather than naive. I didn't really want to get into that. But "reflective" more has to do with self-awareness and the characteristic of agency through the whole "making". I'm trying to avoid laden terminology....
Seems like it rules out experimentation. Once again, not criticizing or arguing, just observing and trying to understand the statement.
I don't think so. You experiment with a mind to getting a result of a type. And the result of an experiment can count as "raw material" that you then decide how to use.
Sometimes you experiment without preconceptions.
Sometimes you experiment without preconceptions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?