Photographing chaos - Strategies?

[MattKing]

This story about synesthesia seems apropos to at least some of the discussion here: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6788838

 

[snusmumriken]

I’m tempted to say that a discussion of anaesthesia might be more appropriate. But I wouldn’t do that.

 

[Harry Callahan]

'Universal' is kind of a big scope. But surely, if you listen to the opening of Bach's St. John's Passion, the feeling it gives most (motivated) listeners has much more breadth and depth as well as a considerable degree of commonality between individuals than "that's interesting" or "I like that". If you're not into Bach - plug in whatever music you're into; the principle is the same.

We may struggle to put those experiences/feelings/impressions into words - sure. But they're still there, and they do have some degree of universality that at least to an extent rises beyond a strict cultural scope. Mozart's Requiem and Monteverdi's Vesper's easily fill concert halls around the world today, centuries after the pieces were composed, and the audience really aren't there just for the bragging rights, either. These people are as deeply moved by the music as our forefathers would have been.

I take music as an example because I feel it's perhaps the most universally appreciated art form and therefore an example that probably most of us can relate to. The general principle is still the same for photography, I think. Perhaps @cliveh is close with his "you get it or you don't" - I'm sure I'm not the only one to experience an almost physical response (it's somewhere around the midriff and generally feels like a gentle punch) to some images (although not necessarily very many). Whether that is about the 'concept' - I couldn't say; hence the question for clarification. But that it's about something that sets one artwork apart from many others, that much is clear to me.

When it comes to photography, at least some of this must have to do with the visual language that communicates the content of the work to the viewer. Still, this language and the content are distinct aspects of the work; just like in a poem, the choice of words, rythm and other aesthetic aspects of the text as such is conceptually distinct from the message, feeling, emotion or whatever 'punch in the midriff' it's trying to convey.

And no, I don't think experiencing any of this is restricted to dusty academic circles where degree-holders are actively gatekeeping to keep the plebs out. Heck, they'd be the first to ridicule the idea to begin with.

I concur with your analogy to music, but when i said "universal meaning" i meant something like an "unmistakable meaning" - this picture has this meaning and nothing else. No room for interpretation etc. and every "true" artist does get and understand this. As runwithscizzers said:

" There are far more people who can look at a photo and say, "That's interesting," or "I like that," than there are who can say, "Oh look at the way the photographer has captured the divine nature of the human spirit!" "

I am not a fan of classical music, but i listen to it from time to because... there is no singing (on a lot of pieces). Then there is more room for interpretation because nobody is telling me what this piece is about (ok, reading the title usually does). That`s also why i like some swing music (not all of it) because it often has no singing and therefore more room for interpretation of what the piece *could* describe - as it musn`t describe anything.
If there is a (pop-)song you (nearly) always know what this song is about. This ain`t bad, but your mind is bound to the topic of the song - unless you cannot speak the language the song is sung - so there is less room for interpretation.

With (a lot of) classical music or swing music it`s different. And to stay in the analogy of music, most pictures are pieces without singing for me - but pretty often someone comes along and says "i definitely know what he/she is singing about! Because this or that is the meaning of this picture" . This is when i wonder about an "universal meaning" only "true" artist can understand - because the song has no singing but quite some can hear the text very clearly.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

'Universal' is kind of a big scope. But surely, if you listen to the opening of Bach's St. John's Passion, the feeling it gives most (motivated) listeners has much more breadth and depth as well as a considerable degree of commonality between individuals than "that's interesting" or "I like that". If you're not into Bach - plug in whatever music you're into; the principle is the same.

We may struggle to put those experiences/feelings/impressions into words - sure. But they're still there, and they do have some degree of universality that at least to an extent rises beyond a strict cultural scope. Mozart's Requiem and Monteverdi's Vesper's easily fill concert halls around the world today, centuries after the pieces were composed, and the audience really aren't there just for the bragging rights, either. These people are as deeply moved by the music as our forefathers would have been.

