| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2005 01:52:43 PM · #1 |
I read something recently that really struck a chord with me. It summed up a lot of feelings that I had in the last half of 2004. I read the same sort of things on the forums from various people and so I thought it could be helpful to some of you out there.
This is a snippet from a book by the late Galen Rowell called Galen Rowell's Vision: The art of adventure photography.
"Every photographer has a definable style, but I spent at least a decade worrying that I didn't. If someone asked me what my artistic goals were, I would mumble platitudes about capturing my vision of the wilderness and pursuing light. I feared that my diverse work was adrift in an ocean of outdoor photography. The individual pieces had about as much chance of coming together as splinters from a shipwreck joining on their own to form a boat again.
I also had a disdain for externally directed photographic styles, which continues to this day. For example, I was deeply offended by work that called attention to itself by some artificial device (such as an introduced color filtration, weird lens, strange darkroom twist, or exaggerated grain) to stylistically link photos that otherwise lacked an internal message. I liked deceptively simple pictures that drew more attention to honest vision than to technique.
After my work began to be published I was often surprised when people told me they could often identify it before they saw the credit line. At first I didn't believe them. I thought they were just flattering me. I gained some insight into how a style emerges when I saw shots of several well-known photographers being edited at National Geographic. I knew the hallmarks of their various styles, but in their raw film, as in mine, inconsistent work greatly outnumbered pictures with strong vision. Yet after the final edit, each photographer had created key images that unmistakably showed a unique way of seeing.
Ansel Adams wrote eloquently about the difference between external and internal photographic events. The most meaningful photographic styles are always reflections of the internal. We react not so much to what a photographer sees, but to how he or she sees and renders the subject for us. Personal style comes from within, from a photographer's unconscious and conscious, choices. We usually pass over a photograph devoid of emotional reaction to its subject and say, 'This doesn't do anything for me.' Of course it doesn't! The photographer didn't have his or her heart in it.
Devoting personal energy to a photograph isn't enough unless that energy is internaliszed. An easy way to block the internal message is to be overly concerned about results. For example, knowing their top images will be critiqued in front of the group, workshop participants out for an afternoon shoot often wander around shooting nothing because they have created unrealistic expectations for themselves. Thinking they have to present a dazzling piece of fine art, they beat themselves up emotionally, become very self-conscious, and fail to produce the kind of images they could have made with a calm mind.
Professionals fall prey to this syndrome, too. Pros on a major assignment can easily allow externally directed cues to block the very style that caused the client to hire them. The syndrome is quite similar to writer's block. Writers too conscious of their audience may spend days trying to get out of the beginning paragraphs of an article. But if they drop the external direction momentarily to write a letter describing the article to a friend, words would probably pour effortlessly in a style that separates the meaningful from the mundane. Just like a good photograph.
The central process of art is not to render something exactly as it appears, but to simplify it so that meaning, clarity, emotional response, and a sense of order combine to create a style from within. Each photographer has the potential to select out powerful personal visions that other people may find beautiful.
Like poetry, fine photography communicates by metaphor. We often think that a photograph represents reality, yet by that very phrase 'represents reality' we admit that the clearest two-dimensional calendar image on paper is less a direct copy of a reality that a metaphorical symbol of it.
Most people find lines from Shakespeare more inspiring than lines from the owner's manual of their camera. The former have become art through fulfillment of the metaphorical potential of their medium. The latter, by their attempt only to be precise, are forever doomed to be judged by how closely they approach a reality they can never truly match. Because photographs are by their very nature imprecise, the possibilities for stylistic interpretation are nearly infinite."
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:00:02 PM · #2 |
The final two paragraphs of this excerpt are profound. The excerpt as a whole shows great insight into the process of creating. Thanks for posting this, it is great food for thought, and for action.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:02:49 PM · #3 |
Like poetry, fine photography communicates by metaphor. We often think that a photograph represents reality, yet by that very phrase 'represents reality' we admit that the clearest two-dimensional calendar image on paper is less a direct copy of a reality that a metaphorical symbol of it.
This is truth. It reminds me of the moment I realized the same thing in Bonsai, when someone told me that "A bonsai is not a little tree. A bonsai is a representation of a very old, very large tree" - a metaphor, if you will...
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:07:00 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by moodville:
"...Most people find lines from Shakespeare more inspiring than lines from the owner's manual of their camera. The former have become art through fulfillment of the metaphorical potential of their medium. The latter, by their attempt only to be precise..." |
I find Shakespeare far more precise than any owner's manual I have ever had the tedium to peruse.:-)
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:08:47 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by moodville:
The central process of art is not to render something exactly as it appears, but to simplify it so that meaning, clarity, emotional response, and a sense of order combine to create a style from within. Each photographer has the potential to select out powerful personal visions that other people may find beautiful.
Like poetry, fine photography communicates by metaphor. We often think that a photograph represents reality, yet by that very phrase 'represents reality' we admit that the clearest two-dimensional calendar image on paper is less a direct copy of a reality that a metaphorical symbol of it.
