Not a question for camera enthusiasts, but for those into it for art

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you for taking time, Ken. I appreciate it. I still don't agree, but that's not bothering me in the least. I appreciate that we are different.

I argue that 95% of the meaningful transformation from light to print comes from skill.

No, of course not. But what I created would of necessity be different than if you had given me a 16x20 camera.

The tool of a 35mm camera carries with it certain strengths and weaknesses regarding its properties and behaviors. Things such as size, weight, number of frames available without reloading. Stuff like that. A 16x20 carries with it its own set of unique capabilities and constraints. Unique because the two are different and not the same.

Each of those sets of properties and behaviors affect what is possible to achieve with each camera. And what we can do (are allowed to do) with each camera affects how we perceive the world through it.

While I can certainly set up the 16x20 underneath the basket at an NBA game, the resulting photos will be entirely different than had I used my Nikon F2 w/motor drive, which itself would produce completely different results from the modern professional DSLR the Sports Illustrated guy is using.

Actually, not to belabor the point, but SI is an excellent example of tools affecting the final photographic message. I'm a 40+ year subscriber. In the beginning (early 70s) I signed up because I loved the photography. But now I continue only for the writing.

When SI made the jump to digital, the photography changed radically. It ceased being... substantive, for want of a better term. There was more shallow fluff and less intellectual depth.* At the beginning the eyes behind the cameras had not changed. They had simply migrated. And the games were still exactly the same, as they are governed by set rules.

What changed were the tools. The cameras. Specifically, the properties and behaviors of those cameras. And those changes affected how the SI photographers perceived the competitive sports world before them. What they could show of that world has always been directly related to their camera's capabilities. And those capabilities had radically changed. As a result, so did their pictures.

So sure, hand me a different camera than I am accustomed to using and I can still make photographs. And those photographs will still match my vision. But the implementation of that vision will be unavoidably altered. Because it's not the same camera. Not the same tool.

Hand Michelangelo a pneumatic chisel and David would unavoidably look different as well. My guess is that he might have been noticeably more detailed. Or he might have been completed quicker. Or he might have been larger. But he would not—could not—have looked exactly the same. Because he would have been created differently.

Ken

* For what it's worth, the acknowledged Greatest Sports Photograph In History, Muhammad Ali standing over and sneering down at a defeated Sonny Liston, was made at ringside by a then very young Neil Leifer using a Rolleiflex TLR. He knew the camera property was that he had only a handful of frames to work with, so he concentrated a lot harder...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbultman]

The camera is important only in the sense that it must not hinder the creative process. Every photographer works differently, which is why there is no one perfect camera.

^^^This^^^

If the tool that you have does not allow you to express the idea you wish to convey, the tool matters in a negative sense.

If the tool that you have allows you to express the idea you wish to convey, and the use of the tool is second nature requiring minimal thought to use, the tool fades into the background but matters unconsciously.

The tool can limit what can be conveyed which is why there are so many different tools. We choose them based on what we wish to create. We replace the tools that are hard to use with tools that are easier to use or that allow us to express ourselves better.

The tool matters. It is only further down on the list when its use become second nature.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The camera is a tool and like all tools effects what we make with it. In other words it's presence in the creative process is not a passive one.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Thank you for taking time, Ken. I appreciate it. I still don't agree, but that's not bothering me in the least. I appreciate that we are different.

Yes, our respective properties and behaviors are indeed different. That's what makes participation in these discussions of alternative points of view so interesting. It's also what makes our pictures so different. I suspect neither of us would have it any other way.

I argue that 95% of the meaningful transformation from light to print comes from skill.

Hopefully somewhere that also includes the skill to both select and maintain the equipment necessary to perform those transformations that give form to your artistic vision. Even though that may constitute only 5%, it is a critical path 5%...

Take care, Thomas. And please do keep posting to the gallery, as I enjoy seeing your continuing work.



Ken

 

[NedL]

...
Most important are these abilities/qualities of the photographer, in no particular order:
- The intellect
- Sense of design and composition
- Understanding light
- Emotional involvement
- Hard work and dedication to projects
- The ability to speak their voice and crystallize what they wish to express
....

This strikes me as a list of things that don't get a lot of discussion on APUG. I'd love to read more opinions about all of these.
It also strikes me that just in the responses to this thread, there is an wealth of knowledge and understanding and experience in these things.
Maybe they are hard to discuss in words or too subjective? To me these seem to be at the heart of what we do... but "what is art" threads deteriorate pretty fast. Although Blansky started a thread recently that went at it.

