Mental machinations as viewer vs photographer

[MTGseattle]

I've been trying to get "serious" about photography again these last 2 years or so. One thing I've noticed in myself is that even a modest knowledge of the technique involved (be it carpentry, photography, drawing, painting, mechanics) influences my view of the object. I want to get in close and see the small bits and pieces to see if I can pick out any tricks or hidden details. It's been said all over the place, but it's only fellow photographers who will bring a print right up to their nose vs simply viewing it at arm's length or more. So, should we consciously leave that knowledge behind when we view artwork and try and view it through the eyes of the un-initiated? Is that possible?

The second thing I've been thinking is regarding nostalgia and its effect on my (and possibly others) overall "grading" of other imagery. Now, I fully understand that art being subjective means that if a given piece sparks some type of emotional response within me as the viewer, maybe I shouldn't try to analyze the why and simply enjoy the experience. So, this question heads more into the space of me as photographer.
I grew up in the upper mid-west in and around a lot of farming country. The open spaces, grain elevators, the shrinking dilapidated small towns; all of that speaks to me on a personal level and to an extent elevates what might be simply average photographs onto a higher plane. Nostalgia. Even a slightly abstract sense of homesickness. How the heck do I work with/around that? How does anyone? Should it be avoided? To a lesser degree; just how many people photographing old stuff can the community support?

I enjoy a lot of work by photographers from the 50's through the early 70's simply because I'm looking at things that may well no longer exist and I like old stuff. Stuff that has history. I work in construction currently and I'll be damned if I can "see" a good composition at one of my project sites. "They" say to photograph what you know. What I know is completely devoid of inspiration for me.

I may need to sum this up a bit. Ha ha

Knowledge of a thing is helpful as a photographer but influences our interpretation as a viewer. Can/should this idea be present when viewing work?

Should nostalgia be embraced and highlighted in my own work in some way? Do I need to take an extended trip back to my roots/hometown and get it out of my system? (as photographer)

Does nostalgia elevate "mundane" work above its actual artistic merit? (as viewer)

When I'm actually out in the field exposing negatives, I don't have all of this crap up front and center in my consciousness, it jumps right in when I start printing and looking at my contact sheets though.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You might be over thinking it. We're all influenced by our past. Just enjoy what you do. Share it with others so they can enjoy it too. None of us are Ansel Adams or Michelangelo and I'm sure they had doubts about their work as well.

 

[FotoD]

Good questions. I think your reflecting on these things will benefit your work, not so much what anyone else tells you to do.

(That was very helpful wasn't it? )

 

[Don_ih]

So, should we consciously leave that knowledge behind when we view artwork and try and view it through the eyes of the un-initiated? Is that possible?

I recently made a print from a negative with a light leak that mimicked ground fog (just coincidentally) so it actually adds to the way the photo looks. When I look at it, I know immediately that it's light fogging and not actual fog - I can see the difference, but I know the vast majority of people would not see it. My knowing what caused the image to look that way doesn't prevent me from understanding how others will see the photo but, at the same time, I can't experience it as they do.

And I think it's the same way with looking at photos done by others. You see what they did, almost see their hands at work. And I see that with carpentry or woodworking, also - I look at furniture or anything made of wood and immediately judge it by how it's made, the choice of joints, how carefully done it is. It gets in the way of seeing the thing in its entirety but it really is just a different and perhaps more-informed kind of appreciation.

 

[grahamp]

As a photographer, I know that there might be fine detail that would only be revealed by close inspection. But that is separate from viewing the piece as a whole. It is true that with a photograph there is a level of potential detail that will not be in other 2D art forms. If I look at some of my late mother-in-law's paintings, there comes a point where being too close just shows the canvas texture. And way before that the meaning and mood of the piece has gone.

Basically the whole piece is the art. Getting too far into the detail tosses that aside in favour of the mechanics. I try to keep the two separate.

 

[jslabovitz]

It's been said all over the place, but it's only fellow photographers who will bring a print right up to their nose vs simply viewing it at arm's length or more. So, should we consciously leave that knowledge behind when we view artwork and try and view it through the eyes of the un-initiated? Is that possible?

