is there any art in point and shoot?

<p>When I talk about conception/realization, I don't mean that a photographer has, in his mind, the image that he is after before he leaves home. The "pre" in my preconception is quite brief. I will go to a place, or look at a subject with an open mind. I want to let the pictures "find me".</p>

<p>What happens is that something catches my attention -- and it is at that point that I have my preconception. It might be something as simple as the light, or as complicated as a deeply revealing portrait. Between that "aha!" and then, later (however long or short a time it takes) the "yes!" where I click the shutter is where I am doing my conceptualizing/realizing. Zeroing in, purifying, making most clear .. whatever you like to call it.</p>

<p>I think most (all?) serious photographers work in this way. Adams went to Yosemite, Weston went to Point Lobos -- without preconception until they saw something they wanted to "do". From <i>that</i> point on, though, they were looking (with their brain) for the perfect view to maximize whatever it was they (now) had preconceived. ( I have to use vague words like "whatever" because this is, after all, a visual medium. If I could verbalize it perfectly, I would be a poet not a photographer.)</p>

<p>I think the hunter/shopper analogies are about that first part -- the setting out from home for somewhere with your camara to get ("hunt for") pictures. However, those analogies don't work for the second part -- the actual making of the picture. Take a very simple example. Put a flower on a table, set up your camera to be looking down at it and then, with your eye to the viewfinder, reach out and move the flower about.</p>

<p><i>Every single movement, however slight, changes the picture; changes the meaning/effect of the picture.</i></p>

<p>With the flower on its side, concealing its center, you might get an image of purity and innocence. With it splayed flat/frontal and wide open, you might get something quite sexual and decadent. And then there would be a thousand other postures for the flower that meant more or less or nothing at all. The photographer will find something -- either innocence, decandence or something entirely different -- and then he will work and work and work -- using his brain -- to zero in on the arrangement that is most loudly or purely expressive of that meaning/sensation/expression that he has -- in his brain.</p>

<p>A shopper, on the other hand, can only get one thing. If I go to the store to buy a box of crackers, it's always going to be a box of crackers. I can't move it around a bit and turn it into a box of marshmallows. The hunter can't fiddle with his game to turn the same critter from a deer into a bear.</p>

<p>I don't agree with Sontag even though she is almost always a very interesting read. I believe she makes wonderful observations but then draws conclusions that are not supported by those observations. Because you keep referencing her and Fred is now working his way through the book, I did skim over <i>On Photography</i> last night (I haven't read it in many years; my copy is copyright 1977). I don't see anywhere that she says that photography is not subjective. I do see where she repeatedly says that it <i>can be</i> mechanical, but I do not see where she says that it <i>is only/always</i> mechanical. Beyond that, I will leave Sontag to Fred.</p>

<p>Steve, I am enjoying this discussion. It has made me think out things that I had not clearly worked out before. Whether or not we can come to any sort of agreement, I have enjoyed being pushed to examine the issues.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

Julie: there's no reason why we have to agree.

 

...another point you make:

 

"Every single movement, however slight, changes the picture; changes the meaning/effect of the picture."

 

Does the image then become your image?

I would answer no. Its your composition, yes. But the image itself (not the composition)has not been conceptually altered. We realize that it is a flower, to use your example, because of recognition or past experience with flowers. But the flower and the light waves reflecting from it that form the image have been created without your brain. They have been created by nature not by your brain addressing the concept of the flower as opposed to the aspect of the flower. When you move the camera here and there are you not shopping for an acceptable image? Are you not hunting for an acceptable image. In painting a flower, I may arrange the flower and move about, however, the image of the flower must be processed conceptually.

 

Finally to expound on my previous thread. (The point above, where I ask you to go out and shoot 50 photographs of an idea I have and then find one I like and sign it as my own to illustrate the shopping analogy)Let me refine it: We both decide, to use your example, to photograph a flower. We will do it together. I have the idea in mind as to how I want the image to appear. You do much of the work and you move the camera about, play with the exposure etc., and you then take 50 shots of the flower, you click the shutter but with me right at your side. I pick out the shot that represents my original idea. I sign it and hang it in a gallery as my own. ... Is it?

 

If not, whose art is it? Is there any inherent characteristic in that image of the flower that one could point to that makes it mine or yours?

 

 

Now, we are two painters and we undergo the same procedure as outlined above. I have the idea to paint a flower and we set everything up and so on and you do the painting. I sign the painting as mine. Is it mine?

 

I would say most certainly not.

