Connecting with the photographer

<p>All righty then. </p>

<p>Arthur, your last post seems to be a bit at odds with itself, or maybe I'm misreading a bit.<br>

Certainly it is easier to connect with somebody who is more or less on the same wavelength, and certainly it is really important to connect with people on different wavelengths if you want to grow. Agree on both those points. But in the context of the topic, where does that fit?<br>

Let's say you find a quite deep connection to an artist, and it inspires you deeply. In a sense, you become part of his school. It grows naturally, because you feel you're on the same wavelength.... That is in fact little challenging then? Isn't it in a sense saying that to grow as an artist, as a human being, it is actually better to resist? Instead, rising to the challenge of gaining appreciation and understanding for those on different wavelengths (empathy, essentially) isn't more likely to render us more complete persons, and as a result more interesting artists?<br>

I know I am painting it in very broad strokes, in black and white. But well, it just had me wondering when I tried to connect the dots between the first post and your last one.</p>

<p>I read a great quote by Leo Tolstoy on this topic:<br>

"The receiver of a true artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the work were his own and not someone else's - as if what it expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist - not that alone, but also between himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art."<br>

I really like the idea Tolstoy puts forth that there is a connection not just between the artist and an individual viewer, but between everyone who experiences the work. Also, there's an important distinction between what you learn about the artist through knowledge of facts about their life and what you learn by experiencing their art.</p>

<p>I like it, too, Vince. Thanks so much for the Tolstoy quote. It's a good antidote for the oft-quoted cliché about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, which so many use to isolate the individual from other viewers and from the intent of the artist. Tolstoy's has a much more empathic ring to it.</p>

<p>Wouter, you are quite right that by being one with the approach or mindset of an artist, or being on the same wavelength, seems to be quite different from being at odds with his or her work. But is that related to his output or his manner of living. I guess I was as much interested in the equivalences of life experience and outlook as the parallels with the nature of the work of the artist and the person interested in him and his work. That bond can provide insight and understanding of the artist, even if there is a disconnect between the values and the output. Being on the same wavelength as the artist in a human rather than an art sense can allow differences of outlook on artistic creations, so one doesn't have to be in the same school of art expression or understanding.</p>

<p>Perhaps i explain these thoughts rather poorly. By being intellectually and emotionally connected to another (artist in this case) does not mean a dependence to me, or sameness of artistic expression, but simply some commonality of spirit that makes understanding of what the other is about an easier task. That I am sure can be debated with valid exceptions to it.</p>

<p>Vince, perhaps the fact of understanding a work is the key. I believe that sometimes we may understand some works and enjoy them for what they are without wanting to make them our own. Closeness to the mind of the author does not necessarily mean we would want to express something the same way. Understanding the author and his work is another thing than being in close harmony with what he has achieved.</p>

<p>Arthur, I think it's best to take Tolstoy's quote as one man's passionate declaration. It's not meant as a provable or even arguable thesis and I don't think it's meant to exclude other ways either. It's just one significant way to look at things. More like poetry or metaphor than an essay. What Tolstoy is talking about is the importance of stripping away those boundaries among us and of an empathic approach to art. I don't think he's saying this is the only way. And I think he would surely recognize that we each would express things differently, which doesn't prevent us from adopting anothers' expression for the moment so that we fully get it and feel it. I think he's asking us to look at it that way in order to understand something important, but he would still allow us to build and expand from there. You'll notice that great thinkers frequently tend not to qualify their ideas by saying there are other ways to do things as well or by saying IMO or by saying everyone's opinion counts. It's just not usually done that way. They are generally leading us in a particular direction to get us to look at something from their particular point of view, hoping that point of view expands our horizons but probably rarely thinking to limit our point of view to only the perspective they're emphasizing. It's one reason I started the "dogmatic" thread a while back. Important artists and thinkers often come across as dogmatic because they are passionate about a point of view they've discovered or created and don't feel the need to water it down by viewing the other sides and ways equally. That dogmatism can simply be taken for the passionate expression it is and not as a universal and exclusive method being propounded. I think the way Tolstoy says what he says, even if he would believe what you've added, is much more effective and passionate than if he had added the additional qualifications. It just doesn't seem necessary to me.</p>