I believe it's possible, and in fact required. But I feel like it doesn't have to be an either-or: most successful photographs work at multiple levels, simultaneously, including:

• the technical quality of details (what you're mentioning above)
• the overall values & tonal balance of the image
• the graphic impact (does it still work if you scale it down to the size of a postage stamp?)
• the relevance of the specific medium to the subject (is this better in B&W, or color? bright or desaturated? printed big or small?)
• the symbolism of its signs: what does this old building imply?
• the context of the photo: what happened around the image? What is the literal story between the last hurrah of this building vs. the current moment?

Of course, not everyone will see all these layers at once. But I've found that if you hit a few of them, you'll have a more appealing image.

I grew up in the upper mid-west in and around a lot of farming country. The open spaces, grain elevators, the shrinking dilapidated small towns; all of that speaks to me on a personal level and to an extent elevates what might be simply average photographs onto a higher plane. Nostalgia. Even a slightly abstract sense of homesickness. How the heck do I work with/around that? How does anyone? Should it be avoided? To a lesser degree; just how many people photographing old stuff can the community support?

I live in Appalachia, and there's a long, sad story of photographers coming out here to 'capture' the poignancy of the place and the culture. Most of it fails — or worse, offends — because the photographers are not from here, and therefore often don't understand the context, meaning, significance, etc. of a given subject, and therefore often shoot the images as a sort of 'despair porn.'

It's a totally different thing to approach one's own culture and history and root around for photographic meaning. I don't think it should be avoided if this is indeed your situation: in fact, I think it should be celebrated! I am far more interested in your nostalgia about the place you know, than I would be of an outsider's.

I work in construction currently and I'll be damned if I can "see" a good composition at one of my project sites. "They" say to photograph what you know. What I know is completely devoid of inspiration for me.

What if you went to another construction site, where you didn't know the project, didn't know the people, and didn't know the place? I'll bet you'd pull out a lot more 'truth' than someone who didn't know anything about construction. First, you'd know what you were looking at. Second, you'd be able to talk shop with the folks there, and probably be inspired to shoot certain situations that 'speak' to what construction in modern America 'means.' Third, you'd likely be on good terms with those folks because they'd understand you knew what you were looking at (as well as knowing how to be safe, etc.), and weren't just some outsider artist.

I did a documentary project a few years back about letterpress printing. I started it because I love printing (even though I don't do much of it), and have a good understanding of the technology and history. I remember one printer said to me that it was so nice to have a photographer/journalist visit and 'know what ink was.' That sounds ridiculous, but it's true: if you understand what's happening in a place — whether it's farming, construction, printing, music, etc. — and can relate to the people doing their 'thing' in your images, you'll almost certainly take better photographs.

Should nostalgia be embraced and highlighted in my own work in some way? Do I need to take an extended trip back to my roots/hometown and get it out of my system? (as photographer)

Yes! That sounds fascinating, and I'd love to see the result.

Does nostalgia elevate "mundane" work above its actual artistic merit? (as viewer)

When I'm actually out in the field exposing negatives, I don't have all of this crap up front and center in my consciousness, it jumps right in when I start printing and looking at my contact sheets though.

That's a good thing! You probably should be the observer in the field, and a sort of quasi/proxy-audience when you're printing, in order to be able to see the image through different contextual filters.

 

[Vaughn]

Due to my nature and the way I was introduced to and practiced photography, the elements of education and communication are an important part of my photography. This entails trying to visually communicate to the viewer, no matter what level of visual sophistication the viewer may process. I have "all of this crap up front and center in my consciousness", but only because it is front and center with all the other 'crap' in my consciousness about the image in front of me.

The lack of craft and care (in image-making and/or print-making) may not be obvious to the 'average' viewer, but can still leave them wanting for reasons they do not know -- and that lack will stand out as a lacking to those who do know about the craft and art.

Nostalgia, over-used, can be nauseating, especially as the subject. One way to use nostalgia as an element in one photographs in a meaningful way, is to use it as a tool/vehicle to take the viewer from one place to another. The figure in the landscape, especially the 'wilderness'', is almost as old as art itself and can be used in photography as such a tool.

