Taking and Viewing Emotion

[BobNewYork]

I wonder if we're in danger, (me included) of the worst type of philosophy, i.e. parsing language, because of its inadequacies, without discussing real "meat."

If none of the photographers feelings should pass into his / her work, but that work should evoke feelings in a viewer then there must be a non-sequiter here. If there are no feelings in the piece, which can only come from the artist, then how can a viewer derive feelings from it if there are none there to start with?

I'm still convinced that the artist's emotions, or feelings, toward a subject are what prompts him to take the photograph in the first place. This can be despite other feelings such as mood. For example, I can be in a bad mood, (mad at the weather, at the government, at the missus, at the kids etc) but I can come across an interesting, perhaps beautiful scene or subject to which I respond - despite being mad at the world - and take a good, (possibly!) photograph. I can still be mad at the world afterwards but whatever it was in that subject that caused me to stop and take the picture remains in the photograph to be "enjoyed" by, or perhaps passed on to, the viewer.

Emotions or feelings or whatever you want to call them are instinctive rather than consciously developed. They are a human response to external circumstances and situations. We spend much of our time controlling, or perhaps smothering those emotions; mainly because oftentimes actions based upon them are neither socially acceptable nor responsible. Perhaps then when we allow our personal feelings to come out when photographing this is a work of art. Certainly some of the best literature contains autobiographical overtones as does some of the best music. And perhaps too, a work of art is considered "great" when the feelings it engenders in the viewer are somewhat universally felt.

When a man takes a picture of his kids, he does so because of the emotions he has for them. When he shows them to his wife, friend, family etc. that same emotion is felt by those viewers. Even though they may be just "snapshots" they are works of art - but only to the limited number of people who know that family - because they can appreciate the feelings the father had when he took the snapshot. Those snapshots are a representation of the father's feelings. To people outside that circle the snapshots can at best be cute.

When it comes to photography the technique we aspire to and work hard to attain, is nothing more than a set of tools to which enable us to better convey what we felt when we pressed the shutter. And what we are conveying is really abstract - it's feelings, emotions or whatever we want to call them.

I need a drink - and it's only 8:30

Bob H

 

[Larry Bullis]

Bob,

While I can see that what you say could be true, I would stop far short of trying to apply it universally, as it seems to me you are doing.

I will now make a sweeping generalization: Sweeping generalizations don't work. They oversimplify and in so doing they make us smaller and more simple than we really are. We, and the world we inhabit, are wonderfully complex.

If none of the photographers feelings should pass into his / her work, but that work should evoke feelings in a viewer then there must be a non-sequiter here. If there are no feelings in the piece, which can only come from the artist, then how can a viewer derive feelings from it if there are none there to start with?

Our emotions are manipulated constantly, heartlessly, with full intention. Historically, there's nothing new in this, but today we are at the absolute pinnacle of the use of art to produce desired results, from politics to soap. The problem is that we don't recognize it. We are duped. We don't think that what we are responding to is anything but real, and we don't think of the manipulative tools as art.

As anyone who's followed this thread so far surely must know by now, I'm ready to admit that my work can reflect my emotional state. However, I must reject the idea that ALL of my work does. For one thing, to put me in a box like that makes me one dimensional. I think that is selling me pretty short. That is NOT all I am, and that is NOT the only thing I do. There are lots of reasons behind my imaging. Emotion is one factor, but there are many others. Sometimes one dominates. Sometimes another. Sometimes a constellation of motives.

I suppose that some emotion could inform all of my images. Actually, I really doubt that. If it does, a lot of other motives are as likely to be there in greater or lesser proportion. The emotional element is just that: an element.

Now, a bit of bowzartian historical reflection on where the idea that art comes from emotion originated:

We humans have short memories, limited to our own generations and those adjacent to ours in the time continuum. We tend to be locked solidly into our own times and reflect current attitudes; we reliably miss the larger picture. I really don't think that the history of art would support the idea that art is motivated by feelings exclusively, or even at all, except as we approach our own time. I think rather that you'd be hard pressed to prove that prior to the last half of the 18th century, anyone thought of art being related to feelings, at least in its motivation. Of course art was used to stimulate feelings in the viewer, whether it worked or not. Images of the holy family, saints, etc. dominated for centuries. I wouldn't even have gone back as far as the eighteenth century to find hints of art motivated by emotions, but the visions of Wm. Blake forced me to reconsider.

