With which mind are we looking at Photography?

<p >I will try to write down, what I mean with this question, forgive me if I fail again, but, if I do not try fearing the many fails that is yet to come on this journey, the result of it would give much more empirical meaning to word, making it looks like a monster that destroy when the reality of it leads to a learning process that has no end to mere mortals, that walk on the face of this goodly frame the earth.</p>

<p >We all have some kind of rules, standards for doing, looking, thinking etc, and my doubts are if these standards are our own or it is because someone told us that it so. If the rules had told us that a good photography of a landscape the horizon must be on 50/50 how would us think about the one who do it not so, or if on a portrait the focus must be on the nose? Would it give less importance to the eyes? Making us love more people with beautiful nose. And if we become crazy enough to follow this topic, would we not influence others to think the same? What then about the beautifulness of the eyes? Would become less?</p>

<p >“For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” Hamlet</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What we have learned from schools, is reflecting on our lives, on our work, etc are we being our selves when we make the photography or we are making the pictures that the standards have told us to make? Given them more importance than our wills and feelings, or our wills and feeling is no long ours anymore? </p>

<p >“Science tells us what we can know, but what we</p>

<p >Can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.” Bertrand Russell</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Is perhaps the beautifulness of a shoe more important than the feet’s beautifulness? Or is closing more important than the body? Ok we all need them, but the reality of importance remains, how many times we have used the standards to judged others , what about then a photography of a landscape on 50/50? Throw away the pictures and never more look to the horizon on 50/50? We all get a pain on the neck.</p>

<p >To make this topic a mirror’s life, I have more questions than answers. And the utopia of having all of the answers can make us even more “stupid” or less intelligent, “”to let us a choice.</p>

<p >Maybe you are thinking why this crazy unknown friend, (just to give a chance to dream that the antonymous of the word is possible) has started such question? </p>

<p >The reason is, that I have found myself many times a slave of standards , (I have tried to make the standards my slave but I have failed) , and caring about what others will think, like or dislike my poor work, then I have realized that I was (“am” It was necessary , too much pressure) drawing with my ego, if it is mine… instead of drawing with light, but for the sake of friendship, I will assume that perhaps I am the only one making such mistake. But is it a mistake?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2305385"><em>Joao Pereira de Lacerda Filho</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 29, 2010; 12:45 p.m.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The reason is, that I have found myself many times a slave of standards , (I have tried to make the standards my slave but I have failed) , and caring about what others will think, like or dislike my poor work, then I have realized that I was (“am” It was necessary , too much pressure) drawing with my ego, if it is mine… instead of drawing with light, but for the sake of friendship, I will assume that perhaps I am the only one making such mistake. But is it a mistake?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joao,<br>

I do what I enjoy in life. If that makes others happy, that's good.<br>

If it makes others unhappy or judgmental, that is too bad.<br>

But I do what I enjoy, knowing I will make myself, and some other people, happy .<br>

Try pleasing yourself and the reults will be that you will be happy as well as some other people.<br>

Someone will always be unhappy with your work no matter what you do to please them.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Joao,</p>

 

<p>William’s answer is the only one that truly matters.</p>

 

<p>But for a more direct answer to your question, aesthetics are partly a matter of fashion (such as

hem lines that cycle up and down) and of some sort of innate appreciation of certain fundamental

forms. Psychologists have studied the latter and learned that there is a significant correlation

between people’s perception of something as being pleasing and certain mathematical

properties, such as symmetry and congruence with the Fibonacci series.</p>

 

<p>But, again, as William wrote. Make yourself happy and don’t give a damn about what the

rest of the world thinks (so long as you don’t cause harm to others in the process).</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>"With which mind are we looking at photography?"</p>

<p>Initially, with a mind as open as it can be. Then (if the image beckons further), just as when encountering a new and interesting person, or a bottle of wine with a great "bouquet", or a new project that draws me into it, a mind that is curious, searching, analytical, artistically reflective, emotionally receptive, comparative and relaxed. Like taking a long sip of that great wine.</p>

<p><strong>Joao typed: "</strong> With which mind are we looking at Photography?"</p>

<p> With John Malkovich's.</p>

<p> Just kidding. Seriously... <em>We? </em> I'm not big on collective thinking. Never liked team sports. The short answer would be my own mind.</p>

