Peppers, Toilets, and a Desk Lamp...

Fair warning, same subject, different day.

Weston photographed toilets, peppers, and a desk lamp, and found joy in it. But I wonder how?

I tell myself nearly daily, "just shoot. Just trip the shutter, on something, anything, but just shoot." And I can't bring myself to do it. I mean, how many photos of a palm leaf, boat dock, or fire hydrant does one need? Why clutter up my negative files, or waste a frame with a photo that will never be printed because I have no interest in printing it?

I pass the same three blocks twice a day on my way to work, and on my way back home, and that's about it. Living half of a mile from work has it's advantages, but it's also got its disadvantages. I absolutely do not want to do portraiture, whether in street form, or studio, but the sad fact is that I rarely find things in nature that are interesting. Again, how many photos of a palm leaf can you make before it becomes monotonous?

So what is it that made Weston look at his toilet and want to get out his camera? Because I'm either not seeing something, or I haven't found something other than people to interest me. And better yet, what is it that people saw in the photograph of a toilet that made this piece of work one of the better known pieces?

Am I just lacking photographic passion, or am I not looking for subject matter in the correct manner?

Back to reading.... Volume II, pg 13.

At least you get out. During the lockdown I have been taking photos of my toilet, peppers and desk lamp 10 times a day. Once lock-down is over I will get out as the wife has arranged for me to go on a journey to a special place where there are nice men wearing white coats who she says are on hand to help.. For toilet photography I need to force myself: for peppers I count them as my one of five-a-day vegetables to say healthy and I fortunately still find desk lamps to be illuminating

pentaxuser

Well obviously, you and Weston don't have the same interests. Some people like flowers, some like grapes arranged in a bowl, some like broken bottles. It's a challenge to find the little things that interest a person.

I've also struggled trying to find photographic inspiration during the lockdown. I usually shoot street/urban landscape and natural landscape photographs, none of which are really accessible to me now.

I bought Robert Adams's 'Around the House' hopefully looking for some ideas but didn't really find anything. Paul Strand's "The Garden at Orgeval" contains some beautiful pictures taken in Strand's backyard, but it looks more like a park to me - my backyard isn't nearly that interesting I'm not really into self portraits - who the heck wants to see a picture of me anyway?

Like the OP, I'm kind of stuck at the moment. At least I have time to make prints of some of my older negatives but I miss shooting.

Ok so on pg 17, when asked "from what motive did you photograph that toilet?", he responded, "it was a direct response to form."

So now I'm wondering what is it about form that he found interesting. And how, when looking at a negative or print, did he SEE form... instead of just a toilet.

The other day, I was reminded of Weston's peppers as I was taking inventory and cleaning the polarizers I accumulated with other purchases (I've never used them). I looked through one and thought it would have removed all interest from Weston's peppers. Well, Weston already took Weston's photographs. If these things aren't inspiring to you, there's no point in trying to force it. Find something that interests you. If it is about seeing form as such, I notice it sometimes comes to me after I've already shot half a roll. It's something one can practice, and it's very dependent on state of mind. So practice it, and take care of your state of mind. Write out what is on the back of your mind, have a drink or two, or do something physical, whatever you need.
Finding your topics in photography as in anything can be a long journey. I've always been sort of aimlessly shooting whatever I've found visually interesting, which can work fine. Right now I'm beginning to realize that things that interest me in other parts of my life can also objectives of my photography. How exactly is not very clear to me yet, but I'm optimistic.

ChristopherCoy said:

Ok so on pg 17, when asked "from what motive did you photograph that toilet?", he responded, "it was a direct response to form."

So now I'm wondering what is it about form that he found interesting. And how, when looking at a negative or print, did he SEE form... instead of just a toilet.

Click to expand...

Do you find that photo interesting? What photos do you like? You must be interested in something--light, texture, composition, the subject itself--to make a good photograph. If you walk in an urban area, take a closer look at what you pass on your way. You'd be amazed at what's out there if you just look. I have no idea what you like, but as an example, try looking at Aaron Siskind's close-up photos of paint cracking and peeling.

grain elevator said:

If these things aren't inspiring to you, there's no point in trying to force it. Find something that interests you.

Click to expand...

Pieter12 said:

... take a closer look at what you pass on your way. You'd be amazed at what's out there if you just look.

Click to expand...

I'm not analyzing Weston's work, or trying to force something to be there that isn't. I'm trying to find out what it is that *I'm* missing.... why is it that I can't look at a toilet, pepper, or desk lamp and see form and light? What is it that is mentally blocking me from SEEING the form of the leaf while I walk on the trail through the park. I'm not educated enough in art to dismiss any kind of form, yet nothing really ever interest's me, aside from a nude male form. I can say without a doubt I like those. But it's a rare occurrence that a photo can stop me in my tracks.