I think of Blake as the first flower of the Romantic movement, when emotion emerged as a creative motive. His critique of his famous contemporary, Joshua Reynolds, could illustrate the point. He lashed out at JR for wasting his gifts on making MONEY by painting glorious portraits of the very rich, rather than using them in service to higher ideals. And, commercial hack that I've been in one of my incarnations, I have to suggest that a common commercial artists' mantra, that "all art is commercial" has some truth to it. To try to apply that notion universally, however, is no less problematic than it is to say that all art comes from emotion.

The snapshot:

In making a snapshot, how many people even think of it as art? How many viewers, even in the subject's family, see it as art? Both are interested in the subject, not the picture as the picture. For me, that is a critical distinction. Snapshots are, in my subjective experience at least, artless. The more artless the better. That's what can make them so interesting (when they are interesting - most of them aren't very).

Great thread. Thanks everyone. Thanks to the OP.

 

[BobNewYork]

I think my point is that I'd like to know what it is that prompts me to select certain subjects to photograph. If I'm walking around, with or without a camera, specific subjects will draw me. It's not a conscious response where I can definitively determine exactly what it is about the composition that makes it a "must" to photograph. It's clearly an abstract force. (Now there's an oxymoron, "clearly abstract"!!) Something in the subject makes me respond, and while I can say "it's the light" or the "juxtaposition of the objects." But it's not really the light - it's the way the light makes the subject appear which generates something indefinable that compels me to take the picture. That's what I'm calling the emotion.

As regards the snapshot, I agree it's artless, in the sense that it is not contrived - but does that make it not art? At least for a certain group. That same snap shown to someone who had no knowledge of the kid or the family would clearly have a very different reaction to the "in crowd," but that's somewhat immaterial. The same sort of compulsion prompted the taking of that snapshot. I still come back to the "force" that compels us to select whatever it is we decide to photograph - and I'm talking about personal work here of course. It has to be a response, on our part and it's clearly abstract.

Perhaps we define "art" to narrowly and "good art" too broadly

Bob H

 

[Larry Bullis]

Clearly abstract:

Upstream from here on the Skagit River, there is a town called "Concrete". That's because concrete was made there. The buildings are still there. Big gray things. I've often thought how great it would be to register a boat called the Abstract, the home port being Concrete.

I think what I see as the problem is the application of the term "emotion" to what could well be a wide variety of interests which propel you into making a photograph. I doubt that you have only one single factor that does this for you, but of course, how could I know for sure? I do know that MY work doesn't have a single motive. I think that to attribute all of my images to a single motive doesn't reflect reality, and also diminishes me. Why can't I have more going on than just one thing? Why does every image have to come from the same "force"? Can't we handle multiple forces? Even in our ordinary lives, we have to deal with complexity. Just try to figure out medical insurance! Geez!

As for snapshots, I suppose we each have our own notion of what art is. It's a common question in the "orals" when one is going through a graduate school: "What is Art?" Snapshots, while I appreciate them (some of them) they don't meet my standard. I think of art as having some universal significance. This would differ from culture to culture, but I can see something pertinent to my life in art from all over the world. If a snapshot has value for a very limited circle, it has a function, but I think you are overly generous in making art of it. In one of it's functions it is a catalog entry, in another it is a memory jog. Anyway, it is a picture "of" somebody, and when "of" is involved as the primary motive, the subject dominates and the image recedes. It's the subject that is important; the picture is just a reflection of the subject. If the image dominates (which doesn't mean there isn't an "of" included in it as subject; after all, something has to be in front of the camera) that distinguishes it from the common functions of catalog and memory, the orbit is bigger. I need more than a snapshot. But I, too, MAKE snapshots. I wouldn't ever call them "art". They're not.

