| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2004 09:39:40 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I understand these points...
The success or failure of the final image still doesn't have anything to do with the original idea. What I am trying to look at here is 'why' the camera was raised and fired. The photographer could not have known the result of the shot at this point. The motivation behind the attempt is all I'm concerned with.
The photographer saw or felt something that inspired him to make the photo, and this is what I'm interested in over and above anything else. Each of us produces some good and bad photos. If the photo turns out bad and we don't like it, that has absolutely no impact on the original motivation. |
But isn't it true that some photographers are more adept at conveying why they raised and fixed the camera on a particular image? With that said, there's plenty in Mr. Hubbell's image to say what was in his mind at the time he released the shutter. That place, those trees, and that perspective speak volumes as to what "moves" him.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:42:35 AM · #52 |
He was participating in the Vanishing Point challenge.
;P |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:51:23 AM · #53 |
John, thank you for this thread. The many different opinions on why this picture was taken, including cghubbell's, showed me that there's much, much more to many pictures than I thought. When I saw the picture at the beginning of this thread, it didn't mean too much to me. The fact of thinkin about it's origins and the photographer's reason to take it pushed me into a way of contemplating pictures differently. As GeneralIE said, I don't think I'll get rid of that again. Thanks for trapping me. Honestly.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:17:12 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
But isn't it true that some photographers are more adept at conveying why they raised and fixed the camera on a particular image? |
Yes, but its outside the point of the discussion :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:43:54 AM · #55 |
Q: Why did the photographer make this photo?
A: Because he did.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 12:45:29 PM · #56 |
In many ways this image is remarkably similar to one I took...
"Webster Pines"
by: C. G. Hubbell
My Image...
"Garden of the Giants"
The simple majesty of the trees was my soul inspiration.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 12:47:57 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
My Image...
"Garden of the Giants"
The simple majesty of the trees was my soul inspiration. |
I remember this photo quite well also and I think it comes from the same thoughts for sure.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 01:19:51 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
But isn't it true that some photographers are more adept at conveying why they raised and fixed the camera on a particular image? |
Yes, but its outside the point of the discussion :) |
I understand, and certainly didn't intend to go off topic. My point was that the effort required in attempting to fathom why a photographer pointed and fixed his/her camera on a particular subject depends very much on an understanding of the artist's skill and background. I don't know about others here, but I find it very difficult to speculate - out of context - on the reasons cghubbell (for instance) chose and composed his subject the way he did. By looking at his portfolio I get an inkling of his skill and background, which in turn makes me better equipped to speculate on his motives.
On the other hand, perhaps all you're looking for, John, is for us to answer why one (vs. cghubbell) might choose that particular subject and viewpoint. That approach, to me, might make for more imaginative replies - which is a valid and interesting approach.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 01:37:13 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
I don't know about others here, but I find it very difficult to speculate - out of context - on the reasons cghubbell (for instance) chose and composed his subject the way he did. By looking at his portfolio I get an inkling of his skill and background, which in turn makes me better equipped to speculate on his motives.
On the other hand, perhaps all you're looking for, John, is for us to answer why one (vs. cghubbell) might choose that particular subject and viewpoint. That approach, to me, might make for more imaginative replies - which is a valid and interesting approach. |
The speculation is the entire point. There is no right or wrong answer. We would never know unless the photographer told us.
My personal goal for looking at photos this way goes back to my earlier personal goals on commenting (in general) on photographs. I learned a LOT by commenting and it has been the single best learning tool I have found in my own photography. When I give critique, I tend to remember that critique when I'm out shooting on my own. I think I have reached a limit of sorts on how much I'm going to learn by continued critique. My critiques always involve the subject itself, the point of view, the technicals, etc... My critique never involved the 'why' aspect. As I look back through the comments I have received in the past, there is an occasional comment that really inspires me. These comments tend to deal with the 'why' aspect of the image.
I think I still have a LOT to learn about photogrpahy, but I think the 'why' aspect is where I'm heading on my learning path at this point.
I disagree slightly with your statement:
"My point was that the effort required in attempting to fathom why a photographer pointed and fixed his/her camera on a particular subject depends very much on an understanding of the artist's skill and background."
