The Role of the Viewer

[Larry Bullis]

Since I'm reading all of this MW material, some of the comments call forth some of what I'm reading and also some recall from 40 years ago. I really hope I'm not getting tedious. If enough people tell me to shut up, I might.

In fact, there are plenty of pictures I make, that are better kept private!

MW made a distinction between public images and private images. Private images were not for showing; perhaps they reveal too much, let people into parts of one's self which really ought not be visited. Public images are uncommon; those are the ones that are appreciated by lots of people (and frequently bought).

And then there were all the others. These are the ones we show.
[/QUOTE]

As photographers we are always standing outside ourselves, to a greater or lesser degree whenever we choose to take a photograph. Even if the subject matter is personal and more deeply connected to ourselves emotionally, we have to develop that ability to stand back - I see it sometimes as a kind of cold streak of necessity within work that is personally very important to me.

In the print viewing exercises and also when shooting, the method was/is to induce an open and relaxed state. In both, it is important to be aware of one's self simultaneously with the awareness of the print viewed or the image presenting.

This standing outside of self is very important to me, also. Actually, it is not only while operating a camera, but it becomes more pronounced then that at any other time.

 

[keithwms]

Hmm, some of you imply that satisfying yourself is all that matters, but.... when I was a wee lad my athletics teacher told the boys that if we satisfy ourselves too much then we'll go blind :rolleyes:

Joe, I don't think I put anybody in a box; I simply made the general observation that the feedback of others is why some (many?) of us felt encouraged enough to stay with photography in the first place. I haven't sold any prints, so my artistic integrity is firmly intact, per definition.

On the other hand, hmm, if I did sell some prints, then I could probably afford to get into that meditative state that some describe. Okay, enough kidding ....

My thinking is that in order to attain that meditative state that some have described, one must learn how to tune out the external or pre-programmed influences. And step one must thus be to identify what those influences are. Of course, everyone is influenced by different things in different degrees... but nevertheless there must be strategies involving introspection that people use in order to identify the influences and learn to manage them.

 

[df cardwell]

You obviously are far better grounded in reality than I.

No way Joe, I'm just wound up different, that's all.

Photography's magic is that it accommodates different motives and methods.

As the poet Jagger said,
"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need."

Pass the ether !

Don


.

 

[Maris]

If you really want to make photographs that bend viewers minds then you need visual propaganda techniques.

The advertising industry is an almost limitless source book of methods that work; and profitably too.

 

[df cardwell]

I'll stick my neck out and offer the notion that folks take pictures for different reasons.

There might be a dozen reasons folks take pictures,
and another dozen ways they do it,
not to mention the myriad subjects.

AND essential to all this,
that a photograph may be intensely personal;
the photographer withdrawn, or shy. One might make pictures to remember a place or a time,
to understand something they've seen, or to show their pictures to a large number of people.
Or, as I do, usually only make pictures to share with an individual.

Some, have a clear understanding of where the boundary exists between the taking and the showing.

And on and on. The wonder of photography, to me, is that it gives a craft to anybody who wants to make an image
for ANY reason. And please themself in the process.

d

 

[sun of sand]

We've had some insightful threads on ways of seeing recently, and I'd like to throw the viewer into the mix. After all, if I do sell some prints, I'll first need to understand what people might want to have...

So, a basic question: what is the value of enhanced perception, or childike curiosity... if the person beholding your work judges (in a split second) whether it's worth a second glance? Could you even reasonably expect a viewer to "get it" if it took you a good long while to get it yourself? :confused: And is that viewer's quick glance any fundamentally different from the fleeting moment when you decided whether to take the photograph?

My thesis in compact form: personal zen notwithstanding :rolleyes: the photographer must learn to see through the eyes of others to communicate effectively.

Do you consider such things when deciding which prints to display? How do you establish a sincere line of communication with the viewer? Have you identified strategies or "hooks" that open the doors for viewers to your most thoughtful photography? Let us stipulate that a "hook" isn't necessarily a trite gimmick, but rather a personal style or coherent visual element that provides the sort of instantaneous interest that makes a viewer look twice.

