Tastes and Biases

Well... I'm a bit late to this party. So, sorry to butt in but I'm going to back this up to the part I found interesting (I'm obviously not the shy introverted sort)

Jim brought up some interesting points a couple pages back (quoted below) that I'd like to give my thoughts on.

1) Already knowing what you don't like about your work: Not to pick on Jim cause maybe he can truly claim this (I haven't seen many of his prints) but I know I've fallen into this trap a couple times. "this is just the way I want it to be!" Give it a bit of time, a few dozen people looking at it and things start to sink in even through my thick skull and pretty soon I find myself making a new print.. or the opposite, learning to like something I wasn't fond of at the beginning.

To me all feedback is valuable. You can learn a lot just by how someone flips the pages in your portfolio.

2) What's all this have to do with the topic Francesco started? Why can't we be friends?

Comes down to the issue of acceptance... Do you accept feedback or not? Do you accept other views of photography besides your own.. or not?

John, George and I all make photos of old buildings in various states of disrepair. Each of us has a different style. I know some photographers that take personal affront at any photo in their subject shot with a different style. To them, it's wrong. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Personally I find it extremely interesting that the three of us can photograph similar subjects, have similar values and yet *see* them so differently.

To me the art of photography is a blend of several arts, one of them being the art of communication. To be able to communicate your visual ideas you need to understand how other people see and process visual information... and trust me, very few of us see exactly the same.

To wrap up my now-close-to-novel-length post (humblest apologies)

The craft of photography is just a means to an end... Being happy. If you get right down to it you do make photos to be happy right? Getting so caught up in the details of developing, exposing, discussing, etc, that you lose your happiness seems counterproductive doesn't it?


Cheers,
Ian

GreyWolf said:

Constructive criticism is very helpful in improving my vision and my technique.

Click to expand...

I guess I must fit into a different category. When I am attempting to improve, I already know what areas I do not like about my work. Therefore I would ask for an opinion or help and guidance on how I might improve on what I am not happy with. The difference as I perceive this is that I am seeking help on a technique or such and not a specific image that I have created.

As for just submitting a print for a critique has little purpose for me. It is like saying....well I am uncertain if this work of mine is of any value...please tell me what your view and opinion is.

Sorry... but it does not work that way for me.

When I create a print that I truly like then it is done and complete. Should somebody wish to view and comment on the print..that is perfectly acceptable and welcome, BUT their opinion is just that...THEIR opinion and it does not change how I feel about my work.

Click to expand...

ian_greant said:

1) Already knowing what you don't like about your work: Not to pick on Jim cause maybe he can truly claim this (I haven't seen many of his prints) but I know I've fallen into this trap a couple times. "this is just the way I want it to be!" Give it a bit of time, a few dozen people looking at it and things start to sink in even through my thick skull and pretty soon I find myself making a new print.. or the opposite, learning to like something I wasn't fond of at the beginning.

Click to expand...

I'll chime in here as well.

My favourite print, of a waterfall, was printed exactly as I wanted it to be printed. I was happy with it; so happy that it was framed and hanging on my wall.

It was too contrasty, not enough detail in the highlights, and so on. I got a 2x4 upside the head numerous times at a workshop (figuratively speaking, of course) as the instructors tried to pound it into my head that my images were too dark and needed to be lighened substantially.

It took another couple of months after the workshop, but when I was printing the waterfall image, it finally clicked. It was, as they say, an ephiphany. The image I have now of the waterfall is incredibly luminous, and imparts the feeling that I experienced when I made the negative. I'm sure I would have found my way to my initial visualization, but the critique helped shorten the journey immensely.

(Suffice to say that the original image is now buried deep in my darkroom storage closet, never again to see the light of day. Well, maybe, but only if it's *really * bright outside )

However, when someone is giving me a critique I make sure that I've seen at least part of the body of work the individual has created. I'm not all that interested in receiving a critique from a person who's never printed well themselves.

Gallery shows are most entertaining in this regard.

dnmilikan said:

I was thinking about this very thing the other day and came to the conclusion that there are certain personality characteristics that certainly lend themselves to an artist or any person that engages in creative endeavor. I obviously would include a photographer in that catagory. I think that an introverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceptive would be more likely to fit the creative mold. Introversion may not be an absolute prerequisite but I think the intuitive, feeling classifications are vitally important.