When we get into "good" and "bad" we get very subjective and risk being arbitrary.

 

[phenix]

phenix:
You have presented us with something that is a theory or a "theory". If you expect us to honor what you are saying, it is incumbent on you to provide us with a reference to the source. Now, it could be someone else's or it might be your own. Either way, it is ok. You really need to be clear about its origin. Otherwise, why shouldn't we say "oh yeah, another nut case"?...

I think the discussion moved in a wrong direction: I wrote all these things not looking for recognition as suggested, but to create incentives for new discussions I was interested in. As for the ideas I presented, their source was mentioned, as it was the fact they were conclusions or suppositions.

The only thing I wasn’t very clear about the source, was the classification of feelings in 4 hierarchic levels. I mentioned it as being a classic, as it was mentioned to me by several psychologists I asked about. Unfortunately, they didn’t know the source, nor do I even after more investigation, this time on the web.

As for some other opinions, I also mentioned that they were deeply influenced by the book (and I add now the movies too) of former director Andrei Tarkovsky (a predecessor of David Lynch, if you want).

Finally, I would like to add (I had to specify it in the beginning – sorry) that most of my comments refer to a more constructed photography (submitted to a project). I recognize that these comments are less pertinent for an exploring photography like, in extremis, the snapshot. I also don’t think there is a strait line between exploration and construction, but I consider that the more the photography tends to be constructed, the more my comments could apply.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I wonder if we are experiencing a bit of language "barrier" here. I find something in what you are saying that seems like it might be interesting, but I can't follow it very well. Wish I could; sorry I can't.

 

[BobNewYork]

Phenix is right that Psychologists do classify "feelings" in a hierarchical fashion. Bowzart is right in that their is a language problem - which always arises when discussing anything abstract. And I think I may have been wrong for injecting the snapshot into the discussion!!

As regards the language problems, there is (was?) a famous chair of philosophy at Reading University, and whose name I can't recall. I have read several of his works and always found them entirely based on interpretation of what other philosophers meant when they said what they said - in other words interpreting the language. There were no philosophical proposals whatsoever.

To finish what I , (wrongly?) started. My point about the snapshot was really to inject a well known genre which which is widely accepted as non-art, yet which is also widely enjoyed, (as is "art" photography) and is widely matted and framed, (as is "art"photography) The purpose was to open the discussion as to what is the difference between the two forms of photography. I really do accept that the snapshot isn't an art form, (any more than I would consider the studio product shots I do commercially as art)but if I'm taking a photograph of, say, one of my kids - what will make one a portrait while another is a snapshot?

Sure, I can grab one shot outside and another I can take the kid into the studio and take a "portrait". But does the addition of pro lighting gear make that a portrait versus the snapshot taken outside? It shouldn't. So what is the difference? I'm still of the opinion that it's emotions, or feelings and that both of the two examples above could be a portrait or a snapshot But why? In this instance, I have the same emotional feeling for the subject but perhaps it is in conveying that to a dispassionate viewer that makes the difference. I say dispassionate because my wife or my mother will not differentiate between them - it would be a photograph of their son or grandson. So maybe "dispassionate viewer" is the key.

I'm also fascinated by the fact that when I compose an image on the groundglass or in the viewfinder, I will move a little this way, move a little that way until I reach that "punch in the gut" that tells me it's right. The reaction of "feeling" the right composition is not a conscious thing and I could never describe it in words but I'm sure everyone on APUG experiences it. It's a purely visceral reaction to the image in the viewfinder. It's almost as if I am able, without the viewfinder, to recognize a potentially rewarding image within the "morass" of everything there, but I need the framing to locate and isolate more precisely what attracted me in the first place.

My least successful outings are when I pack the gear and go out to photograph "on spec" - i.e. with no specific subject in mind. I find myself then taking my worst photographs. For me it's better to have a subject in mind which I have already identified as having potential and then to work with that. Without that anchor I will almost force myself to take photographs - because that's what I'm out there to do! Does this have a bearing on it? Could it be that we need to let our feelings over-ride our logic in order to identify and compose a subject - then let our logical side kick in with the technical knowledge needed to actually execute?

