| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2004 03:36:49 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by wkmen:
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. |
I agree... every photographer needs to seek and find their own style. I, for one, have a style that I want to explore and develop much more. Ironically, it is not reflected much in images I have submitted to DPC and would be illegal in most challenges. But I like it anyway. :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:43:55 PM · #77 |
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. |
But, there's a good chance that understanding another's motivation may help to clarify your own. I have already cited examples of where another's motivational flow has helped me to discover my own. I don't believe you would have reached your level of proficiency without a motivational flow somewhere inside you. The question is, how consistently can you find it, and tap into it?
I believe you're on to something with the "why" aspect, despite it being elusive. For example, the "why" aspect of Webster Pines, after some time and effort, lead to a distilling process which lead me to take this image:
Although I don't view it as my most aesthetically pleasing work, I do believe it is one of the most successful connections of intent to final product I've been able to produce to date. I tapped into my flow directly on this one.
So, perhaps part of this exploration needs to include not only WHY did you take the picture, but also, how consistently does this WHY come to you? That's not exactly the right variable, but I believe it's a path which may produce something of value.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:46:47 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I agree... every photographer needs to seek and find their own style. I, for one, have a style that I want to explore and develop much more. Ironically, it is not reflected much in images I have submitted to DPC and would be illegal in most challenges. But I like it anyway. :) |
Ditto on my submissions. I have found that working on challenges is not my forte. So now I only submit when my activities and style-du-jour coincide, however minutely, with the challenge at hand. I am looking forward to continuation of this process (style-identification), both in these forums and on my own.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:57:00 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
John,
I am curious to know what motivated you to chose this particular image to discus? |
I chose this one because I had my own ideas about why the photographer made the shot. It wasn't one that required me to think really hard about it. I thought it would be a good starting point for an exercise and hoped that others would not have much trouble seeing the motivation in the shot. The next one isn't so easy :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:58:14 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
But, there's a good chance that understanding another's motivation may help to clarify your own. |
This is why I would like to continue with it :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:04:06 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
...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. |
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Preferred subject mode, -genre or signature images, these, for most of us, may remain a matter of selection. There is, IMO, nothing wrong with being a generalist. Even a specialist can profit from exploring areas outside of his paricular focus. Signature images are often deliberately 'picked out' from a collection of assorted images. I speculate that the very process of selecting very particular images to suit a form is instrumental in recognizing and articulating that form.
If I wanted to present signature shots, I would likely weed out thousands of shots I have taken and then present about a dozen of them.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Different photographers, I hope, will have different motivations for doing what they do. Whatever causations are, and this, to me, makes this thread so interesting, without them there would be nothing to make the heart race.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ I recognize two rough catagories of causations: one which afflicts the man or woman from outside him/herself, the other which moves him if he stays inside himself. If he is contained within his nature as he is participant in the larger force, he will be able to look, and his attention through himself will give secrets to share.
An artists problem is to give his work seriousness, a seriousness sufficient to cause the thing he makes to try to take its place alongside the things of nature. This is not easy. Nature works from reverence. Causations of the first catagory, however, remain serendipitous. The muses will dance when they feel like dancing. They may and they may not come to him who has no other connectedness.
[Edit: changed 'connections' to 'connectedness']
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 16:10:32.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:06:28 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
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! |
uh...yup...just what he said.
For awhile seeing the why me threads had me thinking it was time to stop reading the threads. Now I'm looking forward to the next.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:07:29 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The next one isn't so easy :) |
Maybe I'll quit while I'm ahead 2-0
LOL
Great exercise BTW.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:17:35 PM · #84 |
I'm getting a headache. Can we skip to the next exercise? ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:19:58 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
I'm getting a headache. Can we skip to the next exercise? ;-) |
I'll post it shortly. I'm getting ready to leave for the evening. Hopefully there will be some nice discussion on it when I get home.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:20:30 PM · #86 |
I for one am going to go against the grain here and stand up and say I think the majority of comments are really looking for something that probably isn't here.
