The Virtue of Restraint

The japanese have had for a very long time the concept of shibui. The concept is impossible to translate with a single word for it means many things; simplicity, subtlety, understatement, unobtrusiveness, ... A perfect realization of this is the classic japanese garden. Intellectually we know that the garden was achieved in a highly contrived and artificial manner yet the effect is exactly opposite, that of simplicity and naturalness. Probably the english word restraint comes nearest to a singlle word translation.

Restraint is a concept that is for some reason infrequently discussed in connection with photography. Technique should never intrude into a photograph for if it does then it becomes the subject. If the first thing you think of when you see a new photograph is solarization or infrared or lith printing or ... then the photographer has failed. The picture has become a mere exercise in technique and nothing more. As an example where a technique works, I particularly remember a photograph of a rocky coast, the image was very beautiful. It was not until I had seen that photograph several times that I recognized that a very suble amount of solarization had been applied to the print. The technique complemented the image but did not overwhelm it.

Before applying a special technique to a photograph the photographer needs to first ask whether the technique will add to the image or detract from it. A special technique will not salvage a poor photograph. I have seen numerous lith prints where if one mentally ignores the lith effect what is left is a very mundane image.

Another effect is infrared red used for landscapes. Usually these images are pretty dreadful. One good one I remember consists of a single tree on a barren hillside. The tree is made to stand out emphasizing its complete isolation. The photographers point of view could not easily be made any other way.

So in summary always remember that understatement is always better than overstatement. If you beat the viewer over the head they are not going to come back. Subtlety will keep the viewer coming back because they will not tire of the image. Oscar Wilde once remarked that smoking was the perfect vice, it was exquisite and it never satisfied. So it should be with photographs; they should be exquisite and they should keep the viewer coming back.

It's really refreshing to see art that has restraint in the age of Lady Gaga. But it takes a quiet mind to enjoy and appreciate subtlety.

People get into equipment and all kinds of processes and forget what it's all about.

Michael,

I don't agree that older alternatve processes must be obtrusive. Such processes as silver-albumen and van Dyke do not overwhelm the subject. (Cyanotype is something else the unusual color does get in the way.) What I meant was if your first response to a photograph is the technique then this should act as a flag when evaluating whether an image is good or bad.

I agree that lith printing as it is practiced is not often a subtle medium. My complaint is that often the photographs only say "I have mastered a fussy technique" and nothing more. One image sticks out in my mind that of a straight back wooden chair and a broom leaning against what appears to be an adobe wall. The subject is really unremarkable.

Gerald, I enjoyed your post very much. It says something I have always felt myself, and have experienced on rare occasions viewing the work of other artists. Yes, I agree that technique is most effective when it disappears and let's the emotion of the artist's revelation speak directly to a viewer. Very well said!

Totally agree....I've always felt the same way!

Gerald C Koch said:

...So in summary always remember that understatement is always better than overstatement....

Click to expand...

I have very much enjoyed these posts and appreciate these discussions. What a great contribution to the site. I hope you keep this up. I also hope you don't mind a bit of a counterpoint.

I do agree with your thoughts on the value of subtlety. I also find myself uneasy about photos that seem all technique. Finally, in my own life, I cling to understatement almost as a rule. That said, I can't agree that in art understatement is always better, any more than I would agree that overstatement is always better.

A great number of artists have engaged in "overstatement" as opposed to restraint or simplicity, and have produced wonderful, exciting work that certainly keeps me coming back. An example would be Lee Friedlander. Another would be Garry Winogrand. Even Matisse.

I think the best thing is to find your own style and stick to it. Not forgetting that simplicity and restraint are virtues. But also not forgetting that they aren't the only virtues.

Since your post touched on Japanese tradition, I would commend, from a recent New Yorker, the Peter Schjeldahl review of an exhibition of contemporary Japanese art called Bye, Bye Kitty!!! The article may be only online for subscribers, but you can probably find works from the exhibition online. Most of the work that I have seen from this show is fantastic, yet anything but understated.

-Laura

A great number of artists have engaged in "overstatement" as opposed to restraint or simplicity, and have produced wonderful, exciting work that certainly keeps me coming back. An example would be Lee Friedlander. Another would be Garry Winogrand. Even Matisse.

Click to expand...

Their overstatement is certainly not in processes. They make/made interesting pictures.

Process is an inseparable component of art, so I don't think it makes any sense to say that an image wouldn't work if you somehow "subtracted' the process. It's a very narrow view of photography that presupposes the purity of one process. A Japanese wood block print is anything but naturalistic--it "hits you over the head" with it's stylized, but beautiful rendering. I've seen many beautiful cyanotypes from Anna Atkins through contemporary practitioners and your view that the process "gets in the way' says more about your personal taste than the restraint of the artists.

Barry S

You misread my original post. I was speaking of japanese gardens which are highly artificial but appear natural. I never used the word natural with respect to a photograph. I don't know how a wood block print could look like anything other than what it is. It certainly cannot render a subject in a natural manner. Bringing wood block prints into the discussion is really a straw man argument.

A current practitioner of cyanotype is John Dugdale who also uses tha van Dyke process. When I look at his cyanotypes I sometimes wish they were van Dykes. The cyanotype process has two problems; the unusual color and the lack of tonal range.

Barry S said:

Process is an inseparable component of art, so I don't think it makes any sense to say that an image wouldn't work if you somehow "subtracted' the process. It's a very narrow view of photography that presupposes the purity of one process. A Japanese wood block print is anything but naturalistic--it "hits you over the head" with it's stylized, but beautiful rendering. I've seen many beautiful cyanotypes from Anna Atkins through contemporary practitioners and your view that the process "gets in the way' says more about your personal taste than the restraint of the artists.

Click to expand...

