Mental machinations as viewer vs photographer

[Sirius Glass]

To me that aspect of past experience is “irrelevant” unless one is a copycat artist.

Just yesterday I was walking and an image “jumped out at me”. Snapped it with a mobile phone and will return with either a Hasselblad or view camera. My only reservation is that when I do these things at least one neighbor approaches me to ask what and why am I doing what I’m doing.

View attachment 353543
I’m not sure why this stopped me in my tracks, though…

The convergent lines plus the color but a really great composition of casual objects in Southern California. Well done!

 

[Pieter12]

How do those who seem to be denying the value of looking at and studying others' images not see it as part of any education? We are not born with innate knowledge, it has to be accumulated over time with experience. What one does with that knowledge varies from individual to individual according to inclinations, incentives and ability.

As far as the cactus photo posted earlier, I'm sorry but I don't inderstand what that has to do with the statement of past experience being irrelevant. And although it may have stopped you in your tracks, It seems rather ordinary to me. Hope you can get something more interesting if you go back to it. The camera does not "make" the photo, you know.

 

[BrianShaw]

You don't like it... no problem. My dog thought it was a rather ordinary picture also. He actually thought that I might be mocking him. LOL

As far as "who's eye" saw the image, I guess that image was mostly my eye rather than any other past experience's eye. Please recall that I never declared past experiences as irrelevant. In post #71 the comment was respoinding to a prior philosophical comment regarding "who's eye" one has after absorbing past experiences, etc. In general, I highly respect past experiences and visual education and could have subliminally been inspired.

 

[snusmumriken]

How do those who seem to be denying the value of looking at and studying others' images not see it as part of any education? We are not born with innate knowledge, it has to be accumulated over time with experience.

I’ve looked back over the posts, and I’m a bit mystified who you think is denying the value? As far as I can see all recent posts acknowledge it. Some miscommunication glitch, I suspect?

 

[Pieter12]

You don't like it... no problem. My dog thought it was a rather ordinary picture also. He actually thought that I might be mocking him. LOL

As far as "who's eye" saw the image, I guess that image was mostly my eye rather than any other past experience's eye. Please recall that I never declared past experiences as irrelevant. In post #71 the comment was respoinding to a prior philosophical comment regarding "who's eye" one has after absorbing past experiences, etc. In general, I highly respect past experiences and visual education and could have subliminally been inspired.

BTW, don't touch that cactus, It will leave you with many practically invisible spines that are quite annoying and difficult to remove. I suggest trying adhesive tape or abrasive soap if you do get any on your hands.

I wss attracted to this one for the repeating patterns of the water drops and the cactus buds and the out-of-focus drops. Not sure it works, though.

 

[Pieter12]

I’ve looked back over the posts, and I’m a bit mystified who you think is denying the value? As far as I can see all recent posts acknowledge it. Some miscommunication glitch, I suspect?

#71, #72, #74

 

[BrianShaw]

#71, #72, #74

You might want to re-read and reconsider the context. It seems to me, also, that there is a minor miscommunication.

I explained the context of 71 already. There’s no denial at all. To refresh: “That aspect” refers to the philosophical question of whose eye one might actually have after absorbing other’s experiences. Same with 72, I believe.

 

[Pieter12]

I guess my point is one's "eye" is one's own, educated and developed by observing and absorbing other's images. Ideally, it should be unique and not copycat.

Similarly, I just read an old essay where the author was arguing that almost all art up to that point had a similar point of view: either eye-level or waist level. Because that was the level that most artists worked, it being difficult to lie on the ground or climb a structure to draw or paint for the time required to get the image down if working from life. It was also the easiest for the viewing public and patrons to comprehend. So that was the example (the "eye" if you would like) set for the majority of art produced at that time. Obviously, that changed over time and there are many wonderful examples of other more inventive angles in later art.

 

[BrianShaw]

I guess my point is one's "eye" is one's own, educated and developed by observing and absorbing other's images. Ideally, it should be unique and not copycat.

…

Yes, absolutely. That’s what we are agreeing about!

 

[Saganich]

I have a question for those who claim not to think. Do these things never happen to you?

1. You go out with a camera but can’t find anything to photograph.
2. You see something that you could photograph but don't think anyone else would be interested, so you don’t waste the film.
3. You look at a photograph you have taken and wonder why you bothered to take it.
4. The photo is technically fine, and you still like the subject, but the photo nevertheless fails to satisfy you.
5. You do/don’t want to show it to others.
6. Someone asks you why you took it.

I'll bit also:
1) If true then it means I have other things on my mind and I'm not paying too much attention to what's in front of me.
2) I only photograph what I find interesting and can't conceive of what someone else might or might not like. I don't like leading the viewer either buy imposing any personal meaning...even titles.
3) If that happens then I just got it wrong because the act itself is evidence that there was something there but I didn't understand why.
4) Often I will know that on the click, but the image informs me anyway about how to 'get it right' next time. I will go back to the same subject or concept consistently over several months or years.
5) I have very little drive to show my work because...oh man...I've been trying to finish this sentence for 20 minutes. Must be fear.
6) Yes, but rarely interested in the answer.

 

[Vaughn]

Also 'free will', perhaps?

We are free to fulfill our destinies...

...guess my point is one's "eye" is one's own, educated and developed by observing and absorbing other's images. Ideally, it should be unique and not copycat....

