Technical Perfection vs. Emotion

OK, so let me see if I understand this. First, all I read was that people are upset because there are not enough, if any, comments being left on their postings -- only ratings. NOW, the comments being received are not what people want. I think you may be asking too much. Seriously, if someone writes more than "Bravo!" "great job!" "the best ever" what would you expect besides technical comments. Oh yes, on the very rare occasion a photo will grab you emotionally and blow you away and you've got all kinds of interpretive comment to make but honestly that is EXTREMELY rare on this web site. For every 30 photos of flowers, trees, buildings and ROCKS there might be one come along that is "intended" to illicite an emotional response and 90% of the time the photograph fails in its aim as is evidenced by the ratings it receives (and when I say ratings I mean a plethora of 4/4's for yet another terribly average baby pic or artsy nude or "fill in the blank"). And I suppose the photographer COULD say, "Well, the average viewer just doesn't get it." Well guess what, if you're the only one that "gets it" it doesn't WORK. I write many comments and yes, they are often about technical aspects but those are (in my opinion) well founded. Someone shoots a landscape that tilts about 4 degrees to the right. Is the proper response to give them a 3 on asthetics and leave no comment for the sake of not leaving a tech. comment? I don't think so, even though that is precisely what the vast majority of viewers do.

 

I'm all for the more meaningful, emotional, visceral photographs. I wish this was what made up the majority of shots on P-net. And technique is not absolutely the most important thing. But think about it. If your photographs are successful, you ARE using good technique whether you want to admit it or not.

Tony, my thoughts were not a commentary on the type of comments brought forth on p.net. It wasn't meant to get into the usual "comments suck", "comments are great", "rating system sucks" discussion that everything seems to deteriorate too here. I didn't say that technical comments are bad. I just said that they are abundant here as apposed to "this image makes me feel (fill in the blank).

 

It was merely a comment on whether the quest for technical proficiency inhibits the emotion growth and development of artists. Many here (myself included) are purely in the learning stage.

 

To clarify. I am a guitar player. Have been since I was 12. I was a studio player for years. When I was young all I did was run scales. I was as technical as you could get and fast as they come. When I decided I wanted to do studio stuff I couldn't get a gig. I was technically proficient but I had no soul. There was no emotion. The quest to be technically perfect, although achieved (sort of, LOL), wasn't really what it was all about.

 

Hope I stated my point a little better... Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. Really great stuff and it is helping me immensely...

David B:

 

Concerning your statement:

 

"...I would also argue that his [Richard Estes'] paintings are not devoid of emotion. Emotion doesn't necessarily have to come from subject matter chosen. In this case I would argue that there is plenty of emotion, but it comes from the artist's vision - how he sees his subject matter - rather than what his subject matter is..."

 

Your point is well taken, although I confess I cannot personally

empathize with the artist's (Richard Estes) emotional connection to the scenes that he depicts.

 

I cam across an interesting quote by the writer and art critic Adam Gopnik concerning the work of the artist Wayne Thiebaud. Thiebaud is a realist painter in the "eccentric empirical tradition". Gopnik describes Thiebaud as "an artist of charm, comedy, precise observation, and a pensive sense of longing ". A "pensive sense of longing" would certainly qualify as an emotional attitude towards

the subject matter that the artist might choose to depict. That said, I would challenge that critic (or any interested viewer) to explain how that characterization of his style could applicable to the following work:

 

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/T/thiebaud/thiebaud_back.jpg.html

 

Note that there is an "Image Viewer" link on that page that will pop up a much larger version of the painting.

Dave,

 

My comments really had less to do with your original post as those that had evolved from it later. As usual the topic seems to have strayed. I agree with the essence of what you are saying, I just feel like when you rate a photo on the low end it is hard to say "3/3, it just doesn't MEAN anything" or "doesn't evoke emotion". I don't think that is fair to the photographer. On the other hand, if I see a photo that DOES create that emotional stir, I'll rate it high regardless of technique most of the time.

 

But to get back to your original question on the technical fixations draining emotion I think you're right, it does. But once a person has the technique down that emotion should become the driving force.