I'm not sure if this really matters unless you intend to critique the image. Those elements would come into play when you start considering what you see in the image and how it was executed. I'm trying to disassociate myself from those aspects of the image though. All I'm interested in is the thought process surrounding the decision to make a photo. When Mr. Hubbell was in this spot, he decided to make a photo. There is a reason he did this. Something about this place caused him to think about a photo.
I'm not sure if I'm making sense or not... lol
1. we leave the house
2. we go somewhere
3. we walk around with our cameras
4. we see something that inspires a photo
5. we make a photo(s)
Something happens between step 3 and 4. It's closer to step 4 though.. not right in the middle. (this is not the process for designing an image from a mental picture) Our objective of the trip may be to make photos. What inspires us to point the camera and press the button? This is a very important thought process. And, I believe that when I get a firm grasp on the answer, my photography will move to the 'next level'.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 01:40:19 PM · #60 |
Unfortunately I am an outcast in these threads. If you read any book you fall under the presentation of the author. He paints and guide or creates certain limitations within which he opens your imagination. The author remains the guide, so to speak.
The same thing applies to paintings and photographs. The whys of the photographer are never required to enjoy the image because each of us respond according to our personal experience. While photography can be practiced as a craft or as an art it remains as another means of communication. Hence, I allow each image to speak to me and when it wispers ever so low, I hush and listen carefully.
Now, our collective existence is governed by symbols which are very ancient. Consider basic symbols such as the geometric primitives such as the circle, the square and cylinder and the triangle. Well, the circle has untold associations which include the hole, which include the abyss, which include the earth, the sun and all things that are circular. It includes the black hole, the womb and we will never finish. The ancient greeks gave name of gods to certain emotions so as to codify them and every culture has created and adopted symbols to simplify a deeper understanding. Look at the triangle and see the associations from the esoteric to the mundane.
The artist consciously or unconsciously seeks to make a presentation governed by this deeper undefinable feeling. This is why it is not an easy task to comprehend or explain why the artist made a particular presentation or why he felt compelled to raise the camera, focus and shoot a particular image. Yes, often he has a primary conscious explanation or reason but there are many hidden ones that he is not at all aware and which often are present because something unconscious compelled him. This something is sometimes never revealed.
We like to think that the artist is in full control, but this is not so. He controls the variables in his art but consider the efforts that surprise him. Those efforts that become popular despite his intention. These studies that captured more than he intentioned.
The current photograph deals first with earth, life and firmament. You have trees stretching and leading the eye upwards with the perpective curtailing and bringing the visual senses with a concentrated up and down look. The photographer artist traps your eyes in here. Note that the trees sugest a triangle and the dimishing point. So yes, the artist selects his subject and tells you how he viewed it and invites you to join him in this view. The rewards are many for both the viewer and the presenter and both can follow the view as presented and both draw often different conclusions even with one view point.
However well dicussed it will never bring us closer to an answer to the understanding of the deeper mysteries and the unconscious motivation which drives the artist. There is also the aspect that some people are not ready to appreciate certain images at certain points in their lives.
So again, this is a good exercise but the initial question posed and its answers will vary according to the understanding of each individual.
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 13:45:33. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 01:51:34 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
However well dicussed it will never bring us closer to an answer to the understanding of the deeper mysteries and the unconscious motivation which drives the artist. There is also the aspect that some people are not ready to appreciate certain images at certain points in their lives.
So again, this is a good exercise but the initial question posed and its answers will vary according to the understanding of each individual. |
The "unconscious motivation" is a player. You are right. It may not become apparent for some time. The photographer may not ever realize it. However, in cases where it is realized, I think it can be used as a learning experience.
For instance...
If I see a photograph that I admire, I can form my own opinion about 'why' the photo was made. It may be right, or it may be wrong. In either case, If I can realize some form of reasoning behind the image, I can use that to my advantage in my own work.
This exercise is about forming an opinion on the issue. Whether it's right or wrong can be totally irrelevant :) In our cases here on DPChallenge, we have a stronger likelihood of finding out if it was right or wrong though. The photograper may be able to tell us :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:01:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
...
