Photography, Thought, and Spontaneity

Lately, I've noticed several photographers stressing spontaneity and I, too, usually appreciate a photograph that is at least to an extent

imbued with spontaneity. Even the most staged scene, if there is some sense of spontaneity, seems to rise to another level.

 

However, at the same time, I have read several what I consider silly comments putting down thinking and thought in art and photography. It

seems that some people who consider themselves creative have a resistance to actually using thinking creatively. They see creativity and

thought in some sort of opposition to each other. In the critiques and in the forums, thought is often denigrated or at least talked about

suspiciously.

 

Intentionality and thought should not be underrated in the creative process. Sure, overthinking and overanalyzing can be a distraction from

gut emotion and feeling. But the other side of the coin can also be true. Mindless spontaneity and thoughtless approaches to photos can

produce haphazard and uninteresting work. It's all well and good to say "I just shoot with my gut" and think that's somehow the most

creative approach to a photo, but sometimes all it does is look like a mindless photo, unimportant, uninviting, and unappealing,

spontaneous though it may be.

 

I'm curious to hear others' ideas on what kind of balance (or whether there is a balance) they reach between planning and thinking about

their work on the one hand and shooting from the hip, being spontaneous, and just allowing their gut to guide them on the other.

 

One thing I feel quite sure of is that there's a difference between BEING spontaneous and CAPTURING or CONVEYING spontaneity. I

think some of the most planned and thought out photos allow just enough spontaneity to creep in (maybe just in the glance of an eye) and

are brilliant. I also think some photos taken very spontaneously show no spark of any kind. As contradictory as it may sound, one can

actually think about how to be spontaneous and about how to express it.

Luck (including the good fortune to presented with sponteneity worth artfully recording) favors the prepared. Preparation requires thoughtful work. An easy, capable state of preparedness that doesn't <i>get in the way</i> of spontaneous moments only comes from doing that work over a longer period of time. At some point, the level of effort involved in handling light, composition, and the use of the camera feels like less of a chore, and can be confused by a casual observer as work unencumbered by purposeful thought. I see this in every discipline, not just photography. The freshmen, if you will, mistake the easy grace of an experienced person for a sort of native, instinctual approach that's available to anyone sufficiently un-obsessed with the particulars of the work involved.

<br><br>

Alas, that naive take on things, combined with the no-consequences opportunity to shoot hundreds of frames until lightning happens to strike... that just reinforces that classic (and usually youthful) misapprehension. Sort of like the old saw about even a stopped clock being right twice a day.

<br><br>

I can feel my own opportunity to be and to capture sponteneity improve in direct proportion to how much <i>very</i> non-spontaneous work I put into things. I'm no master, but I can recognize the truth: doing this right is <i>not</i> easy, but if you've invested enough of yourself in it, someone who'd love to avoid all of that work can convince themselves that what they're seeing is you doing something effortless. This is not peculiar to photography. I see it everything from writing software to training dogs.

<br><br>

Someone who <i>successfully</i> shoots from the hip is either occasionally lucky, or has been working at it a long time. Someone who can't tell the difference between those two things will often draw the wrong conclusions about where that easy grace comes from and what it represents.

I agree with "One thing I feel quite sure of is that there's a difference between BEING spontaneous and CAPTURING

or CONVEYING spontaneity."

 

I have been mulling over starting a thread on the same subject -- from another angle: 'image quality and

accident' was the working title. I'd recalled a thread with several casual portraits of children which were as

perfect as perfect can be. My first reaction was "wow", but on consideration thought they looked like manniquins

or hyper-real paintings. Their technical perfection seemed to defeat their humanity...motionless things, frozen

things, are dead things...as if the eyes never could blink, the mouth never move.

 

I thought about some criticisms of HCB's Paris photos I've read here: the lack of sharpness, the low contrast etc

-- criticism from the perspective of technical perfection. But those photos are spontaneous, full of life. They

contain the nuance, not only of the moment, but the moment before and the moment after the 'capture'.

 

So, I'd say a photo that conveys spontaneity has to have captured more than what the eye can see, communicates

heart-to-heart, and is a sum more than the technical components of the capture.

Entirely different situations.

 

Spontaneity (coupled to a prepared mind - that is, experience is a useful in unconscious back-up) is for street shots, for moving people and

changing expressions, for fast-changing situations. Accidental shots and luck can be quite useful as well.