 

And there are times when a technical suggestion can actually improve the emotional impact of a photo. I critiqued a photo not long ago of a guy doing stunts on a bicycle and my suggestion was to crop the large empty space above the rider's head, that it would give him more altitude in relation to the rest of the photo and increase the impact. A tech issue but with an emotional purpose.

 

Let me ask you a question. You said when you gave a presentation in the gallery not one person made any comment ont eh technical aspects of the photos, not on highlights or cropping or anything. Do you really think the general public is going to walk into ANY gallery and tell the artist what THEY would have done to make it better? Doubtful. They have more respect than that.

 

I agree, it is a struggle. I have no photos posted and one of the reasons is while I like my photos I am having a hard time deciding if they are worth taking someone else's time to look at them. I don't feel like I have much direction, they don't necessarily say anything. I guess I'm searching for a voice beyond the technique.

I think just about aeverytghing I can think of has been covered.

 

On way I like to think about it is that my pictures are pretty much for my own enjoyment. Someone else may have already taken the pic, but I certainly don't have their film, or even rights to use the image!

I come here to learn. I started taking pictures in August of this year when I got a camera for my birthday and have only shot 17 rolls of film. I like to see the technical information on a photo so I can learn more about photography. Thru this discussion I've realized that it's the emotional aspect of a photo that first draws me to it, and then I want to know how the photographer did it. I made a comment on a photo once (a bit negative perhaps) on how I would improve it. I didn't like the picture and I don't understand what the photographer was trying to do. Perhaps if the photographers intentions and the technical aspects where provided up front, we could all get more out of this site. I know I would anyway.

Perhaps a sidebar to this discussion is in the area of techniques used to simulate lack of technique. In modern advertising, the use of grainy, poorly exposed, shot from the him images are used to convey certain emotions and manipulate the viewer. The madison avenue image is a technical masterpiece, a combination of carefully calculated elements designed to achieve a single effect on the viewer, and they are ALWAYS successful. That's why we buy all that crap.

 

There are also trends such as including the whole negative with all the frame info and jagged edges, as well as the decision to leave the extraneous smudges of emulsion when printing on handmade paper.

 

These are sort of anti-techniques, employed to create or emphasize the authenticity of an image.

 

I find that I have become hardened to the alure of technique and anti-technique. I am glad that I know the camera well enough that I can get a reliable negative the way a jazz musician gets a tune out of his horn, without really having to concentrate. I want the presence of technique to be as transparent as I can; if someone looks at an image and marvels at the technique I think it is at the expense of exploring the image. But that feeling only really applies when I am talking about my shots.

Excellent thread and shockingly civil!!!! I'm also at a loss to come up with an answer or even a question!! I think Jeff Spirer had the right idea when he talked about this being the nature of online posting and critiquing. Most postings are going to be physical in nature and then they are open to technical advice because they rely on technical aspects. Those that are meant to carry more or a different meaning probably will not 'speak' to everyone, or at least not in the same way. These are the hardest to critique IMO, especially since a simple crop won't make any difference.

Ward:

 

Same here. I seem to be repulsed equally at all-too-perfect photography and 'grunge' work. One particularly irritating technique is the use of the P/C lens to throw the focus into a narrow strip. It looks so inane...

 

The photographers and art directors have to become cleverer. Particularly irritating in commercials is the use of hand-held cameras with 'fake shake' and 'white blinks' that are supposed to resemble home movies.

Technique should be sufficient to the subject. I respect, admire - and even aspire - to Adams' and Weston's technical standards, but that technique is appropriate to a certain type of subject. The photojournalist cannot, and does not need, to achieve such technical perfection.

Even a fairly flat representation of a processed leaf made with an experimental technique can stir emotions.

 

While technical "perfection" helps to make good photos.

No one can predict apriori how an image turns out (to some extent)and

(more so) will have what kind of an impact on the viewer.

 

However, any self criticism and using that as the drive to achieve

many different things could/would/does always bring in the

rewards. Keep searching and up the good work Dave!

I don't understand why people separate the two.. There are plenty of technically proficient photographers who can create a highly emotional photograph. People who claim that technicality is not important are just too lazy to do so. And it's quite ironic the same people who claim that technicality is not important are the same people who are shooting SLR. Isn't an SLR too technical? Because in order to eliminate all technical aspects of photography, you're gonna have to be shooting with a P&S camera!!!

