The idea vs the technique (not my point of view is better than yours)

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I'm not doing it wrong. Neither are you. It's all good.

I know you're not. I'm just being edgy and challenging. Sometimes I feel the same way, that I'm not spending enough time on my photography. I get on my case. I lose perspective with other things in life as to what's important. Like if I took three more shots, my life would be different. I'd be discovered and become famous. Then I become disappointed in my work, that I don't try hard enough, or I'm not good enough. Then I compete. Then I lose track that this is supposed to be a hobby, something to be enjoyed to put us in a relaxed and nice mood, to open our minds and hearts to spiritual stuff instead of the mundane.

 

[Algo después]

There is no sharp dividing line between the technical and the creative. If you think about the use of a tool, you realize that your desire to accomplish something reaches to the limit of the extension of the tool. You don't use the handle of a hammer, for example, to drive a nail, even though that's what your hand is touching. And your attention extends through the tool to the object to be realized. It is the same with technique and creative activity, although more abstracted. So it's the same with the use of photographic equipment and making a photo. Your creativity can be boundless but its expression is bound by the reach of your technical ability. Developing that technical ability can further refine and elucidate the possibilities of your creative expression. So you can consider the relationship symbiotic.

You nailed it here Don, in fact we understand that the technique vs idea dialectics does not have to compete necessarily. I also agree that having the most open technical range in theory should open you up to more possibilities. Sometimes it happens, other times it just overwhelms you. Perhaps this is due to the fact that sometimes we put more emphasis on one of these two extremes. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but for me it's an exercise in permanent balance.

I believe, when we do take those "same" pictures of the "same" things, we are actually also looking for the emergence of difference from it - for something special to appear in it that would be a trace of our own being. As in, you want it to be "your" picture. That is a great deal of what creativity even is. A writer doesn't invent the words of the language - a writer makes use of them. But it's making something yourself out of what is already there.

Regarding this, 3 examples that participate in your appreciation:

1.- Monet's studies of the behavior of light. Note the permanent opposition Impressionist painters received for breaking the prevailing code of representation, generally based on image resolution.

2.- The almost clinical study of the Becher couple of motives that may appear to be similar and therefore a trivial task if judged hastily. An exhaustive approach between similarity and repetition like scientists manufacturing typologies.

3.-The testing of the level of precision of the Bechers in this overlapping of Idris Khan, as a tribute but also as an appropriation.

So, of course, it is worth insisting on the same leitmotif, but also pausing to see it from a certain critical distance.

Claude Monet, Rouen Cathedral Series, 1893-1894

Bernd and Hilla Becher
Gasbehälter (Kugel), Deutschland (Gas Holders [Spherical], Germany), 1963-1993
..also more here: https://monoskop.org/images/f/f0/Becher_Bernd_and_Hilla_Gas_Tanks.pdf

Idris Khan, Every... Bernd and Hilla Becher Spherical Type Gasholder, 2008

 

[warden]

I know you're not. I'm just being edgy and challenging. Sometimes I feel the same way, that I'm not spending enough time on my photography. I get on my case. I lose perspective with other things in life as to what's important. Like if I took three more shots, my life would be different. I'd be discovered and become famous. Then I become disappointed in my work, that I don't try hard enough, or I'm not good enough. Then I compete. Then I lose track that this is supposed to be a hobby, something to be enjoyed to put us in a relaxed and nice mood, to open our minds and hearts to spiritual stuff instead of the mundane.

All of that sounds like the thinking processes of someone with a once relaxing hobby that has turned into something more important, a challenging passion let's say, one that makes certain demands of you. And that's good too as long as it's not a drag on you.

 

[Algo después]

I know you're not. I'm just being edgy and challenging. Sometimes I feel the same way, that I'm not spending enough time on my photography. I get on my case. I lose perspective with other things in life as to what's important. Like if I took three more shots, my life would be different. I'd be discovered and become famous. Then I become disappointed in my work, that I don't try hard enough, or I'm not good enough. Then I compete. Then I lose track that this is supposed to be a hobby, something to be enjoyed to put us in a relaxed and nice mood, to open our minds and hearts to spiritual stuff instead of the mundane.