Generally the photographers on this site go from the rank amateur up wards to a few very good photographers. I would have though the bulk majority are pretty new to photography, and just average ability.
Now, it strikes me that John your looking for something romantic in the way the shot was captured, or in the feelings he had.
I don't doubt this, it may be true, but in my experience 90% of people with a camera will simply shoot something they think 'looks nice'. The reasons people see these things can be anything from a car backfiring, to the very common 'I saw it on a postcard so I went and shot it'.
Thus, my guess would probably be along the lines of, the chap was out walking - he obviously likes photography, so photographers tend to look up, down, left and right for a picture - thought it looked nice so took a photo.
Ruins the romanticism, but believe this is the way most images are (unfortunately) captured.
Or he maybe heard a bird which made him look up :D
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 16:21:27.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:23:11 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Ruins the romanticism, but believe this is the way most images are (unfortunately) captured.
Or he maybe heard a bird which made him look up :D |
There is still the element that he thought it looked nice :) His environment had put him in a mood that made him think this.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:27:57 PM · #88 |
The next photo is going up now.. please continue discussions in the new thread...............
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:29:01 PM · #89 |
| Do you want this one locked, or for people to be able to add to discussion on this photo? |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:29:46 PM · #90 |
| Environment does play a role, otherwise we would not see a huge number of shots of the American flag in a challenge. What's injected in to your brain does try to find a way out somehow :) |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:29:48 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do you want this one locked, or for people to be able to add to discussion on this photo? |
Please lock it... thanks :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:31:20 PM · #92 |
hehehe, some people missing the point. I don't think this is about the muse or the reality of the Why. Haven't you ever played that game where you see someone in a crowd and make up a story about who they are even though you have no idea?
If we stop to look at a picture and wonder what made that person choose to take it, be it a sound, a feeling, the realization of light playing amongst the lines, perhaps as we move out into the world again we will be more cognizant of why we ourselves choose to capture an image or choose to only enjoy the moment. As we become more aware of what motivates us to capture the image, perhaps we will learn a little about ourselves and what we may do to convey that in the image we produce and perhaps we will become better photographers and people in the process.
- I missed an opportunity to create a wonderful photograph a few nights ago. In doing so I had to choose, "Do I run to grab my camera to try and make it back in time, or will I just sit here and enjoy this fleeting image for as long as it may stay and I may enjoy?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:41:28 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
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. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like I said my point is above the considerations you have in topic here. I am not trying to be spoiler but simply presenting a tangent that always follows the evaluations of art work. For example let us look at Mozart. Many have read his detailed letters and even examining his work one can not find any doors into his soul and when we speak of motivation what were they for some of his latest works. Take the last symphonies: except that the muse visited him and he wrote away. The reason I pick Mozart is because he had that ability to pen it down without constant editing as found in Beethoven. The point is that artistic expressions are more in the domain of inspiration which over ride conscious thought and all that is logical. Beethoven questioned to the point that works had to be discarded or never finished. Mozart simply locked on to the flow from within. Ask Mozart, Dylan for the motivation and they will shrug their shoulders.
Keep in mind That I commend your idea to explore these properties because they do have the effect of turning the photographer's mind inward to search. I am only saying that art is more inspirational and while motives exist, the inspirations do not need a focus mind, rather an open mind. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:45:14 PM · #94 |
I've just been reading through some more posts on this thread and think there have been two schools of thoughts coming through. The kind which jonpink just mentions - take a photo because it 'looks nice'. Then the other kind - those who are passionate/artistic about their particular form of creativity. I don't disagree with either of those schools of thought. However, I do believe that creative people will eventually reach more deeply into themselves and beyond in whatever creative activity they enjoy (become passionate about it?) and seek to 'channel' it. Maybe, as has been suggested, it is when the muse takes them - the moment when they become channels. To the creator of whatever piece it is they do (photo, or whatever) it can seem like inspiration reaches them from some higher intelligence. Call it what you will. Could merely be from deeper within their own consciousness as they dig into 'that part' of their brains.