 

[darkosaric]

Maybe they are hard to discuss in words

For me it is this - I find it hard to discuss about it on forums. Live with friends, when we look some book or some prints together and analyze - then it is easier.

 

[blansky]

Some interesting opinions. Obviously, as usual, if they disagree with mine, they're wrong, but that's life.

I still think there is a disconnect with some participants with end results. Some say things like, without my tilts and shifts I can't make my art. Or without working slow on a large format it's just not me. Or damn it my Hasselblad/Leica is my art. Or the medium IS the message, instead of the message is in the print.

I think the OP was more into the apocalyptic concept if most of the tools are gone, and you only have this one, whatever it is, should you not be able to move/affect people with your "art". I don't think it was posed which camera would you be most comfortable with or what your ego dictates you use, or what size negative or print you can make.

It was just a fundamental philosophical question of does the tool inhibit you from making your "message", not your sweet print, but your message from happening.

And interestingly the answer seems to says a lot to me about if your process is more important than the actual "message" of your work. Which I think IS a divide here on APUG.

Is the medium, the message.

 

[RobC]

I wonder how many people in this discussion who don't think the camera is important would manage in life without a car. After all, a car is only a tool for travelling between point A and point B right?

Do they take the their tools for granted without according them the amount of importance they hold in their life. Are they ignorant of what it is they've got in their hands.

 

[frank]

The journey doesn't matter, it's only the destination which is artistically important. Everything else is just...

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

And for others, it is only the journey that matters, and that is equally valid. It's a kind of art that is not bought and sold, but lived. Most of us are between these extremes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It was just a fundamental philosophical question of does the tool inhibit you from making your "message", not your sweet print, but your message from happening.

Definitely a cigar. I am very interested in what the magic potion is that acts behind what people attempt/desire to express.

If you look at somebody's work, which is their accomplishment and expression, and it speaks to you on some level, what kind of questions run through your mind?
Is it what the place/situation felt like?
Or is it what went through the photographer's mind?
Is it how the light was treated to reveal the elements of the scene?
Is it geometry and design?
Or is it what film they used and what camera they were using?

There are more angles of course, but to me the last one doesn't even belong in this realm, because I find it's such a small contribution to the whole that it even fails to register with me.

Sure tools are important. They must work for us. The camera must contain the light sensitive medium, and transmit the light to it reliably. The light sensitive medium must be of reasonable quality.

But setting the camera up, framing the scene, reading the light and metering, and timing does so much more for the final outcome.
As does the subsequent work to go from light to finished print, with good film developing technique, understanding what the paper needs of the negative to make an print that looks nice, and the printing really adds a ton with respect to setting forth the idea we had in the first place, by applying all the skills we have learned with respect to local tonality, toning, and eventually presentation and framing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wonder how many people in this discussion who don't think the camera is important would manage in life without a car. After all, a car is only a tool for travelling between point A and point B right?

Do they take the their tools for granted without according them the amount of importance they hold in their life. Are they ignorant of what it is they've got in their hands.

How many times do I have to say it before it registers? It is not a with/without kind of discussion. We ASSUME you have your tools. You are a photographer = you have a camera. Can we move past that point now?

Now you're interested in making photographs, prints, art. When you're in your most creative mode, when your juices are flowing like a river after the rain, and you want to express your ideas and what's inside your head - how important is the camera? Compare that to understanding light, framing the scene, posing your model(s), metering technique, varying film exposure and processing for low key/high key results, printing technique that emphasizes/tones down the various elements you're choosing to forward your vision and make your message powerful, toning to support the mood of the scene, etc. Things that have to do with skill rather than machinery.

 

[blansky]

And for others, it is only the journey that matters, and that is equally valid. It's a kind of art that is not bought and sold, but lived. Most of us are between these extremes.

Which is an interesting discussion, on art and communication.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound. Obviously the question is, is sound determined by the fact that someone hears it.

So then if you make your "art" your message, your communication, and nobody sees it, is it art?

Recently we had the Vivien Meyer situation where her "art" was basically unseen for years and then discovered. But was it art until it was seen.

Or was it just a pastime.

I think that's a fundamental argument that exists here on this site as well.

In the original heading on this thread, the term used was "if your goal is art", then is art something that someone makes for a pastime and keeps in a drawer or on his wall at home, or is art something that is communicated to people. If you enjoy making pictures but nobody sees them is that communication.

The OP seems to me to not include those people in his query. Even though some are answering.

So in this thread, people who don't have the need to communicate a message to a viewer but instead enjoy the process of photography for it's own sake, are they relevant to the discussion.

