Jump to content

Imaging and Imagination: How Are They Related? Reflections on Creation v. Discovery


Recommended Posts

<p>A torn rotator cuff is going to restrict my own contributions to this thread, but I will toss the question out anyway in hopes of getting to read others' opinions--and in hopes of stimulating conversation on what appears to me to be a potentially interesting and worthwhile topic.</p>

<p>"Image," "imaging," and "imagination" all derive from the Latin root <em>imago</em>, but common etymological roots can be both helpful and treacherous at the same time. We know that we use our imaginations in photography in various ways, but I was thinking this morning about the very different ways that such photographers as Marc G., Ken Williams, and Fred Goldsmith typically tend to generate many of their photographs compared to the method(s) typically and perhaps almost always used by persons such as myself.</p>

<p>I, for example, rarely have much of an idea of what I expect to shoot when I go out, except in the limited sense of knowing (most of the time) what my destination is in the sense of some idea of what the subject is going to be, what the lighting probably will be like, what angle is likely to be most promising, etc. That is, as often as not I tend to <em>discover</em> the images when I go wandering about, and I often remember what I have seen and decide to go back later for the actual capture. I rarely, that is, <em>create</em> a photo in the strong sense of setting up a photo from scratch, which is to say that I rarely use too much imagination to conjure up a shoot that I am going to do from what seems to be virtually nothing. I enjoy myself and get respectable results some of the time, and I at least do not have the world's worst eye. That is, I am reasonably good at spotting a good potential photo amidst the chaos of the entire visual reality that confronts me at a given moment. All of this is to say that I can at times generate some artistic value even in documentary shots (which most of mine are in the general sense), but I do not in general think of myself as an artist.</p>

<p>I am not saying that my typical approach requires no artistic or other kind of imagination, but I do not see myself as being in the same league artistically as those who go out with the intent of bringing back a particular image, or who set up an image from scratch, as in still lifes, model shoots, etc.</p>

<p>What if not imagination are the true photographic artists using or doing when they go out to shoot? How much more do such persons rely on imagination in their photography than I and others do, and why? There are a lot of related questions that I hope that others will explore, but what I have said is the gist of it. In any case, I hope that what I have said so far is enough to kick off the discussion, since my shoulder is already starting to act up.</p>

<p>I realize that I have set the problem in terms of a bit of a false or at least an over-simplified dilemma or dichotomy, but the two extremes will do for a start: what is the <em>creator</em> doing that the <em>discoverer</em> is not?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>If we stay on psychology of vision theoretic state of the art its hard to think to spot something that in some ways was unattended. I think that the difference you are about has more to do with the consciousness and duration of the process.<br>

"Inventio" may be an interesting word to add to you etymology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventio<br>

You may also find interesting "the treatise on Painting" by Leonardo Da Vinci where he spends several words on the concept (translated as invention) found here: http://www.archive.org/details/treatiseonpainti001974mbp</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A creator applies some sort of skill or craft, in the course of which s/he may discover. Or some sort of discovery (eg related to lighting or location or opportunity) may inspire creation.</p>

<p>The discoverer's skill or craft may or may be irrelevant, s/he may simply blunder into the discovery. That person presumably has to be awake enough, skilled or unskilled, to say "a-ha!). </p>

<p>It's not a photograph until skill or craft have been applied, even if the photo is made by the most stupid, but adequately skillfully set-up automatically clicking camera (eg surveillance or "game tracker" camera).</p>

<p>Concept isn't photograph, just as photograph isn't concept. </p>

<p>I think it's common for commercial documentary photographers (as in sports or catalog of all levels) to create, which typically calls for discovering an image opportunity of some sort, perhaps an angle on or position in relationship to the subject or a way of lighting or the result of having discovered a benefit from a particular focal length...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How can we do without imagination?<br>

I think it is inextricably intertwined with photographic images: photographing is putting a frame around something we see, or using a frame to exclude what we don't want to have in.<br>

The eye comes first and imagines the framed - or the excluded. Then comes the camera and the picture.<br>

And even before that we imagine the places where we go to imagine photos which we then shoot.<br>

And discovery is based on imagination too.<br>

In the end photographing means representing reality in some way which we believe contains a visual message. We imagine this visual message - consciously or not - and produce a photograph.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's not discovery <strong>versus</strong> creation, but the intelligent use of each. They often go together.</p>

<p>Ex-photography example: Robert Lepage, producer of tonight's Met opera (Das Reingold) has created with James Levine and his team Ex Machina a new visual space to accompany the music, theatre and song. He has solved problems of applying the initial creation in the second constituent opera, Die Walkure (to be performed next spring), and is presently facing problems in marrying the set and opera in Siegfried, the (later) third of the 4 operas of The Ring. He is not sure how he will get around the problems of creating in it a viable music-theatre-visual experience, but he is sure he will discover a way, as he has in the Valkyrie portion. </p>

