What constitutes a philosophy of photography?

<p><em>"people simply take pictures just because they can"</em></p>

<p>Which is what a lot of people do, without a philosophy of photography.</p>

<p>With a philosophy of photography, you often get a more coherent (cohesive), interesting body of work. Even if the photographer doesn't realize he has a philosophy of photography.</p>

<p>You don't have to know it to have it.</p>

<p>I recently saw an exhibit at the Met in NY of snapshots culled from flee markets and antique stores. They were put together in a very telling way and the body of work (of the guy putting all the photos together by theme, not the individual snap shooters) suggested a philosophy of photography even though the original shots were probably made without one.</p>

<p>If "research" is considered part of the philosophy of making art then it also defines philosophy of photography. As I previously mentioned, it is more an attribute of the person than of the medium.</p>

<p>As an example, yet not universal, here is how I research interactions of nature with the human presence. In this case, the many faces of snow. Made this morning by putting aside my coffee, going outside and finding a chair to get an elevated position, and purposefully re-positioning the birdbath. Snow on cold morning surfaces tends to stick, most notable for early and short-lived snowfalls in November, disappearing a half hour later as the ambient temperature warms. </p>

<p>If "research" is considered part of the philosophy of making art then it also defines philosophy of photography. As I previously mentioned, it is more an attribute of the person than of the medium.</p>

<p>As an example, yet not universal, here is how I research interactions of nature with the human presence. In this case, the many faces of snow. Made this morning by putting aside my coffee, going outside and finding a chair to get an elevated position, and purposefully re-positioning the birdbath. Snow on cold morning surfaces tends to stick, most notable for early and short-lived snowfalls in November, disappearing a half hour later as the ambient temperature warms. </p>

<p>The image....</p>

<p>Another upload try</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Which is what a lot of people do, without a philosophy of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

 

Based on what I'm reading here, it is a personal philosophy of photography. "I take pictures because I can" is a fine approach to photography and defines a personal philosophy. A set of photos taken because one can constitutes a body of work. It may not be one that is very interesting, but I suspect many people posting here would find Hegel or Wittgenstein lacking in interest also.

<p><em>" 'I take pictures because I can" is a fine approach to photography and defines a personal philosophy."</em></p>

<p>I agree, if one forms those thoughts. My response was to Ilia, and as I read Ilia, he wasn't suggesting that someone actually formulated that thought and rolled with it. He said this: <em>"this does not constitute philosophical problem of photography if people simply take pictures just because they can."</em></p>

<p>He wasn't suggesting they'd formulated the thought that they were taking pictures just because they can, just that they were doing it. So, indeed, they don't appear to (or at least we have no way of knowing if they) have a philosophy of photography or not.</p>

<p>But this raises a good point, Jeff. I don't think the only philosophy of photography comes from photographers. I think it can come from someone else. It can come from anyone who formulates thoughts about photography, the act of photographing, the process, the viewing, the photo itself, the relationship of all or some of those. </p>

<p>So, I might indeed develop a philosophy of photography that would incorporate that idea that many people, without even knowing it or thinking about it, do it because they can. Probably any philosophy of photography worth its salt would include that.</p>

<p>I see the discussion has taken an interesting turn. I do agree that one's having a philosophy of photography is not a condition - necessary or sufficient - for shooting photographs. And I also agree that one may have such a philosophy without being aware of it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Fred. Let me try to rephrase my bet and clear on terminology.<br>

a). one <strong>can</strong> take photographs of different kinds <strong>withou</strong>t any sort of philosophy, philosophical model or concept</p>

<p>b). the fact of photographic possibility <strong>can</strong> be cosidered philisophicaly and these considerations would require <strong>formulating</strong> a philosophical problem or question (PQ). If PQ is not clearly formulated than reasoning about one photo or the whole of photography is not a philosophy but mere <strong>incoherent thinking</strong> without specific aim in view.</p>

<p>Making a logical deduction from Jeff's suggestion: one dosn't have to be clear about Hegels stuff (for instance) to take good photos but it does not mean Hegels stuff can not be applied to photography by those who care.</p>

<p>I think you need to step back first and consider what is someones goal, motivation for taking photos to get to the root of this.</p>

<p>There's no one single answer, but you can generically categorize goals into areas such as (not a complete list)</p>

