| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2006 08:43:08 AM · #1 |
Although I've always been interested in photography, I've never been a particularly visual person. As a musician, it has always been the soul and intelligence of music that moved me, not the performers' fashion statements. The public's fickle appreciation of music always baffled me when I was a musician.
Now as a photographer, I completely understand why many bands are famous... it has very little to do with the music. The general public appreciate music on a far more visual level than most people realise.
But I feel this way about people as well... I've always thought of myself as somebody who sees below the surface.
Notice as well how the media needs pictures to make the news come alive. News doesn't seem to be real unless there are particularly striking photos for people to relate to. This also has the consequence of over-simplifying most situations for people.
It's all Hollywood culture... the slick, superficial and good-looking.
Although I love photography, I find it ironic that I believe it actually takes away our ability to see reality as it actually is. Photography is about illusion and fantasy. It's gloss. It's simple.
I had a conversation with a friend recently where I claimed to never judge a book by it's cover (I was talking literally!). He was surprised... 'but you're a photographer!!'. 'Exactly!', I said.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:46:33 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Photography is about illusion and fantasy. It's gloss. It's simple. |
It doesn't have to be any of these things (but then your score will be low...).
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:47:45 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Photography is about illusion and fantasy. It's gloss. It's simple. |
It doesn't have to be any of these things (but then your score will be low...). |
Give me an example...
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:50:20 AM · #4 |
street photography?
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Give me an example... |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:51:53 AM · #5 |
| i think it would be more accurate to say PEOPLE are shallow ... photography is just a means of communication. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:56:59 AM · #6 |
I don't know if I'm picking up on posthumous' point, but consider these two:
 
Not much gloss there, and no illusion or fantasy that jumps out at me, just gritty reality. Both fantastic photos, that any pro would be happy to have taken for national publications. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:24:39 AM · #7 |
I'm not saying those aren't good photos, in fact they're great. But their power lies in their simplicity. Complex people are reduced to relatively simple archetypes which plays with the power of our minds to assume loads about them. Fantasy. The gritty wise old man and the blind wizened woman from a simpler yet wiser culture. The question to ask is why did these resonate with you? There are archetypes here that you connect with. What have you actually learnt about the world from these photos? Do you think you know these people now?
They are interesting and there is an emotional quality to them which feels like we can empathise with these characters. But it is illusion.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:24:58 AM · #8 |
Hmmm... I don't necessarily think it is shallowness in photography. Photography is what you use it to be. At any rate, photography, like any other art form, at its most basic, is there to 'entertain' so to speak.
You have a choice between a war documentary and Animal House?
You have a choice between a catchy top 40 and opera?
You have a choice between a pretty waterfall landscape and a war torn city?
Essentially, people want to be surrounded by pretty, happy things, momentos, images. How many photographers snap funerals? How many snap weddings?
Its not the shallowness of people that gives them a desire to look at pretty things, it is the desire to escape everyday ordinary lives. Why have a picture of the guy down the street when you can have a picture of a supermodel? Which would put more of a smile on your face? Its not shallowness but a desire for happiness, a desire for something that makes you happy. Death, age, disease, decay, don't make people happy. Unless they are news reporters.;)
I've blathered on but I hope I've made sense and put a different spin on it... |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:28:06 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
I don't know if I'm picking up on posthumous' point, but consider these two:
Not much gloss there, and no illusion or fantasy that jumps out at me, just gritty reality. Both fantastic photos, that any pro would be happy to have taken for national publications. |
the illusion is in the first impression that one gets when looking at those pictures.
On librodo's, my finding out that she was a street tobacco seller kind of demystified that picture for me. Sometimes I really don't want to know the inspiration behind the lyrics, I just want the song to mean what it meant to me when I heard it.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:29:01 AM · #10 |
My point is more that photography can only ever be shallow... by exploring the world on a visual basis, you're ignoring all your other senses. Also, I think that the visual sense in itself is superficial and shallow. I believe that music can express far more than a photo ever could. Or a book.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:29:26 AM · #11 |
Photography can certainly be deep, but it requires something of both the photographer and the viewer. It takes skill on the part of the photographer to create images that have the potentiality of deep meaning, but these deep meanings are usually invisible to the casual viewer.
I've been following the Zen thread. If you see the world through Zen eyes, you will be able to make images that express Zen feeling. But if the viewer does not also have Zen eyes, it will look like just another boring still life.
It amazes me that some people think they can take Zen photographs just by learning a few simple rules about what a Zen photograph is.