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

First, I would caution anyone reading about this against being too quick to assume that the popular concept of "Introversion- Extroversion" is, in fact, correct. Rather than introversion = shy and withdrawn, it is probably more accurate that introversion could be defined as "Happier. more efficient, more "well suited" to working independently", as opposed to "being part of a team". We are taught by society that introversion is somehow "bad", and extroversion is "good", but - it ain't necessarily so.

None of the "characteristics indicate any sort of "superiority" over another.
There is a great need for the Extrovert AND the Introvert' the "Sensory" AND the "iNtuitive"; the "Thinking" and "Perceiving" types as well... the define a certain set of characteristics, and by recognizing those in ourselves, we can use those "pre-sets" to our advantage.

This seems to fit well with the pursuit of Art - In one important sense it IS a quest to discover our "selfs".

In considering all this, I'm motivated to "listen" more to those whose profile differs from mine.

To be continued....

dnmilikan wrote

Michael,

I am so relieved...you know I was worried about you. In the course of one's life (for those who have the problems that you have) there exist only one or two influential events that may tend to straighten one out. One of those is the "right" woman and the other is religion. It has been apparent to me for some time that your wife (wonderful woman that I am sure that she is) just has not succeeded in this daunting task. That leaves religion and I am so heartened to see the direction that you have taken.



Don, Thank you for your kind thoughts.

I think what you have said is true. My wife, bless her little heart, really does her best with me, but alas, it is a losing battle.

After the epiphany I had with the Jehovahs Witnesses, I feel that perhaps my problems are too much for just one religion. With that thought in mind I have decided to subscribe to them all. Granted this takes a lot of reading, and kneeling but in the long run I feel that this will really do me some good.

The other advantage in this, is I get a lot more holidays. That in itself may be a mixed blessing as it will give me a lot more free time to allow my "problems" to manifest themselves.

My only concern is that I may inadvertantly slight myself one day and then have to announce a jihad against myself and then all hell may break loose. Shit I may even blow myself up, but then I'd have no way to retaliate, and then where would I be. You guessed it. And how the hell does one deal with 72 screaming bitching nagging virgins. "Pick me, Pick me" "You think she's prettier than me"

Anyway, thanks again for your concern and may RA take a liking to you and you be in paradise 10 minutes before the devil knows your dead.


Namaste


Michael McBlane

Michael,

Just follow the advice that helped me in my own spiritual quest. I believe it comes by way of Timothy Leary (an unimpeachable source for things "otherworldly"):

Try out all the religions, then pick the parts you like and start your own. It's really cool - you get to make up your own dogma, or if you're allergic to dogmas change it to catma; create as many holidays as you like; and the best part is you can come up with your own really cool name for it. For example: Mine is "Joe Moe's First Church of Heavyosity." We have a sacrament that will blow your mind.

Bless you, and the horse you rode in on...

..

Sorry Aggie;

We kid cause we love.

Truly, no offense meant.

Enjoy your religion. Sometimes my irreverant sense of humor get the best of me.

Michael

Alex Hawley said:

Two very strong personalities who were hardly introverted. Winston Churchill and General George S. Patton Jr. Both were highly creative in their career fields..... Patton wrote beautiful poetry, and not poetry about war. He also had high regard for art and beauty. So, no, introversion is not a necessary part of creativity. (Patton was also frequently seen carrying a camera, in addition to his revolvers.)

Click to expand...

I have a listing for General George S. Patton as an "ISTP"... Which would indicate a primary direction of Introversion ... Kind of figures - he was known for some rather outrageous independent behavior. Hm ... Eisenhower, too, was an "INTP"...

I don't have any information about Churchill - somehow, he doesn't strike me as being much of a "follower"...

Ed,

The way that I had this explained to me at one time was that an introvert gives up energy to a gathering of people and an extrovert becomes energized by a gathering of people.

That a sensory or sensing predeliction has to "see, feel, and hear" the evidence and an intuitive lives in a world of possibilities. A sensing person would become very confused and irritated in the presence of an intuitive since they would not know where the intuitive was arriving at the ideas that they may be proposing since no sensory evidence of this exists.

That a thinking predisposition would appear to be very cold and uncaring to a feeling preference. While a feeling tendency would appear to a thinker as almost sickeningly emotional.

That a judging is in a rush to make a decision and is not comfortable until one is reached and a perceptive would tend to want more evidence from which to reach a decision.

I don't equate a tendency to individualistic tendencies to an introvert or an extrovert since either can exhibit these tendencies. I equate indivualistic tendencies more to the arena of the personal ego.

The other thing that I have always found fascinating about the Jungian typology is the "shadow". Until I encountered that I had a difficult time understanding how someone could change so drastically from their normal personality traits.