<ul>

<li>Work - doing portraits, school photos, wedding photos, etc</li>

<li>Documenting life's events - vacations, travel, kids growing up</li>

<li>Landscapes / architecture / nature</li>

</ul>

<p>The goals and philosophy is going to vary with the area.</p>

<p>My own philosophy will change between landscapes and architecture. With landscapes, I tend to look for the colors, textures.</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10791641353/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10791641353/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10791365225/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10791365225/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10338651285/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10338651285/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10291315333/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10291315333/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10244338803/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10244338803/</a></li>

</ul>

<p>However with architecture, not only is it colors, textures, it's about fine detail, lines, perspective, etc. For some it might seem the same, but for me, for my philosophy, it is indeed different:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/9950451256/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/9950451256/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/9888083625/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/9888083625/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/9777417601/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/9777417601/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10780998766/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10780998766/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10299153973/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/10299153973/</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/52027561@N00/8527724875/in/photolist-dZyPve-dZFopw-dZyPa6-dZFoJ1">http://www.flickr.com/photos/52027561@N00/8527724875/in/photolist-dZyPve-dZFopw-dZyPa6-dZFoJ1</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Michael, I don't think one can have a philosophy with being aware of it. A philosophy requires a coherent set of thoughts and/or arguments.</p>

<p>What's the difference between a philosophy and a way of shooting or photographing or making photos? This may get to the crux of the question. Everyone who picks up a camera and shoots it has a way of shooting, things they gravitate toward shooting, etc. I can create a philosophy of photography with that in mind. But I don't think that means they have a philosophy. There's a difference between doing something and having a philosophy of it.</p>

<p>Jeff, I may or my not find Hegel and Wittgenstein interesting. But, I can't see denying that they have coherent bodies of philosophical works. There are plenty of writers or armchair or wannabee philosophers who don't have a coherent body of writing. There are lots of people who take photos who may or may not be interesting but don't have a coherent body of work. They may have a body of work, for sure, but not necessarily a coherent one. And they also may have a body of work without coherent thoughts about that work. As a matter of fact, many try hard NOT to think about their work. It's stated over and over in threads on PN. Among some, there seems to be an aversion to thought about photography. No judgment there, it's just the way it is.</p>

<p>In short, I don't attribute a philosophy to everyone, even though a philosopher may philosophize about them, their process, and their work.</p>

<p><strong>[FIRST SENTENCE ABOVE SHOULD READ:]</strong> <em>Michael, I don't think one can have a philosophy WITHOUT being aware of it.</em></p>

<p>Fred: You are so right. What I tried to say (and failed) is that a person can have a philosophy of photography even if it hasn't been stated or formalized. </p>

<p>Trying to catch up - - -</p>

<p>Wouter (11/05): Being an amateur doesn't prevent you from engaging in the activity of philosophy. Nor does it preclude your positions on various philosophical issues from being less powerful and less cogent than those offered by "professionals." It seems to me that your take on the nature of a philosophy of photography, i.e., "the question raised by the photo," is worthy of exploration. Maybe some day we can try to "unpack" it.</p>

<p>Fred (11/05, 11:47 AM): Although there's no doubt that a philosophy of photography is " … a coherent body of woe," I far prefer your second response. Along perhaps similar lines, consider a philosophy of photography relating Sartre's concept of the look with seeing a photograph.</p>

<p>Goshdarn . . . it happened again. The word quoted from Fred is "work", not "woe."</p>

<p>I find "woe" works just as well in this context.</p>

<p>Since I don't understand your comment, Jeff, I guess woe is me.</p>

<p>Catching up as well... I think Tudor added a very practical, hands-on approach to getting grips with that personal philosophy: "<em>..consider what is someones goal, motivation for taking photos to get to the root of this</em>". It however blurs lines between 'personal philosophy' and approach/intent/'artist statement'. It also blurs lines between the coherency of thought (and I feel implied there is a level of consciousness about these thoughts as well - they're not dorment), which Fred raised (and which I think indeed ought to make a difference in this discussion). Not so much a hard division between the two, but rather a transition where exploration of the one thoughts transforms them into a personal philosophy?<br>

It still doesn't cover the whole of photography for me; there is (to me, anyway) a difference between what I want my images to be like and communicate, versus the actual activity of making the photos. One is a public sharing, a way to share an opinion/vision, the other is a private activity (even when done in company, the time peeking throught the finder is very much mine). Even if the two are obviously related, on a personal level they are distinct different experiences, and yet both are motivations and goals for doing it.</p>

<p>Michael, with regards to being an amateur, I did not mean to imply it should prevent from engaging; otherwise I also wouldn't make any photos :-). But there are limitations to the vocabulary, implicit meanings or implications to some terminology that I could well not be aware off - it's for these reasons I mentioned it.</p>