What we "know" is greater than the sum of our experiences. That is what one often needs to extract from one's everyday world to photograph one's everyday world.

 

[MTGseattle]

Wow! Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone. I fully admit to "being in my own head" too much sometimes.

@Vaughn I went out on Sunday and redeemed myself with 35mm. I had a weather break, and I loaded the film correctly. As I move forward, I may implement 35mm as a photographic "sketchbook" and go back to certain subjects with large format with a more informed idea about a subject/scene.

@grahamp I've seen a couple of Van Gogh works in person. I remember appreciating them from "normal" viewing distance and then getting as close as the staff would tolerate so I could really see those brush strokes. A more accurate question may have been whether knowing some or a lot of the technique involved changes your perception of a work if you do look closely at the minute details.

@jslabovitz all of your points regarding construction as subject hold merit. I'm typically not a portrait maker, and I feel like that would quickly become important, as the "skeleton" and envelope of a structure are so bound by simple geometric shapes. I can think of some conceptual ideas as I type this, but still.

 

[snusmumriken]

The OP and replies gave me much to think about, hence being late to the party.

I think you owe it to the artist to set aside your special interest in the medium or subsets thereof. It shouldn’t matter whether the thing is hand-knitted from the Fallopian tubules of hummingbirds (to quote Monty P): it’s the effect that matters (with exceptions in conceptual art). Having said that, I admit to a personal bias towards b/w which I can’t explain rationally.

I don’t see why nostalgia shouldn’t be the main purpose of a photo. If you like a photo or a subject for that reason, that’s meaning enough. But the more of the points listed by @jslabovitz the photo ticks, the more universally admired it is likely to be. I’ve seen a lot of photos posted on Instagram by retired professional photographers, which have acquired significance thanks to the passage of time, but which in other respects are quite wanting. Nice to see, but for one reason only.

I’m a sucker for old stuff and have often been tempted by photos of things from the decades of my youth, photographed on the media of that era. But, like any theme, nostalgia can be over-played. In the end one gets impatient and starts to wonder why the here and now is neglected. Although, paradoxically, a photograph can only be historic. Isn’t it fun to puzzle oneself with these thoughts?

And then there’s your question of familiarity vs fresh eyes. Familiarity does blind you, even if it gives you greater understanding. Strangers are blind in that other sense, but find it easier to see what is - to them - extraordinary. Although I understand @jslabovitz point about ‘despair porn’, surely both insider and outsider views are valid? Arguably the one requires the other.

 

[MTGseattle]

So, can an outsider truly have nostalgia for a thing they have no personal experience with? "Borrowed nostalgia" maybe? The primary definition hinges greatly on personal experience.

Back to construction/sites. Any of us in even moderately sized cities likely drive or walk past some version of 5-over-1's (retail/hospitality on street level, residences above, not necessarily 6 floors). At certain phases they all look the same, and unfortunately for people living near them there's not a lot of variation in the finished products either. Some of this "sameness" is due simply to the materials. New concrete doesn't have a lot of variation, and I can't think of a recent mixed-use structure where they've decided to tint the concrete. The sheathing materials are largely the same (region dependent), the weather and vapor sealing materials are largely the same (we're in a glut or orange colored wrap out here).
The rough framing phase of a house will look largely the same everywhere. If someone is doing traditional Japanese style timber framing, there is some true beauty and artistry involved which would lead one down the path of focusing in on the joinery methods used but step back across the street and aside from larger pieces of wood, (and hopefully) a more interesting set of shapes, it still looks like a house skeleton, not much different than dimensional "stick" framing.

 

[snusmumriken]

So, can an outsider truly have nostalgia for a thing they have no personal experience with? "Borrowed nostalgia" maybe? The primary definition hinges greatly on personal experience.

Hmm, it certainly requires a stretch of the term. But a stranger may see interest in things that to a resident are passé, grubby and possibly even shameful. I remember work colleagues visiting Poland for a conference before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and returning with photos of agricultural methods not seen in the UK since the 1940s. That has all changed in Poland too now. So whose was the nostalgia?