Maybe I should cruise through the galleries and favorite stuff I like and then go back and figure out the common theme

But you do like e.g. Weston's finished photographs of the toilet or the peppers? If you don't, this style probably just isn't for you and you better depart from a subject that interests by other virtues than shape and light. Of course it's a challenge for all of us to see the subject we want to photograph. It's basically the main difficulty in photography. I seem to have become more sensitive to the quality of light simply by often thinking about the photographs I could take. I'm sure you can just focus on the light when you know it's good, like usually in the early morning, and pay attention to what's happening. I find shape more difficult. It probably just is, designers and painters spend much time studying it. Photographers should also try to educate themselves by all means possible. And to practice, it certainly wouldn't hurt to walk around with a cutout card, a directors or normal viewfinder or just a camera and look through it often. Now to practice what I'm preaching...

And another thing....

Weston said that his toilet photograph was a "direct response to form." But if I rememer Vol I correctly, he did it out of boredom because of all the rain in Mexico. But either way, it exhibited that you (generally speaking) have to have a particularly interesting subject. Which is something that I have a hard time with as well.

When I can't get outside, or go somewhere, or don't have anything or anyone to photograph, I just kinda look at my camera and think about what I would photograph if I could. I should get out my speed lights and try some still lifes. But then I circle back to... "still life of WHAT?"

Maybe he was just heeding nature's call, a direct response to what was forming in his bowels.

Scatalogical jokes aside, I found this when searching for Weston's toilet image. Not sure if it's the same image as the one you're studying:
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/283282

dourbalistar said:

Maybe he was just heeding nature's call, a direct response to what was forming in his bowels.

Scatalogical jokes aside, I found this when searching for Weston's toilet image. Not sure if it's the same image as the one you're studying:
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/283282

Click to expand...

That's the one he talked about in the book. He was distraught over the fact that 1/4" of the seat cover was viewable in the negative. He states how he meant to crop that out in the camera but he didn't, or at least didn't account for it.

Christopher, you bring up a good question, though, one that's probably the crux of photography - how to see? I'm amazed by photographers who can make a compelling image from something entirely mundane. More often than not, it's a scene or an object that I've passed by a thousand times, but completely ignored it, was oblivious to it, or somehow deemed it not worth photographing.

ChristopherCoy said:

why is it that I can't look at a toilet, pepper, or desk lamp and see form and light?

Click to expand...

Can you look at a photograph of a toilet, pepper, or desk lamp and see form and light?
If you can, then the next step is to look at a toilet, pepper, or desk lamp and see a photograph.
This is a truism, but a photograph of something needs to be distinguished from that something.

MattKing said:

Can you look at a photograph of a toilet, pepper, or desk lamp and see form and light?
If you can, then the next step is to look at a toilet, pepper, or desk lamp and see a photograph.
This is a truism, but a photograph of something needs to be distinguished from that something.

Click to expand...

Yes. I can look at Westons toilet and see the curves of the porcelain. The progression of white to grays, to darker grays. The symmetrical rounded shape of the bowl. I can look at Pepper No. 30 and see the severe curvatures, the crevices formed buy the folded over lobes, how one portion of the pepper leads you to another by the flowing nature of the body.

I can see all that, but seeing it in whatever is in front of me is a different, more difficult task.

ChristopherCoy said:

Yes. I can look at Westons toilet and see the curves of the porcelain. The progression of white to grays, to darker grays. The symmetrical rounded shape of the bowl. I can look at Pepper No. 30 and see the severe curvatures, the crevices formed buy the folded over lobes, how one portion of the pepper leads you to another by the flowing nature of the body.

I can see all that, but seeing it in whatever is in front of me is a different, more difficult task.

Click to expand...

I think like many things in life, more careful study is needed. A quote from the article linked above (bolded empahsis mine):
For two weeks Weston studied and photographed the ordinary plumbing fixture from different angles.

And Pepper No. 30 also implies that there were Pepper Nos. 1-29. So he didn't necessarily give up after the first few tries didn't work out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_No._30

I see two different approaches.
Some photographers want to use photography to make pictures of interesting subject matter.
Some photographers want to use subject matter as an ingredient in making interesting pictures.
I strongly suspect that the endpoint Edward Weston wanted was a piece of photographic paper with elegant and visually attractive markings upon it; an art object in itself. The forms, lines, and tones of the toilet were merely a convenience (?) to that end.

dourbalistar said:

Christopher, you bring up a good question, though, one that's probably the crux of photography - how to see? I'm amazed by photographers who can make a compelling image from something entirely mundane. More often than not, it's a scene or an object that I've passed by a thousand times, but completely ignored it, was oblivious to it, or somehow deemed it not worth photographing.

Click to expand...