Agree, except I do not believe creating something 'unique' is as critical (except for marketing) as making one's images one's own, even when some others' work were used as one's 'point of departure' (my prof's favorite line).

 

[Pieter12]

We are free to fulfill our destinies...

Free Will (book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks -- that will be a miss.

 

[Don_ih]

Learning is not wholesale adoption of attitudes and values. Learning also involves application of knowledge to reality, which is entirely your own doing whether or not it was your own idea. So, with the question of "who's eye" - it's your eye, if you're using it. It's a matter of activity. Influence is inevitable but not something that cannot be transcended.

 

[Pieter12]

Learning is not wholesale adoption of attitudes and values. Learning also involves application of knowledge to reality, which is entirely your own doing whether or not it was your own idea. So, with the question of "who's eye" - it's your eye, if you're using it. It's a matter of activity. Influence is inevitable but not something that cannot be transcended.

Rote learning can lessen (pun?) one’s creativity and individuality.

 

[MattKing]

Rote learning can lessen (pun?) one’s creativity and individuality.

It can also enhance one's creativity and individuality, by making "automatic" many things that otherwise might require concentration and intention.
My rule of thumb is to approach any type of emulation of what others do as a learning experience - if I can figure out how and possibly why someone did what they did, then I can take that knowledge and use it for my own purposes.
I also may be able to make use of it other ways. I don't often care whether what I do is new or ground-breaking. I do care if it is of value and if it is done well.

 

[VinceInMT]

Rote learning can lessen (pun?) one’s creativity and individuality.

Rote learning is on the low end of the learning taxonomy. Higher up is the ability to take the knowledge from other sources and synthesize them into something new. (Bloom’s Taxonomy.)

 

[MTGseattle]

The thread may be derailed a bit now? Maybe? I appreciate the discourse that's happening however, and I will add that most of my "over thinking" of late is due to the seeming divide between what i would like to photograph and what I am being asked to photograph for my class.
Other than that, I've simply been trying to at least think about a cohesive body of work and that thought is causing a mental speedbump of sorts.

Added to all of this "mental" stuff is that I'm without fail stuck in my truck commuting when the interesting morning light happens. I'm a slave to the schedule that works for our clients. All I can do is hope the strange cold morning fog/mist with sun breaks happens on the weekend too.

And then I have to get my butt up early on the weekend.

 

[VinceInMT]

…Other than that, I've simply been trying to at least think about a cohesive body of work and that thought is causing a mental speedbump of sorts.

I would recommend reading Rick Rubin’s “The Creative Act” which covers much of what you are referring to.

Added to all of this "mental" stuff is that I'm without fail stuck in my truck commuting when the interesting morning light happens. I'm a slave to the schedule that works for our clients. All I can do is hope the strange cold morning fog/mist with sun breaks happens on the weekend too.

And then I have to get my butt up early on the weekend.

The getting up early on weekend thing is foreign to me but I hear that it is something that many people have an issue doing. After years of shift work followed by a dozen years of early and late commuting in the mess that is Los Angeles, I spent my last 21 working years 8 minutes from the workplace (a high school) where I had to show up by 7:30am. I always got up at 5-5:30 so I could do something for myself before heading off to the kids and I kept those hours on the weekends and during the summer when I wasn’t teaching. I’ve been retired for over a decade and still get up at 5-5:30am. I always get to see the best light.

 

[BrianShaw]

@MTGseattle … thread is not derailed. It thoughtfully expends beyond your immediate question/concern into some very critical learning philosophy and theory that can drive photographic vision and creativity. In my mind it all applies.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'll allow it.

Rick Rubin the record producer?

 

[BrianShaw]

Just don’t get him mixed up with Paul Reubens!

 

[Chuck1]

So what are you assigned to photograph, and what do you want to photograph...

 

[VinceInMT]

I'll allow it.

Rick Rubin the record producer?

Yes, the same.

 

[snusmumriken]

Learning is not wholesale adoption of attitudes and values. Learning also involves application of knowledge to reality, which is entirely your own doing whether or not it was your own idea. So, with the question of "who's eye" - it's your eye, if you're using it. It's a matter of activity. Influence is inevitable but not something that cannot be transcended.

If allowed, I just wanted to comment on this. You can transcend influences provided you are conscious of them (which implies thinking). The subconscious influences, I guess, just become part of your personality. The problem with that is that it leads to pale imitation and cliché. Perhaps we would actually be flattered if someone said our photos were 'school of Ansel Adams' or 'school of Elliott Erwitt' or whatever. But influences can be much more subtle than that. Someone rather well known in the photography world once commented that my photos looked as though they were all taken in the 1970s, and it wasn't meant as a compliment. I don't actually care, because I just do what I like; but if you DO care, that kind of unconscious stylistic bias might be a problem. (Funnily enough, one photographer I'd be glad to be influenced by was active in the 1870s.)

@MTGseattle: I believe cohesion is to a large extent an emergent property. Pooling together advice I have gleaned in various places (and which I pass on without responsibility!), it seems to be widely recommended that you should take LOTS of photos of the stuff that interests you, and review them in a few months' time. Cull them mercilessly, and (if you have any left after that) it should be apparent what links them together and how to build further. But maybe you have already done that and passed that stage...?