1. we leave the house
2. we go somewhere
3. we walk around with our cameras
4. we see something that inspires a photo
5. we make a photo(s)
Something happens between step 3 and 4. It's closer to step 4 though.. not right in the middle. (this is not the process for designing an image from a mental picture) Our objective of the trip may be to make photos. What inspires us to point the camera and press the button? This is a very important thought process. And, I believe that when I get a firm grasp on the answer, my photography will move to the 'next level'. |
You know, I've thought about this as well - in a somewhat different way. What's bothered me very much over the past year or so, is that I've been at times almost consumed by the assignment (both in photo classes I've been taking and with DPC). While those activities I believe have helped polish my "craft", I still don't have a firm grasp of what inspires me, ...although I think I'm getting closer.
When I see a building with otherwise interesting architecture (those buildings I've become accustomed to in my home town), I'm drawn to them in search of a unique perspective. I want to get up close and aim my camera alongside the building towards the sky. That perspective intrigues me.
Others are drawn to landscapes or to people who exude character in their faces. I think once you know what attracts you, you just stop there... Apply your craft and reach and extend the limits of your expressive powers. When that's exhausted, I think you need to find new attractions.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:05:39 PM · #63 |
I concede the advantage that some will gain. However, for me to opine and consider the answer irrevelant leads me to the question: why am I opining and storing information that may or may not be correct.
The muse comes when invited and then we must light our candle and wait for her appearance. The moment we place limitations by creating a long list of opinions this pre filter will throw out certain gifts from the stream of creatiion.
I guess, what i mean is that art and intellect are handled by different parts of the brain and that the muse finds the intellectual a little stiffling.
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 14:08:52. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:11:08 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The muse comes when invited and then we must light our candle and wait for her appearance. The moment we place limitations by creating a long list of opinions this pre filter will throw out certain gifts from the stream of creatiion.
|
I understand what you are saying... Let me put it like this:
Our objective is to 'hear' what someone else's muse said to them. I don't believe it will 'filter' anything. It may help us hear our own muse more regularly when she isn't speaking as loudly??
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:16:38 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If I see a photograph that I admire, I can form my own opinion about 'why' the photo was made. It may be right, or it may be wrong. In either case, If I can realize some form of reasoning behind the image, I can use that to my advantage in my own work. |
John,
I can't help but wonder if what you're seeking is a passion... An underlying motivation that comes through in a photograph when visual elements align with an emotion, goal, dream, etc.
When I think about the images which are in my favorites, I see, and I think others can see, a consistency in their elements. By studying those commonalities I have helped myself to better understand the passion that makes me want to capture images.
When you talk about what happens between walking around and snapping the shutter, I see one of two things: serendipitous inspiration, or preconceived image being realized. What you are seeking really feels to me like the same quest Rowell was on when he coined his scale of classifying images (same book as mentioned earlier, "The Rhythms of Nature", pp32-34.
His highest level of image is "created".
"They are revealed by a process of discovery that, to me, is by far the most satisfying aspect of Nature photography. Even though failures are certain to outnumber successes, the idea of pursuing a dream image in my imagination and going out to find that place where it actually happens before my eyes is what keeps my creative juices flowing year after year." p.34.
It sounds to me like you're trying to discover how to find a new level of satisfaction by understanding what has driven others. The scale I mentioned addresses the same thing: what's behind an image. This is, as you've stated, independent of critique. It just "is", but is important to understand.
Is this clicking at all?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:23:16 PM · #66 |
Let me be specific. Suppose an artist wakes up this morning and says I want to create only fine art. I do not want to appeal to the masses. i do not want images with busted bulbs, no images which titillate the viewer sexually, do not want images with dogs or cats and he goes on and on with what he considers inferior.
The muse will have a very hard time in visiting this artist because he has literally created a fortress which scares ideas away.
To comprehend the incomprehensible does not yield undertsanding. You do not look into the horses mouth. Let me bring you back to childhood and day dreaming which is indeed communion with the muse or with the imagination. The moment you acknowledged its presense it would hide and disappear. My argument is simple, if you want the muse do not approach her with the mind of the intellectual, rather the mind of the child. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:24:25 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Is this clicking at all? |
Yes.