 

[Don_ih]

Romanticism is a broader notion that covers what you're describing. You don't need personal experience to mourn the loss of a supposed "simpler" or "more innocent (naive)" time. A great deal of photo appreciation is romantic in that way.

 

[MattKing]

So, can an outsider truly have nostalgia for a thing they have no personal experience with?

Sure - because old things have newer analogs.
To stretch an example a bit, if you go to a rail museum, it may remind you of when you were a youth and had a train set and were fascinated by all things railroad.
And as for the sameness of construction, look for patterns, and exploit them photographically.
Light and a high ceiling:

 

[snusmumriken]

Romanticism is a broader notion that covers what you're describing. You don't need personal experience to mourn the loss of a supposed "simpler" or "more innocent (naive)" time. A great deal of photo appreciation is romantic in that way.

We need a term that also covers 'despair porn' though ... unless you think that's a different thing?

 

[Don_ih]

We need a term that also covers 'despair porn' though ... unless you think that's a different thing?

It's funny to think that people like images of what they consider a depressed state - but people really do like such things. Many photographers like to photograph states of decay and going to a community that is thinning out and drying up economically to take photos is not really much different. Whatever feeling people have associated with seeing such images is akin to nostalgia, even if it's coupled with a definite feeling of relief that it's "not me".

I think "despair porn" is a pretty good term, especially for how the depiction of marginal groups is consumed by the majority.

Avedon's In The American West is a rather pornie in that way.

 

[Vaughn]

...

I don’t see why nostalgia shouldn’t be the main purpose of a photo. If you like a photo or a subject for that reason, that’s meaning enough. But the more of the points listed by @jslabovitz the photo ticks, the more universally admired it is likely to be. ...

You are correct. What I find lacking is when the photographer tries to have nostalgia do all the heavy lifting without seeming to understand the importance of ticking off at least a few items on the list. Better to stick to kittens and babies -- one has a larger appreciative audience as us oldies age out.

 

[snusmumriken]

It's funny to think that people like images of what they consider a depressed state - but people really do like such things. Many photographers like to photograph states of decay and going to a community that is thinning out and drying up economically to take photos is not really much different. Whatever feeling people have associated with seeing such images is akin to nostalgia, even if it's coupled with a definite feeling of relief that it's "not me".

I think "despair porn" is a pretty good term, especially for how the depiction of marginal groups is consumed by the majority.

Avedon's In The American West is a rather pornie in that way.

Referring back to the title of this thread, I think photographer and viewer do often have different interests in the same image, and the difference may change over time too. Photographic projects that were carried out to document socioeconomic issues, and thereby influence politics, are avidly 'consumed' by later viewers as reminders of the human condition, of the fragility of civilisation, of inequality generally, of compassion and humanity, or simply the beauty of photographic images. (A recent example would be Peter Turnley's new book on California in the 1970s, on his home page.) To label those viewing interests as 'despair porn' is actually pretty cynical, but at least it suggests that there are alternative ways of photographing the same places ... though that too could be seen in a negative light. Think of the relentless positivity of official photography in Soviet Russia, for instance.

 

[Don_ih]

To label those viewing interests as 'despair porn' is actually pretty cynical

I don't know but there's much choice but be cynical. It is difficult to impress the reality of a situation upon someone who is removed from it - especially in a world where depictions of harsh realities are a form of entertainment (tv shows, movies). Powerful images never lose their power - the viewer loses the ability to be affected by it.
I don't think that makes it impossible to be sympathetic to the plight of others, but it does become more of an intellectual response than an emotional one. Being inured doesn't make someone incapable or recognizing.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don't know but there's much choice but be cynical. It is difficult to impress the reality of a situation upon someone who is removed from it - especially in a world where depictions of harsh realities are a form of entertainment (tv shows, movies). Powerful images never lose their power - the viewer loses the ability to be affected by it.
I don't think that makes it impossible to be sympathetic to the plight of others, but it does become more of an intellectual response than an emotional one. Being inured doesn't make someone incapable or recognizing.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think strong images - especially still images that one can ponder, and even historical ones - can easily raise strong emotional responses. But let's not de-rail the thread.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think strong images - especially still images that one can ponder, and even historical ones - can easily raise strong emotional responses. But let's not de-rail the thread.