Alan, it happens to me often too. But hey, in the end it's about learning to maintain that balance. Not a very easy task indeed.

 

[Algo después]

You nailed it here Don, in fact we understand that the technique vs idea dialectics does not have to compete necessarily. I also agree that having the most open technical range in theory should open you up to more possibilities. Sometimes it happens, other times it just overwhelms you. Perhaps this is due to the fact that sometimes we put more emphasis on one of these two extremes. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but for me it's an exercise in permanent balance.



Regarding this, 3 examples that participate in your appreciation:

1.- Monet's studies of the behavior of light. Note the permanent opposition Impressionist painters received for breaking the prevailing code of representation, generally based on image resolution.

2.- The almost clinical study of the Becher couple of motives that may appear to be similar and therefore a trivial task if judged hastily. An exhaustive approach between similarity and repetition like scientists manufacturing typologies.

3.-The testing of the level of precision of the Bechers in this overlapping of Idris Khan, as a tribute but also as an appropriation.

So, of course, it is worth insisting on the same leitmotif, but also pausing to see it from a certain critical distance.

View attachment 299072
Claude Monet, Rouen Cathedral Series, 1893-1894

View attachment 299073

Bernd and Hilla Becher
Gasbehälter (Kugel), Deutschland (Gas Holders [Spherical], Germany), 1963-1993
..also more here: https://monoskop.org/images/f/f0/Becher_Bernd_and_Hilla_Gas_Tanks.pdf

View attachment 299074

Idris Khan, Every... Bernd and Hilla Becher Spherical Type Gasholder, 2008

 

[VinceInMT]

This is a great topic and one that I’ve been personally dealing with for the past 2 decades. I originally was attracted to photography by the processes and, to a lesser degree, the hardware. That introduced me to the “big names” in the field and what constituted “great photographs.” I attempted to emulate them as students and apprentices have done since the time of the Renaissance and the challenges, technically and aesthetically, kept me motivated from the early-1970s in to the late-1980s. During that time I even completed a college degree with a concentration in photography, taught by several Ansel Adam’s deacons. However, a career change, kids, and a geographic move coincided with me plateauing with my photography. I felt like I’d done all I could do.

I went on hiatus and put my energies into kids and career (teacher) but once they were grown and I had the time, I wondered if I could rekindle the passion. It took a few attempts but it was different this time. I’ve always had a darkroom but, unlike in the past, it didn’t provide the motivation. And while I now live in a much photographed region (south-central Montana), making one more landscape or an old barn just seemed, well, unnecessary and while I can certainly try to show them in a new way, I felt like I’d just leave that to someone else.

Along came retirement and I decided I needed a long-term project so I enrolled at the local university for a Bachelor of Fine Art degree. (I graduate this May.) This is what got me back into photography, and more, as it changed the way I think about images. While I have concentrated on drawing and painting, I’ve also taken all the photography classes offered and, this final semester I am in, I am doing a self-designed course where I combine drawing and photography into a single work.

So, this goes back to the OP and what some others mentioned. Once I got beyond the technical processes, the hardware, and the traditional images, I am motivated by what the image says, that is, what it is about, rather than what it is. Perhaps it IS an image of a window, but what does that image say and how am I encouraging the viewer to think about that? That is the type of challenge that I give myself these days and I doubt that I will ever plateau with this infinite challenge.

 

[warden]

I have admired their work for years. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Vaughn]

Relax. It's only a picture. On your death bed, you're not going to say, "Gee. I wish I spent more time in the darkroom."

Artists look at it much differently, Alan. That is exactly what many of us will think on our death beds.

 

[warden]

....I am motivated by what the image says, that is, what it is about, rather than what it is. Perhaps it IS an image of a window, but what does that image say and how am I encouraging the viewer to think about that? That is the type of challenge that I give myself these days and I doubt that I will ever plateau with this infinite challenge.