Why would you first need to know what the viewer wants?
If that's the case I can point you in the right direction
Pornography. Shoot a whole lot of that and you'll sell. Maybe even if it totally unskilled
Shoot lots of naked girls and maybe even some boys and sell em cheap
Money, man.

If you're good enough at anything you will make money. Why? People are all alike.
If you like someting
So will others ..maybe not all of them -another thread- but enough.


Enhanced perception? I don't believe in Sci-Fi

Childlike curiosity? What do I have ..Adult curiosity?
Maybe if people saw clearly they'd see that children are more curious because they WANT they DESIRE to know things
Not because they are stupid and are entertained easily.
Try to not see this behavior as being CHILDISH

I know people like to say child -LIKE- in attempt to sound smart because we all supposedly know the difference between LIKE and ISH but I doubt we really do
We have just copied something we read or were told and so did the person who wrote or said it

If somebody judges something in an instant these are not the "people" you should be valuing.

"Could you even reasonably expect a viewer to "get it" if it took you a good long while to get it yourself"

Yes. If you took the time why couldn't someone else?

"And is that viewer's quick glance any fundamentally different from the fleeting moment when you decided whether to take the photograph"

Yes. So long as your photo shows more skill than the viewers level of sophistication

When they are matched you have equality but different tastes
Both should be able to recognize that.


B Statement
I don't think so at all. If that were the case we'd all be pictorialists.
Or painters
Or inking our skin


Do you consider such things when deciding which prints to display? How do you establish a sincere line of communication with the viewer? Have you identified strategies or "hooks" that open the doors for viewers to your most thoughtful photography? Let us stipulate that a "hook" isn't necessarily a trite gimmick, but rather a personal style or coherent visual element that provides the sort of instantaneous interest that makes a viewer look twice.[/QUOTE


I don't do this as I am a perfectionist and don't believe I am at that point yet to go showing my stuff around with any seriousness

Themes are fine but one should be able to garner attention even when nothing is related
because everything is related.
Themes just make it simple for ADD people to follow and that's just kind of a joke
I'd say a theme is one step above insincerity


There is nothing "COHERENT" about the world. It may all make sense but ain't no person ever going to finish a book of the worlds life without jumping all over the F'n place
I hate the F'n word. Adult bullshit. Controlling, ritualistic freaks.

 

[Larry Bullis]

My thinking is that in order to attain that meditative state that some have described, one must learn how to tune out the external or pre-programmed influences. And step one must thus be to identify what those influences are. Of course, everyone is influenced by different things in different degrees... but nevertheless there must be strategies involving introspection that people use in order to identify the influences and learn to manage them.

{emphasis added}

Not introspection. How could that help? I need to see the context that contains the influences as well as myself and see how they affect me, how I fit into that context and function.

Introspection is simply to seal myself off with the influences intact. Just increases the illusion!

And not so much tune them out, either. Account for them, then they aren't in control as they normally are. A meditative state is not a trance. I must be more aware, not less. You are right about identifying them. Without that, we just do their work. This is true even if we reject them. In that case, we practice the negative; the image is the same.

You've got a lot of it. Practice.

Extrospection.

Reread Cate's post about standing outside the self. She's on to the key to how it works although she did not mention seeing the context. It's just one further step outward. Of course, when shooting, I might not be into the context so much as my own movement.

Ecstasy; to be outside oneself, outside of place. You know, ecto.

 

[MattKing]

There is nothing wrong with caring about the viewer. It is just that there are only a limited set of circumstances where that should be the predominant concern when photographing.

I was recently a guest at a wedding. I shot about 30 shots in B&W using a Mamiya 645.

I was consciously thinking about capturing images that the newlyweds might appreciate (at least second marriage for both, teenage kids, etc.).

My focus on the "viewer" was based on my desire to provide something that this fine couple would like, and would appreciate. There is surely nothing wrong with that goal.