<p>Reminds me that I have both a sympathetic eye and a critical eye when it comes to art and also when it comes to thoughts like Tolstoy's. When I'm in sympathetic mode, I'm fairly accepting and I'm doing what Tolstoy suggests, which is adopting the point of view of the artist or author as if it were my own. I am in the moment with his artwork or his words and I am experiencing it without judgement. I accept it, to the extent I can, for what it is. When I'm in critical mode, I stand back more, allow for other ways, compare to other things, etc. The sympathetic and the critical aren't necessarily completely separable but they are different stances I tend to take. If I am too critical and allow in opposing views or how I might express things too quickly either when viewing art or when reading important thinkers' thoughts, then I don't feel like a fully gave it a chance or really got it or empathized with it. The critique comes after the more immersing and accepting experience. If I look too soon for opposing equally valid viewpoints or means of expression, I risk giving the artwork in front of me or thinkers' thoughts only a shallow viewing or reading, and a somewhat self-centered one at that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I look too soon for opposing equally valid viewpoints or means of expression, I risk giving the artwork in front of me or thinkers' thoughts only a shallow viewing or reading.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Various interesting thoughts starting with your reading of Tolstoy's quote, Fred. I have read mainly your second post and what you say as applied to art appreciation. My main experience has been in scientific research and if I had observed your advice above while in that mode I would never have arrived at any truth, or, more realistically, an approximation to it, as I would have omitted exploring other paths to a solution. I'm quite happy looking at differing postulates in art and in science. That process can at the same time be both sympathetic (willing to attempt to understand, as opposed to "in absolute agreement") and critical, within my own limited competencies. Being close to the generator of the ideas ("scientist") or the art (the creative "engineering" in the world of graphics) is another thing and part of the overall equation of connecting with the work(s). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if I had observed your advice above while in that mode I would never have arrived at any truth, or, more realistically, an approximation to it, as I would have omitted exploring other paths to a solution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A couple of things in response, Arthur. If you had observed my advice you would not have omitted exploring other paths. Please re-read what I wrote and I hope you'll see that my advice had nothing to do with omitting other paths. Secondly, I'm not sure art invites us to arrive at a kind of truth resembling those truths sought and found in scientific inquiry.</p>

<p>Good. I think I mentioned that truth is an objective in science and engineering to which I referred it, but not necessarily key in artistic expression.</p>

<p>I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'll add one more thing about the Tolstoy art essay involving an interesting personal reaction. <br /> To illustrate how the artist communicates, Tolstoy included a sentence about a boy who experienced fear upon seeing a wolf in the forest. He described the feelings transmitted by the boy when the boy recounted the experience to other people from his village. Tolstoy used it as a very basic example of how artists communicate. Here's the part I found interesting. As I was reading the sentence Tolstoy wrote about the boy's encounter with the wolf and the fear the boy felt upon seeing the wolf move near him, my heartbeat quickened slightly and my breathing changed. I'm not an author. If I wrote a full story about a boy encountering a wolf in the forest, I doubt that anyone reading it would feel anything. Tolstoy wrote a single sentence that was meant to communicate an intellectual point and I needed to increase my blood pressure meds. <br /> The wolf story leaves very little for the audience to interpret, so it's easy to understand the shared experience of that story (as told by an accomplished author like Tolstoy) and how the experience "destroys the separation" between artist and audience. We all feel anxious at times. How do I know that I'm not alone in my response to a dangerous situation? Other people are able to share their experiences, whether they are actual experiences or imagined experiences, in a way that causes me to re-live the feelings I've felt before. I have no doubt that what I'm feeling is not identical to what they're feeling, but I understand them and they understand me. When art is open to wide interpretation and there is little or nothing of a shared experience, my reaction is different as is my connection to the artist. I don't mean to imply that it's an empty experience, just different.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thinking about significant influences on my work, I can say frankly that “permission” to do art in a particular fashion was always too important early on. If it was OK with someone I really dug, I could then go ahead and do it.<br>

The people that dominated the emblematic mid-century, 35mm, gritty, non pictorial trends were for me: Frank, Klein, Metzker, and the like. <br>

I think the painters of Warhol’s era pretty much set everyone with a camera free. I see more painting I like a lot now than I do (non-altered) photographs. <br>

There is no way to get in the head of some long-gone artist. I am interested in the <em>mood</em> they have on me NOW. <br>

