The Role of the Viewer

[keithwms]

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.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Tsk-tsk, tut-tut, boo, hiss, BUNK! (I'd better add a winky smiley so you know I'm not too serious... )

Be true to yourself, how you interpret your subject matter, and how you then express it. All else is diluting what is within.

Murray

 

[keithwms]

All else is diluting what is within.

Within my bank account, you mean! :rolleyes: Just for the record, I am still true to myself in the sense that you define it

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

Even 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?

 

[smieglitz]

If you are selling something, maybe. Otherwise, not at all.

I'm doing what I want, for me, and I'm showing them what I see. What they may see is really inconsequential to my creative act. It would be nice if the image let them see the same things I did, but that seems rarely the case regardless of who the audience may be.

OTOH, if your goal is really to communicate with the masses, the gallery crowd, the newspaper reader, or the teen with money to blow on the latest fashion, then I suppose you could compromise your vision to make the sale (whatever that may be).

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Pssst...I edited in a winky smiley face into my first post to let you know I wasn't too serious

...do you deny that shooting with no film loaded is less fun than setting a print before an admiring viewer?

Actually, I'd rather be out in the forest, along the oceans shore, or on a mountain ridge seeing some amazing or delicate display of Nature while photographing with no film in the holders, than trotting out my prints for someone to see. Really. The act of photographing and the depth of awareness it affords me will always be better than what results later, be it the final print or showing it to someone!

I can happily go for years without anyone seeing my stuff. There does come a point, or a developmental fork in the road if you will, where a show has to be mounted to move onto the next stage. I've only had 3 one man shows in 25 years so there aint much progress being made I guess...oh well, me happy

I once had a simple, subtle print of Devil's Club leaves above a trickle of a creek which everyone glanced at and walked passed without much consideration. Later, an elderly lady with a walker stopped before the print and started to shed tears, because in her teens she used to romp all over the mountainsides gathering plants to dye fabrics and Devil's Club for fibre. So, you just never know...

Murray

 

[Larry Bullis]

Everybody, well almost everybody needs to make a living somehow. I got sick of doing what other people wanted when I found myself photographing models getting cash out of a machine for bank brochures. So I quit doing it. However, I did sell a fair number of prints doing familiar landmarks. It was a compromise of sorts, but one that I'm not ashamed of at all; some of them are incredibly wonderful, but it is true that not all of the best ones from my perspective were big sellers. Imogen Cunningham did portraits all her life. I heard someone ask her once if she showed her proof sheets to the client. "Heavens no! Nobody likes themselves! They look to find the one that makes them look the worst, and when they find it, that's all they need. They don't buy anything." She certainly thought about it.

For a very long time, I couldn't afford to be an amateur. I might have wished that I had taken on a trade or something that would have paid the bills, but I didn't do that.

Your question is a real one, and I haven't got an easy answer. All I can suggest is that you don't JUST do work for others, but when you do, you damn well better consider what it is they want.

Here are some suggestions:

People don't buy photographs, generally. They buy pictures of things.

People want to look good.

Nobody lives in a real world. Give them something that they can imagine themselves doing, or places they can imagine themselves being.

I could think of some more, but it's late.

Goodnight.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

The viewer is going to see with their own experiences, not yours. That's why everybody that has never operated more than a point and shoot and sees a picture of a lighthouse shot and printed by a master will say, 'Oh, I gotta dozen of these back home'. Their memory fills in blanks between the image they are seeing and the images they remember taking that are presently absent from the senses. When they review their images they find them lackluster and, hopefully, begin to wonder how to make their images differently. Thus the birth of seeing photographically.

If you want the viewer to react you need to lead them into the photograph, have a clear cut and familiar subject and yatta yatta yatta. I personally do not worry about such things on the whole. Mostly for the reason I seldom make images for someone else. I love to hide things in a photograph. A packpack hidden in background shadow but eventually visible in their reflection against a higher brighter background in the pool in the foreground. That kind of thing. Let the masses decide my photography is too simple or too cerebral. But for the few who 'get it' it will be unforgetable.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Requisite William Eggleston quote:

I am afraid that there are more people than I can imagine who can go no further than appreciating a picture that is a rectangle with an object in the middle of it, which they can identify. They don't care what is around the object as long as nothing interferes with the object itself, right in the centre.

Even after the lessons of Winogrand and Friedlander, they don't get it. They respect their work because they are told by respectable institutions that they are important artists, but what they really want to see is a picture with a figure or an object in the middle of it. They want something obvious.

The blindness is apparent when someone lets slip the word 'snapshot'. Ignorance can always be covered by 'snapshot'. The word has never had any meaning.

I am at war with the obvious.