 

I personally beleive that people are willing to excuse what they don't want to have to learn. Sure you may know aperture, shutter, ISO, and the concepts of focus. YES, THOSE ARE TECHNICALs!!! Yet you're not willing to learn how to calibrate your own film, modify contrast through development, etc.

 

Think of it this way. What if you have someone who is absolutely new to photography and it was your job to teach them how to photograph. And you begin by teaching this person, aperture, shutter, focus, etc. And this person says "TECHNICALS BLAH BLAH BLAH, I shoot for emotions!". You would obviously feel offended since you know what you already know, therefore you feel it is important for the beginner to understand those concepts to make a basic image.

 

SAME THING for the technical photographer. They are the same person you are that is carring that mentality towards the NEW photographer. They know something that you may not, and feel that it is a vital role in making great images. Just like you are feeling towards that new person rejecting the concepts of even BASIC photography.

 

Hope you can relate.

 

Andy

A couple of wonderfully insightful images conveying how valuable technique can be to bring out the emotion that is inherent in an image. The image by Ansel Adams of Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox bantering that was part of a roll of film he dropped on the floor of his darkroom and stepped on ruining most of the images. Yet through his mastery of "technique", he was able to make a very emotional image from it. And his "Clearing Winter Storm". Without the mastery of technique this image would be as flat and uninteresting as the light in which it was taken. His "Trailer Park Children" from the FSA days. Without his mastery of understanding light and exposure, then development and printing, this wonderfully emotional print would have become just a passing moment in time. How about The famous Hindenburg image with it's flames shooting into the sky? The photographer/printer who porocessed and printed this historic image had enourmous difficulty determining how to bring out the best in this image because of the incredible contrast range he knew exisited in it. Yet through good technique, he was able to pull a silk purse from the sows ear. Shelby Lee Adams images from his work in Appalachia. Without technique, these images would be none existent. Technique in and of itself is nothing with out a good idea or happenstance. But without good technique, many a great image is lost. Both go hand in hand. As I am so often times guilty of, I offer Jeff's images. All wonderful images. But the guy has good "technique". Marry the two in your work, and watch the emotions pour forth.

Q1: Are the aspects of <i>technical perfection</i> and <i>emotional content</i> of a photograph mutually exclusive?

<p>

My answer: I don't believe so!

<p><br>

Q2: Do visitors of gallery exhibitions normally offer advice to the artist in question?

<p>

My answer: I don't really know, but I guess they don't: I would expect them to either like something, or not to like it, but never to offer advice on what the artist <i>should</i> have done...<br>

As someone else said earlier, this site is set up for critique; whereas (I believe) a conventional gallery presentation of art (including photography) is more of a "take it or leave it" kind of thing. I don't pretent to be an expert though - these are just <i>my</i> opinions, nothing more.

<i>"Photography is not 'art'."</i>

<p>

I disagree; art is whatever is deemed to be art...<br>

Therefore, photography <i>can</i> be, but <i>need not always</i> be, art.

<p>

I'm not sure if Hans was directing his comment at me or not - if he was, no offense was taken! However, just in case he was referring to me, I will redraft the second part of my previous post, confining myself to the specific topic of photography (see below - all references to 'art' or 'artists' have been replaced with 'photography' and 'photographer').

<p>

-------------------------------

<p>

Q2: Do visitors of gallery exhibitions normally offer advice to the <u>photographer</u> in question?

<p>

My answer: I don't really know, but I guess they don't: I would expect them to either like something, or not to like it, but never to offer advice on what the <u>photographer</u> <i>should</i> have done...<br>

As someone else said earlier, this site is set up for critique; whereas (I believe) a conventional gallery presentation of <u>photography</u> is more of a "take it or leave it" kind of thing. I don't pretent to be an expert though - these are just <i>my</i> opinions, nothing more.

"Could the fixation on technical "stuffs" create a loss of emotion in our work? Yeah, a highlight shouldn't be blown, but does the general public really care if the image is really strong? A stray cloud in a blue sky. Should it be removed or who cares?"

 

My answer: first, know what you do. Then, do what you like.