That doesn't disagree with what I said, though. A powerful image, especially one with significance that perseveres through time, doesn't lose power. I said the audience might lose the ability to appreciate it. But that doesn't mean everyone. Although it's difficult to maintain the same appreciation for something over time - because you change.

I don't think it's derailing the thread. It's just narrowed in a little.

 

[MTGseattle]

I don't consider the thread derailed. I like the narrowing down a bit of one of the questions. I am coming around to being really annoyed by the "_____porn" term or vernacular. I think the first time I saw it used was an add for a rare wood seller whose little tile in a trade magazine was "wood porn." I found it kind of funny a decade ago. I think I've seen a book titled "cabin porn." on the shelves somewhere. The connotations are perhaps a bit amusing, but it's already a tired usage to me.
part of the reason for all of this is that I don't photograph people, and as I try and photograph more often and consider maybe letting my work out to a wider audience, I wonder how much of the same basic imagery the viewing public can tolerate and/or do I have anything "new" to say about anything old and decrepit. And again, does it really matter if I'm simply trying to advance my craft?
In quite a few images that I enjoy as viewer, it's the juxtaposition of the industrial and the residential that appeals to me, and just how narrow the border is/was in certain places.

 

[warden]

...do I have anything "new" to say about anything old and decrepit.

In quite a few images that I enjoy as viewer, it's the juxtaposition of the industrial and the residential that appeals to me, and just how narrow the border is/was in certain places.

It sounds like you do have something new to say, or perhaps have a unique take on an old subject.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm just now reading this thread and have so many thoughts/feelings but much has either already been said or I just can't get my thoughts together for a coherent post that is not somewhat OBE. I've had similar thoughts/experiences in another technology area: mineral/coal mining, mining technology, and mining safety... all of which I had to learn about On-the-job. I was a city-slicker pencil-necked college boy who wore the wrong clothes, looked/talked differently, and drove a car from "the wrong county". It was only with a bit of knowlege about their jobs and lifestyle that I was eventually accepted (minimally, albeit) by the subjects, talk minimally intelligently about their jobs/lives, and learn from them. It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to gain the respect of others yet it's really worth the effort. That cannot be accomplished as a 'drive-by" photographer who just wants to snap a few stereotypical images.

I have a high degree of learned nostalgia (or whatever one wants to call it) for the rural people, areas, and jobs that I was exposed to yet are toally foriegn to anything in my personal background. to me, that happens when one makes an effort to learn and understand others and what is important to them.

I never took any images of my subjects or their environment aside those required for documentation of their jobs, the reason I was there. I hold those in my heart, however - both the images I saw with my eyes and the relationships I had during that project. Sometimes I wish I had taken some pictures, though, because it's really difficult to explain the experience to others. Those images that were never taken, however, would mean a very different thing to me than it would for anyone else who viewed them.

This is a very thoughtful philosophical thread and I thank you for it.

 

[Pieter12]

A good photo is more than the subject. It is light, composition, texture. You have an advantage: you have access to sites that others don't. There can be many interesting photos to be made there: details, tools, shadows, people and machinery at work. You don't need inspiration. You just need to see the images in front of you. Here are a few samples from my work that illustrate something like that.

 

[MTGseattle]

@warden I can only hope.

@BrianShaw I appreciate and understand your post.

@Pieter12 really nice images. Thank you. I am in that space where familiarity breeds contempt for sure.

@MattKing Nice! There's a lot more going on than simple light and a ceiling. In new construction I don't have any extra texture in my materials.


Part of what intrigues me about the neglect of a structure for whatever reason is how shockingly fast a derilict space can turn to crap without any human help. It's almost staggering especially in a wet climate like we have out here. I also like the strata of repair; layers of paint, layers of rust, various patches and fixes. All of that tells something of the life of a place and like counting rings on a stump can be a record of time passed.

Some of you have nudged me just enough though, I'll bring a camera to a couple of jobs next week and see if I can make any magic happen.