Yes exactly. I can think of one subject off the top of my head that has ever struck me like this. There is a tree on I-35 just north of Dallas, in a creek, on the side of the highway. It is the largest tree viewable, and it is the only tree with stark white bark. Probably an Aspen, or Aspen-like tree. The white bark that stands out against all the other foliage makes it look like a large road map. Every time I pass that tree I tell myself that 'one day' I'm going to photograph it. When we lived up in that area I used to swear that I was going to take one photo a week of that tree and record it's year long life. But I never did... and still haven't.

dourbalistar said:

I think like many things in life, more careful study is needed. A quote from the article linked above (bolded empahsis mine):
For two weeks Weston studied and photographed the ordinary plumbing fixture from different angles.

And Pepper No. 30 also implies that there were Pepper Nos. 1-29. So he didn't necessarily give up after the first few tries didn't work out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_No._30

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I just finished writing in my journal about the Nautilus shells he worked on. As of this point in the book, he's done at least three sets of negatives - and he's changed their orientation, their background, the lighting etc. I realized that if this were a painting the camera is the brush, and the negatives are the paint, and the first pass of paint isn't always satisfactory. He had to go back to the toilet, peppers, and nautilus shells over and over again until it was satisfactory.

Maris said:

The forms, lines, and tones of the toilet were merely a convenience (?) to that end.

Click to expand...

I think that goes back to what Matt stated... actually seeing those things. I guess that's the part of the study that I am missing....

I just see his still lifes and landscapes as a prelude to portraiture. He was really good at it, like Adams. Must be easier to make money from teaching and taking pictures of inanimate objects, they sure complain less.

I look at pictures and I take pictures. Lots and lots and lots of them. Sometimes I am just taking pictures to see what they will look like, not because I am particularly interested in that subject. I know that sounds really silly to some people but I do believe that part of it for me is that I have trouble visualizing something until I have taken the photograph and seen it in the "flesh", so to speak.

I am slowly getting better at recognizing something that may look good in a print, but only because I have literally taken hundreds of photographs and looked at hundreds or thousands more in books, in magazines, at museums or on-line. I often recognize something that to me represents an opportunity to capture something really good but for much of it I end up coming back to those same situations time after time, in the morning, in broad daylight, at sunset, even at night, thinking that I will finally capture what I believe is there. Once in awhile I do but most frequently I finally let it go. There is a Juniper tree in my front yard that has almost certainly been photographed hundreds of times. I feel I have gotten close to what I see in my mind's eye but I'm never really satisfied with the prints.

I have even worked with (gasp) digital for awhile thinking that the immediate response would help but for me it never did. I finally gave it up and just started shooting more film.

Now the challenge is to take a negative, remind myself what it was that attracted me in the first place, and then try to re-create that in a print. Now THAT is tough to do, at least for me. I really envy those that can look at something and then photograph or draw it almost on the spot and consistently come up with something that is compelling. That doesn't happen with me. It takes a lot of work and often it will take several days before I am happy with a simple 4x5 contact print. There are times where I have actually walked away without ever having printed anything I am willing to keep. I keep telling myself I'll return to it but it seems that I never do unless it is something I am doing for someone else. I know there have been times when my own kids have despaired of ever getting a print they have asked for.

From the time I have spent reading about Weston and reviewing his work I still haven't figured out what type he is. Did he instantly recognize a good print when he say it in the field or did he have to really work at it. I kind of suspect that by the time he was doing the work that is discussed in Daybook #2 that he had a pretty good handle on things. But he also spent an awful lot of time reviewing other work whether paintings, carvings, statues or prints so it may have been a bit of a situation that what he saw in other work was being incorporated into his own.

I will say that I feel he was a better printer than he was a photographer, and he was a good photographer. I know that sounds odd but he seemed to be able to translate his negatives on paper into some pretty amazing prints. I am not sure who was better between him and Ansel Adams.

awty said:

I just see his still lifes and landscapes as a prelude to portraiture. He was really good at it, like Adams. Must be easier to make money from teaching and taking pictures of inanimate objects, they sure complain less.

Click to expand...

I believe Weston was taking portraits long before he began to photograph toilets, peppers and sea shells.

The toilet is a favorite subject among artists. Take R. Mutt's (Marcel Duchamp) famous "Fountain" from 1917, photographed by Stieglitz (and then thrown away!). Or the 24 karat gold toilet by the Italian artist, Maurizio Cattelan. And attached, a photo of a piece by Noah Purifoy out in the desert near Joshua Tree.

He was doing portraits to make a living through most of his career.

Consider that the most famous pepper photo is “Pepper number 30”, apparently a lot of peppers preceded it.

Aside from the nudes, Weston’s work seems closer to my psyche than Adams, though I’ve never photographed my toilet.