As I like to say in my signature, the viewer is the final stage of the work. By viewing a work of art, we more or less consciously deduce a background, an origina story for it. We "click the shutter," that is we make decisions on the source of the artwork to understand it, to figure out what it means.

So there will always be a communicative gap between artist and audience. On the one hand because, like Eggleston says, some people just don't "get it", but also on the other hand because the meaning of our works begins to escape us as soon as we show them.

 

[Steve Smith]

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

I don't think about this when taking the photograph but sometimes at the printing stage I may think that one of my friends would like that image so I make another print to give away.


Steve.

 

[Shmoo]

... the photographer must learn to see through the eyes of others to communicate effectively.

Sometimes this is the most important thing to test out. I found that having an objective third party look at your work is one of the most effective ways to see how you are communicating. I once had an instructor (who had a lot of experience in being a panel judge) go over all my images. What I thought were cohesive images that showed my work effectively was about 50% off the target. He showed me what worked well together and I have to admit he was right. I've done this twice and got great results.

S

 

[df cardwell]

There is not an essential conflict between making the picture YOU want to make, and making a picture considering the viewer.

Adams made his images so that a viewer would be able to experience what HE felt
standing in front of the subject. THAT is the premise of visualisation,
which is the foundation of the Zone System.

If you are a professional, your obligation is to meet the needs of your client. People
who are unhappy with that are generally not pro shooters for very long. But if you are
only taking pictures for yourself, you can do any old thing you want.

Including, if you wish, making an image which satisfies you AND a viewer.

For me, however, I'm seldom inspired to make a picture
without a viewer in mind. It might be a very small image
to include with a letter to a friend, or a bigger image to share with my wife.

Fishing last fall, I made my last cast as evening approached,
left the river to set down the rod and fishing stuff,
and waded back out after retrieving my Nikonos on a monopod.

The valley was hushed.
Facing west,
standing chest deep in the river,
water rushing toward the sun
clouds drifting toward me, low overhead,
I sensed my dad's presence.

Twenty years after his death,
this was his kind of place,
like many places we had been together,
but never here, a place that I had found.

I made the picture for him,
and looked through his eyes.
at the things he liked to see.
Accordingly a heron sailed downstream
just over my head,
the sort of thing he would have reveled in for days.

Click.

How would I have made the picture for me ?

Just for me ?
Why would I make a picture just for me ?
I SAW it ! I was THERE !

No, I don't understand how anybody could make a picture without the viewer in mind. If it were just for me,
I would have no need for a camera.


.

 

[2F/2F]

A viewer will never see the work exactly the same way as yourself or any other viewer. They can get close. They can "get it", but IMO no two people can see something (*anything*) exactly the same. The goal for myself is not to make them get it, or see it the same way as do I. Rather, it is to be 100% myself with the work, and hope that someone likes that self, as expressed in the work.

However, I would certainly compromise my work for lots of money. I don't give a crap. I don't have any integrity! If someone wants to give me lots of money for making some change, they would be the fools, and I the one in control. They are the victims of some joke! That money buys a different kind of freedom in other areas of life, *and* in photography. But I would no longer call it personal and/or "fine art" work. This is why I love shooting products so much. It's easy in some ways (artistically), yet challenging in others (technically). I like it because it is more like work than photography as I know and love it. I am of the type that can't just have fun all the time, so viewing it as work sometimes helps me. It keeps your chops up, keeps you shooting...yet it is so different than what I instinctively shoot out in the world, that neither ever gets old.

In short, I find variety and versatility to be essential. Shooting that which I do not like actually makes me better at shooting that which I do.

So, yeah. I can be bought. No problem.

 

[keithwms]

Okay, I realize that we are all reluctant to compromise vision.

But... let me play psychotherapist here for a sec :rolleyes: .... Some time back in our past, each of us took a picture and showed it to someone and based on that response became enthused in photography. All of us were so emotionally vulnerable at some time in the past that an encouraging or discouraging comment could influence further photographic pursuits.

Now, since those first critiques, which may have been a long time ago (can you even remember them? AA wrote about his), all of us have gotten feedback. That feedback must have influenced the way we learned to see, no? I simply do not believe in reception of ideas from outer space- our photographic vision has been influenced since birth, and the feedback has been continous since then.

An important part of understanding how we see (which is obviously a very individual thing) is to understand the influence of others.... and to isolate that in our thinking and question how it affects how we see.

I did not mean to imply that we do (or should) ask a customer what they want and then produce that. What I am saying is that we did not develop our way of seeing in a vacuum, and resist it though we may, some residual influence must exist....

 

[2F/2F]

"Some time back in our past, each of us took a picture and showed it to someone and based on that response became enthused in photography. All of us were so emotionally vulnerable at some time in the past that an encouraging or discouraging comment could influence further photographic pursuits."

