The joy of photography

[tjwspm]

I'm afraid I'm treading on thin ice here. The discussion here is far beyond my ability to talk about art. Yes, I love some of Lartigue's pictures, e.g. Lartigue's cousin Bichonade in Flight and Drag-racing day at the Auteuil races.

But for some time now I've been asking myself the question, when I'm out and about with my camera, should I take this picture? Not at all out of ethical considerations, but because I ask myself why I should actually take this photo. Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all. Because the temptation to take a picture of something beautiful, spectacular or outrageous or to show off my compositional skills is great. But I am now increasingly not pressing the shutter release and I am becoming more satisfied with it.

I've just counted up my photos and come up with around 50 photos in the last 2 years that meet my criteria.

What is your attitude to this?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

To Tomoko’s family, displaying photographs without permission immortalizes Tomoko’s suffering. Tomoko’s father, Yoshio, stated,

“many of the organizations working on our behalf are still using the photograph in various media, many of them without our consent…I realize this is necessary for numerous reasons, but I wanted Tomoko to be laid to rest…”[16]

The family’s request to limit reproduction is an ethical expectation which I think we should honour.

Good point. I deleted the image.

Those who quoted my post can also do the same.

 

[koraks]

Good point. I deleted the image.

Those who quoted my post can also do the same.

I've done it already.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But for some time now I've been asking myself the question, when I'm out and about with my camera, should I take this picture? Not at all out of ethical considerations, but because I ask myself why I should actually take this photo. Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all. Because the temptation to take a picture of something beautiful, spectacular or outrageous or to show off my compositional skills is great. But I am now increasingly not pressing the shutter release and I am becoming more satisfied with it.

I've just counted up my photos and come up with around 50 photos in the last 2 years that meet my criteria.

What is your attitude to this?

This is a very interesting question. I'm afraid it would be lost in the middle of this thread, which is about something else. My suggestion is to start a post with this thought in the Ethics and Philosophy sub-forum.

 

[koraks]

What is your attitude to this?

It reminds me of two things @gary mulder has said to me.
1: practice your scales.
2: don't forget to have a little joie the vivre.
I consider both bits of very valuable advice.

 

[nikos79]

I'd still like you to address my question. You see, a photograph presents itself as a document of a situation or event, but there is no necessity there. In fact, given the amount of potential purposeful inclusion or exclusion of elements from a composition, it's always difficult to say "This is definitely a photo of that" in the sense that "that" is equivalent in some way to "this". So, it's not as different from painting as you suggest - for either the painter/photographer or the viewer.

The difference is that painting doesn't need reality. A sky can be yellow in a painting and is totally fine and acceptable. While in photography a yellow sky is something that violates the reality. In painting we begin by adding stuff to the frame. In photography we begin by excluding stuff from the frame. In painting you can isolate a part of the frame and still have a valid painting. In photography it works as a whole, you can isolate parts of it, There are more differences than similarities between these two.

Both photos and paintings have the power to implicate ethical concerns. We are accustomed to photography being used for that specific purpose and so are a bit more ready to understand a photo in that way. That in no way reflects on the artistry involved. It also doesn't guarantee a truth value for the photo. A photo can be contrived - completely staged - and have as great a moral impact as another.

Furthermore, you attempt to divorce morality and aesthetics. That is not something that I would suggest is as clear and clean as you think it is.

In that sense we agree, a photo doesn't guarantee a truth value. It can be a starving child or a staged scene with an actor child, no-one knows. But the effect is still the same we believe we see something real. this never happens in painting

 

[nikos79]

It reminds me of two things @gary mulder has said to me.
1: practice your scales.
2: don't forget to have a little joie the vivre.
I consider both bits of very valuable advice.

+1 for number 2

 

[nikos79]

I'm afraid I'm treading on thin ice here. The discussion here is far beyond my ability to talk about art. Yes, I love some of Lartigue's pictures, e.g. Lartigue's cousin Bichonade in Flight and Drag-racing day at the Auteuil races.