For me this is an awesome thread because it's pushing me to think through and explain what I do.

Bob H

 

[Larry Bullis]

Phenix is right that Psychologists do classify "feelings" in a hierarchical fashion. Bowzart is right in that their is a language problem - which always arises when discussing anything abstract. And I think I may have been wrong for injecting the snapshot into the discussion!!

I don't want to be a spoiler, but I asked my wife, who has become a poet and renewed her photography interest after hanging up 30 years of practice as an MA level therapist. She'd never heard of that one. However, there are an incredible number of psychological theories out there, and nobody can know everything. The field is always advancing (or retreating!) like every other. Also, it is entirely fine for anyone to advance his/her own theory, whether it has substance or not, but I do think it is important not to present material as accepted fact when it is the product of one's own mental process. After all, it is easy, isn't it, to say something like "I think..." or in some other way to take responsibility for it. Nobody ought to feel that s/he needs to apologize for his/her own creative thought. If it's worth inventing something, it's worth taking credit for it too. That's all I'm going to say about it.

Why is mentioning the snapshot in any way wrong? It is entirely pertinent. Snapshots are photographic products and are usually made of people, or dogs, or whatever, that the person with the camera cares about. That's emotion. It is why I don't trouble my students with rules about photographing their pets, as I understand some instructors do. I want them to engage the medium, and prohibiting them from using subject matter that they care about would be a grave dis-service to them. I do point out to them, when they place Fido in the middle of a picture with a tennis shoe coming out of his left ear, that they aren't being mindful of the two-dimensional space, that if they were shooting with a gun instead of the camera, they'd have nailed him in right in the heart.

Snapshots are within the spectrum of photographic work, absolutely. I really appreciated your bringing it up because it brings the conversation ot another level of interest. At least for me.

The language issue I'm wondering about has nothing at all to do with philosophy. I was just wondering whether phenix's native language may not be the language in which we are conducting this conversation. I have had many students from many countries, and I began to think that some of the problems I was having with the way phenix was presenting the theory might match some of my previous experiences in diverse groups. I found the "phenix theory" interesting, and not being able to follow it was frustrating. Can't look it up, can't research it, can't attribute it to phenix with any certainty.

I've had extensive contact with philosophy, but I am not trained in it. I would be very hesitant to pronounce upon it at all. I'm not qualified.

Snapshot:

The purpose was to open the discussion as to what is the difference between the two forms of photography. I really do accept that the snapshot isn't an art form, (any more than I would consider the studio product shots I do commercially as art)but if I'm taking a photograph of, say, one of my kids - what will make one a portrait while another is a snapshot?

Thanks. Now it's clear. This is where we got derailed, I think (and that's not necessarily a bad thing). If it is emotion we are discussing from a point of view that comes along with making what we think is art in photography, I think it valuable indeed to recognize the importance of the emotion in whatever use of photography we are looking at. Looking at this through the "phenix theory" or some other theory, I'd like to know how to place these separate types of vision. If they fit in a theory at all... Personally, I think that theory is optional. I'd hate to be limited inside of one, but sometimes it is informative to look at what others, with different minds than my own, might make of it.

... I'm still of the opinion that it's emotions, or feelings and that both of the two examples above could be a portrait or a snapshot But why? In this instance, I have the same emotional feeling for the subject but perhaps it is in conveying that to a dispassionate viewer that makes the difference. I say dispassionate because my wife or my mother will not differentiate between them - it would be a photograph of their son or grandson. So maybe "dispassionate viewer" is the key.

Could it be that the snapshot has a tendency to be dominated by the emotion in the hypothetical situation you suggest above, and presents that emotion without much, if any art? By art, here, I don't mean "ART" - I mean art as a verb. There are a lot of different motivations for making a snapshot, though, and lots of them aren't of the kid, just something that caught someone's eye for some reason or other.

...I reach that "punch in the gut" that tells me it's right. ...It's almost as if I am able, without the viewfinder, to recognize a potentially rewarding image within the "morass" of everything there, but I need the framing to locate and isolate more precisely what attracted me in the first place.