I find that this whole matter is very interesting insofar as understanding not only ourselves but also our fellow human beings.

noblebeast said:

Michael,

Just follow the advice that helped me in my own spiritual quest. I believe it comes by way of Timothy Leary (an unimpeachable source for things "otherworldly"):

Try out all the religions, then pick the parts you like and start your own. It's really cool - you get to make up your own dogma, or if you're allergic to dogmas change it to catma; create as many holidays as you like; and the best part is you can come up with your own really cool name for it. For example: Mine is "Joe Moe's First Church of Heavyosity." We have a sacrament that will blow your mind.

Bless you, and the horse you rode in on...

Click to expand...

Ahh, a man after my own heart. The way I have it figured there is a lot of benefit to following this path. Timothy was a man ahead of his time...

The tax implications are incredible. (There are none). Where else can one accumulate money, property and prestige without the government telling you that you need to share?

Thanks for chiming in Ken,

I agree with you to a point.
If someone is going to critique my prints and especially my printing style it's quite important to know where they are coming from. I don't think it is elitist to say some people don't have the experience or skills to really critique some levels of work.

On the other hand. Art is like wine. You don't have to own a vineyard to enjoy wine.

Cheers,
Ian

KenM said:

I'll chime in here as well.

(snip)

However, when someone is giving me a critique I make sure that I've seen at least part of the body of work the individual has created. I'm not all that interested in receiving a critique from a person who's never printed well themselves.

Gallery shows are most entertaining in this regard.

Click to expand...

dnmilikan said:

Ed,
The way that I had this explained to me at one time was that an introvert gives up energy to a gathering of people and an extrovert becomes energized by a gathering of people.

That a sensory or sensing predeliction...

Click to expand...

I'll agree with all the rest - this definition of Introversion- Extroversion seems to be at odds with the literature I've read recently. I'm trying to understand this alternative ... An Introvert "gives up" energy to a gathering of people ..? And if there is no "gathering"...?

A task for the immediate future: Investigate Introversion-Extroversion more thoroughly on the "web"...

Interesting -- and probably the root cause of why INFP's make lousy critics:

"INFPs have the ability to see good in almost anyone or anything. Even for the most unlovable the INFP is wont to have pity."

- From "Typelogic.com", by Joe Butt

P.S. Before anyone starts - I am not one to revel in making fun of anyone's name.

Hey Ed, et al, why don't you start up another thread on all the "type stuff" so those that want to contribute to the original post can do so with out having to wade thru all the babble.

Thanks,

One last entry - at least for the time being - to kind of tie all this into `Tastes and Biases'.... Something we might keep in mind...

"I do not, for the moment, at least, ask you to understand me. That will only come when you are willing to give up changing me into a copy of you."

From Francesco: "Thanks for your insights Michael. I would like to understand what you mean by complex, figure-ground and all-over photographs. Are these related to just composition or a combination of composition/vision and technique? Can these concepts be separated from ones tastes and biases as to become objective to all who view the photograph or not?"

Ah, Francesco, everything is related to everything. But, no; it really has nothing to do with technique; it is about vision. It's all about vision.

"Complex" and "related to tastes and biases": Complex generally means more stuff going on in the picture. Now if there is more stuff in an unorganized way it is just chaotic. But if it is structured, then it can be quite beautiful. Things need to be simple in their complexity. (Or complex in their simplicity).

Many people cannot tolerate complexity in a photograph. Their eyes are not accustomed to doing the required work and so they tend to like simple, bold forms in their photographs. Think late 1920s Edward Weston. Later, as his eye became more and more able to tolerate more excitement, Weston made much more subtle and complex photographs. His late 20s photograhs appeal to far more people, mainly because their eyes cannot tolerate all of the energetic movement needed to comprehend the complexity of the late work. And that ability to tolerate complexity entails energetic movement, or energetic expansion, which is perhaps the major cause of our tastes and biases.

This is not unlike tastes and biases in music. Most people have a hard time listening to much of twentieth century classical music. I know that at first I did. (I know some people only like Rock and Roll or Rap or whatever they call it these days and have a hard time listenening to any classical music.) But over time, and acompanying personal growth, one is perhaps able to tolerate the complexity of the music, and eventually music that seemed horribly discordant is heard as if it were as melodic and sweet as Mozart. That takes time. It also takes serious effort--effort very few are willing to make. And that is true for looking at photographs as well. People expect the photographs to "hit them." If they do not, they are not interested. They are not willing to put out the effort to WORK at looking at a photograph. And they are not willing to do so because they cannot tolerate the energetic expansion such work entails.