<p> In learning, there's a tidal flow of accretion and moulting which is what allows for growth. Get stuck at either stage and nothing changes, save for the horizon rising, which means your rut's getting deeper. If one is not a well-individuated person, one seems forced to adopt the strategies/concepts/ideas of others, if one is to have any direction at all.</p>

<p> Gauguin phrased the questions of art as: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? Ask these things of yourself, too. No, I don't mean necessarily in chatterbox self-analytical fashion, beating your own chest (among other things) while balancing on a pimple of insecurity, or putting down others to convince yourself of your imagined prowess. I mean put those questions in the compost of your imagination until you are breathing them. Your answers will follow. They will spark through you, out the fingers of your dreams and into your work.</p>

<p> Be yourself, whether you're a shlemiel, an ubermensch or anything in between. It's the only thing you can genuinely be at the moment, and at least, for better or worse, the work will be your very own. True, if you're a clone, so will your work be, but it will be <em>this </em> clone's work. If you want your work to change, you have to change.</p>

<p> <strong>Required PoP Disclaimer</strong> : YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I were a Zen master, I would be looking at photography with no mind. </p>

<p>How beautiful is the undeveloped photograph?</p>

<p>Joao,<br>

I largely agree with what Bill P states, and Luis G makes a good point too. You should do what you like, and so should the rest of us. (Within boundaries of politeness, civil behavious and laws, that is; just in case your hobby is serial killing).<br>

But I want to play a little with other questions you pose...to end up at the same point as most of the above posters, but possibly/hopefully to extract some more discussion and thoughts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is perhaps the beautifulness of a shoe more important than the feet’s beautifulness?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Yes. Who is looking? The advertisement agency hired by the shoe brand should be more interested in the beauty of the shoe. A foot fetishist will definitely go for the feet. Isn't the question: does it matter which one is more important, and does any of them need to be more important? What do <em>you</em> find more beautiful?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have more questions than answers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So do I, and I think most here. One thing I learnt so far, I do not care that much for the answers, because they change over time, they can change by viewpoint and they tend to raise an additional few questions. What is interesting is the quest for answers, and the insights gained doing just that.<br>

Are you making a mistake in caring what other think, in complying with some rules, in feeling insecure about your own work? I don't think so, but it means you're asking yourself a rather good question which can unleash interesting thoughts which may bring you interesting other new thoughts, ideas, insights or viewpoints, possibly affect your creativeness and make you approach photography different. And of course, it raises some more questions and then some more, and then another one and.... stop somewhere.<br>

Self reflection is valuable, stay practical.</p>

<p>As one with no formal training or grounding in photography, my approach to taking and producing photographs has been almost purely intuitive. The result of this is learning "The Rules" as I go. How well I do in that respect is determined by others, not by myself. (Maybe that explains all the 3/3s!!) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I read once a statement by a local artist which I think captures the idea..she says she is initially attracted to something she sees "at a glance" IN other words" find things out there which grab your attention..and then figure out what about that scene attracted you in the first place..light, color movement, lines, structure.design , some emotion such as isolation etc..and go with it. Worry about the other stuff last..get the feeling first then begin to work on composition etc. Being to rules oriented leads to pictures which may be technically good ..but lack the emotionally impact of the great photos..photgraph with your heart not your mind..</p>

<p>Joao-<br>

I don't want to sound like a teacher, but...Learn your fundamentals. Do it just like everyone else first. Once you have a full comprehension of what "rules" have been set by our forefathers, then you can start to break the rules. If you don't know what rules you are breaking, than how is it breaking them? And if you are going to break the rules (funny word, rules) do it with intent- and stand behind your work. I have been breaking rules for a long time now, but still respect the rules- and use them to inform my work. The more you know about the basics, the most you can manipulate your work. The funny thing is, once you get to a certain point, you realize there are no rules.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3679363"><em>Martin Sobey</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Feb 23, 2010; 03:19 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Joao-<br />I don't want to sound like a teacher, but...Learn your fundamentals. Do it just like everyone else first. Once you have a full comprehension of what "rules" have been set by our forefathers, then you can start to break the rules......The funny thing is, once you get to a certain point, you realize there are no rules.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Martin, I find that, having a similar process to which you describe, the rules are so well integrated that there appear to be no rules, just effortless creation.<br>

In other words, the thinking process gives way to the creative prcess, it's automatic at that point.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>