I work differently from the way you do. I shoot by building from one shot to the next, hopefully learning from each and applying what I learn to the next. For me, it's been a kind of a dance, but as I age, that takes on a different meaning. I suppose that this comes from being a magazine photographer before the demise of the b&w picture magazine. I think in terms of a roll, rather than "a picture". What I'm describing is not the only way I work, though, and I do understand what you are saying, but I'm never sure "in my gut", and probably wouldn't want to be. If I don't find something I wasn't aware of in an image, most likely I view that one as a failure. I can understand and relate with Friedlander's photographing to see what something would look like as a photograph. The picture, for me, is something that results as a by-product of the process of working. So, I think of the emotional element as pertaining to and conditioning, perhaps, the working. Maybe it will show in the image, maybe not, and maybe I wouldn't be sure of it if it were looking me in the face. That's why I presented the image I did above. To find out what others could tell me about a photograph that came out of my work.

My least successful outings are when I pack the gear and go out to photograph "on spec" - i.e. with no specific subject in mind. I find myself then taking my worst photographs. For me it's better to have a subject in mind which I have already identified as having potential and then to work with that. Without that anchor I will almost force myself to take photographs - because that's what I'm out there to do! Does this have a bearing on it? Could it be that we need to let our feelings over-ride our logic in order to identify and compose a subject - then let our logical side kick in with the technical knowledge needed to actually execute?

I'm going to think about this one for awhile. This post is too long already. I do have something to say about it for sure. For me, "on spec" means a different thing altogether.

For me this is an awesome thread because it's pushing me to think through and explain what I do.

Me too. Thanks everyone for having patience with me. Can you imagine what my poor students must have to go through?

 

[BobNewYork]

.... Can you imagine what my poor students must have to go through?

Yes - but at least they have an instructor who gives a dam

Briefly, and I'll expand on it later, my wife is a 5th grade teacher and at a social gathering last Saturday I mentioned the "emotion levels" to the school psychologist. She agreed it was quite a widely used tool. Essentially looking at causes. e.g. a kid may be sad -but is it caused by anger at something. So it's a classification tool for evaluation.

I'll be back with more later.

Bob H

 

[Larry Bullis]

...I mentioned the "emotion levels" to the school psychologist. She agreed it was quite a widely used tool. Essentially looking at causes. e.g. a kid may be sad -but is it caused by anger at something. So it's a classification tool for evaluation.

The question is "what is IT?". We aren't using language that is precise enough to know whether the question my wife heard was the same as the question you asked. For example, did you use the word "hierarchical" in your question?

 

[BobNewYork]

In all honesty I can't recall whether I sued the word "hierarchical" specifically. The "it" is a classification of various feelings, or even "types" of feelings or emotions that people experience. Apparently the type of feeling likely derive from different types of external causes. There is research that suggests also that these different classes of feeling emanate from different parts of the brain. I have to say this wasn't a long discussion - I didn't want to pin her down on business at a party!!

Bob H

 

[Larry Bullis]

In all honesty I can't recall whether I sued the word "hierarchical" specifically. The "it" is a classification of various feelings, or even "types" of feelings or emotions that people experience. Apparently the type of feeling likely derive from different types of external causes. There is research that suggests also that these different classes of feeling emanate from different parts of the brain. I have to say this wasn't a long discussion - I didn't want to pin her down on business at a party!!

Bob H

And I think this isn't something we're going to be able to solve because there's to much unknown about what either your friend or phenix means by types, levels, etc. You should have seen the look on my wife's face when I asked. Perplexity, confusion, etc. I'm sure that she knows too much to be able to answer a question that is so lacking in specifics, so simple. I suspect that neither of us, you and I, know enough to ask meaningful questions about this, nor would we be able to fully comprehend an "answer" were we to get one.