It is like jazz--you have to listen to it with jazz ears. If you know nothing about jazz, it all sounds pretty much the same. The more you listen, the deeper your appreciation of the individual styles of the musicians.
--DanW |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:32:50 AM · #12 |
I've also been following the Zen thread. Great photos. I think Zen photos can be reasonably deep, but not as deep as say listening to 1/2 hour of a Zen bamboo flute. Or reading Zen poetry.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:44:09 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I've also been following the Zen thread. Great photos. I think Zen photos can be reasonably deep, but not as deep as say listening to 1/2 hour of a Zen bamboo flute. Or reading Zen poetry. |
Surely Zen - and your personal perception of it - it what Zen is, regardless of the media, sense or channel through which you experience it?
I am as good a musician as I am photographer but music (sound), pictures (sight), smells, tactile engagement (touch), taste and the inert so-called sixth sense can all take me - solo or in concert - to an inner place which is where my focus is.
To say that a Zen experience is "stronger" or better" through one channel is to miss the point. Zen is and it is down to the individual to open themselves to the experience.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:45:32 AM · #14 |
Was that photo of Kim Phuc by Nick Ut shallow?
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:46:55 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
My point is more that photography can only ever be shallow... by exploring the world on a visual basis, you're ignoring all your other senses. Also, I think that the visual sense in itself is superficial and shallow. I believe that music can express far more than a photo ever could. Or a book. |
What about scratch-n-sniff photos? |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:49:25 AM · #16 |
Music is a 4 minute experience. Photography is a 30 second experience (both are average amounts of time spent - and my best guesses). Watch a 4 minute movie or listen to a 30 second musical piece. Or even one single note.
You're not comparing apples and oranges but you are comparing a spoon of apple sauce to the entire apple. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:55:56 AM · #17 |
I think for both music and photography it is what resonates with you at a particular point in time. I often hear music that meant so much to me in my youth - give a little sigh and think what sort of person was I then - why did that music connect with me ? Often when you listen to the lyics you have a re think and wonder what it was that made that connection. I often think that about Beatles music. Why was it so universally popular ? I think it was because they sang about real people and exposed themselves - something people related to. They would be the first ones to admit they weren't totally original - they just made that connection to people and what was going on in their lives. I think it is the same for a lot (not all) of photography. An image touches people at a particular point in time. Some shots stand the test of time. Others we admire now and years later think what did I see in it. I particularly like Steve McCurrys work, but when you look back on his work I'm sure a lot of people would love to get hold of it and photoshop the hell out of it. But it touches me and stirs up feelings and emotions that maybe others dont share.
Also we live in a saturated information society. No society in the history of mankind has had access to so much information. Are we any brighter ? No. Because we cannot absorb it. Hence we look for the quick emotional or information reponse. This does allow photograhers to hijack our responses but it also allows ethical photograhers to make a valid point.
This is probably where a site like this is so important. We see images that make us laugh, cry, sigh - or even other people we want to help along the way. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:01:51 AM · #18 |
Good points Bobster, and I think I agree with you. What strikes me about those photos (and many like them) is the stories implied. Without even knowing the title of the photo, or reading any photographer's comments, the pictures instantly draw me in and make me wonder, who is it, what brought them to this point? What's going on? Etc. You label that as fantasy, which is OK with me. Archetypes? Maybe. In my own vocabulary, those are photos which spark my imagination and make me think. Not "eye candy" in the traditional sense that we've come to relate to here on DPC, but well-made photos that imply a story and emotional content. Hard to do, but we all know one when we see it.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I'm not saying those aren't good photos, in fact they're great. But their power lies in their simplicity. Complex people are reduced to relatively simple archetypes which plays with the power of our minds to assume loads about them. Fantasy. The gritty wise old man and the blind wizened woman from a simpler yet wiser culture. The question to ask is why did these resonate with you? There are archetypes here that you connect with. What have you actually learnt about the world from these photos? Do you think you know these people now?
They are interesting and there is an emotional quality to them which feels like we can empathise with these characters. But it is illusion. |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:06:16 AM · #19 |
Here is where I'd seriously disagree with you :-)
I'm very much an appreciater of both music and photography, and I would never place one on a higher level of expression than the other. Both can be intensely powerful, and have the ability to move us deeply on many levels. This is very much a taste thing, I believe. Some people would say the same about theater or cinema.