But for some time now I've been asking myself the question, when I'm out and about with my camera, should I take this picture? Not at all out of ethical considerations, but because I ask myself why I should actually take this photo. Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all. Because the temptation to take a picture of something beautiful, spectacular or outrageous or to show off my compositional skills is great. But I am now increasingly not pressing the shutter release and I am becoming more satisfied with it.

I've just counted up my photos and come up with around 50 photos in the last 2 years that meet my criteria.

What is your attitude to this?

Robert Frank took 20,000 pictures in 2 years and selected only 80 of them. He discarded the rest. That says it all of how strict we need to be with ourselves. That being said it is ok to play and have the joy in it. But sometimes is the danger of overshooting which I totally can understand. You need to find ways to keep the spirit alive

 

[nikos79]

Yet you have that quote "A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space" -- what do you suppose that means in the face of "Photography ... is inherently tethered to reality."? I assume you believe what Winogrand said in that quote.

It means photography needs the reality to create something but it will never be the exact reality. He referred to photographs in his own definition that pass this rule and can be counted as "artistic" photographs. Any photograph that is a mere depiction of a reality, event, beautiful landscape, beautiful girl, doesn't adhere to this rule according to Winogrand. In his idea photography uses reality to show you something else that is the reality of the photographer? Your own understanding of it? No-one knows

 

[nikos79]

Which of course leads me to the question of why I take photos at all.

This is the most important question in my opinion especially in our digital era.
Lartigue wanted to have a "diary" to document his own memories.
This is a very good discussion for another topic feel free to open it and tag me there so that I won't miss it

 

[cliveh]

I think this is my favourite Lartigue image for the fact that it uses analogue photographic mechanical distortion and panning technique to such a great artistic effect: -

Perhaps I should start a thread entitled appreciation of Latigue, or perhaps nikos 79 will do it?

 

[nikos79]

I think this is my favourite Lartigue image for the fact that it uses analogue photographic mechanical distortion and panning technique to such a great artistic effect: -

View attachment 395856

Perhaps I should start a thread entitled appreciation of Latigue, or perhaps nikos 79 will do it?

You do it Clive
I will be happy to contribute. I have his book of Color Photographs in my Living room now.

 

[Don_ih]

The difference is that painting doesn't need reality. A sky can be yellow in a painting and is totally fine and acceptable. While in photography a yellow sky is something that violates the reality. In painting we begin by adding stuff to the frame. In photography we begin by excluding stuff from the frame. In painting you can isolate a part of the frame and still have a valid painting. In photography it works as a whole, you can isolate parts of it, There are more differences than similarities between these two.

There is nothing in painting that cannot be in a photograph. There is no violation of reality in either because neither are the reality they can be said to represent. A photo that uses cross-processing or sabattier or filters of some kind of colour replacement through software is probably not going to be understood as an attempt to mimic reality. Similarly with most blatant manipulations. No one will look at one of Uelsmann's photos and wonder where he found a rock with an eye on it. The process of perception and identification is a lot more sophisticated than in your representation.

So, no, a photo needs no reality. And a painting can reference reality as directly as a photo.

It can be a starving child or a staged scene with an actor child, no-one knows. But the effect is still the same we believe we see something real. this never happens in painting

You miss the point of what I said. I never said we need to believe we see something real. Have you never read a book or seen a movie and been impacted by it? Complete fiction? Photos and paintings can work in the same way. You can see something and be moved - angered or upset or made happy (there's joy, again), etc. - and be fully aware that what you see is contrived, a fiction, something invented.

It means photography needs the reality to create something but it will never be the exact reality.

What does? This is the larger quote (as much as I can quickly find):

What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.​

Winogrand doesn't talk about reality but about the "illusion of literal description". If you wade through that garbled mess of a thesis, you get the idea that a photograph is just whatever comes out at the end of the process that starts by pointing the camera and pressing the shutter.

 

[nikos79]

There is nothing in painting that cannot be in a photograph. There is no violation of reality in either because neither are the reality they can be said to represent. A photo that uses cross-processing or sabattier or filters of some kind of colour replacement through software is probably not going to be understood as an attempt to mimic reality. Similarly with most blatant manipulations. No one will look at one of Uelsmann's photos and wonder where he found a rock with an eye on it. The process of perception and identification is a lot more sophisticated than in your representation.