 

Creative planned shooting applies a different part of the mind, or right side of the brain, where the shot is consciously "made" by

the photographer, applying notions of composition, lighting, staging and other considered elements of the final image.

 

"In the critiques and in the forums, thought is often denigrated or at least talked about suspiciously."

 

What you are reading in such forums is very poor criticism, to say the least. Perhaps induced in part by the concepts of the

"Automatiste" art movement (Montreal, 1940s) or similar movements.

Some "street" photographers may be spontaneous but that doesn't mean they will capture the spontaneity (or liveness) of their subjects. It seems some studio photographers should be able to capture it in their subjects, too.

 

There may be a bit of intellectual and aesthetic effort made by non-studio/location photographers on occasion.

Fred

 

"Luck (including the good fortune to presented with spontaneity worth artfully recording) favors the prepared."

 

I think that luck is only one( for the prepared...;-)) component of many. Intention, thought, planing , spontaneity , knowledge ( art history, technical ability), experience, gut feeling, is a mix of them while creating. There is no balanced weight of them all at once imo, and it depends on the circumstances.Street shot is different from a studio one. Photojournalism, is different from a staged one. All of them are important to the artist's intention, way of thinking, and quality of result.( skills)

 

Evaluation is not that simple in the realm of critique, It reminds me an example from the medical profession, that I have experienced, go to 2-3 physicians for a problem evaluation , many times you will get 2-3 different ideas and treatments, art is not a precise science( medicine as well). Art work that will touch your feelings,evoke your thoughts, can say nothing to another observer of the same art work .We talked of it before, it depends of what you bring with you when evaluating.. So where is the border? levels? Who is the last authority that will decide if a work of art has thoughts behind, spontaneity, technical skills ?.... You will say museums, and professional galleries? To an extent you will be right, but photographic sites are neither. ( sorry for extending a bit my answer, but I think it is relevant to your topic.)

I think worry about "spontaneity" in other photographers' work indicates a visual/psychological handicap on the part of the observer.

 

Thought-out and styled miracles can be as significant as "spontaneous" miracles. Much of Irving Penn's work is carefully arranged, static, and few photographers have done anything comparably significant.

 

I just bought a fine used Edward Weston Nudes (Aperture 1977). Few would call that work spontaneous-looking, but hardly any photographers produce images as significant.

 

Much that we favor as "spontaneous" was inevitable, considering the thousands of frames some of us shoot, and much of our (mine included) aesthetic has been shaped to fit what we produce.

The OP hasn't defined 'spontaneous' ("CAPTURING or CONVEYING spontaneity"), so I'm working from my own

understanding which is the moment in which a 'before' and an 'after' are implied.

 

Take a simple subject: people walking on a street. Walking is controlled falling forward. Throughout the cycle

of stepping, the body takes on different geometries or poses or positions as captured in a 'still'. Some of them

will appear frozen, as if the subject were in a catatonic trance holding an awkward position for who knows how

long, some will be plain dull, but others will imply the previous instant and the next following. It is the last

that I refer to as having spontanaity or 'liveness'. I haven't been in a photography studio since the mid-1970s,

but I do not see why this wouldn't apply there, too.

Matt-- Thanks for the insights. I hadn't framed it that way for myself . . . that spontaneity is kind of there waiting for the

prepared. I also think you're right that people mistake familiarity and ease with tools for lack of purposefulness. Very

clear.

 

"I can feel my own opportunity to be and to capture sponteneity improve in direct proportion to how much very non-

spontaneous work I put into things."

 

That's a great statement and I think it captures a lot! Yours is a really helpful perspective.

 

Don-- I agree about "more than the eye can see." It's all about finding a good balance, I think, between spontaneity (life)

and technique, of course different balances in different photos and for different photographers. I think there's probably a difference

between spontaneity and accident, which I explain just below. That may further help suggest what I mean by spontaneity. Great point,

by the

way,

about the moment before and the moment after. Often the

moments before and after, just like peripheral vision, play a key role.

 

Arthur-- I don't think they are "entirely" different situations although clearly there are differences. I do many planned

shots, portraits, but often find that an element of spontaneity brings the portrait alive. I'm not talking accident here, like

the plant falls on my subject's head and I capture that and it's a brilliant and surprised expression. I'm talking about the

spontaneity inherent in catching just the right glint in the eye, just the right moment when it appears that the subject was

in the middle of a thought, was alive, etc. As Don said, something that calls forth humanity. Of course, other portraits may want not

to appear spontaneous in any way. I've also seen much very intentional street shooting that is quite effective.