For my money, there is something powerful about the ability of a still image, a static representation of a moment, to capture something visceral and eternal. It's ALL about what the viewer brings to the table. Shallow? Not for me.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
My point is more that photography can only ever be shallow... by exploring the world on a visual basis, you're ignoring all your other senses. Also, I think that the visual sense in itself is superficial and shallow. I believe that music can express far more than a photo ever could. Or a book. |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:09:59 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
My point is more that photography can only ever be shallow... by exploring the world on a visual basis, you're ignoring all your other senses. Also, I think that the visual sense in itself is superficial and shallow. I believe that music can express far more than a photo ever could. Or a book. |
And this is where I dissagree, photography at its greatest pulls a subjective memory from its viewer and creates the sensation of more than JUST the visual. In your own photography I see it - the difference between a good gig shot and one that is incredible is being able to "hear" what is playing on that stage right at that moment. An delicate female artist, tears streaming down her face with scary big dudes thrashing violently on guitars surrounding her does more than just make a visually interesting photo - it evokes memory of angelic voice soaring over a mahem of electrical strings. I CAN hear it, and thats what makes the photo great.
 <--- Like this. Sweaty bodies, heavy music. I have a direct response to this becuase I can feel what this many people, this close is like.
If I can FEEL the scene, the wind on my face, smell of baby skin, the taste of lemon - than the essence was captured.
THAT right there is what Art is all about, isnt it? Having the talent to create another sensation using only one medium?
:) |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:17:38 AM · #21 |
my examples won't be as convincing as greatandsmall's suggestion, but I'll try!
Here's one of my own. It is a photograph and yet it is poorly lit, disturbing. It does not convey a simple message, despite the melodramatic pose of the model. One wonders what she is reacting to and how it relates to the image behind her. Regardless of its merit, it is a counterexample:
Another of mine, most of this picture is a mess, from which you may be able to pick out what could be a humanoid skeleton, or might just be garbage:
and then there are the complex images of others:
//www.nimbustier.net/photos/2003/10/drapeau-lingerie.jpg
//thomashawk.com/hello/209/1017/1024/Diane%20Arbus,%20Blaze%20Starr%20in%20her%20living%20room,%20July%201964.jpg
//www.czechslovakphotos.com/html/stanko8.html
All of the above defy stereotypes, archetypes and simple explanations. I more interested in refining your point than disputing it. Certainly there IS a very strong tendency toward simplicity, or "shallowness", in photography, and all of my examples actually seem to resist being viewed. It would be interesting to explore why this is so. As a poet, I know that the most "deep" (to use your terminology) of all the arts is writing. The ears demand a certain shallowness, just as the eyes do. They crave repetition and rhythm.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:21:40 AM · #22 |
I cannot pin it down but a still image seems to have more depth then a video to me. A video should be a deeper experience because it captures the motion, sense of timing and sound but to me it's just not as interesting as a still image that draws you into it. I think it's the work on the part of the viewer that makes it more interesting rather than letting it just strem past. Most still images just float past because they have nothing to draw in the viewer.
Music is the same, most just floats past to me but some draws me in. I don't see the difference because to me most music is shallow as well as most pics - sometimes both draw you in and have more interest.
Does the viewer make a wrong conclusion from the image - sure but we do that in real life as well. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:23:39 AM · #23 |
agreed ... and very well put
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Here is where I'd seriously disagree with you :-)
I'm very much an appreciater of both music and photography, and I would never place one on a higher level of expression than the other. Both can be intensely powerful, and have the ability to move us deeply on many levels. This is very much a taste thing, I believe. Some people would say the same about theater or cinema.
For my money, there is something powerful about the ability of a still image, a static representation of a moment, to capture something visceral and eternal. It's ALL about what the viewer brings to the table. Shallow? Not for me.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
My point is more that photography can only ever be shallow... by exploring the world on a visual basis, you're ignoring all your other senses. Also, I think that the visual sense in itself is superficial and shallow. I believe that music can express far more than a photo ever could. Or a book. |
|
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:24:55 AM · #24 |
| do you feel the same regarding paintings, drawings, etc? |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:27:07 AM · #25 |
Look at the work of the WPA photographers from the depression era, Dorothea Lange, Lewis Hine etc. Take a look at photographs of war, disaters (natural and manmade) The image communicates so much more about the human condition than music or words ever could.
If you only spend 30 seconds looking at a photo, then you are shortchanging yourself.
I guess that I'm the opposite when it comes to music, I find music is enjoyable to listen to, but has no special meaning or "resonance" with me. It's just sound. Maybe I haven't found the right music. So much music seems "canned" and reminds me of those little plastic slices of processed cheese. Yeah, it's cheese, but barely. |
|