<p>Discovery and creation go hand in hand, in stage art as in photography. What else can one say? I often discover interesting photographic subject matter, but turning that into the subject and the photograph requires some creative input, with the creativity often a greater challenge than the initial subject matter discovery.</p>

<p>But "versus" does not make much sense to me. Unless of course one is of the school that creation and interpretation involved in that and in the viewing of the product is somehow unimportant, and only some discovered content is. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I am not saying that my typical approach requires no artistic or other kind of imagination, but I do not see myself as being in the same league artistically as those who go out with the intent of bringing back a particular image, or who set up an image from scratch, as in still lifes, model shoots, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Someone who goes out to bring back a particular image, etc., might be creative, but these could also be the attributes of a technician. Like some of the other commentors, I'm not sure about your creator/discoverer dichotomy. The discoverer who has a story to tell becomes a creator.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm sorry that my name was used in this post because I'd prefer not to be associated with this dichotomy. When I "create" a photo, I also do a lot of "discovering."</p>

<p>I like being both deliberate and open to surprises, accidents, new insights, and an alternative even to my own plan. Whatever "plan" I may have usually comes with a willingness to explore as well.</p>

<p>There are different <em>skills</em> (John K. rightly mentions this) involved in shooting planned portraits and in shooting candids on the street. But each photographer can approach his genre and subjects with creativity and with an eye toward discovery. Each can also fall into ruts and rely on the genre and its history to guide him rather than pushing toward something that is his own. A lot of street shots and a lot of planned portraits look boringly alike.</p>

<p>A question to ask here -- especially if one is comparing their work to others or wondering about the effectiveness or skill or art in their own work -- is about the balance between commitment and curiosity. No matter the genre, and no matter the level of plan or spontaneity, pose or candor, photos may or may not show a commitment (to subject/content and technique/style) as well as an offsetting sense of curiosity. Commitment to one's work can be <em>seen</em> and felt. Commitment without questions could lead to a kind of blindness. Made richer by questioning, commitment is one of my core values.</p>

<p>Lannie, one can photograph exactly the way you describe and still not discover. One could simply capture and display. And one can plan -- think things through and "start from scratch" -- and still not discover or create. They could just spin their wheels.</p>

<p>You talk about being in a "league" and I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean by that. I wonder if it might be helpful to think in terms of voice -- which entails both commitment and questioning -- rather than to set up an extreme dichotomy between two qualities or values that are so sympathetic and symbiotic.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I realize that I have set the problem in terms of a bit of a false or at least an over-simplified dilemma or dichotomy, but the two extremes will do for a start: what is the <em>creator</em> doing that the <em>discoverer</em> is not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what to say, guys. As you can see in the above quote, I told you up front that it was "a bit of a false or at least an over-simplified dilemma or dichotomy." As far as I am concerned, that was fair warning that I was starting with polar opposites just to set the question at the outset.</p>

<p>So, the thesis and antithesis are there. Give me a Hegelian synthesis, if you can.</p>

<p>This question stands: "what is the <em>creator</em> doing that the <em>discoverer</em> is not?"</p>

<p>---Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Creating or discovering, are you implying that the former is of greater value than the latter? Is this so?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel, as one who almost never sets up a picture, I have to say that I am quite comfortable with discovery--but I am the romantic at heart. Discovery to me implies something about finding out about the natural world instead of creating an artificial one. (So there is yet another dichotomy for you guys to hack at: the distinction between Nature and Artifice. It is not perfect, but a lot of thinkers have gotten some miles out of that dichotomy.)</p>

<p>I yet to have to admire the creative imagination of those who can at times seem to be conjure up an image in their minds (seemingly, but only seemingly, out of nothing) and then go out and make it happen. I cannot do that any more that I can write a work of fiction (and goodness knows I have tried).</p>

<p>In other words, let us not let the words take us away from the very differing strategies that persons actually do employ when they go shooting.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If it's a "false dichotomy", as you put it, who cares? Why chase rainbows when there's nothing to chase?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, I happen to think that positing problems in terms of polar opposites can sometimes be a good starting point. Again, look at Nature v. Artifice, a distinction attacked by Mark but extolled by many others.</p>

<p>In other words, some rather flawed dichotomies have had some heuristic value. Take "matter" and "energy," for example. (Newtonian mechanics got some real mileage out of that one, and even Einstein had to use it as a jumping off point for speaking of "matter-energy.") I am hoping that in the present case "creation" VERSUS "discovery" can set the extreme position as a point of departure of a fruitful conversation, not the end of one. That depends on what other participants bring to the table.</p>