Degrees of originality or creativity which I value in an artist supersedes crafting skill – their willingness to ignore conventions of craft and conventional formal/aesthetic concerns. Some would insist there is a due-diligence requirement for craft. I can see it both ways. Too much and it is too precious. Too little and its absence gets in the way (the worrisome “permission” thing. <br>

The influences of literature or music is only an accompaniment to my work. It is all I can do to express things graphically. The picture is THE text. <br>

I firmly believe that all art is completely <em>of its time</em> and anything <em>I</em> make is of mine. I shamelessly appropriate stylistic qualities I fancy - knowing that I am making them my own.<br>

“PoMo seeks other PoMo for casual relationship.”<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Connection need not be one that mimics or in some even distant way replicates the artistic approach of another, as we might do if inspired/impressed by the work of Frank, Kertesz, Boubat, Penn or another. Getting into the head or values of another is something that can be done through personal contact but also by a famiiiarity with his (sometimes ancient) writings or 3rd party reports of his values or actions that characterize the photographer or artist-painter. It is interesting to discover that cohesiveness of spirit and sometimes beneficial for us to have that connection and the shared values, as we can begin to understand how they influenced his work and may influence our own in future.</p>

<blockquote><strong>Alan Zinn</strong> -- <em>The people that dominated the emblematic mid-century, 35mm, gritty, non pictorial trends were for me: Frank, Klein, Metzker, and the like... </em></blockquote>

<blockquote><em>I am interested in the mood they have on me NOW. </em><br /><em> Degrees of originality or creativity which I value in an artist supersedes crafting skill – their willingness to ignore conventions of craft and conventional formal/aesthetic concerns. Some would insist there is a due-diligence requirement for craft. I can see it both ways. Too much and it is too precious. Too little and its absence gets in the way...</em></blockquote>

<blockquote><em>I am interested in the mood they have on me NOW. </em><br /><em> Degrees of originality or creativity which I value in an artist supersedes crafting skill – their willingness to ignore conventions of craft and conventional formal/aesthetic concerns. Some would insist there is a due-diligence requirement for craft. I can see it both ways. Too much and it is too precious. Too little and its absence gets in the way</em></blockquote>

<blockquote><em>The picture is THE text. </em></blockquote>

<p>F'n A, Bubba. And a hearty "Amen!". The only change or addition I might make is to the emphasis on the last sentence. <em>The picture <strong>IS</strong> the text.</em> </p>

<p>But to get back to what I take to be the spirit of Arthur's original post, there can be connection without imitation (possibly even without influence). I feel a connection with Klein, Frank, Metzger... and to some extent with Maier, Winogrand, Faurer, Levitt, and Ishimoto. </p>

<blockquote> </blockquote>

<p>Vince - "To illustrate how the artist communicates, Tolstoy included a sentence about a boy who experienced fear upon seeing a wolf in the forest."</p>

<p>That's interesting as it relates to Arthur's remark: "I think I mentioned that truth is an objective in science and engineering to which I referred it, but not necessarily key in artistic expression." Interesting because of the distinction made between 'the world' as described by science and 'my world' as portrayed in art, the desperate descriptions coming on the one hand from Logos and on the other from Mythos, if I may fairly interpret Arthur's science/art dichotomy in that broader way. Tolstoy's boy and wolf story is a case in point.</p>

<p>In the objective world of science a wolf is nothing to fear when seen in a forest. Informed by Logos, wolves fear us and run away from us upon a chance encounter. But in the 'my world' of Tolstoy's boy, the world of mythos, a wolf is a creature that elicits fear. Art can make the story of wolf and boy more interesting, a wolf made to represent childish domination by fear generally and a Peter and the Wolf story a telling of a boy's triumph over fear itself. A boy/wolf story isn't about a wolf at all and the story can leave intact a mythic misperception of the wolf as nevertheless a legitimate object of fear. The wolf is an artifice in the telling where the point of the artistic telling isn't to tell us that a wolf isn't to be feared. Instead it tells us to overcome our fears, the wolf with artistic license deployed as a fearsome object. The lesson from the artfully told boy/wolf story is to not be ruled by fear regardless of the fearsomeness of the thing. The thing may or may not objectively be fearsome - no matter - just don't be ruled by fear as the story goes. Fear is what we, as Vince I believe points out, share in common and we are not alone in our fear response in dangerous situations. In that sense that we all can be ruled by fear, art can destroy the separation between artist and audience, destroy the separation between audience and audience cathartically.</p>