Oh yes, there are many who will say, when faced with something beyond their understanding and toleration, "But I simply don't like it." Fair enough. Everyone, as I have said often, is entitled to their likes and dislikes, without having to give a reason. But unless they are willing to really work at seeing and understanding, and are willing to tolerate the anxiety that such effort entails, as far as I am concerned their tastes and biases don't amount to anything meaningful to anyone except themselves.

I hope this is clear. It is really the subject for a book.

"Everyone, as I have said often, is entitled to their likes and dislikes, without having to give a reason. But unless they are willing to really work at seeing and understanding, and are willing to tolerate the anxiety that such effort entails, as far as I am concerned their tastes and biases don't amount to anything meaningful to anyone except themselves."

I love the above statement of yours Michael. For me it simply means, there is GOOD taste and there is BAD taste. I agree that subjective taste is valid but it does not qualify as good or bad. To be willing to participate in a debate of good and bad taste one must be able to reason their statement "I do not like it" or "I like it". It is similar to the question of timeless elegance - such a thing exists because we can agree on good taste.

Sometimes though from chaos comes structure. In my line of work chaos theory and fractal geometry are regularly used to find patterns, structures and trends. Chaos can be beautiful too.

Michael A. Smith said:

It is really the subject for a book.

Click to expand...

It certainly is. There are *schools* out there that *teach* the following *rule*: In order to be a good photograph, the subject MUST be isolated and ALL distractors eliminated.

This is certainly a viable technique, but it should not be considered a rule. I have come to believe that those who subscribe to this as a *rule* are unwittingly biased against any other technique or vision. Hence, they automatically classify a complex photgraph as being "busy" or cluttered. Weston's work is comprised of the complex and the simple isolated subject. Landscapes, by their nature, are usually complex, save for the isolated tree which has been done to naseum. Adams' claim to fame is complex landscapes which violate the isolated subject rule. His isolated subject work that I've seen, I think, is lacking, not that good. O. Winston Link photographed the steam locomotives as they related to their surroundings, not as single isolated subjects.

Such is life, such is mature, such is photography. Please note I did not say "so must be photography".

"Oh yes, there are many who will say, when faced with something beyond their understanding and toleration, "But I simply don't like it." Fair enough. Everyone, as I have said often, is entitled to their likes and dislikes, without having to give a reason. But unless they are willing to really work at seeing and understanding, and are willing to tolerate the anxiety that such effort entails, as far as I am concerned their tastes and biases don't amount to anything meaningful to anyone except themselves."


I like this a lot, Michael, because it expresses in a limited number of words a tendency that I have experienced in my own right. I continually observe this in others as well. Interestingly enough many times it is what are supposed accomplished photographers who exhibit the greatest bias. It is almost as if one's vision becomes more tunneled rather then more open. I have heard the term "uninteresting" used in judgement of what to me are beautiful photographs that you and Paula record. By comparison I had a friend over to my house yesterday and showed them your images in the latest Black and White magazine. This is a person with no photographic training whatsoever. Yet they were absolutely fascinated with your images. It is difficult to understand...you would think the person with the most time in photographing would have the better vision. Such was not the case in this instance.

Yes, it is interesting to us, that our photographs seem to appeal to a broad spectrum of people, without being "pretty pictures" or having cheap appeal to sentiment. Our photographs are rigorous enough that they appeal to the most sophisticated curators, and yet they also appeal to many who know nothing about photography and havve no inherent interest in it. Why? Ultimately I do not know.

I have written about the necessity of any work of art to connect us to the world and to each other. What makes that happen? Care is an essentiial element. (I've written about this before, too, perhaps on this site.) Care implies love. And somehow that must come through in all work that touches people.

I further believe that if the any photograph, or any work of art, is structured in such a way so that its rhythms are in alignment, or coincide with, universal rhythms, it will touch people. It will touch them to the extent that they partake of the universal rhythms themsemlves. How to do that, as maker? You can't try. It just happens to the extent that the maker is unblocked and in touch with universal rhythms. I've written about this before, too, and in one response someone asked me to define "universal rhythms." I believe the world, the universe, is energetically based. Universal rhythms are those that are in accord with the way life energy moves. There are an infinite number of possibilities of how that can be accomplished, which is why there are no formulas, nor ever can be.

Need to make a press check. No time to proof. Excuse typos.

Michael A. Smith said:

Yes, it is interesting to us, that our photographs seem to appeal to a broad spectrum of people, .... Why? Ultimately I do not know.

