Which is Tougher: To Invent a Picture or to Discover One?

This question arises from an article in Today�s (Sunday) New York

Times entitled; Serendipity All Over Again, Joel Sternfeld Verses

His Successors

 

The writer, Richard B. Woodward asks these questions. �Which is a

tougher assignment for a photographer: to invent a picture or to

discover one? Should you confine yourself to a studio, where you

can more easily control accident and realize the dreams in you

head? Or do you gamble on finding what you didn�t even know you

wanted in the unpredictably rich world around you? Re-creations or

reflexes? Fiction or fact?�

 

As some of you know, many photographers today stage their work.

Cindy Sherman�s series of �Movie Stills�, David Leventhal�s

miniatures, Cregory Crewdson�s elaborate sets. Although the end

result might appear similar to reality (not Levental's), their work

is carefully planed. Unlike Joel Sternfeld or Lee Friedlander who

capture, as Mr. Woodward describes it, serendipity.

 

Pic #1 � Joel Sternfeld - (captured)

 

Pic#2 � Gregory Crewdson - (created)

 

Whadaya think?<div></div>

To me the question is pointless.

That (the question) would amount to: does the guy driving the trash-collecting truck buy art for future appreciation?

 

 

 

Photography is a combination of mental, artistic, and creative processes, and near impossible to 'can' for future use.

 

 

 

If one is at the right place and can capture the 'event' then one part of your question applies. But if you are never out and about, you are, indeed, going to wonder what might have been .... if ?

Gerald,

 

Would you be a little more expansive as I don't understand the following;

 

"That (the question) would amount to: does the guy driving the trash-collecting truck buy art for future appreciation?"

 

"Photography is a combination of mental, artistic, and creative processes, and near impossible to 'can' for future use."

 

I'm sorry I just don't understand the "Trash collecting" comment. And as far as the second comment, isn't all photography for future use?...photo albums, hang on the wall, etc.?

 

Thanks in advance for your reply.

ever hear of copyright laws...?

Grant,

 

The photographers are identified and no money is being made from their display and given that these images are widely distributed on the Internet, this is fair use. Same is true for the quote :>}

Tougher on whom? It was easy enough to discover this one. The performance artist who invented it survived, the bike didn't.<div></div>

I have a problem with your thread: by capturing (discovering) on one side, and creating (inventing) on the other, do you refer to the technique, or to the whole creative process?

 

Where's the difference?

 

If you refer to the technique, than the created image doesn't exist in reality, but looks like it would have been real (the two examples you show, illustrate very well this issue). And I would rather called such images "artificial" instead of "created" (creating exclusively by technical means, means for me just artificial). And the oposite to artificial is "natural", as "reality" might also be virtual (like the mental reality = a reality of symbols).

 

On the contrary, if you refer to the whole creative process, than the image might very well exist naturally as it can be an artificial one (no matter this technical aspect), but the result will always take a distance from the concrete reality (will look surreal or will involve symbols sending to a mental reality, etc., in a word will benefit of a degree of abstraction). And yes, I link the word abstraction to the word creativity.

 

Considering the examples you showed here, I suppose you refer to the techniques, and this dilemma I call "natural vs. artificial" doesn't present too much interest for me. On the contrary, and this is the reason for this comment, I would rise the same question, but referring to the whole creative process.

 

So, my question is: events (= captured, discovered images) or abstracts (= created ones)? And as I previously said, no matter if technically there were used natural or artificial images.

 

BTW, what Gerald called a "trash-collecting truck" isn't in fact a school-buss?

V. 'Escu, I enjoyed reading your post. Could you pose your question again, in a different way? I'm not sure I got all of it.

 

I think they can be equally difficult, and genius does not lie in the difficulty but in something else.

 

If you were to ask me which one I like more, I would say the first by far. There is more irony, culture, history, and etc. Basically the first portrays more information about who we are. The second seems to be cliché and rather tasteless. Seems more about the shock value, and less about light, shadow, shape, line, texture, ideas, etc. Both are equally valid as art, although I prefer one to the other.

I would challenge the basic premise that a picture is either �Invented� or �Discovered�.<p>I�ll start by saying that I�ve rarely staged or invented a subject, but having said that I rarely set out to discover a subject for the sake of it. The vast majority of my personal work starts as an idea (the invented bit), then moves on to finding the subject that effectively communicates the idea (the discovery bit) and then to combining the invented and discovered in the final image.<p>To illustrate this process I�ve upload the �Wood Anemones� image. I�ve long been fascinated by woodland, or to be more accurate the two faces of woodland, beauty and unease. Sometimes walking in woodland is a joyful experience, yet on other occasions it is unsettling. I�ve tried in the past to capture this dichotomy, failed many a time, but think the Wood Anemones image probably comes closest to capturing the feeling. On one hand the viewer can hopefully enjoy the image as a simple �discovered� nature shot and on the other hand I (and possibly the viewer?) can see it as an �invented� concept.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><div></div>

The audience would probably never know if the picture was Invented or DIscovered. Personally, I think discovering is tough, but inventing needs more than just casual shooting (plus luck) also.

<i> this is fair use. </i><p>

 

No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue many time, for example when people who

uploaded photos here found them on other peoples' websites.

First I want to correct a term I previous employed: dilemma(s). This means a binary choice: black or white, nothing between, and this involves lot of choosing difficulties. This is a false problem, because things are not like that: there are not only two choices, but an infinite field, framed only by two poles. Dichotomy would be the write term here.