I take music as an example because I feel it's perhaps the most universally appreciated art form and therefore an example that probably most of us can relate to. The general principle is still the same for photography, I think. Perhaps @cliveh is close with his "you get it or you don't" - I'm sure I'm not the only one to experience an almost physical response (it's somewhere around the midriff and generally feels like a gentle punch) to some images (although not necessarily very many). Whether that is about the 'concept' - I couldn't say; hence the question for clarification. But that it's about something that sets one artwork apart from many others, that much is clear to me.

When it comes to photography, at least some of this must have to do with the visual language that communicates the content of the work to the viewer. Still, this language and the content are distinct aspects of the work; just like in a poem, the choice of words, rythm and other aesthetic aspects of the text as such is conceptually distinct from the message, feeling, emotion or whatever 'punch in the midriff' it's trying to convey.

And no, I don't think experiencing any of this is restricted to dusty academic circles where degree-holders are actively gatekeeping to keep the plebs out. Heck, they'd be the first to ridicule the idea to begin with.

Since we're talking about music, and to get back to @Daniela and her original post, I'd suggest listening to Mahler's symphonies. A true master at organizing chaos. Or, to put it slightly differently, to give the illusion that chaos can be organized (I'd also rate Chostakovich very highly in that matter).

True, in music, chaos is organized linearily, i.e., in time, while in photography it is done instantaneously, in space. But the basic principles are the same: oppositions/conflicts, relationships, formal coherence.

 

[koraks]

(I'd also rate Chostakovich very highly in that matter).

Funny, I had to think of him as I started reading your comments on Mahler's work.

True, in music, chaos is organized linearily, i.e., in time, while in photography it is done instantaneously, in space. But the basic principles are the same: oppositions/conflicts, relationships, formal coherence.

I think there's a deeper distinction, which is kind of clear: music isn't capture the way a photograph is - it's deliberately composed. A photograph can be, too, but all too often is a direct capture of a scene that already exists in reality. As a result, the process of keeping the chaos out of music is almost automatic as long as we don't put it deliberately into it (which sometimes is done of course, although not by Mahler or Shostakovitch). This is different for photography, where if we're not careful, chaotic reality results in a chaotic photo. I think this is what makes @Daniela's question so interesting, because in a way, it boils down to the question how and to what extent we can compose without actually rearranging.

 

[Steve York]

Maybe off topic, but I've found that if you have some broad themes in your pocket, or fave techniques -- e.g., humans relationship to nature, reflections ect, -- you can take them out and apply them in almost any situation. Those are just examples, but they are nearly endless. Take a look at your old photos, is there any theme or technique that ties them together?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I concur with your analogy to music, but when i said "universal meaning" i meant something like an "unmistakable meaning" - this picture has this meaning and nothing else. No room for interpretation etc. and every "true" artist does get and understand this. As runwithscizzers said:

" There are far more people who can look at a photo and say, "That's interesting," or "I like that," than there are who can say, "Oh look at the way the photographer has captured the divine nature of the human spirit!" "

I am not a fan of classical music, but i listen to it from time to because... there is no singing (on a lot of pieces). Then there is more room for interpretation because nobody is telling me what this piece is about (ok, reading the title usually does). That`s also why i like some swing music (not all of it) because it often has no singing and therefore more room for interpretation of what the piece *could* describe - as it musn`t describe anything.
If there is a (pop-)song you (nearly) always know what this song is about. This ain`t bad, but your mind is bound to the topic of the song - unless you cannot speak the language the song is sung - so there is less room for interpretation.

With (a lot of) classical music or swing music it`s different. And to stay in the analogy of music, most pictures are pieces without singing for me - but pretty often someone comes along and says "i definitely know what he/she is singing about! Because this or that is the meaning of this picture" . This is when i wonder about an "universal meaning" only "true" artist can understand - because the song has no singing but quite some can hear the text very clearly.

Harry If you have Sirius satellite radio try station 149-Escape It has all the standards, but instrumentals of them only.