I have written about the necessity of any work of art to connect us to the world and to each other. What makes that happen?... Care implies love. And somehow that must come through in all work that touches people.

I further believe that if the any photograph, or any work of art, is structured in such a way so that its rhythms are in alignment,... How to do that, as maker? You can't try. It just happens to the extent that the maker is unblocked and in touch with universal rhythms...

.... There are an infinite number of possibilities of how that can be accomplished, which is why there are no formulas, nor ever can be.

Click to expand...

Wonderful post, Michael.

I think this directly addresses a great deal of the mystery in art ... Somehow, we will never be able to reach a completely efficient method of producing art ... as we are not endowed with a workable sense for defining the "human-ness" included in, and so necessary to, art.

I wonder if another term might be applicable here as well as "rhythm" - "Harmony" in the empirical sense of "Aesthetically pleasing rhythm structures"...

Yes, all great works of art go beyond just recording a scene on film or throwing paint on a canvas. Michael refers to care and love to make the connection to people. I think of it as having a profound sense of respect for the subject and the audience. Sometimes when I see something that I believe provides a truly wonderful opportunity to make a photograph, I feel a strong sense of gratitude towards the object or scene. It may sound a little crazy but it is like a little voice comes from the subject and says "Someone has finally found me, someone who cares." When I get a feeling like that from a subject, it forces me to approach it with a certain reverence.

The results may not always be what i expected, but it seems to make the whole experience of photographing more rewarding.

dnmilikan wrote

I have heard the term "uninteresting" used in judgement of what to me are beautiful photographs that you and Paula record. By comparison I had a friend over to my house yesterday and showed them your images in the latest Black and White magazine. This is a person with no photographic training whatsoever. Yet they were absolutely fascinated with your images. It is difficult to understand...you would think the person with the most time in photographing would have the better vision. Such was not the case in this instance.

Donald, could this be because photographers consciously view hundreds of photographs and analayze them to some degree and are far quicker to discard ones that are redundant, uninteresting or poorly executed. Could it be that we just get jaded.

Where as your friend, when the work was pointed out to him, for the first time took a good look. He hasn't "seen" (consciously) many photographs therefore it could look fresh to him.

The average person really doesn't seem to spend much time or care about most photographs, especially scenics/pictorial because they rarely jump out at him. He, on the other hand may be more inclined to look at pictures with people in them, probably just because people have an attraction to looking at other people.


Just asking,


Michael McBlane

Perhaps it is this "loss of innocence" which results in those personal attacks I mentioned at the start of this thread. Our tastes and our biases are like bespoke suits - they are made to fit us. If we can reason them in a concise and friendly manner can they be judged as good or bad. Stress on friendly!

blansky said:

dnmilikan wrote

I have heard the term "uninteresting" used in judgement of what to me are beautiful photographs that you and Paula record. By comparison I had a friend over to my house yesterday and showed them your images in the latest Black and White magazine. This is a person with no photographic training whatsoever. Yet they were absolutely fascinated with your images. It is difficult to understand...you would think the person with the most time in photographing would have the better vision. Such was not the case in this instance.

Donald, could this be because photographers consciously view hundreds of photographs and analayze them to some degree and are far quicker to discard ones that are redundant, uninteresting or poorly executed. Could it be that we just get jaded.

Where as your friend, when the work was pointed out to him, for the first time took a good look. He hasn't "seen" (consciously) many photographs therefore it could look fresh to him.

The average person really doesn't seem to spend much time or care about most photographs, especially scenics/pictorial because they rarely jump out at him. He, on the other hand may be more inclined to look at pictures with people in them, probably just because people have an attraction to looking at other people.


Just asking,


Michael McBlane

Click to expand...

Michael,

You pose a good question and I am not sure that there is a single answer to this. I think that what may occur sometimes is that because we examine a lot of images that we tend to put things into catagories; boxes if you will. And if an image doesn't readily fit into one of these catagories we discard them out of hand. Thus the image does not get past our inner critic.

I think that often times we would benefit from that which I have heard you address often and that is "Zen Mind--Beginners Mind". I think that is what occurred in the case of my friend the other afternoon. She had no preconceived notion of how something should appear and she was absolutely enthralled in examining the images of Michael and Paula with an open mind. She took time to examine each one...to notice details. Thus she experienced something that the other person I mentioned failed to do.

Certainly there are personal preferences that may become involved from time to time. But when these personal preference become encompassing then I think that one would benefit from an examination of what they are and why they exist.

I don't get it...