Just asking. Because I'm not trying to exclude opinions, but trying to get opinions to clarify what communication really is.

Is a picture nobody sees, is that communication. If a tree falls.....

 

[frank]

There is Tichky as well. He did what he did because he was driven to do it, living his art. Once he was discovered and his work was commodified, did he only become an artist then? I don't think so. He was an artist and made art for himself all along. Even if no one sees it, it is still art for the person doing it.

The problem with the tree falling in the forest analogy, is that there is absolutely no one there. That is not the case with the lonely/solitary artist not showing his work to others. Can't art be self exploration for oneself?

But you are correct, this is another topic. It was stirred in me by the "end product is all that matters" statement. This is true only when the sole purpose and motivation for the product being made is to sell, as in the case of a commercial artist/photographer. Fine artists do what they do because they must, and then hope to make a living, but would continue regardless. It's the life of an artist they choose to live and it is the journey of making the art that is most important.

All this, isn't to say that all photography is art. If one is casual about it, it's just a hobby/pastime. Art by degree, depending on the seriousness of its pursuit? Oh my, another topic.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In the original heading on this thread, the term used was "if your goal is art", then is art something that someone makes for a pastime and keeps in a drawer or on his wall at home, or is art something that is communicated to people. If you enjoy making pictures but nobody sees them is that communication.

The OP seems to me to not include those people in his query. Even though some are answering.

I don't think art has to be seen to exist. It's an expression, a pursuit to describe an emotion or and idea that's inside and wants to come out. That is to me the fundamental aspect of creating, that we have a desire to do so. Whether it gets seen or not does not affect its status as art. That's my opinion, of course.

I'm not intentionally trying to exclude anyone. I read all the entries, and reply to what I would like to know more about, or where it doesn't make sense to me. I apologize if I'm being selfish.

 

[blansky]

I'm not intentionally trying to exclude anyone. I read all the entries, and reply to what I would like to know more about, or where it doesn't make sense to me. I apologize if I'm being selfish.

I certainly wasn't saying you were, and I don't think it's selfish one way or the other.

It's your thread, and to keep a discussion from heading off in too many directions, it's necessary sometimes to set parameters.

Otherwise every thread would end up identically. (which they sometimes do)

It's hard enough in a discussion forum to stay on topic, so I think parameters are helpful.

Hey it's a philosophical section, it ain't world hunger, we are just trying to intellectually debate a point or theory.

 

[blansky]

I don't think art has to be seen to exist. It's an expression, a pursuit to describe an emotion or and idea that's inside and wants to come out. That is to me the fundamental aspect of creating, that we have a desire to do so. Whether it gets seen or not does not affect its status as art. That's my opinion, of course.

Then these are perhaps the fundamental questions:

Do people create simply to express themselves.

OR is do they create to communicate to others.

Put in a more crude and different way, are they masturbating or are they making love. When love is defined as with another person.

Is it a primal need to get something out. Or is the primal need to share.

I don't have the answer but it's an interesting thought.

(And I hope it doesn't devolve into who's doing what in the darkroom).!!!!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What goes on in my darkroom stays in my darkroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darkosaric]

Do people create simply to express themselves.

OR is do they create to communicate to others.

I think it is both, only at one person it is more on one side, on another person more on another side. Most extreme example that I know is Franz Kafka.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Then these are perhaps the fundamental questions:

Do people create simply to express themselves.

OR is do they create to communicate to others.

Put in a more crude and different way, are they masturbating or are they making love. When love is defined as with another person.

Is it a primal need to get something out. Or is the primal need to share.

I don't have the answer but it's an interesting thought.

(And I hope it doesn't devolve into who's doing what in the darkroom).!!!!

I find the notion of needing to share interesting. Personally, I view it like this:

I create my art for me. It's like an itch that has to be scratched. I don't really seek approval from anybody else to do what I do, I just do it based on what I feel like I need to do.

But, it's fun to share, and it sure is beautiful when somebody views work that we do and are moved by it. Friends of mine comment that they love the work and they are moved by it. They can't afford to buy a print, so I just give one to them for them to enjoy. When I visit their home and find it hanging on the wall, it does feel good, I will admit that.
Other people purchase a print, and that is flattering indeed.

Here in Minneapolis we have a very good group of people who meet up monthly. We call our little coop 'The Midwest Passage' and we sometimes show our work together, and we always share it among each other. Discussions ensue about how to print, troubleshooting, exchange of ideas, and so on, and that is very fruitful for developing our skills.