My portfolio shows that I don't have a preferred 'subject' mode yet. My only known passion does show in a majority of my images though. I'm not sure if it's as visible to others as it is to me. My motivations currently come from some of the basic fundamentals image composition. There isn't much of a 'serendipity' element to anything I do at this point, or it wouldn't seem so. The way I choose to photograph a subject covers that up in many cases.
I'm ready to expand beyond my fundamental level and start to see things I haven't noticed before. The next photo I plan to post for this same discussion is more in line with the type of work I would like to do.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:36:32 PM · #68 |
I'm with you there, my sentiments exactly
Originally posted by jpochard:
I took my similar shot because I was struck by the lines created by these tall, straight trees and the lighting with the sun illuminating the tops. I think being in that spot, the photographer is trying to capture the perspective felt from standing amidst those trees.
It's difficult, I think, to really capture that feeling of being small and at the bottom of the shot, if you know what I mean.
 |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:38:56 PM · #69 |
Like a painter or sculptor a photographer is an artist.
When we capture images we always have a goal and that goal can be anything that we can imagine.
But like other artists the images photographers choose to capture and the ways they chose to post-process and present them publically reveals more about the photographer himself than it does about the image that is presented.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:41:42 PM · #70 |
Without meaning to stray off topic, I have say this thread and its parent have been some of the best exchanges of information I've seen since joining this site. We're discussing topics which obviously carry deep convictions, and where most forum threads deteroriate, these two threads have remained a thoughtful and insightful exchange of ideas.
The past 24 hours on DPC have been almost like switching from popular FM stations to AM talk radio. I'm looking forward to discussing the next image!
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 14:42:12.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:48:31 PM · #71 |
I'm almost ready to start the next one but I'm still 'smoking' what graphicfunk has been saying. I'm not 100% sure I understand completely. I have re-read some of the posts and I'm beginning to draw the conclusion that trying to understand the motivation behind a photo is not a reasonable pursuit in his mind. This thought has merit also. If I start to discover a lot of different motivations behind other artists' work, I must not allow myself to go hunting for that same motivation. Motivation isn't something you can really search for though. It just comes.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:53:18 PM · #72 |
JM, I think what you are doing here personally and for the community will have far reaching effect on all of us. To go out on a limb here, I will make a suggestion to you that you may wish to explore or not.
Days after I got my Nikon, I saw the movie 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.' It was a campy flick, hardly a drop in the pan for most, but the way it was shot and the nostalgia of Flash Gordon moved me to see it.
A young woman by the name of Polly is forced into just the sort of contemplation that you are suggesting here and when I left the movie the first night, I had already decided that I needed another viewing, just to really spend time pondering the decision: why did she choose to shoot (or not shoot) what she finally did. It brought me to an understanding of a fellow Nikonian's sig-file: I'm still learning to see more and click less.
The investment of the 90 minutes to sit back and watch the movie for some will seem a waste of entertainment time (the movie is about a 6). But the time I have spent in the 4 months since that night still contemplating Polly's actions have been worth more than gold to me.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 02:57:34 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
...If I start to discover a lot of different motivations behind other artists' work, I must not allow myself to go hunting for that same motivation. Motivation isn't something you can really search for though. It just comes. |
Here-Here! I hope this thread/exercise helps some of us (me!!) figure out what our own motivations are. Some of us probably don't know, really (me!!). If we have enough of these threads, or enough people participating, it might benefit those of us (ME!!) with whom some contibutor's explanation connects.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:01:43 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Greetings again....
"Webster Pines"
by: C. G. Hubbell
|
John,
I am curious to know what motivated you to chose this particular image to discus?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:13:29 PM · #75 |
Capturing a moment in time in a two-dimensional format can be an almost impossible task, especially when things we sense move us to try and do so.
We simply cannot fully capture the overwhealming grandure of a forest scene in a photograph, partially due to some of our other senses having an effect on what we feel. The sounds, smell and frame of mind at that time, play a major role in what can move us emotionally and an artist can only try and replicate it.
For these reasons, when we view an artist's work, we will never fully feel what the artist did, and thus never fully appreciate it.
We see images on this site that score very low in a challenge, yet have numerous 10 votes. Each of us is moved in a different way, for a different reason.
|
|