On the surface of it, though, I suspect that the two aren't the same at all. We don't know how many levels or types the school psychologist uses, but phenix uses four. I would expect the practical tool to use a lot more than that, and they would have lots of nuance. Just take a look at the DSM, whatever the current edition is - it's the book that specifies diagnostic criteria for psychological conditions. It is overwhelming in its complexity. We might expect the diagnostic tool deals with practical issues, like "how angry" and "angry at what", etc. The question of hierarchy would be important, because it seems that phenix's categories are very broad ones, more or less similar - as an analogy - to energy levels, sort of like the orbits of the electrons in an atom. I wouldn't think that sort of thing would be very useful in a k-12 environment. I would also suspect that to understand the school psychology, we'd have to take a few courses and there would be an overwhelming amount of detail to organize, where in phenix's formulation, I would expect the terms to be much more generalized. Maybe one book would be enough to get the idea, where in the school situation, one would have to keep up with a tremendous amount of ongoing research.

But, it's all conjecture, since I really don't have the background that would help me make sense of it.

 

[Vaughn]

Things have gotten a little too deep for me here. But I have enjoyed and benefited from the read. I will say that every image taken by a photographer is, to some extent, a self portrait. There is a bit of us in every photograph...how we felt emotionally, physically, sexually, what we ate for breakfast, who is with (or not with) us, and all that. Some of all this leaks into the image and is available to the viewer -- sometimes intentionally, some times unintentionally.

This is what I believe to be true. And as a belief, totally unsupportable...

My least successful outings are when I pack the gear and go out to photograph "on spec" - i.e. with no specific subject in mind. I find myself then taking my worst photographs. For me it's better to have a subject in mind which I have already identified as having potential and then to work with that. Without that anchor I will almost force myself to take photographs - because that's what I'm out there to do! ...

Usually, I head out to the redwoods (or other locations) with no specifics in mind. The biggest question I have when I arrive is where I am going to park and what direction am I going to head in. Then I grab my gear and start walking...if I am feeling lazy, I may not carry that 60 pounds of stuff up a steep trail, if I am feeling adventurous I might decide to walk down the creek bed and spend the day wet to almost the waist.

But mostly I walk and let the light inform me about when to set up the camera. I find myself smiling and laughing at myself for all the mental gymnastics my mind goes through about all the day-to-day stuff, and even the more important lifetime stuff. I take a big breath, look at the light and just try to be there.

So I can't decide if I agree with the above quote or not. I go out to specifically to work with the light and the forms it creates. Yet I do not have any specific image in mind. Yet light is my subject, so I do have subject in mind. As confused as ever...

Vaughn

 

[Ed Sukach]

Things have gotten a little too deep for me here. But I have enjoyed and benefited from the read. I will say that every image taken by a photographer is, to some extent, a self portrait. There is a bit of us in every photograph...how we felt emotionally, physically, sexually, what we ate for breakfast, who is with (or not with) us, and all that. Some of all this leaks into the image and is available to the viewer -- sometimes intentionally, some times unintentionally.
This is what I believe to be true. And as a belief, totally unsupportable...

As much as I dislike long quotes - this deserves to be repeated.

My reply; Yeah. Like that. I can't agree more - And also without any support.

I too noted the differences in the interpretation of the Enligh language - so, to Wikipedia, various dictionaries.
I researched "Sentimentalism" on Wiki - thought that might be relatively simple - HAH!! All the way back to ancient Greece ---
Finally, after a few DAYS where I was caught up dwelling on the questions posted here, and the MANY rising as satellite moons - I've decided to move on. Similar to all art, for me - no work is ever "finished" - it becomes necessary, at some point, to simply move on.

... But mostly I walk and let the light inform me about when to set up the camera. I find myself smiling and laughing at myself for all the mental gymnastics my mind goes through about all the day-to-day stuff, and even the more important lifetime stuff. I take a big breath, look at the light and just try to be there.

This is the best advice - although it may not have been intended as advice- I've heard in a long time.

I am going to do (or "not-do"??) exactly that!!! I've been "bound" by the technical questions far too long, and FAR too tightly.

Thanks for the stimulus!

 

[Larry Bullis]

Things have gotten a little too deep for me here....

And not likely to resolve in any comprehensible way. Nobody NEEDS theory, unless the mind enjoys it.

Ed, sounds like you took quite a ride!

Larry