Great post, Vince. Exploring the power of metaphor with photography can take a lifetime, and is worth the investment.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Codes are much more flexible and malleable than rules. They are sings and patterns, or series of signs and patterns, that are share and understood collectively. And what's really interesting, is that they induce expectations.

This is basic to what is called "semiotics", and can be very useful.

 

[MattKing]

Relax. It's only a picture. On your death bed, you're not going to say, "Gee. I wish I spent more time in the darkroom."

I'm more likely to wish I spent more time in the darkroom than many/most other endeavours.
I truly enjoy my darkroom time. And it informs and improves my photo taking time.
I use a temporary darkroom. The set-up and take-down time is time I could do without.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I truly enjoy my darkroom time. And it informs and improves my photo taking time.

I never regret good quality darkroom time.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

When something is appraised as "great", it gains a special status as a point of comparison. So many "great" photos have been taken in all photographic genres (for want of a better word), it is difficult to take a photo and not have it be seen as an imitation. The audience has seen all the great photos - even the ones you haven't. So, even attempting to break the norms (rules or codes) can result in something very similar to something someone else did. That's not a reason to stop, though. Wanting to do something different may not be the best motivation after all. Wanting to do something that is your own is probably the best motive.

The idea that the "rules" have to be broken in order to attain originality is a very novel one. And not one that corresponds to reality. History of art - of just about any art - shows exactly the contrary, i.e., imitation and emulation of what came before (sometimes by understanding, other times by misunderstanding) have been the norm in producing what is new and original.

Beethoven is often seen as the great revolutionary composer, but Beethoven took everything he knew from Haydn and Mozart who came before him. And, very late in life, he stated that he finally learned to composed after spending much time studying Bach, a composer who had died two decades before he was born.

Same with painting. Those Monet paintings the OP posted were indeed new and original, but you can trace their lineage to Delacroix and you can see all that Van Gogh later took from them.

The history of jazz is a series of composers quoting from each other, talking to each other, referencing each other, starting from where one ended to take the existing story somewhere else.

And same with photography. There is a fantastic book by Geoff Dyer, The Ongoing Moment, that touches exactly what @Don Heisz evokes. Dyer brilliantly traces how photographers keep "quoting" and referencing each other throughout history. So you keep seeing different apparitions of the same, and realize the originality doesn't come from breaking a non-existent rule, but, as Don said, by making the code your own, and giving it a different meaning.

 

[Arthurwg]

Not sure how to address this rather complex topic, but I believe the "idea" takes precedence over technique. the "idea" will be enhanced or brought to fruition by the sensibility expressed in the technique. A good example might be Edward Weston, whose brilliant idea to photograph a paper was consummated by his wonderful printing to create a masterpiece. But it's also true that one can make a great picture with a P&S camera and drugstore processing if the idea is excellent. The later might be exemplified by Robert Frank, not that he used a P&S and a drugstore, but whose great ideas were paramount to his technique. IMHO.

And Algo, thanks for posting the Monets and the Bechers. Very inspiring.

 

[VinceInMT]

As an introvert, the darkroom is one place I go to recharge.

 

[FilmIsCheap]

Sometimes to the point of getting distracted in thinking that one of the final goals of the image is the resolution, the correct exposure, the sharp focus, etc. I know that sounds like a reductionism. However, I also wake up from that siren's song and critically look at all these tools and technical knowledge as vehicles or means to build an image. [...]

I know this thread could lead to the already deadened debate about the best lens, the best developer, the best enlarger, the best resolution, etc. but it could also be another opportunity to think about the images I make, and why I make them. What helps me think outside the box. Without wanting to offend anyone's preferences, does it make sense to take another photo of the forest, the architecture of my town, etc? The answer is probably yes, but what lies beyond those contingent issues? Does anyone care to discuss these things here?

I think one issue I haven't seen mentioned is a process/product debate. Knitters, crocheters, and sewers will often ask each other "are you a process- or product-oriented [maker]?" Some process-oriented knitters, for example, will knit an entire object--a scarf, a sweater, whatever--and then rip the whole thing out and start again. They don't care about the end product, but the doing and making. Others want the end product and see the making as a means, a means that they want to get through as soon as possible.

