I disagree that 'colorful' or 'urban' is somehow an inherent part of chaos in a photographic sense. I think the discussion can (and should) be understood to encompass also chaos that is not necessarily colorful or even perfectly monochrome, and that exists regardless of social context (i.e. it can be entirely natural).
View attachment 400062
You left out the important category that among others @gary mulder is referring to and that @MattKing showed some excellent examples of. I think that's the category that in the context of @Daniela's question is the most relevant one. I base this on a distinction that I think can be drawn between two broader categories of strategies to cope with 'chaos'. The first category relates to the strategies your refer to, and that I would summarize as attempts to reduce the chaos to a simpler form, specifically by isolating a small subset from the chaotic situation that no longer represents the original chaos. The second category is one in which the photographer attempts to capture the chaos in such a way that it retains the complexity of the original scene, but makes the chaos seem more logical and therefore more palatable to the viewer.
It's the second category that piques my interest and that I feel should at least not be excluded from the discusson, and probably (for the record: my conviction, on personal, non-moderator title) is a good candidate to be made the central focus of the discussion. My reasoning is that the former class of strategies effectively attempts to negate the original chaos in order to come to a solution - which results, critically put, in a bypass or workaround at best. The cynic in me would argue that if this route is chosen, one might as well not seek out the chaotic scene in the first place and stick to more serene settings that lend themselves to inherently more quiet and simple compositions.
W.r.t. the second (IMO more relevant) category, I struggle a bit in formulating what it intends to achieve - I've settled for something I'm not entirely happy with, i.e. to make "the chaos seem more logical and therefore more palatable to the viewer". this is inherently problematic, and perhaps therefore also quite interesting, because what is palatable depends on the viewer. This carries the potential for enormous individual variance in it, as well as the influences of cultural programming. Why this is 'quite interesting' is that the appreciation of works of e.g. Wall (see @MattKing's post) prove that despite this evident variance in personal taste, will and ability to comprehend or simply patience to look at a busy photo, there is some degree of universality to compositional patterns that are appreciated. Trying to understand (perhaps intuitively more so than academically) such patterns is one of those fascinating aspects that make rare threads like this one potentially quite interesting. Provided we pick up the glove - and recognize it's a glove in the first place.
For example your photo with the river and the two trees worked well into bringing it together as a whole.
Yeah, it's an interesting one as it sort of sits between both categories, illustrating that there's not necessarily a hard & fast division between the two.Here is a photo of a friend of mine who happens to be a very good photographer too (Angelos Balatsas) where chaos gets structured
.now, how about a complex/chaotic composition of a simple scene - but a composition that still works? Can it exist?
Love it!How about this one?
Isn't then a photo just a simple study in form Clive? Doesn't a photo need also the interplay of form vs content to be able to elevate?For me, even in chaos, a good image is about the geometry of the moment.
For me, even in chaos, a good image is about the geometry of the moment.
What do these mean?Isn't then a photo just a simple study in form Clive? Doesn't a photo need also the interplay of form vs content to be able to elevate?
What do these mean?
the subject (the thing that draws the photographer to lift the camera), the form which is how he organises his frame to show what drew his attention, and the content which is the essence of the photograph
These are terms popularised by HCB, Szarkowsky, Walker Evans, etc although they have their roots on painting or any art
Can you define the 'content' other than the vague 'essence'?
I'd have to think about it a little more, but taken at face value, there's overlap between the dimensions and they're also not mutually exclusive. Frankly, it doesn't seem like a particularly good/effective/useful distinction to me. It might be turned into something useful with some work.
Which goes to show that great artists do not always make great theorists.
Yeah, so they're basically shoddy conceptualizations. Sometimes that's all we have and it's OK if that's the case, although I feel that in the case of photography (and other visual arts) we can do a whole lot better than this.
Either way, the question remains how this helps us to deal with chaotic scenes. To an extent, it does help as it brings for instance the question what 'chaos' we're actually talking about. I interpreted the case presented by @Daniela as one of social as well as physical & visual chaos, and the challenge of mostly dealing with/focusing on the latter while being physically subject to the former during image capture. @Pieter12's example of the runners in my view illustrates aptly that a socially chaotic scene is not the same as a visually chaotic one, given the very basic, archetypical and simple composition of the photograph. Although on a more critical note, I do feel there's a high degree of organization in the apparent 'chaos' (which I doubt we should call that way) - they're all runners in similar outfits, running in the same direction along a narrowly defined course, etc. I don't think a large number of elements in a scene automatically results in chaos. There's a very clear ordering here.
Every photo has three elements, the subject (the thing that draws the photographer to lift the camera), the form which is how he organises his frame to show what drew his attention, and the content which is the essence of the photograph. This is the most difficult to define it could be the transformation of the reality although it is a very limited definition
Within the context of art, I think your term, "content," may be the same as what my English teachers called "meaning" -- as in, 'What is the meaning of this poem?'Perhaps the way I see it is that form is what is seen and content what is conveyed.
...
I have always wondered where the "meaning" comes from. Does the poet or photographer start out by thinking, "I want to create something that conveys the divine nature of the human spirit" -- and then somehow incorporates that into the work in such a way that multiple different viewers can "get" the content and agree about what the work means? I think some art works that way, but "every photo"? I'm skeptical. Usually, I just take a photo of something I find interesting, and if my photo turns out to have any "meaning" above and beyond my subject, tones, textures, and composition, then that is purely accidental. But I am a hobby photographer and do not aspire to be an artist -- which saves me a great deal of bother by not having to come up with a lot of high minded concepts to justify the significance of my photos. ;-)
...
...
I think for this content/meaning thing to work, the photographer and the viewer must share similar intelligence, education and upbringing for there to be enough common cultural context to make communication possible. 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 guess what I'm trying to say is that the context/meaning thing works best within the gated communities of the academic and fine arts worlds, but photography can still be practiced and appreciated by those who may be unaware of the idea that photos are supposed to have some kind of meaning or content.
'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.Unless there is some sort of "universal meaning" every true artist does understand... but not me.
Within the context of art, I think your term, "content," may be the same as what my English teachers called "meaning" -- as in, 'What is the meaning of this poem?'
I have always wondered where the "meaning" comes from. Does the poet or photographer start out by thinking, "I want to create something that conveys the divine nature of the human spirit" -- and then somehow incorporates that into the work in such a way that multiple different viewers can "get" the content and agree about what the work means?
I think some art works that way, but "every photo"? I'm skeptical. Usually, I just take a photo of something I find interesting, and if my photo turns out to have any "meaning" above and beyond my subject, tones, textures, and composition, then that is purely accidental.
But I am a hobby photographer and do not aspire to be an artist -- which saves me a great deal of bother by not having to come up with a lot of high minded concepts to justify the significance of my photos. ;-)
When discussing "content" or "meaning" or "something which is conveyed" -- these are forms of communication, and it takes two to communicate. In a way, the viewer becomes a collaborator in the work. Is it fair to say, for the work to be successful -- that is, for the content to be conveyed -- then the skills of the viewer are as important as the skills of the artist? If a viewer sees my photo about the divine nature of the human spirit, and says, "This photo is about the transience of youth and the inevitability of decay," what then? Is my photo a failure? Is this guy an idiot for not seeing my meaning, or is his interpretation equally valid?
I think for this content/meaning thing to work, the photographer and the viewer must share similar intelligence, education and upbringing for there to be enough common cultural context to make communication possible.
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 guess what I'm trying to say is that the context/meaning thing works best within the gated communities of the academic and fine arts worlds, but photography can still be practiced and appreciated by those who may be unaware of the idea that photos are supposed to have some kind of meaning or content.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?