 

Pnina-- I wasn't thinking along the lines of evaluation and critique. Here, I was interested in what goes into our own

shooting, not so much our judgments of others. As for the physicians, it's also true that one prescribed treatment will heal you and

one may kill you. A photograph may well evoke different feelings and thoughts in different viewers but that doesn't mean our

own individual work can't take a stand. I often find myself responding to a sense of commitment in my own and others' work. One can

allow that the viewer may respond in many ways, but that shouldn't necessarily stop a photographer from taking a stand.

I think it may be part of developing a voice. It's hard because, if one tries to take a stand, attempts to make a

commitment in a photograph, and other people don't get it or don't see it that way, then the photographer might have to

admit they failed. I more often see "open to interpretation" used as an excuse for lack of commitment and execution than as

a meaningful aesthetic observation.

Very interesting post and discussion.

 

In shooting people (as on the street) I personally like to allow the person(s) to create the spontaneity, in which case it is

the photographer's observation and judgement of framing and when to press the shutter release that come into play.

Such actions can be spontaneous (as apparently they were for H-CB). Pretty well every other type of photography requires thought and

approaches of a different kind. Spontaneity in those cases comes perhaps before the image itself, such as "what if I

added that element to the view" or "hey, let's try instead that framing or composition to see what happens". Even though the

prepared mind is exercising its intent (the photographer's considered approach), there is room for spontaneity as well.

 

Some photos that suggest spontaneity are indeed planned. (1) Iwo Jimo flag raising; (2) The couple kissing in front of

the Paris City Hall (Doisneau); (3) the well-known case where Karsh, during a portrait session, suddenly uttered

something like excuse me, sir, and yanked Churchill's cigar from his mouth, to achieve a spontaneous expression from

the old warrior, or (4) his dressing Kruschev as a Russian bear (a spontaneous act on the photographer's part, but not

necessarily a spontaneous photograph (although the Soviet leader was well-known for spontaneity at times).

Fred,

 

I think a photographer, at least the experienced one that developed a personal voice and skills is taking a stand when he is pushing the shutter , post process his work, and upload it to the public. And still , even though his personal/individual work takes a stand. It is his stand and not necessarily the viewers . It is always a two ways road.

 

Arthur

 

I think that you have enhanced my point that spontaneity can be planed and vice versa. I think that when we size a situation that touches us or planing one, our reflex to push the shutter a priory in a special moment has a spontaneity component in it, We can enhance that component later on, in post processing if we feel it needs it.

Arthur, sorry about the typo of your name, mistakes can not be corrected in the forums...

"I think a photographer . . . is taking a stand when he is pushing the shutter , post process his work, and upload it to the

public."

 

I don't. I think that photographer is as likely to be just pushing the shutter, post processing the work so it looks good,

and uploading it to the public for congratulations.

 

Taking a stand comes with intention, not just actions. And taking a stand often requires standing by it and NOT

necessarily being thrilled when anyone interprets it any way they want.

 

The photographer's stand doesn't have to be the same as the viewer's stand. But there's a lot to be said for a

photographer taking a stand, communicating it effectively, and having the viewer get it whether through understanding or

more viscerally and emotionally. Much art has a great deal of intention behind it and if that is lost to the whim of any and

every viewer's interpretation, it waters down much of art's greatness and achievement.

You wrote "Taking a stand comes with intention, not just actions".

 

I wrote " I think that luck is only one( for the prepared...;-)) component of many. INTENTION, thought, planing , spontaneity , knowledge ( art history, technical ability), experience, gut feeling, is a mix of them while creating.

 

In this we agree.

There is a lack of understanding on this thread about how many of the great street photographers work/worked. It's not about wandering around on the street and spontaneously shooting whatever happens to be there. It's almost always the result of planning on locations, returning to the same spot over and over to know what one will have the opportunity to shoot, watching the light to find a way to make an interesting photo. There is this "idea" that street photographers are people who have managed to randomly find something happening that turns into a great shot, but it's just not true for the most part.