For example, I once wrote the following:
There is soul, in music, in a touch, in a smile,
In a word, in a look, in a child, in a tear,
In a kiss, in, so many things.
In a laugh,
In a thought,
In a flower,
In the sky.
One day I might touch your soul,
It might be a word,
Or a look,
Or a tear,
Or a kiss,
Who knows?
And something inside you might melt
And you will never be the same.
In this instance the simple example I've used is not a 'photo' - I cannot, since my photo skills haven't reached to that level yet. But the words here show how I feel (I, me, myself), yet are also written/created in the hope of 'channeling' that feeling/thought to another.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 08:20:13 PM · #95 |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:35:09 PM · #96 |
I think the whole point in a critique is to get at the reason the photographer took the picture and then to critique it as to whether or not he/she was successful at conveying that motivation and reason.
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. |
|
|
|
|
12/18/2004 05:25:26 AM · #97 |
While it is true that different parts of the brain handle different functions of our thinking, such as the cortex responsible for judgement and linear thinking, and the limbic regions responsible for emotion and fight or flight, there are also parts of the brain called integration centers that are responsible for integrating the differnt functions to create more complex thought patters. For example, the auditory and limbic regions can, when integrated, create a memory about the emotional aspects of a piece of music.
Art and the intellect are by no means seperate entities in the brain. Art may come from an integration of the emotional, intellectual, visual, and previously stored memories in its creation within the artist, as well as, its comprehension in the viewer. The viewer may have to also integrate the different aspects of the viewed art in his/her own brain.
While I think you're right about the serendipitous nature of the creation of a photograph, or art, it's by no means the entire story. Even in Cartier Bresson's style of shooting he most likely had an intellectual understanding of his motivations and inspirations. His genius was probably in being able to integrate eye and hand to capture a fleeting scene.
The muse inspires with both whim and science and it's the artist who integrates both and imparts his/her vision for the audience.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
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. |
|
|
|
|
12/18/2004 08:59:57 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Keep in mind That I commend your idea to explore these properties because they do have the effect of turning the photographer's mind inward to search. I am only saying that art is more inspirational and while motives exist, the inspirations do not need a focus mind, rather an open mind. |
I think it is difficult to generalise that far. Often having to struggle with a set of constraints can help bring out creativity much more than a wide, blank slate of opportunities can. This might be constraints in terms of materials or constraints in terms of area to roam or subject choice even. An interesting DPC example of this would be the 'pencils' challenge - there was much gnashing of teeth and complaining about such a boring subject matter and such a constrainted challenge, yet within those constraints some wonderful creativity was expressed, that would probably never have been considered if the photographers hadn't been 'forced' to struggle with the dull boring theme of a small yellow stick of wood.
I find in my own shooting that when I wander aimlessly like a cloud I tend to spend a whole lot of time wnadering hoping for happy accidents to hit. They very seldom do.
However, if I go out with a guiding concept in mind as an initial motivation, I can start working on creating images almost straight away. I'm hugely more focused, productive and creative. I also typically come back with many more images that are worthwhile and satisfying. Now, this constraint of a concept may well make me overlook other opportunities, but it helps me filter through the over abundance of choice to start actually making pictures. It gets me started and for me at least, that's a big hurdle to get over.
That is the one thing I've learned of most value from dpc - the power of concepts.
Now, don't take this to mean I only shoot for dpchallenge challenges or that I set these personal concepts as restrictively as challenges - but I now always try to have considered a concept to work towards, for any given place that I shoot.
Concepts can be anything - some recent examples that I've used:
Angles, dry, pattern, flow, movement, flat, S,
water, abstract, dust storm, hand, why
The key, for me, is when approaching an opportunity to shoot, to think about the subject matter ahead of time and consider what I want to capture about it - what sort of images do I want to make - then use that concept as a guide to start exploring the compositional opportunities.
I find imposing constraints on myself the most liberating thing I can do creatively.
|
|