 

Now, in response to Bradley's request, to reformulate/resume/complete my previous comment:

 

The technical poles would be: natural (captured) images vs. artificial (assembled) images. And the artistic ones are: concrete (event, taken as is) images vs. abstract (modified to get the essentials, distilled, purified) images. Keith's photo here above is a good example of abstract image. Technically it is a natural capture, but artistically is not a concrete one at all.

 

And I think this is all by this criterion of, let say "image morphology". Although, as many criteria, so many dichotomies (ex: appearance vs. authenticity, decorative or postcards vs. sensible images, etc.).

I think it largely depends on the nature of the photographs you intend to take. Suppose you like mountain landscapes. Are you going to go build yourself a mountain? Not likely. Suppose you like babies in butterfly outfits. Are you going to run across one roaming the mall? Not likely.

 

It would also depend in large part on the scheduling available. I can go for a walk with my camera, and if I don't see anything interesting, that's okay. But if a guy is hired for an advertising shoot, he can't just roam the streets hoping inspiration strikes; he's gotta do whatever it takes to come up with the shot he needs.

 

In answer to the question, which is tougher: Many shots are fairly easy one way, and just about impossible the other way, but it varies from shot to shot as to which is which.

i would say it is tougher to create, simply on the basis that if you shoot randomly and continuously for long enough, you'll get a good photo sooner or later.

 

in fact, i almost feel cheap for doing just that.

Oh, Yes!

This all depends upon the scope of your interpretation. Wow Keith! I love this "found" creation. Then you have someone like Cy DeCosse. Flowers/Plt/Pld printing. Ron van Dongen. Again, flowers from his garden and shot as still life. He could very well have left them in his garden and shot them as portraits. Does it matter how he posed them? No. The image is beautiful. Just like fashion images. Real people just set up. Wonderful images. But created in a static setting. Beautiful none the less. Robert ParkeHarrison. Complete fantasy yet tells a story like no one else has before or since. But I challenge you to argue that it isn't wonderful and beautiful. Evoking all kinds of emotions. Capa, Friedlander, Stiechen, Adams, Shelby Lee Adams, ect. Who can challenge the wonderous nature of these creations? I think the question is bogus in it's absurdly simplistic vein. What does it matter how the image was capyured, created, taken, shot, or held captive? Do you like it? Ok. What's the point? Enjoy.

I see this question differently. I don't think there is a correct answer to this. I've long felt

there are two types of photogs; those who make photos - and those who take them.

Although some who have been good at both, ( Robert Doisneau and Sir Cecil Beaton)....

Personally, I'm a "taker". 90% of my pics are found images. It's the way I've always seen

the world. To use Beaton again as an example; while I admire his early fashion pics, I

relate to his later war era reportage much better. It's who I am as a photog and a person.

Aren't you "inventing" every time you put that silly little glass box

(VF)to you eye and try and convey a viewpoint? No matter what a

photographer points a camera at, he will try and skew what he

photographs in the direction of that viewpoint. In

photojournalism, a discipline where emotional impact rules, and

there are often severe time constraints- some of the most well

known pictures are often beautifully composed (or cropped,

realized, whatever) .

To try and show the world in front of you using two dimensional

slices of a moment sounds ludicrous, but therein lies

photographys strength- its limitations are what allow creativity to

happen. And there is virtually no limit to what you can fit within

the boundaries of that tiny frame. The photo below was

"discovered" while I was walking around in a mini snowstorm in

Berlin. I was only there for three days, horrendously jetlagged

and cold and not even vaguely in the humour to photograph but I

figured "You'll kick yourself if you don't at least try to get

something while you're here..." So I walked, and walked, and on

the way back to the hotel (right beside it, in fact) was this lighted

courtyard/walkway. I shot two frames and was pissed off enough

not to give it a second thought. It was one of only three shots

from four rolls in total that I liked. But I did discover it. And I

invented it. Feel free to disagree- just don't call me names.<div></div>

Does the worker in a studio putting in long hours and mortgaging his life to produce a certain shot or look, have a harder time than the worker that spends weeks in far flung places, without steady work, in pursuit of the perfect moment? Debt vs. Mosquitoes; Creative Freedom vs. Artistic Truth. Fantasy vs. Reality. I don't think it's a fair comparison. I work from life, I'd be pretty unhappy working in a studio because I am after the moment, not the slick shot. But that's me. I've risked my safety for a shot many times, but never my house.

Seems like a lot of people don't quite get where I'm coming from, but I've always felt that it was more work to create a photo. Though both can be valid if they communicate.

As a current art student studying photography, I feel a pressure (that is steadily increasing) to produce altered and staged shots of reality, instead of simply capturing a real moment. Gregory Crewdson is certainly the huge influence of the moment amongst students and up and comers, and sadly enough, the style of the great F64 photographers is frowned upon. Ansel Adams and Weston are universally hated by the vast majority of my classmates, and photojournalism is treated as a four letter word. Images of nature have seemingly become as laughable as pet portraits. If an image hasn't been altered, staged, digitally enhanced, or printed ridiculously huge; then it's criticized for lacking pizazz and creativity. I have done staged shots and studio work, but prefer going out into the world to find moments and subject matter that fit with my ideas for projects. I find it disconcerting that this manner of creating photos seems to be losing credibility in the art world, at least within the realm of art school education.

Oh, and by the way, I was informed today during a critique/lecture with some famous photographers (who shall remain nameless) that framing and matting prints is out, way to Pottery Barnish.

 

-depressed art student