<p>I taught two philosophy classes today, one in the philosophy department and one (in political theory) in the political science department. One dichotomy introduced in the political theory course was "rationalism" versus "empiricism," along with <em>a priori </em>versus<em> a posteriori</em>, not to mention "analytic" versus "synthetic." A question discussed in the Intro. course was "Can language determine how we think?" (It was more or less a chapter title.) There we discussed the dichotomy "black" versus "white" in Anglo-Saxon racial discourse. Is it nonsense? Yes, of course, but we (in the process of transcending the dichotomy) still managed to have a fruitful conversation. We also discussed Gilbert Ryle's analysis of the dichotomy of "mind" versus "body" as found in his <em>The Concept of Mind.</em> One never knows what will start a good conversation and what will not, but I just keeping casting the bait out there until some big fish finds it interesting enough to hit it and run with it. I don't know any other way to go fishing for ideas and interesting philosophical conversation.</p>

<p>Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't. All too often it doesn't--but I keep trying.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, I happen to think that positing problems in terms of polar opposites can sometimes be a good starting point. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's a false starting point, it's false. No point in continuing...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There we discussed the dichotomy "black" versus "white" in Anglo-Saxon racial discourse. Is it nonsense? Yes, of course,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it's not. It's a political distinction. As someone who lives in both the "black" and "white" worlds, I can tell you it's not nonsense. It's easy for a bunch of white people to sit around and think that this isn't true.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If it's a false starting point, it's false. No point in continuing...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gosh, Jeff, if Newton had only known what you know, then we would never have even gotten to Planck and Einstein.</p>

<p>Black versus white:</p>

<p>As skin color, it is nonsense. It has some residual utility now as shorthand for cultural differences, etc., to be sure.</p>

<p>Jeff, my "black" students seemed to get the point, and the discussion was rather lively and informative. (I teach at an African-American college.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think it's an interesting question, and while it's not an "either-or" situation, there are differences between the two approaches that make the distinction legitimate (IMO, of course, all the way through this response). My primary interest in photography is that it helps me see and experience the natural world more intently. I most enjoy the process of finding a combination of elements that, to me, represent the essence of a landscape I'm experiencing. I want that combination to be aesthetically pleasing as well. I see many such photos here on photo.net in the forum in which I spend most of my time, that being landscapes. I generally go out to places and at times when I can expect a landscape to be "at its best" with respect to aesthetics, but I'm always searching for those combinations of elements, light, and camera equipment/settings at my disposal that will produce the aesthetic, representative photograph of that place. Usually (but certainly not always) the resulting photos need only "standard" processing to deal with sensor filters, limitations of film/sensors to respond to wide-ranging amounts of light, exposure errors, white balance errors, and the like. The result is hopefully an aesthetically pleasing image and a real reminder of an experience I've had.</p>

<p>I see this as different to a degree from creating a photograph by starting with a base image and working with darkroom manipulations or computer software to <em>create</em> a photograph that represents an artistic interpretation of a landscape. While it may remind me of the experience, the intensity of the experience wasn't the primary purpose; the artistic interpretation of the experience was the primary purpose. An aesthetically pleasing image is again produced, but it may be quite different than what had been experienced with the eyes.</p>

<p>These are not mutually exclusive, either-or approaches to photography. They differ in their emphasis. They also differ in the degree of processing after the initial photograph was made. There is no bright line between the two, and certainly no agreement where even a broad stripe may occur between the two. Indeed, they are two ends of a continuous line that differ only in degrees, not in absolutes. Some people tend toward one end of this continuum, while others tend toward the other end of the continuum. In my own portfolio I can point to photographs that essentially came straight from the camera and other photographs that were created on my computer which no one (including me) has ever seen in real life. I can also point to photographs in my portfolio that lie somewhere in the middle.</p>

<p>Personally, however, I have the deepest appreciation for those photographs that were discovered (the experience) rather than created (the artistic endeavor). Some photographers feel as I do, many don't care one way or the other, and still others have the deepest appreciation for the artistic endeavor. The only approach that I don't care for are those who say they are producing a photograph of a real experience but relying on extensive processing to get to the image; honesty is needed. Finally, I don't ascribe to the notion I often see here that art is above criticism simply because it is an individual's interpretation or the individual's creation. There is such a thing as good art and bad art (no, I'm not going to try to define those -- that's another question, and probably beyond my limited capabilities -- I'm a biologist).</p>

<p>My preference toward "discovery" often influences the way that I see photographs of other folks, and I sometimes have to remind myself that my way is not the only way, the best way, or the preferred way. It's just a way among several other ways of approaching photography. I'm often moved by the artistic interpretation of a fellow photographer of a landscape. Just please don't lie to me by saying an artistic interpretation created through extensive processing or key processing was pretty much straight from the camera as the eyes saw it, as some folks are inclined to say or to imply.</p>