Absolutely not! I became enthused by everything *but* showing the work. Taking the pix, mostly. Printing not far behind. I became enthused with it because it is something I can do entirely by myself, yet out in the world as well. I fell in love with it because everything is broken down into process after process after process...which helps to settle my hairbrained mind and lack of ability focus. My enjoyment of photography comes 0%, and has *always* come 0% from others. I want people to like the stuff; sure. I want them to give me their money; sure. But that part is no fun for me, and has nothing to do with photography as I see it.

"Now, since those first critiques, which may have been a long time ago (can you even remember them? AA wrote about his), all of us have gotten feedback. That feedback must have influenced the way we learned to see, no? I simply do not believe in reception of ideas from outer space- our photographic vision has been influenced since birth, and the feedback has been continous since then."

Not the way I see, but the way I work. The critiques have served to make me a better editor; not to change my content or the way I see, in a conceptual sense.

"An important part of understanding how we see (which is obviously a very individual thing) is to understand the influence of others.... and to isolate that in our thinking and question how it affects how we see."

The influence for me has been less photographically oriented and more process and business oriented. I don't ask people about their pix. I don't want them to ask me about mine. In fact, the only thing I talk about is how to manipulate viewers with pix. That's all I want to get better at. I already know how to make what I want to make. I think we all did the moment we started. Nobody can teach anyone else what that is. It is instinctive. You can learn how to alter it to make it paletteable to others, though. I don't want to change what I, or anybody, would naturally do; just equip myself with tools of artistic manipulation.

"I did not mean to imply that we do (or should) ask a customer what they want and then produce that. What I am saying is that we did not develop our way of seeing in a vacuum, and resist it though we may, some residual influence must exist...."

Our way of seeing, and way of doing everything, is entirely out of our hands, IMO. It was in place long before we ever picked up a camera. We were all crafted 100% by others, with no input from ourselves. I think our powerless pre-memory youth is where all the influence occurs.

 

[Jose A Martinez]

Keith, in terms of photography semiotics the role of the viewer is definitive, and I couldn't think in other terms. How the viewer sees my work is of great matter to me; I photograph to communicate and knowing how to depends on the answers of my interlocutor. I have to learn the lenguage of photography if I want to speak through it. The important thing, IMO, is to tell what you want and not what the listener wanted to ear.

 

[catem]

An important part of understanding how we see (which is obviously a very individual thing) is to understand the influence of others.... and to isolate that in our thinking and question how it affects how we see.

But this is different from the critiques and feedback you describe in the previous para to this. Critique and feedback - especially early critique and feedback - is more about how we see ourselves than how we learn to see (though in certain circumstances, with a good teacher who fosters capability rather than instructs, it could become that). How we learn to see is, I believe, is a great indefinable. it is as much about who we are as people. Too complex for this thread.

Other artists influence us yes, but again to analyse and define this influence I believe is not necessarily constructive. I tend to feel on this - let it be, let all the influences - other artists amongst the earliest and ongoing experiences that have made us what we are - as artists I'm not sure we need to analyse, only to do, to carry on what we are doing.

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. if the photograph is for someone else, either in spirit or as a removed presence (client or whatever), then that process is more defined and easier to accept.

This is different again from preparing work with a particular market in mind (but not a specific individual client who has requested something). Work 'on spec' - each must approach this in their own way but I can't see this for myself as being a positive influence, or something that I could ever think about seriously.

 

[Larry Bullis]

There is some great stuff here, even though, or perhaps because, it is all over the map. What's so interesting to me is that I find something to agree with and even to disagree with in just about every one of the posts so far. I also recognize that I've gone on record at one time or another, as supporting just about every point of view.

Probably this is because I've worked inwardly, as has been seen probably by most of you in the other threads about "seeing"; if you take a contemplative attitude, allowing the image to find you, you certainly are NOT considering the viewer. . I've worked in other ways, too, and each way requires a different kind of relationship with the viewer. If you are working for clients' you MUST consider the viewer; your livelihood depends upon it. In teaching, you must BE the viewer and encourage all of those present to fulfill that function as well, and there's no way I can think of to permit the student not to have to consider the viewer. Can't do it on the phone. Since I've done all of these things, including being that student, I've experienced working for teachers, too.

Imagine, though, going into a state like that described by billschwab in the To See... thread; you'll find it on page 6 - 7. It is a sort of meditation. Considering the viewer has no place there; it would spoil it, by bringing the ordinary mind back into control. Perhaps, with that sort of working mode, the time to consider the viewer is AFTER the shooting is done. Most of us are not great editors, though.

I'm considering my own working modes. I no longer shoot for the market, so I'm not concerned with that. I move from one thing to the next. Most of the time, now, I have no thought about the viewer when shooting.

