Photographing chaos - Strategies?

[nikos79]

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to reduce the chaos to a simpler form, specifically by isolating a small subset from the chaotic situation that no longer represents the original chaos.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.

Oh yes the second category is the most interesting to me too, trying to make chaos work as a whole, but I didn't mention it because I consider it very difficult.

A similar (if not more difficult) chaos can be found in photographing nature. For example your photo with the river and the two trees worked well into bringing it together as a whole.
Here is a photo of a friend of mine who happens to be a very good photographer too (Angelos Balatsas) where chaos gets structured

 

[koraks]

For example your photo with the river and the two trees worked well into bringing it together as a whole.

Frankly that photo was a very simple scene resulting in a very simple/simplistic composition, so as far as I'm concerned it's the polar opposite from what we're discussing here.
Btw, this brings an interesting question - it's possible to make a complex/chaotic composition of a a chaotic scene, as well as a simple composition of a chaotic scene. Then there's the evident possibility (gratuitousness?) of making a simple composition of a simple scene...now, how about a complex/chaotic composition of a simple scene - but a composition that still works? Can it exist?

Here is a photo of a friend of mine who happens to be a very good photographer too (Angelos Balatsas) where chaos gets structured

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.

 

[nikos79]

.now, how about a complex/chaotic composition of a simple scene - but a composition that still works? Can it exist?

How about this one?

 

[koraks]

It's humorous, that's for sure.

 

[gary mulder]

examples do or don't

 

[gary mulder]

More classic. But do you get the atmosphere ?

 

[snusmumriken]

How about this one?

Love it!

 

[cliveh]

For me, even in chaos, a good image is about the geometry of the moment.

 

[nikos79]

For me, even in chaos, a good image is about the geometry of the moment.

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For me, even in chaos, a good image is about the geometry of the moment.

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?

 

[nikos79]

What do these mean?

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

These are terms popularised by HCB, Szarkowsky, Walker Evans, etc although they have their roots on painting or any art

 

[cliveh]

The content is inherent in the form and geometry and the moment is the icing on the cake.

 

[Pieter12]

This is not my photo, but a great example of rendering chaos in a photograph:

 

[koraks]

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

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.

These are terms popularised by HCB, Szarkowsky, Walker Evans, etc although they have their roots on painting or any art

Which goes to show that great artists do not always make great theorists.

 

[nikos79]

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.

It is really hard to define the content and i have to go through the writings of these artists-theorists. Perhaps the way I see it is that form is what is seen and content what is conveyed. Like I see your photo on the park with the trees and I understand why photographically is important

But as you said these things overlap. Some artist which I don't remember said that form is a part of the content, they are inseparable in good works of art

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[nikos79]

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.

For me the definition of chaos is very unlike elements inside a photography, think a Ferrari, a bear, a naked man, and a baby crying for example and the challenge is how to organise them to be something as a whole that has meaning inside the photograph.

There could be both visually and semantic chaos. The runners I wouldn't interpret it as chaotic too as seen from that distance they bear a uniformity.

In the end it goes also into schools of Photography. Constantine Manos and a lot of Magnum photographers used to say that the more you put inside a frame the better. Others believed the opposite especially older photographers.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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

Perhaps the way I see it is that form is what is seen and content what is conveyed.

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.

 

[Harry Callahan]

...

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. ;-)

...

Same with me. I also wonder where it does come from, but i believe that true artists get "a meaning" first and then create a piece of art. With a poem this should be easier, as you could write on the poem as long as it takes - with photography it should be harder, unless you do studio work where you can place everything the way it needs to produce the "meaning".
Maybe true art-photographers have a sense for meaning and take a picture when they sense that this subject could represent a meaning and identify the meaning after the picture was developed...

...

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.

I also think so. To understand the "meaning" you need background - with poems for example you should know what time the poem was written in, in which place etc. .
Unless there is some sort of "universal meaning" every true artist does understand... but not me.

 

[cliveh]

The complexity of visual art is so massive, that at the end of the day you either get it, or you don't. A bit like a joke really.

 

[koraks]

Unless there is some sort of "universal meaning" every true artist does understand... but not me.

'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.