Escape (Sirius XM) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[nikos79]

In order to go back to the original subject and forget this diversion (which was mostly my fault of introducing it) and to come back to Daniela, I would tell her that yes there are techniques to cope with chaos and it is very challenging to put it altogether semantically or visually as other members illustrated.
My own very personal idea of photography is the complete opposite, it has to be very direct and minimal (minimal not as in concept or decoration).
For example you are on the street, you see a small boy, this is what it interests you. Forget all other elements go there close make a quick frame and be as direct as possible, you want to show me the boy I don't care if there is an elephant shitting behind it.

 

[nikos79]

Funny, I had to think of him as I started reading your comments on Mahler's work.



I think there's a deeper distinction, which is kind of clear: music isn't capture the way a photograph is - it's deliberately composed. A photograph can be, too, but all too often is a direct capture of a scene that already exists in reality. As a result, the process of keeping the chaos out of music is almost automatic as long as we don't put it deliberately into it (which sometimes is done of course, although not by Mahler or Shostakovitch). This is different for photography, where if we're not careful, chaotic reality results in a chaotic photo. I think this is what makes @Daniela's question so interesting, because in a way, it boils down to the question how and to what extent we can compose without actually rearranging.

very insightful

 

[nikos79]

Since we're talking about music, and to get back to @Daniela and her original post, I'd suggest listening to Mahler's symphonies. A true master at organizing chaos. Or, to put it slightly differently, to give the illusion that chaos can be organized (I'd also rate Chostakovich very highly in that matter).

True, in music, chaos is organized linearily, i.e., in time, while in photography it is done instantaneously, in space. But the basic principles are the same: oppositions/conflicts, relationships, formal coherence.

Yes but a small correction, space and time, time can also be encapsulated in a photo.
Oppositions-conflicts as you said it (or dialogue as I like to call it) inside a photography is very important to bring these different elements together

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Yes but a small correction, space and time, time can also be encapsulated in a photo.

I'm not talking about "encapsulating" time. Whatever you're "encapsulating" on a photograph, you're always organizing space — a flat plane with borders of a certain dimension, you can't get around that.

 

[nikos79]

I'm not talking about "encapsulating" time. Whatever you're "encapsulating" on a photograph, you're always organizing space — a flat plane with borders of a certain dimension, you can't get around that.

OK I understand. Yes whatever you do you always cut a frame from reality. This is the major choice of the photographer.

 

[snusmumriken]

I am pretty well steeped in classical music, but I'm afraid I really don't get the Mahler/Shostakovitch analogy. Both sometimes create chaotic sounds for effect, but they are a deliberate construction, not as if they start with chaos and somehow smooth it into shape. Likewise the anarchistic chaos in Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra; or the deconstruction and reconstruction of a theme like in Bliss' Meditations on a theme by John Blow. All musical composition is creating order, not chaos; composers are steeped in harmony and rhythm and learn to make chaotic sounds secondarily. The OP's question was how to find your way photographically when the material is already chaotic: how to photograph the chaos itself; or perhaps how to extract something meaningful from within the chaos?

I don't know. I went to a country fair on Sunday and couldn't rouse myself to take a single photo.

 

[nikos79]

I don't know. I went to a country fair on Sunday and couldn't rouse myself to take a single photo.

Proud of you !

 

[Harry Callahan]

Harry If you have Sirius satellite radio try station 149-Escape It has all the standards, but instrumentals of them only.

Escape (Sirius XM) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don`t have it, but thank you for the hint.

Regarding organization of chaos has anyone mentioned time exposure? By doing so you could change the visible chaos of people into a more smooth and less precise appearance of the chaos. Like "It`s a chaos anyway, it doesn`t pay off to take a closer look" .

 

[slackercrurster]

Trying to organize chaos is like herding cats.

Sometimes, you have to shoot from the hip in an "unstructured environment", as they called in in Journalism School.

While finding the grammar of a serene scene is admirable, uncontrolled and chaotic demands you switch to gaming mode and let instinct take over.

At least that's my 2 cents...

Yes, that is what I do a lot of the time. Also, if kids involved, there can be trouble with candid work. People think you are a pedo.

OP, get out there, shoot and things will develop. Bear in mind you need to close to people most of the time to get something good. But not all the time.

Here is a hip shot. More of a chest shot actually...unframed. My shoe is stepping on the spoon.