If the image matches my desired conception, then how it is made seems entirely irrelevant, to me. The fact that I, with my camera, have a quick and nearly perfect way of rendering what I have chosen is not a fault, it's ... wonderful!

 

In your second hypothetical, I would say that if we arranged the flower together, and you found it perfect and I also found it to be perfect, we would make two copies. Assuming both of us did, independently realize and choose the image without being influenced by the attitude of the other (unlikely if we are both there at the same time. If we are there at separate times, we would not have made the same picture, I am quite sure).

 

The fact that the painters can not do this (setting aside those counterfeiters who can), is, to my mind a weakness of painting, not a fault of photography. If the resulting two paintings are not identical then either the two conceptions were not identical, or the execution was flawed. Probably both.

 

I don't feel that it as a bad thing that the camera presents to the brain a perfectly clear pre-image which can be chosen and then executed exactly. To say that painting's fuzziness of conceptualization and execution make it more subjective is to equate subjectivity with difficulty almost for its own sake.

 

-Julie

The art is in the concept and the edit (Just ask David Hockney) and the valuable commodity is found in the presentation. Choice of camera has no relevance in fine art, just as no one asks what brush was used. Look at Willie Nelson's guitar.<p><a href="http://bethlilly.com/mythsoftrees.html">Here</a> is someone ( Beth Lilly ) making art with a point and shoot that has a defective lens, and every sample of the camera has the same defect. To make a picture without the built-in flash firing, she has to quickly take a second one before the flash can recycle. <p>And <a href="http://www.oracleatwifi.com/">here</a> is art she is making with a cell phone camera that <i>you</i> can participate in. She prints the trees at 30in long dim and the cell phone triptychs at 20 in long dim (and they look surprisingly good) on an epson 4800, Hahnemuhle papers. <p>To the un-trained casual observer, she looks like either a "point and shoot" photographer or some crazy chick with a cell phone. She is quite serious and quite capable and recently sold five 30 inch prints of the "Trees..." series for an admirable chunk of cash...<p>I saw an exhibit many years ago by <a href="http://www.guyhepner.com/content/content.php?loadartistid=48">Albert Watson</a> in which were displayed images made with point and shoot, disposable, medium format, 35mm, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras... t

Dan,

 

Wow, there's been a lot of discussion here. I admit I haven't read half of it (sorry). I'll add my thoughts to this din of commentary...

 

By P&S, I assume you're not actually referring to your type of camera, but rather the approach taken to photography. Obviously, as Tom points out, some very serious artwork can be done with a very primitive or even dysfunctional camera, and even the finest pro camera/lens can become a P&S in the hands of someone who uses it as such. Rather, I presume you're referring to the pre-planning of images, prior to planning and executing them, versus the "finding" of images by walking about in the world, observing, and shooting what you find interesting. In my opinion, neither is necessarily better or more legitimate than the other. Allow me to draw an analogy, using comedy writers:

 

In the crafting of a late-night monologue, the writers don't set out to "craft" their jokes de novo. Rather, their comedy is based on current events. Things happen in the world, and they view these events through their unique and delightfully twisted comedic filter. They ponder these events, and they craft their comedic commentary, otherwise known as Leno's monologue. That's an art form, and most of us lack that unique talent to do it. They are giving us part of themselves, letting us view the world briefly through their eyes, and letting us laugh at what otherwise might drive us to swilling Maalox.

 

And then there are other writers who, for instance, craft a screen play for a comedy from the ground up, using wholely invented characters and situations. These are no better or worse comic writers than the Leno staff. They just do a different thing.

 

See the analogy? Some photographers create images wholely in their minds and then plan out how to put them to graphic form. Others are keen observers of the world and have a special "filter" that allows them to see the essence of a scene -- and then to extract that essence using the photographic skills they posess. Neither is more or less of an artist. They just do a different thing.

 

And of course with regard to the P&S camera, some of my favorite images were captured with an old Olympus 1.3 Mpx camera, from back in the day mere mortals couldn't afford a DSLR. I even have one image from a disposable that I grabbed from a friend. The camera doesn't make the photographer. It's just a tool -- sometimes a better one, and sometimes a worse one.

 

And with regard to technique, I do both -- and combinations inbetween. Probably most of my work is done opportunistically: I wander, I see, I shoot, I edit. For instance...

 

<img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phquailatsunsetthumb.jpg">

 

Somewhat less often, I observe things that interest me, and I pre-plan how I want to capture them, for instance, this shed and tree:

 

<img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phtwofriendsthumb.jpg">

 

More recently, there is a power plant shot with an environmental message that I've planned, but I have to wait for the right sky. I've taken numerous test shots and know which lens, and camera angle that I need, once conditions are right. It's a really hard shot, and probably very few people will understand or appreciate it!