While doing that, I was also trying to get something a bit fresh, and a bit interesting for me. There is surely nothing wrong with that goal.

I knew that if I was successful in accomplishing my personal goal, there was a very good chance that I would be successful in accomplishing my "newlywed" oriented goal.

IMHO the viewer can have a very important role - you just have to choose it for them.

Matt

 

[keithwms]

If you really want to make photographs that bend viewers minds then you need visual propaganda techniques.

I don't see what this has to do with propaganda; I am not selling or pushing or convincing anything through my photography. I am merely interested in hearing others' viewpoints about how their work is seen and how that affects their thought process.

As for me, I take photographs primarily for myself, so that I can re-explore the scene and take myself back to it again and again... and perhaps even find more in it than I found when I initially framed the photograph. So I think a photograph as substantially more than a record of a person or place or thing at a particular time: it is more of a portal through which I can continue to explore. For me, one of the most satisfying aspects of photography is the ability to re-explore a scene through different prints and so forth, long after the photograph was taken. Frankly, I am frequently surprised by how little I actually saw/appreciated at "capture" time.

So, while I do occasionally like to show people what sort of things I'm working on or thinking about, but I don't think I have any particular axe to grind, I simply enjoy communicating with people about ideas and progress in thought.

 

[Ed Sukach]

But... do we not think about how the photograph will be seen when we compose it?

Truthfully, I don't.

The key word here is "compose". I rarely "compose" - in the sense of "structuring" my work. My more successful works are rarely a product of meticulous composition and attention to detail ... in fact the LESS attention (conscious thought) the better my work seems to be.

I don't "see" that which will provide the material in future photograph in terms of deconstructed elements - texture, lighting effects, composition balance, color harmony - The activity preceding the tripping of the shutter is MUCH more a "HOLISTIC" evaluation of "what is there" - much faster, much less influenced by internal dialog

I wonder if any here have participated in a Life Class with one, and two - minute poses? One does not have TIME to think, compose, be fastidiously self-critical. The only thing one can do is to GET LINES ON PAPER - as fast as possible, before the model changes position. I've found that the work I do in that activity is surprisingly GOOD!

One excersize I am about to try... Load the camera, and in the case of the Hasselblad, leave the hood closed; a bit of black tape over the viewfinder of the 35mm. WITHOUT any "pre-looking at", take the photograph. The difference between this and "really, really TRYING!!! - so HARD!!" - should be of great interest.

BTW - I sense that "introspection" is getting a bad rap here. What I am tryig to find is "configuration" - within ME, that predicates what *I* determine to be "sucess".

NO one CAN discover that except ME. The only "tooL" I have to use is introspection.

... Those of you who say that you shoot for yourselves, do you deny that shooting with no film loaded is less fun than setting a print before an admiring viewer?

STRANGE comparison. "Would I deny (?? a negative framework.. ?) that finding a $20 bill on the sidewalk was less fun than making a decent flycast"?
_ I cannot answer that - the activities are too far apart in character to permit conparison.

"Shooting with no film loaded"? - I have no real concept of what that could be like. Rarely, I've forgotten to load a magazine, but I've removed that from memory - no real usefulness in recalling that embarassment.

"Fun ... setting a print before an admiring viewer.."

Certainly a bright, enjoyable experience ... but ... I consider this to be an "extra added attraction". Great when it happens - but it is NOT the driving force behind my work.

 

[keithwms]

One excersize I am about to try... Load the camera, and in the case of the Hasselblad, leave the hood closed; a bit of black tape over the viewfinder of the 35mm. WITHOUT any "pre-looking at", take the photograph. The difference between this and "really, really TRYING!!! - so HARD!!" - should be of great interest.

Ed, in a related note, when I explained scale focusing to some students and had them shoot without using the VF, they were at first perplexed. Such an unusual way of approaching a scene.... makes a person much more conscious of focus and what will be gathered into it. I've inflicted this exercise on myself a few times and it's thought provoking.