I used to be much more product oriented, but that's changed over time, and I'm far more interested in the process now. This is true for all of my creative practices (textile arts, writing, photography, even my daily walks).

It's one of the reasons I like to take photos. I like the process of going out and noticing things. I like trying a different angle, deciding on the exposure, choosing which filters to use (or not), and so on. I will take multiple photos of the same thing, not in a spray and pray way, but in a "what's it look like from that angle, or if I sprawl out on my stomach, or if I..." It's about the doing and experimenting. It's part of why I like working in a darkroom. Yes, I could send film out, but I ENJOY the darkroom work. I enjoy the time away from computers and screens, I enjoy the scent of it all, I enjoy losing track of time and being in the moment. The act of taking photos, of processing film, of making contact prints, and choosing which prints to make, of playing around--that's what matters to me.

"Does it make sense to take another photo of the forest, the architecture of my town, etc?" It does to me, because I'm not taking photos for other people. I'm taking them for myself--and not so I can get the end product, a print--but because the process itself matters to me.

(Hi. I made a few posts several years ago about building a darkroom and then never came back--the darkroom is built and I'm appreciative of the advice I've gotten--but I saw this topic and it drew me in.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All of that sounds like the thinking processes of someone with a once relaxing hobby that has turned into something more important, a challenging passion let's say, one that makes certain demands of you. And that's good too as long as it's not a drag on you.

When things like that happen, and it's not only in photography, it's that I'm missing what's important in life. My priorities are screwed up.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, it happens to me often too. But hey, in the end it's about learning to maintain that balance. Not a very easy task indeed.

I try to laugh at my self-importance and dogmatism. It puts things in perspective. My photography is just not that important. I'm not that important. Just another guy trying to make it day-to-day.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is a great topic and one that I’ve been personally dealing with for the past 2 decades. I originally was attracted to photography by the processes and, to a lesser degree, the hardware. That introduced me to the “big names” in the field and what constituted “great photographs.” I attempted to emulate them as students and apprentices have done since the time of the Renaissance and the challenges, technically and aesthetically, kept me motivated from the early-1970s in to the late-1980s. During that time I even completed a college degree with a concentration in photography, taught by several Ansel Adam’s deacons. However, a career change, kids, and a geographic move coincided with me plateauing with my photography. I felt like I’d done all I could do.

I went on hiatus and put my energies into kids and career (teacher) but once they were grown and I had the time, I wondered if I could rekindle the passion. It took a few attempts but it was different this time. I’ve always had a darkroom but, unlike in the past, it didn’t provide the motivation. And while I now live in a much photographed region (south-central Montana), making one more landscape or an old barn just seemed, well, unnecessary and while I can certainly try to show them in a new way, I felt like I’d just leave that to someone else.

Along came retirement and I decided I needed a long-term project so I enrolled at the local university for a Bachelor of Fine Art degree. (I graduate this May.) This is what got me back into photography, and more, as it changed the way I think about images. While I have concentrated on drawing and painting, I’ve also taken all the photography classes offered and, this final semester I am in, I am doing a self-designed course where I combine drawing and photography into a single work.

So, this goes back to the OP and what some others mentioned. Once I got beyond the technical processes, the hardware, and the traditional images, I am motivated by what the image says, that is, what it is about, rather than what it is. Perhaps it IS an image of a window, but what does that image say and how am I encouraging the viewer to think about that? That is the type of challenge that I give myself these days and I doubt that I will ever plateau with this infinite challenge.

Those last two sentences were stopped on a dime. What did you mean? How do you create an image that is different, that encourages the viewer to think differently about it from other pictures? I think that's something we all endeavor to do.

 

[Algo después]

Thank you guys for all your contributions. BTW my name is Ilich.