<p>The process to arrive at a photograph (or, if you prefer, an image) is important. The process may sometime be just as important as the product. Please don't discount the process, as some folks are inclined to do. The process of discovering a photograph can be very different from the process of creating a photograph, even if (theoretically) the two resulting photographs are essentially the same. I <em>do</em> care how an image was derived; my emotional response to a photograph often differs if the photograph was largely discovered compared to if it was largely created, and the reason is that experience is of paramount importance to me. Experience may not be of even minor importance to someone else. I think that's where the differences (sometime striking, sometimes subtle) between a "discoverer" and an "interpreter" probably originate.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Schiller</strong>: "That is not an observation from experience. That is an idea."<br>

<strong>Goethe</strong>: "Then I may rejoice that I have ideas without knowing it, and can even see them with my own eyes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I <em>discovered</em> that quote and have made <em>creative</em> use of it here in this forum thread. One could make an argument that all photography is visual quotation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been well over twenty years developing my personally poorly understood photographic insctincts. I just had a computer crash. Luckily all my photos on the hard drive were backed up on Carbonite. The digitial pictures on my computer hard drive numbered in the thousands. Before digitial my pictures because of my business and newspaper work numbered in the thousands. Taking all of these pictures, I think, helped me develop certain visceral photographic instincts. My reactions when framing a picture many times totally lack any conscious analysis. They just happen based upon those years of conditioning. A friend of mine is a Professor specializing in brain function at a large university. He tells me that action without awareness of mental process is common. For instance I have typed this without being aware of how I am typing. This same is true in decision making in airplanes if the process of flying is deeply imbedded in muscle memory. One can have a close near miss without ever consciously deciding how to immediately maneuver the airplane. Your arms and legs just respond. What I am saying is that sometimes, a lot of the time actually, I take or reject a picture without having the slightest idea of why I did so until I think about it post action. Anyway, my friend tells me and he has studied this stuff extensively and as far as I can understand him he agrees with what I posited here. He does a lot of stuff with sheep's brains because they resemble humans only smaller and he can easily acquire them. So most of my photography is knee jerk reaction to what I am seeing at the moment. I have set up pictures for weddings and newspaper photographs. I have done some product stuff like clothing and studio portraits where I did set up pictures but that's necessary to get paid. I also did a lot of candids at weddings where I just randomly and spontaneously took pictures. I become calculating when I am waiting on a subject to evince some kind of expression or emotion before I take the picture. I immediately know when I have it and maybe I will react quickly enough to get it before it fleetingly disappears into the ether. BTW my instincts are not good enough to keep me from throwing away a lot of bad instinctive reactions. Enough turn out good enough to keep me coming back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have always beleived (and still do) that having a good subject is half the battle, for example anyone visiting Yosemite would have to be a pretty poor photographer not to come back with good images. This is just a general example, I apreciate the complexitys involved in different subjects and various conditions which may arise. I often find it challenging and a good exercise to go out and try to get great images from everyday mundane situations/locations. Imagination plays a key role in the end product, as the eye sees differently compared to how the Lens/camera sees things.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, you've quoted Schiller and Goethe. You suggest an argument whereby all photographs are quotations. There's something very appealing about that idea and I think it captures something significant. But I don't think it quite works. Schiller and Goethe said something original. You then quote them. They used words and grammar, the building blocks of language, to say what they said. One wouldn't say they quoted something by using words and grammar. Another photographer may "quote" Robert Frank by adopting and adapting something from his imagery. But I don't think using the building blocks of photography (images from the world) is quoting. A photograph can be as original as the statements made by Schiller and Goethe. A photograph is not analogous to your quoting those two.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>all photography is visual quotation --Julie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, but isn't it a beautiful metaphor nonetheless?</p>

<p>The Goethe-Schiller discussion sounds like a very good entry into the epistemological debate, if anything: reason versus observation (another dichotomy, one that Goethe seems to be challenging).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Discovery</strong> requires being alert at the right moment. I recently watched hermit crabs (Point Lobos, CA) making discoveries, but I doubt mushrooms or semanticists can do it. </p>

<p>We, people, are less <strong>likely to discover than to create </strong>because creation doesn't demand good luck or alertness...it's work. Like other laborers, photographers and painters et al often call their products "the work."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As to Black Vs White (where did that come from?), I live in a world with all kinds of white folks (Ohio-whitebread to Texas oil patch expats) , a couple very different varieties of American Indians (Navajo and Pueblo may be more like me than like each other), and perhaps the same percentage of black people as San Francisco (ranging from homeless to CEO, like everywhere else). </p>

<p> Seems to me that they all create and discover. I can provoke anybody by making false proposals, and I do provoke by habit, but I'm actually rewarded more by <strong>asking </strong>them what's on their minds. <strong>I'm not particularly interested in what's on the minds of college students or children</strong>...whatever it is, is transient and I'm not in a position of authority over them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...