 

I'd also take issue with Fred's most recent post here. There is a strong case to be made for interpretation that changes with time, geography, and audience, but the art still is effective for the viewer. The best example is what we now call "art" but was really just functional tools. Look at most exhibits of ancient tools. A closer example is religious music being used strictly for entertainment, or even spiritual gratification that has no relationship to the original intent. While I find "intention" interesting in art, and sometimes enlightening, I also know I appreciate things I can't comprehend at all, or that weren't expected to be seen by me as something to look at.

Jeff--

 

I think your second paragraph above is an important addition to what I've said and I agree with you, so thanks for the

addition and clarification.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that I've seen too many lazy, unintentional, unprepared, and unfocused photographers

use "viewer interpretation" as an excuse for not taking a stand and not really communicating anything or even really

conveying emotion. (Just because you, yourself, felt emotion at the time of shooting does not mean you've passed that

on in your photograph -- not you personally, of course).

 

Many PN photographers are operating within a viewing audience

of enough similar culture and historic background that their use of imagery as a communicative as well as more visceral

expression should be understood and felt in somewhat of a similar way as they intended it, if indeed they intended it any

way at all. Yet they readily accept all and even nonsensical interpretations of their work as a sign that they must be a

creative artist and genius because each photograph or work of art is supposedly supposed to generate all and every

interpretation imaginable. While art is flexible, to say the least, the minute art or every particular work of art becomes

"everything and anything" the viewer wants it to be, art is in danger of becoming nothing. As I said, I think "art" is used too often as

an excuse for getting away with crap. At the same time, I understand the problems inherent in trying to limit it. I'm not

sure there's a good or correct answer, as much as an ongoing discussion.

 

With a lot of good art, I think interpretation is unnecessary or at least secondary. Impact is far more important in many cases. So, if I've

reached someone with a photo and if the imagery sticks with them, that's gratifying and I don't particularly care what their "interpretation"

is. But some art is meant to put forth a message or take a stand. If that is misread by someone in your community who should be capable

of "getting it," then it's possible the artist or photographer has simply missed the mark.

Jeff

 

"It's almost always the result of planning on locations, returning to the same spot over and over to know what one will have the opportunity to shoot, watching the light to find a way to make an interesting photo"

 

 

I agree with you , but it is not only in street photography. I work with dance and theatre groups, I see every performance at least twice, 3-4 times as well, I check the lights, my location point, for better results....my camera setting etc.

 

So I think it is the intention and thought of certain photographers to creates the measures and really do a meaningful and expessive work.

 

Good art will catch, Van Gogh is a good example. he sold one photo in his lifetime, but his later history is well known.

The reason I brought up street photography is that is was specifically referenced as a "spontaneous" activity, which is a nice myth but not much more. In fact, most great photography has a certain amount of thought and set up in it, and some has a fair amount of spontaneity. They are not polar opposites in photography.

" With a lot of good art, I think interpretation is unnecessary or at least secondary. Impact is far more important in many

cases. So, if I've reached someone with a photo and if the imagery sticks with them, that's gratifying and I don't particularly

care what their "interpretation" is ".

 

Seems reasonable, although I think interpretation and impact in a work of art ( or in any given state ) are 2 sides of the same

coin. Somewhat like Krishnamurti' s ' The observer is the observed '.

The fact is that there is only so much we can control. We can light a set, fix ones makeup and clothes just so, or wait on a busy street corner for something interesting to happen. However, fate often intervenes and the aware photographer will learn to recognize and embrace these unforseen chance occurrences. Sometimes they will add an element to the picture that will make it work on a whole different level. Other times it will destroy the intent. The important thing is to simply accept that things happen and to work with what you have.

 

Last year I took a quick and dirty roll of a friend of mine at her house. She owns a chiwawa and I suggested a shot of her holding Choo-Choo. As she stood in her back yard and I focused my RZ I kept my eye on the dog. I knew Brenda would be dutifully smiling and looking at the camera but I wanted something from the dog to make the picture sing. I didn't quite know what I wanted and it would have been pointless anyways even if I did since there's only so much you can expect from a dog in such a situation. So there I stood watching when suddenly Choo-Choo stopped moving, placed his head on Brendas chest as she craddled him in her arms and looked up at her. I had Brenda in the frame waist up so all of the small dog was in the picture. I knew at that instant the picture presented itself and I released the shutter. The resulting picture came out so well that not only did other members of her family offer to hire me for portraits but so did others who saw the 16x20 print I made for Brenda.