 

Less often still, I have something I want to communicate, and I have a vague idea where I'll find the image, but I have to go and search it out (opportunistically). For instance:

 

<img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phsedonacedarthumb.jpg">

 

Sometimes I have something I want to communicate, and it is planned out from the ground up. For instance:

 

<img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phdandelionthumb.jpg">

 

This shot isn't particularly profound. I was just trying to capture some of the magic of the dandelion that most adults seem to have forgotten.

 

It seems the images of mine that people like the best are the ones that are the least planned -- just things I see during my wanderings. Perhaps that's my best stuff, but it means the least to me. ;-)

 

 

Oops,

 

Opportunistic:

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phquailatsunsetthumb.jpg

 

Planned shot of opportunistically encountered subject:

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phtwofriendsthumb.jpg

 

Plan that relies on opportunistic encounters:

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phsedonacedarthumb.jpg

 

Pre-planned de novo:

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phdandelionthumb.jpg

Julie: your comment:

"The fact that I, with my camera, have a quick and nearly perfect way of rendering what I have chosen is not a fault,"

 

I never indicated that this is a fault. I have compared the process to painting and other art forms and have stated that the act of producing a photograph deals almost exclusively with the aspect of an image as opposed to the concept of an image in most photographic images. Because of this photography is a much less subjective art form than is, for example, painting. I stated as well that much of photography is not at all subjective.

 

You also state:

"If we are there at separate times,[photographing a flower] we would not have made the same picture, I am quite sure)."

 

What do you mean by the word "same". I suggest that the images of the flower are the same when considering the "aspect" of the image. You see a flower in both images, and though the composition, exposure etc. may be different, the flower image is identical (from the same unaltered light waves reflecting from the flower). I , of course, also say that the concept of the flower within the photograph is absent as the recorded image bypassed the brain.

 

You state:

"The fact that the painters can not do this (setting aside those counterfeiters who can), is, to my mind a weakness of painting, not a fault of photography:

 

Your word "weakness" is meaningless in relation to the above discussion. The two "art" forms are not in competition within my argument. I merely point out the differences in how the two "art" forms address and render a subject. At the same time, I think that stating that painting suffers a weakness as it cannot render an exact quick image is like stating that a foible of painting is its inability to swing like jazz.

The points I make in all of my previous argument(in previous threads) stem from my concern, as a photographer, of the lack of conceptual rendering in the production of photographic images, and the abatement of subjectivity in the production of the final image when compared to painting as an example. I am troubled, (or interested is maybe a better word)with the fact that taking a photograph with a camera is so very unidiosyncratic and that as photographers, most of us automatically assume that we are artists.

Julie: Another point I would like to make is a response to your last sentence. You state:

 

"To say that painting's fuzziness of conceptualization and execution make it more subjective is to equate subjectivity with difficulty almost for its own sake."

 

I do not understand this point. Conceptualize, according to my Collins dictionary on my desk here at work, is to "form a concept out of observations" I would say that the act of conceptualizing cannot be "fuzzy". Your idea, in a painting may not be clear, but the act of conceptualizing a "thing" either occurs or doesn't. The process is one that happens in the brain; an idea that changes the image that you see from one that is based solely on experience. Photography is a process that deals with aspect not concept.

 

To go on, painting, or dealing with images conceptually need not be difficult at all. For example, a five year old will most likely not find it an overwhelming process to draw a flower. We see this all the time. The viewer most certainly will recognize the image as being a flower. The drawing is conceptual in that it is a drawing, albeit a "primitive" rendering, but a conceptual process nonetheless.

<p>Steve-</p>

<p>In your thought exercise, you asked me whose picture it would be if one photographer had the concept and the other executed it. I am saying that two people would not have the same concept. I would arrange the flower differently from you. But perhaps the flower would be obviously effective/powerful in some particular configuration. In that case we might share the same conception (assuming we are not talking to each other and therefore promoting our own conception -- thus my commment about being in the room at separate times, not together). If that happened, and we made the same images, as I said, we would make two copies. It is possible (if unlikely) for two people to make the same photograph of a subject if they are in the same place at the same time -- <i>because</i> the camera affords such a perfect pre-image and execution is exact (to that pre-image). However, again, to repeat and emphasize, the choice, the conception, the "yes", is personal and therefore depends on what happens in the brain of each photographer prior to making the exposure.</p>