So, no, a photo needs no reality. And a painting can reference reality as directly as a photo.



You miss the point of what I said. I never said we need to believe we see something real. Have you never read a book or seen a movie and been impacted by it? Complete fiction? Photos and paintings can work in the same way. You can see something and be moved - angered or upset or made happy (there's joy, again), etc. - and be fully aware that what you see is contrived, a fiction, something invented.



What does? This is the larger quote (as much as I can quickly find):

What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both.​

Winogrand doesn't talk about reality but about the "illusion of literal description". If you wade through that garbled mess of a thesis, you get the idea that a photograph is just whatever comes out at the end of the process that starts by pointing the camera and pressing the shutter.

Agree to most but not the first part. When a photograph manipulates reality then it is not photography. but visual arts. Photography needs that binding with reality and that is exactly what Winogrand meant when he said to "respect" the medium. And Jerry Uelsmann does not respect the medium so he is not doing Photography but something else (I really tried not to tell my opinion here but sorry I couldn't resist the temptation)

 

[snusmumriken]

Agree to most but not the first part. When a photograph manipulates reality then it is not photography. but visual arts. Photography needs that binding with reality and that is exactly what Winogrand meant when he said to "respect" the medium.

I’d say that’s a very narrow definition of photography. Doesn’t Bill Brandt’s use of a fisheye lens to photograph nudes amount to manipulation of reality?

 

[nikos79]

I am starting to actually wonder and realise that our views on Photography are inherently different, so I don't think we can really communicate or discuss. I think we need to have a common base to start debating. I appreciate your stance and views but I don't think I can elaborate on them, So sorry I think I will stop the discussion here from my part since I don't think we can both offer anything on it.

 

[nikos79]

I’d say that’s a very narrow definition of photography. Doesn’t Bill Brandt’s use of a fisheye lens to photograph nudes amount to manipulation of reality?

Yes he did play around. Kertesz did that too. But they are forgiven because of who they are
Actually Kertesz distortions are one of the best I have seen
And it still was something real the mirror or the fisheye although extravagant. They didn't stick eyes or hands out in the blue

 

[cliveh]

There is nothing in painting that cannot be in a photograph.

Have you ever felt or seen the texture of paint in a Van Gogh painting?

 

[nikos79]

I will close from my part with one observation. Photography encapsulates time. This is the aspect of it that is very powerful and closely connected to reality. You see the boy of Paul Strand and you know that there was a time that he was there, the photographer was there too, and none of them is there anymore because they are both dead, but the boy will keep looking at you forever, so the time of the photography becomes its own time.

P.S. This is also a way to approach Atget too, Clive what do you think?

 

[nikos79]

Have you ever felt or seen the texture of paint in a Van Gogh painting?

Exactly the color in painting is an essential element it has life. In photography is just an aspect of reality just an editing preference if you ask me. With or without color no big difference. See a photograph printed and see it on the screen no big difference same. See a painting printed and see it on a museum and ... wow!

 

[Don_ih]

Have you ever felt or seen the texture of paint in a Van Gogh painting?

Have you seen a photograph of a Van Gogh painting?

What's the difference? (Serious question.)

 

[Don_ih]

I am starting to actually wonder and realise that our views on Photography are inherently different, so I don't think we can really communicate or discuss.

I tend to try to maintain well-defined terms throughout any of these discussions. There hasn't been that much disparity in terminology here to make discussion incoherent.

 

[nikos79]

Have you seen a photograph of a Van Gogh painting?

What's the difference? (Serious question.)

Astronomical compared to the actual painting

 

[nikos79]

I tend to try to maintain well-defined terms throughout any of these discussions. There hasn't been that much disparity in terminology here to make discussion incoherent.

No no I meant that if you believe that photography can be also something connected more closely to Visual Arts in my opinion I will have a hard time debating or trying to persuade you or make my point that is what I meant

 

[Don_ih]

Astronomical compared to the actual painting

Elaborate. In non-idealized terms.