So, I think there's a bit of both, but in my case it's 100% borne out of a very powerful desire to attempt to put that little piece of my soul onto paper somehow. Don't know why, though. I just kind of follow my heart.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

OP, just depends. A crappy cam wont bring home the goods no matter how nice a list you make.

Oh agreed. Of course the camera will have to function properly and perform its intended purpose. Buy a halfway decent camera and make sure it works. Service it when needed.

Example: I have an old Minolta P&S 35mm camera that has become a favorite, simply because of how simple it is to use. For walking around and exploring it's perfect, because I see something, point the camera in that general direction, zoom by walking, click the shutter, and done!

The lens isn't perfect, but the 16x20s sure look nice; I couldn't be happier with the prints. The photographs would not have been improved in any (to me) important way by using a Leica with a 35mm Summicron, or a Nikon with a nice prime.

 

[cliveh]

I don't think art has to be seen to exist.

I would agree, even for art to communicate. You may describe a tree you saw falling together with its sound in a forest, but you may be lying. But now we are moving into the realms of conceptual art.

 

[blockend]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foLoTcDXdE

 

[Alan Klein]

Getting paid for what you love to do is a bonus. I don't see how that diminishes the art. Also, I disagree that business is the non-creative part. Anyone who has run a successful business knows the value of thinking out of the box. You have to use your creative juices to get financing, finding and keeping customers, and all the other requirements of running a successful enterprise. Finally, both good art and good business requires hard work. 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

 

[NedL]

As for viewing a photograph, Thomas, my reactions are usually in the same order you wrote them.

- what was it like to be there
- what was the photographer feeling

My favorite photographs are the ones that make me wish I could be there, or evoke some memory of my own past.

Then if I like the photograph, I might think about the light and the composition and sometimes I try to understand if there is something about the composition or design that is what draws me to the photo. But most often, I get stuck at stage one, just knowing I like the photograph and not analyzing why too much... although in the past couple years here at APUG I am realizing that there are some fundamental design elements that matter and that photographers who I admire and I know have a good eye pay attention to. So I have more to learn along those lines.

And by the way, when I go out to make planned photograph, what is in my mind is almost never a "pre-envisioned" scene.... the goal is always a photograph that feels a particular way. I might know the feeling I want to evoke, but not if or how I'll do it. Other times if the photograph is not planned, the idea is to capture whatever caught my attention... I think that mirrors the way we live in the world: what do we notice and what do we care about? Or I might discover something and try to come back later to get it...

I doubt that art must be seen to exist.... it already exists in the mind of its creator...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for sharing your personal approach.

About 'thinking' about the things in my list - I rarely do. It just sort of comes naturally. I feel like I 'see' the light I like, and as I raise my camera I consider different angles if I have time or ability to do anything about it, but the whole list concerning emotion, involvement, a wish to express myself - that just all sort of happens automatically, as it is within me. Either I'm excited or I'm not.

Have you ever had that epiphany of 'I have to photograph that!'? You're drawn to something so immensely that you simply must take that picture, or you have a very strong urge to even if you don't have a camera. That's what I'm talking about. Of course sometimes those moments come to us, and other times we kind of need to go looking for them, maybe seek ourselves to places and situations where we might have a good chance to be inspired.

All I know is that when I come across that sensation of 'must photograph' something, I do anything I can to convey how I felt, thought, or otherwise experienced in the picture. It's a pretty pure thing, where my mind is very uncluttered, but in a hell of a rush.

As for viewing a photograph, Thomas, my reactions are usually in the same order you wrote them.

- what was it like to be there
- what was the photographer feeling

My favorite photographs are the ones that make me wish I could be there, or evoke some memory of my own past.

Then if I like the photograph, I might think about the light and the composition and sometimes I try to understand if there is something about the composition or design that is what draws me to the photo. But most often, I get stuck at stage one, just knowing I like the photograph and not analyzing why too much... although in the past couple years here at APUG I am realizing that there are some fundamental design elements that matter and that photographers who I admire and I know have a good eye pay attention to. So I have more to learn along those lines.

And by the way, when I go out to make planned photograph, what is in my mind is almost never a "pre-envisioned" scene.... the goal is always a photograph that feels a particular way. I might know the feeling I want to evoke, but not if or how I'll do it. Other times if the photograph is not planned, the idea is to capture whatever caught my attention... I think that mirrors the way we live in the world: what do we notice and what do we care about? Or I might discover something and try to come back later to get it...

I doubt that art must be seen to exist.... it already exists in the mind of its creator...