Most people find lines from Shakespeare more inspiring than lines from the owner's manual of their camera. The former have become art through fulfillment of the metaphorical potential of their medium. The latter, by their attempt only to be precise, are forever doomed to be judged by how closely they approach a reality they can never truly match. Because photographs are by their very nature imprecise, the possibilities for stylistic interpretation are nearly infinite." |
yes, yes and yes again. thank you moody. :) |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:12:03 PM · #6 |
| Exactly. Precision is what imparts beauty to language: using the right words in the right order and never waffling. Every great author from Joyce to Shakespeare has done this. Giving the impression of vagueness or chaos is one of the hardest things to do well. |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:14:17 PM · #7 |
a very fine collection of words ;}
thanks.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:25:48 PM · #8 |
I have recieved unending inspiration from Galen Rowell's essays and work. He was a very rare man indeed. If you enjoyed his "vision" book, you will equally enjoy his "inner game" book. Both are outstanding at making you realize how deep the rabbit hole can go.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 02:26:15 PM · #9 |
| Seems like a photographer will need to know their personal inner vision and how to express it in a photograph. |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 03:20:59 PM · #10 |
Thanks moodville!! perfect timing for me. I have been struggling for a week with a series of photographs. Out of frustration I posted some to a forum (another forum because I didn't want to bother fine DPC people with my ramblings) to get some opinions. After reading the response, I was convinced I should pack the camera up and do something different. Your post came just in time to remind me why I take photos in the first place!
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 03:27:17 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 06:44:04 PM · #12 |
A good read -- it adds some depth to the whole experience here knowing that the people who's photos you're looking at are going through the whole package of issues with personal style and so on. And when you think about it, all these issues are what artists and creative people in general have in common, so it's kind of nice in a way..
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Seems like a photographer will need to know their personal inner vision and how to express it in a photograph. |
I find that the only way to really know it is by not thinking about it. Let's say.. if that personal inner vision were a needle, thinking about it would be like throwing it into a pile of hay.
Seeing and thinking don't mix well I guess
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 07:38:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by helgihelgi:
Seeing and thinking don't mix well I guess |
No they do mix. The art lies in not letting your thinking get in the way of your seeing.
E |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 08:07:47 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by helgihelgi:
Seeing and thinking don't mix well I guess |
No they do mix. The art lies in not letting your thinking get in the way of your seeing.
E |
Thinking can get in the way of a lot. There have been experiments done where they shut down the part of the brain that we tend to think of as the thinking part. Many of the other areas all of a sudden get better when this is done, including in many cases such things a drawing. The way they shut down the brain is pretty scary by the way, they use a very strong magnetic pulse, apparently it does no damage. There are a number of cases where when someone has had brain damage in one area of the brain artistic skills come forward that they never had before. The source for all of this BTW was a Nova program I saw sometime back.
My method of getting the rational part of the brain to quit interfering is to drink enough beer that the rational part no longer cares what I am doing. Whereas I have not yet perfected the technique and have not as of yet achieved the level of results that I would like I am determent to keep working on it until I get it right.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 08:36:03 PM · #15 |
This erudite explanation also finds an outlet of presentation in the right, left brain comparisons. While the left worries about technique and the evaluation, the right irreponsibly seeks artistic expression.
To create the proper mix is the challenge provided one can control the two and here is where the theory of the self comes into a highlighted play. You are not your left or right brain, you are the final arbiter and none of these control you.
If you allow the left brain to control, you become anal retentive. If you allow the right to control, you may become unreasonanle and maybe too far fetch.
Your life is like riding this chariot with two wild horses that want to go only their own way. This is what tears the emotions and give rise to the highly temperemental dispositions. He that controls them make their life easier.
The right is quick to suggest and envision the abstract, while the left is ready to condem, it is the left that pays the rent and sometimes resents subsidizing the right. But it is also those strokes of genious from the right that left is well able to cash in.
The artist seeks to avoid a close mind or one that is too sure, because the closed mind and the fixed mind hamper the creative flow.
I understand that this tangent may at first appear out of place but if you think about it, it is the made up mind that suffers the consequences of its decisions. |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 09:02:10 PM · #16 |
I think each type of work has value... Serendipitous work may lead you to something you would not have found which opens new doors to your technique. Previsualized photography will bring fruit to your personal aesthetic, and often great satisfaction with it.
Along these same lines, I was reading an FAQ from National Geographic's photography site. The question was regarding how many rolls of film are typically shot on an assignment. The number was hundreds of rolls, and the explanation given was that although it seems like a lot of images, their photography team uses images to sketch the story.
Sketching is an interesting metaphor for photography. Do you doodle, or do you seek to release an image which you know is out there? Both are valid releases with different endpoints. I think sketching with a purpose is a good way to describe active photography. We see things that interest us, and hone in on them by discovering and exploring them through a lens.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 08:54:14 AM EDT.