<p>You then ask if painters could do the same. I don't believe they could share identical conceptions <i>because</i> the pre-image in ones imagination is not explicit (you don't like the word "fuzzy" so I will try "not explicit"). And/or if in the extremely unlikely event that the two painters shared the identical conception, they almost certainly would not be able to execute perfect matches <i>because</i> of the diffulty in matching what one wishes to what one achieves in painting. I believe owership (whose painting is it?) belongs to the one who conceived it (not the one who executed it) -- but to verify this, both painters would have to be able to produce the same picture (otherwise how can the one who has not done it prove that that is what he had in his pre-conception? If claiming conception after the fact proves authorship, then I can claim authorship to half the paintings in the world today.) It <i>can</i> be done with very simple, non-figurative (symbolic) subjects such as <a href="http://www.wbur.org/photogallery/arts_fourdecades/default.asp?counter=3">John Baldessari's "Tips..."</a> painting which he conceived of and had a Mexican sign painter execute.</p>

<p>Lastly, I strongly disagree with your statement, "Photography is a process that deals with aspect not concept" but we've been over this repeatedly already, so I won't get into it again.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

The last statement of your paragraph is a reference to my statement re. concept. That is my argument Julie, nothing else really. So, with all due respect to you, I would like another attempt.

I think my point is clear, however, the fact that most photographers take issue with this whole idea is due to, what Sontag has referred to as, "the mistaken belief that a photographer is an artis". I would not go that far but I would say there is some veracity to her statement in that:

 

Preconceiving your shot before you photograph is not the final image. The final image is the final image. In photography, we need a camera(usually)to produce an image. A camera is "blind". It cannot deal with "concept" It has no brain. It is a device used as a middle step in transferring your idea to paper. The concept cannot be transferred from your brain to a camera because the image recorded is produced by light waves that exist externally to you and which do not become altered by concept. You are required to "shop" in order to satisfy some element of your original concept. The light waves can be altered by adjustments relating to the "aspect" of the image.(usually to a minor degree in most photography)

 

Your statement:

"It is possible (if unlikely) for two people to make the same photograph of a subject if they are in the same place at the same time -- because the camera affords such a perfect pre-image and execution is exact (to that pre-image)."

 

A camera does not, cannot, "afford a free image" Only your brain does that.The camera will then only "see" what it sees according to physical laws no matter how much you try to make it "think" about the image.

 

Finally: Your comment: "In that case we might share the same conception (assuming we are not talking to each other and therefore promoting our own conception"

 

I believe that there is no way that two people can have the same conception. How is it possible that two people with the infinitely different brain wiring, emotions, experience could produce the same concept of an image? It is a futile discussion anyways, I think, as there is no possible way to tell. The fact that no two paintings are alike (those that are not copies)is a good indicator that concept is idiosyncratic. The same image "aspect" however can be produced very easily; identically, with a camera, by two different photographers.

"The concept cannot be transferred from your brain to a camera because the image recorded is produced by light waves that exist externally to you and which do not become altered by concept."

 

The "concept" is what I am seeing in the viewfinder. I do not press the shutter release until it is precisely right. The camera executes my choice AFTER I have already achieved realization of my concept. It is there in the viewfinder and I, not the camera, have decided that it is as I wish it to be. If the camera does not give me what I want, I do not accept it.

 

[Please note: I never said "affords a free image" as you quote me.]

 

Amazingly, I actually agree with your last paragraph. That is why two people will not make the same photograph. They will find -- respond to, realize, conceptualize -- something different out of what is before them.

 

Both photographer and painter are creating "AN image". One composition on a piece of paper. The painter must "get" that single image from somewhere (either by looking at what is in front of him, just as the photographer does, or by recalling things seen in the past and building on or out of that). The photographer "gets" his by watching the viewfinder. Both "settle on" a particular conception -- with their brain. Just as the painter works the composition in his mind (developing, arranging, deciding) until he is satisfied, the photographer moves himself, or moves the subject matter (developing, arranging, deciding) until he is satisfied. Same thing. Conceiving of one image (either in imagination or via the viewfinder) in response to what they are dealing with, working to achieve it and THEN, using whatever means (camera or paint) to make it happen.

 

-Julie

Julie: you state:[Please note: I never said "affords a free image" as you quote me.]

 

But you did, here:(read above) April 2 3:34 p.m.:

 

 

It is possible (if unlikely) for two people to make the same photograph of a subject if they are in the same place at the same time -- because the camera affords such a perfect pre-image and execution is exact (to that pre-image).