 

So the point is that as mentioned above it not only pays to be prepared, but you will know instinctively when to trip the shutter.

I agree with everything Jeff Spirer has written in this thread.

To me, spontaneity works like a prepared improvisation, which agrees with the saying that "a photo is made, not

taken".

 

Now I recall Szarkowski's remarks that in "the decisive moment", Cartier-Bresson is not referring to a dramatic

climax but a visual climax.

 

A visual climax has to be MADE by elements of design, even at a spontaneous moment of this POW! on the street.

Spontaneity is a very funny word in a photographical context and one that I would like solely to reserve for what are

considered real snaps.

 

There is a very fine balance in getting a good, worthwhile photo that, in your words provides an impact on the viewer.

Some may have had an extensive formal training in photography and have a rather technical approach in their way of

working while others may work more from a sensitive level. The truth is that when one gets in the way of the other

you're likely to end up with a photo that doesn't work while when there is balance between the two you've got at least

the fundamental basis to get a good photo.

 

Some analogy's where used in this thread so I'll give you another one. It's obvious Phelps in winning his 8 gold

medals has a tremendous amount of talent but that wouldn't have gotten him very far if he hadn't trained extremely

hard to get where he is now, at the top of Mount Olymp as it were. The same applies to this here and that alone

prohibits the use of the word spontaneity.

 

Some may have the talent to get there but it takes a lot of conscious effort and perseverance to develop that. The

example Jeff has used is spot-on therefore. Good photography doesn't come from a random way of working but as

Matt said: luck comes to the prepared. It's much more a craft that has to be mastered than an art although under the

right circumstances one doesn't have to exclude the other.

Spontaneity can describe the situation in which a photo is taken <u>or</u> the appearance of the final

image.<p>The problem with spontaneous situations is capturing them with adequate technical and compositional

quality - this is where both luck and the skill / craft of photography comes in "The more I practice the luckier

I get".<p>

 

The spontaneous appearance of a photo is mostly real <i>i.e.</i> it was really a spontaneous situation but

careful setting up, involvement of the subject, composition and editing can result in a convincingly

spontaneous-looking image from a more or less unspontaneous situation - but this is difficult because most of us

are quite good at recognising the real thing (like spotting a genuine or phony smile). In general I think

spontaneity greatly adds to the emotional impact of a shot, which is why we try to achieve it.<p>

 

For myself, many of my photos are taken in spontaneous situations and I rely on habit to get the exposure etc.

and intuitive composition of the frame <u>but</u> they are also, to an extent, planned because I have been

carrying around a kind of "proto-image" in my head for some time before the opportunity to capture it presents

itself. So this is a way in which, as Pnina says "Luck favors the prepared."<p>

 

The question of intention is another whole discussion but IMHO an important factor, often overlooked, is that

there are conscious components <u>and unconscious ones</u> which may only be apparent to someone else. Meanings

apparently created by viewers could be due to them connecting with the subconscious elements in the composition.

The mystery of artistic richness or impact of a picture is probably the totality of all these emotional/abstract,

conscious/unconscious connections.

Jonathan-, Thanks for emphasizing what I think is an important point and one of the things I was trying to say from the beginning,

that spontaneity in the shooting and the appearance of spontaneity in the final image are related but not necessarily as

directly correlated as we think.

 

Ton, If you want to reserve spontaneity for only snaps, then I think you will come up with

certain kinds of art photographs and that's fine. But I think some of us, certainly me, are trying to imbue even our

thoughtful and prepared photos with elements of spontaneity. I think it can be done and I think it can be done well. And I

think it can be very effective at reaching a viewer and at conveying the reality of emotion and situation.

 

I think talent and training is a different discussion. One can have talent and training and lack spontaneity. Talent is

something you're born with. Training is something you develop. The ability to impart a sense of spontaneity to a

photograph or artwork is something that can be developed but it's also something that just happens. Developing the ability is

not as much like technical training as it is a matter of letting go and being there, being open to recognizing and, probably

most important, being able to anticipate. I have noticed, from the time I first started shooting people, even on the street

(and I'm sure you experience this as well, Ton), that it's uncanny how I can sometimes anticipate when the best shot will

be and that often comes to fruition. Some visual cues and something in my gut just tells me when the right expression is

about to appear or the right gesture is forthcoming. That's spontaneity, and it can be as present in a seated portrait as in

a crowded street.