 

[Larry Bullis]

...much less influenced by internal dialog

for reference
...

I wonder if any here have participated in a Life Class with one, and two - minute poses?

Not only. I've run groups like that. I used to start them off at 30 seconds and work up gradually to a twenty minute, maybe one longer one if time permits. The quick ones cut to the essence.
...

One excersize I am about to try... Load the camera, and in the case of the Hasselblad, leave the hood closed; a bit of black tape over the viewfinder of the 35mm. WITHOUT any "pre-looking at", take the photograph. The difference between this and "really, really TRYING!!! - so HARD!!" - should be of great interest.

I shoot without looking through the finder a lot. I've learned to project the frame out into the field using my binocular vision as a rangefinder and yes, Joe, to compensate for parallax in the process. Shooting street dances on moonless nights during the energy crisis when only the band had a 100 watt light bulb could teach you a lot. Project your consciousness INTO the lens.
...

BTW - I sense that "introspection" is getting a bad rap here. What I am tryig to find is "configuration" - within ME, that predicates what *I* determine to be "sucess".

NO one CAN discover that except ME. The only "tooL" I have to use is introspection.

Above, as marked, you suggest that internal dialog is lessened in your approach. I submit that internal dialog IS introspective and introspection IS composed of internal dialog. I think what you are doing is very internal but also primarily experiential, rather than introspective. BIG difference. It is the difference between active and passive.

Of course, I might be misreading what you are saying. I hope I'm not. Clearly, Ed, you are talking about experiences that are not particularly common; as you can see, they are not particularly well understood in this context. But EVERYBODY knows about introspection; everybody does it. The inner voice is a given in our human condition. I suppose we all believe in our heart of hearts that other people don't do it.

...

"Fun ... setting a print before an admiring viewer.."

Certainly a bright, enjoyable experience ... but ... I consider this to be an "extra added attraction". Great when it happens - but it is NOT the driving force behind my work.

Got it.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Ed, in a related note, when I explained scale focusing to some students and had them shoot without using the VF, they were at first perplexed. Such an unusual way of approaching a scene.... makes a person much more conscious of focus and what will be gathered into it. I've inflicted this exercise on myself a few times and it's thought provoking.

Paul Berger at U of WA used to blindfold the students and put them in an enclosed area with their cameras, instructing them to take pics. He told me that it took some of them some five or more minutes before they quit putting the camera up to their eye!!

Also, Jack Welpott gave a group of us an assignment to split into teams of two, one of whom is blindfolded, the other the guide. It was pretty interesting. I don't think the images were great, but sensing what is out there was a challenge and well worth doing.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Above, as marked, you suggest that internal dialog is lessened in your approach. I submit that internal dialog IS introspective and introspection IS composed of internal dialog. I think what you are doing is very internal but also primarily experiential, rather than introspective. BIG difference. It is the difference between active and passive.

There is a time to think and a time to DO.

When I say I am investigating introspectively, I am trying to understand, to some extent, whatever the hell it is that "is" when I succeed.

At the moment of truth ... that moment immediately before the muscles in my hand and arm contract to trip the shutter, I have realized that it is either too late, or there simply isn't enough time for deep thought/ introspection.
This introspection is NOW, far removed from those moments of truth. I am contemplating my work, from months, years ago, ... and wondering how, and possibly far more important, WHY, it all happened; additionally and especially, what the difference was between "successful" and not.
I've read a lot here about how important it is to "Always do you BEST!!", and, in the past have adopted that as an iron-clad philosophy. The danger here lies in an extension, where we wind up FORCING ourselves to do what we believe is far beyond our capacity do to.

I firmly believe that there are NO secrets in photography, that it is not possible to cheat by using some "magic" formula - no more than it is possible to cheat during a Rorschack Ink-Blot Test.

For me ... your mileage may vary, the way to fly is to stay loose, identify with your subject, and do that which you love to do.
The end result = my best work.