Julie: I am sorry. I have misquoted you. And twice at that! You said "pre-image" very clearly. My point though is that a camera cannot form a pre-image. A person forms a pre-image.

I should elaborate. The image of which you refer(through the viewfinder) is not the photographic image. Nor is it the conceptual "image" within your mind.

Up to and including the moment of exposure, the photographer is working in an undeniably subjective way. By his choice of technical approach, by the selection of the subject matter...and by his decision as to the exact cinematic instant of exposure, he is blending the variables of interpretation into an emotional whole. - W. Eugene Smith, Time-Life - Photographers on Photography

<p>"The image of which you refer(through the viewfinder) is not the photographic image. Nor is it the conceptual "image" within your mind." You'll have to defend that one. It sure looks like what I'm seeing in my mind and what I get in the print.</p>

 

<p>I want to go back to your statement with which I agreed, "I believe that there is no way that two people can have the same conception. How is it possible that two people with the infinitely different brain wiring, emotions, experience could produce the same concept of an image?" and make what I think is a critical qualifier to my agreement with it.</p>

<p>The statement is true <i>before</i> the image is made; when receiving the "raw", uninterpreted scene.</p>

<p>However, once the picture has been made it <i>is</i> possible that others will "have the same conception." That is the whole point in making images -- by whatever means.</p>

<p>Depending on the skills of the painter, writer, musician, or photographer, the audience/viewers will (hopefully) to a greater or lesser degree, if they are able (socially, culturally, intellectually, educationally, etc.) and willing, "get" the image's conceptual intent -- i.e. "have the same conception" as the person who made the thing.</p>

 

<p>Don E,

"... blending the variables of interpretation into an emotional whole ..." -- beautiful. Much more gracefully put than my way of saying it.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

Julie: Your statement:

 

"Depending on the skills of the painter, writer, musician, or photographer, the audience/viewers will (hopefully) to a greater or lesser degree, if they are able (socially, culturally, intellectually, educationally, etc.) and willing, "get" the image's conceptual intent -- i.e. "have the same conception" as the person who made the thing."

 

What do you mean when you say "get" in your statement re. "get the images conceptual intent." and again , what is meant by your saying: "i.e. "have the same conception""

 

This is an interesting argument but strays from the original argument re. the camera being able to deal with concept. If I correctly understand what you are intending to say, you are implying that another person, upon viewing your produced image, may understand the idea or message that may be apparent in a piece of art. But I would strongly disagree that two people can as you say "have the same conception" in any set of circumstances. As I stated earlier this argument is futile as there is no method of comparing experience and there are no means to relate experience to another other than "external cues", to quote Wittgenstein. This was discussed in his example of relating "pain" through the use of external cues such as a "grimace". Conceptualization, is the process of forming a concept out of data and experience. One can experience, but cannot "share" the experience. You feel pain but cannot "share" or "give" the pain. You can, however relate external cues as in a grimace.

One can often compose greatly with a $150 point & shoot camera, and no less greatly then

if one used an $8,000 to of the line DSLR. The $8,000 DSLR will not do one single thing to

improve one's compositional skills. Nothing.

 

However, the better camera might provide better image quality then the lessor, because

maybe the lessor is noisier, or is less sharp, or provides other lessor qualities that might

distract the viewer from the viewing experience.

 

There are some types of fine art comps that are improved with the better camera, but

often this is not the case. Sometimes one finds that the IQ flaws introduced by the lessor

camera actually improve the fine art composition.

 

One can make a great composition that suffers from low image quality. Conversely, one

can make a bad composition, showing perfect image quality.

 

If I had to choose between the two, I'll take better composition over IQ anytime ;-)

Well, it sounds as though "that" method of shooting is to rely on serendipitous moments, I

suppose. It happens. One gets lucky....it happens when I don't even pre-visualize what I'm

doing and just knee-jerk the shutter button, and to my surprise, I get a keep, and maybe (he

gasps) ART! Perhaps not the best way to get to art, but it can be done, even as it is rare.

But. But, but but... perhaps...

 

The more $$$ camera will inspire you to more capture those compositions. The cheaper, noisier camera may inhibit your image capturing because you assume the large print will look like crap coming from it.

 

Maybe? (wow a Lovell sighting! ;)

All of the pictures in Stephen Shore's "American Surfaces" was done with a Rollei 35 "point and shoot"... Good enough for me!

 

Also many of William Eggleston's pix are shot using an Olympus Stylus epic 35mm. Yep, sock that one in too.