The point is some photographs show excellent use of the process while being uninteresting. This can be any process, even simple silver gelatin print. This happens because people get carried away with a process instead of trying to make interesting photographs. In other words photographs should be about something bigger than just a process. Processes are the means to get results, not the ends.

I didn't misread your post, but was referencing another Japanese aesthetic to illustrate that process is integral to art. A particular process or aesthetic may not work for you, but it's not necessarily a deficiency of the artist, their process, or materials. Your statement, cyanotype "...has two problems.." isn't a fact, but your own aesthetic judgment of a particular process. Your "problems" are virtues to others.

bwrules said:

... In other words photographs should be about something bigger than just a process. Processes are the means to get results, not the ends.

Click to expand...

Of course, this is an obvious statement. All photography (and art) is a process, so it's equally true of a silver gelatin print or a gum print. I think it's a fallacy to somehow link the use of an "alternative" process to a lack of restraint on the part of the artist if the image doesn't work.

And this applies to black and white only, I take it, since it is in this forum...

Barry

The cyanotype's lack of tonal range is not a personal judgement it is a fact. Look up the process it is discussed. I really don't want this thread to start fixating on a particular process.

I was speaking with respect to shibui. I don't know how bringing another aesthetic into the argument invalidates what I said. Again another straw man argument.

The oriiginal question remains does the technique contribute or detract from a particular image. To me blue people look very strange but a still life of a cup on a table is another matter. I am not opposed to cyanotype but rather question its usage for a particular image. Is the process inobtrusive as shibui[I/] suggests?

Gerald C Koch said:

If the first thing you think of when you see a new photograph is solarization or infrared or lith printing or ... then the photographer has failed.

Click to expand...

I heartily agree.

I do quite a lot of IR myself, but I spend quite a lot of time asking whether effect exceeds effectiveness. In some cases I have to admit that the effect is too dominant.

That said, over-the-top images do seem to sell better these days. There is little appreciation for subtlety in an attention-deficited culture bombarded with attention grabbing imagery. In these times, I'd blame no one for doing what they have to do to make a living with photography. I am very, very fortunate not to have to rely on sales to the masses. If I did have to rely on that for income, frankly, I'd be doing colour IR nudes splattered in fluorescent paint or whatever :confused:

Gerald,

To say that cyanotype lacks tonal range is indeed a personal judgment, I'm afraid. It's like saying that the problem with tennis is the lack of a playing field. I agree, however, that the cyanotype process lacks the tonal range of many others (that is a fact). To some, the tonal constraints of the process are too great for what they have to say, while to others, they represent more than enough of a vocabulary.

This is not to argue with your larger point, which is excellent.

I think, the OP has mistranslated "Shibui" on one aspect.

It really doesn't mean subtlety. It kind of sort of means "bold" but kind of "bold" that isn't offensive or obtrusive. For example... Think of a cup of Japanese tea. If anyone knows true Japanese tea, not the kind you get at restaurant, but ultra-high-quality kind where you pay ten bucks for less than an ounce of leaves - they are bitter - yet mild. Sort of feels like sharpness from bitterness are "rounded." The bitterness and the mildness forms a perfect taste sensation that it's satisfying. This comparison to tea may be lost on people who don't like them or not grown accustom to it though. Interestingly enough, "shibui" an adjective can also be used to describe bitterness alone. Depends on context and what it is describing....

I agree with OP on one point - it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to translate this concept perfectly in English. I am cross cultured and I understand both languages. Yet, the word doesn't quite translate in one word or in many.

As to photography, I do not like the type of photos where technique is used for sake of technique and is so obvious. I always try to apply what I know to enhance the subject - I prefer viewers not being able to tell what style/technique/adjustment I used to make that image. I'm often not successful but that's another story altogether.... sigh.

jerry

you obviously have never seen the cyanotypes of emil schildt also known as gandolfi here on apug.
he has worked for years using the cyanotype and other arcane processes, and there is no loss of tonal range. his work is the stuff to aspire to, not shun.

===
sometimes it is the process, the lack of certain virtues - understatements, quietness, and subtlety that make a photograph.
i think that it is interesting that often times it is the things that set people and their artwork apart that you claim have no place in the medium.
there is much more to photography than "sts ansel and edward"

john

Michael R 1974 said:

Don't forget having the sun burn arcs through your paper negatives. That seems to be selling very well these days.

Click to expand...

I actually saw that at a local college museum last weekend. I had hard time explaining to myself how that can be considered a "photograph." Talk about an over exposure...

Seriously; can we get this, and Mr. Koch's other post, into their proper forums?

I think Chris McCaw's Sunburn series is elegant work and a good example to discuss. A large part of his art is about the process --the sun burning an arc across the paper. But he's also got a great concept tied up with the image--the physical evidence of the energy that makes the photograph breaking through the surface of the two-dimensional image. It turns the work into something more visceral. Why are we here on APUG, if not because we believe that the process of photography is meaningful?

tkamiya said:

I think, the OP has mistranslated "Shibui" on one aspect.

Click to expand...

I only wish I knew japanese so that this were true. I am familiar with the concept. but, unfortunately I am dependent on the internet for its definitions. Thank you so much for your post clarifying things.

jnanian said:

jerry

you obviously have never seen the cyanotypes of emil schildt also known as gandolfi here on apug.
he has worked for years using the cyanotype and other arcane processes, and there is no loss of tonal range.

Click to expand...

A single coated cyanotype has a limited range. However there are ways to get around this. As I mentioned I don't dislike the process but find it inappropriate for some subjects.

Barry S said:

Why are we here on APUG, if not because we believe that the process of photography is meaningful?

Click to expand...

You have a good point, of course. Process is meaningful. But process isn't everything. That's where these discussions inevitably conclude!