In reading Arnold Gassan's Report on the Minor White workshops in Denver from 1964, I noticed that although MW does not ever mention shooting with the viewer in mind (in fact, he advocates emptying the mind by going into a state of relaxed concentration) he does make frequent reference to the viewer. Actually, he's a good source for ideas about this topic. He did a great deal of work with photographs and viewers.

 

[SuzanneR]

I find that I have entered a similar mind set that Bill and other's have described in the "to see.." thread, and I have to agree. At the moment I am pressing the shutter.. I may not be thinking about a viewer to the work at all. In fact, there are plenty of pictures I make, that are better kept private!

That said.. I am strongly motivated by my children.. and especially by the idea of their children. It's a way to reach out to the future when I may not be around any more. In the meantime, however, I like to share my pictures with anyone who is interested. Doesn't feel complete as art without an audience. Doesn't have to move the masses, mind you... small audiences can be very satisfying!

And as a photographer... if someone doesn't "get" my work, that's ok. I can't control the feelings and biases and history a viewer brings to the work, which is, ultimately, what they may "take" from the work.

 

[Vincent Brady]

To take photographs with the viewer totally in mind go into WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY otherwise be true to yourself and be grateful that someone likes your work enough to buy. Once you pander to the masses your integrity is gone.

Cheers
TEX

 

[catem]

I find that I have entered a similar mind set that Bill and other's have described in the "to see.." thread, and I have to agree. At the moment I am pressing the shutter.. I may not be thinking about a viewer to the work at all.

I think many photographers might recognise and identify with that sense of 'being in the moment' but I think at the same time we stand back - composing, framing, choosing when to press the shutter. The mind is complex and I think the act of creating a picture happens on multiple levels. We may not be preparing for any 'target audience' but there is always another half of ourselves that is viewing at the same time as creating - as part of the creative process. I do prefer it when this half of my brain is less 'shouty' than the other half - I don't mean not there but not so apparent to me - I generally prefer the result in that case. That part of ourselves is perhaps as close as we can or should get to having a viewer in mind when we take a picture (personal work at least). The case don describes would be different, you would be enjoying the presence and influence and viewpoint of the other person, or presence. (Taking work for clients would be different also, of course).

 

[Allen Friday]

Several years ago I showed a number of my photographs at a local art show. I had an 11x14 print of a local church/meeting hall. An elderly lady came up to me at the show and said, "You know. I drive by Norway Center every day. I have never seen it like that. I guess I never really looked at it closely. I'll stop and look at it, really look at it, on my way home."

Isn't one part of photography to cause others to stop and think, to see things the way you see them?

 

[smieglitz]

...
But... let me play psychotherapist here for a sec :rolleyes: .... Some time back in our past, each of us took a picture and showed it to someone and based on that response became enthused in photography. All of us were so emotionally vulnerable at some time in the past that an encouraging or discouraging comment could influence further photographic pursuits...

And somewhere is the world's worst psychotherapist...

My enthusiasm for photography was not the result of someone's praise. It happened long before I ever had a camera. I was amazed at the process and I continue to be.

The two times I can ever remember actually being influenced by anyone's reaction to my photographs had to do with technical issues of the medium and not my vision. If an audience has ever had any influence on me, it has influenced who I choose to have as an audience. It has not influenced my photography.

I have weathered a lot of criticism as well as accolades and neither has ever made me attempt to change how I see and photograph.

We don't all fit in that little box you are trying to construct.

- Joe

 

[smieglitz]

...
Why would I make a picture just for me ?
I SAW it ! I was THERE !

No, I don't understand how anybody could make a picture without the viewer in mind. If it were just for me,
I would have no need for a camera.


.

Don,

You obviously are far better grounded in reality than I.

Sometimes I take a photograph just to convince myself of what I thought I saw.

Salute.

I remain, a child of the '60s.

-Joe

 

[winger]

If an audience has ever had any influence on me, it has influenced who I choose to have as an audience.

Yeah, that's why I don't show my photos to my mom anymore. :rolleyes:

I shoot for the viewer only in that I'll choose a place or general subject that I think someone else might like to see. But how I end up actually portraying that subject is just how I like it, not with anyone else in mind. That applies mostly to flowers, waterfalls, serene farm scenes and the like.
The possible exception to this is when I take my camera into the woods with me. Then, it's really just for me - to see if I can capture on film the feeling of being in the woods (without the bugs). If others like what I shoot in the woods, then that'd be great, but I don't tend to show those as much.

 

[eddym]

To take photographs with the viewer totally in mind go into WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY otherwise be true to yourself and be grateful that someone likes your work enough to buy. Once you pander to the masses your integrity is gone.

Cheers
TEX

Maybe THAT'S why I hate shooting weddings...!!!