I know that we are all in different places in the relationship we have with photography and I really appreciate the exchange that we are having here as a little time out to return to what everyone does or is interested in doing with this medium. Let us agree that the "new" can be a chimera, that perhaps it is only a decontextualized cultural product, or rather inscribed in a context where it is presented as novel, although perhaps it is not entirely so. Alex notes Monet's inscription in the story and adds references to music (from Beethoven to Cage) that fit well as an interconnected sequence or narrative that becomes more refined or sophisticated over time. In this process there are artists who are aware of their influences, while others involuntarily deny or ignore them. Here we can meet artists who deal with their influences without being fully explicit. In Spanish we use the metaphor "don't see the seams" I don't know if it applies in English but we refer to the fact of processing your interests to lead us to think about what you have done and not about your most immediate influences. Frank Frazetta said something like this: your influences should be put in a blender. What comes out of it is yours.

Another case: on some occasion Gabriel García Márquez was asked about his influences and he pointed to Faulkner. When he told this to the interviewer he was perplexed to find no parallel between the two writers. García Marquez also emphasized this fact: the best works hide their references well. This is how we return to the same point in the reception of the work. I'm interested that when people see my photographs they think about how great Ansel Adams was or walk away thinking about how my approach to Ansel Adams is a step beyond what he did. I know it sounds pretentious, but I guess we all have some pretension no matter how minimal, with our images, right?

Of course we are talking about creative intentions in all these processes. When what I want is simply to improve my technique, I manage to be more methodical and perhaps that is where my delight lies, which is totally valid.

But if what I want is to say something with my photos then there are some other questions to ask. Note that I have said "wanting to say something", not considering a priori what I do as art. Whether we like it or not, this remains in the circles of legitimation, which is another problem.

 

[Algo después]

...going back to the idea of the new, one could also ask if my view of these motifs is different (or presents something new) or if it is simply used to the way in which the big names have approached it?

 

[Algo después]

I think one issue I haven't seen mentioned is a process/product debate.

..there`s no doubt that this could be another edge of the problem, at all.

...about daily walks:

The Kant walks (Joachim Koester, 2003-2004)

In The Kant Walks he reconstructs the course of two paths taken by the philosopher Immanuel Kant through eighteenth-century Königsberg. In documenting these paths in photographs, Koester reveals the physical layers of history, the abandoned villages, the unspectacular neglect. What resonates throughout is the difference compared to when Kant traversed these routes. While documenting the status quo and providing a window to the past and the fiction, these images evoke the actual reality of the past, which remains a fact in the present, and question the extent to which the artistic imagination can portray the image of Kant’s meanderings.

https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/social-responsibility/art/workplace/artists/koester.html

 

[jvo]

great conversation... thanks....

 

[Don_ih]

I think many people stop their "artistic" endeavour when they confront themselves with these questions. People do get frustrated with the results of their pursuit. "My photos are dull." is probably a sentence many many have thought. And this is all far from the question of "Why take photos". (Any artistic endeavour can be substituted for photos here, because these concerns are fairly universal.) Even abandoning the notion of "art", the photographer still seeks expression. Sometimes, you can't look at what you're doing in a way that lets you see what exactly you have done. Your vision is cluttered with everything you wanted and everything else you've already seen, so this thing you've produced seems empty or, at best, just reflective (for example, often you can't judge a negative until you've almost forgotten it).
I think "originality" is a term that should be left to critics. It's a little poisonous for producers. If you spend all your time trying to be original, two things are likely. One, you probably won't produce much. Two, what you produce will probably be incomprehensible. To an extent, you have to speak the language of the audience. Of course, if you are your own audience, that's not much of a problem. Also, producing the incomprehensible or inscrutable is something that can happen under any circumstances. And, when situated correctly, what you produce can become part of the language of the audience (very rare - that's about as close to "origin"-al as a work usually gets - it becomes a point of meaning - a "great" photo - maybe only for a very limited audience).

 

[Craig75]

For me if I want to say make an image that looks like that excellent iris Khan image above, I'm going to have to run through a load of combinations and tests until I work out how to do it. As long as the test has a goal then it's entirely natural part of the process.

When there is no specific goal that's where the void opens up