<p>I saw the movie <em>Wild</em> recently, didn't read the book, and in the movie a fox is used to symbolize an encounter with 'wild' as a curative for a woman who had been merely reactive in her life. And after her encounter with pure 'wild' as represented by a fox, began to instead live her life, 'wild' a curative for the destructive taming that assuming a culturally specific identify is. For a shaming culture such as ours, particularly harsh on women, wild is as objective a mythic truth as is e - mc2 a truth to Logos. The problem generally is that Logos has no soul and we can't live there exclusively and yet be satisfied. Water is not just H2O and air is not just a mix of oxygen, nitrogen and inert gasses. Art's descriptions of air is up for grabs because, all things considered, Logos just doesn't cut it. Some problems find their cure in catharsis. Some instead require a confrontation with the wild nature that objective psyche as a term was coined to describe in scientific terms, but which has always been described by one art form or another, along with all the other things that are the subjects of art.</p>

<p>I’ve been fact checking my recollection about influences.<br>

I remember taking a more scholarly look at poets and photographers once I began reading more critical art writing. Not wanting to “get in the head of some long-gone artist I admire.” is not true. <br>

The imagist poets were and continue to inform my work when I drift into a particular frame of mind. It is right there in my bookcase “Cubism, Stiegitz, and the Early Poetry of William Carlos Williams” by Bram Dijkstra among other similar titles. <br>

The <em>imagist</em> poets were part of the turn of the century (19^th) avant-garde. Literary and graphic affinity can’t get any closer. I like their determination to see and feel what is clearly there to be seen - the mood or tone of the thing. There <em>heads</em> are accessible even with (dated) obscure metaphor and symbolism. They retain a timeless tone. <br>

The certainty of a poet’s choice of words covey in photographic clarity what thoughts transpired in the “seeing” of things. It is the camera-like record or brief sketch that flicks into a more complete realization. </p><div></div>

<p>Not sure I feel a bond with anyone, but I do keep Helmut Newton as an imaginary playmate! I did find the below quote and the larger text it was part of interesting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

But to get back to what I take to be the spirit of Arthur's original post, there can be connection without imitation (possibly even without influence). I feel a connection with Klein, Frank, Metzger... and to some extent with Maier, Winogrand, Faurer, Levitt, and Ishimoto.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>..and Newton, and Opie and Moriyama and, yes, HCB and Sultan, etc etc.. Its not about imitation though I must confess I'll take a shot I recognize when I come across it, but I don't find that a primary motivation to base my work on. I do find that the sort of slavish involvement with a couple of popular platitudes such as the now ubiquitous "decisive moment" an impediment to evolving one's own vision. Not that there's anything wrong with HCB's photography or his concept, I love his photographs, and virtually all subsequent street and documentary photographers were influenced by his work. I don't find any value in diminishing or dismissing it. Problem is, and to use an analogy from the Rock world, its sort of like the effect of Ginger Baker on rock drumming in the late 60s-70s. I loved his drumming, but it became such a distinct style, that I recall so many drummers trying to play like that way that it tended to obliterate other drumming styles and evolution for a certain period of time. Not Baker's fault.<br>

Vivien Maier I find interesting in the sense that she reminds me of a lot of people I know, she just went out and shot and did her thing. That's what I resonate to with her and I feel a certain kinship in that regard. I've seen one of the exhibitions of hers and I thought she had some really good photos, but I wasn't really inspired by her work per se. Its more the idea of what she achieved because she loved it, the citizen-photographer. I find myself wondering how she would have interacted with social media of today and how that might have affected her photography and its presentation. I presented these thoughts without reading the whole thread because I was inspired by a couple of the comments so I hope these remarks aren't to obtuse or repetitive.</p>

<p>Alan and Barry,<br>

Glad to read of your personal experiences. They fit well I think with some of my original thoughts on the matter, namely:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>(we may experience).</em>... a sense we might have of understanding and knowing where the photographer <em>(or poet..)</em> s coming from, of appreciating (and admiring) the values, thoughts or perceptions that come from reading the nature or intent of his or her images <em>(or writings).</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Just with close friend I met and conversation over vast serious of thoughts closely not officially but informally and discussion over vague of past shoot photographs, questions about their intentions and was hopping his past shot photographs. However photos shot were not mixing like watermarking for authentication but had zeal to prove him a delighted. many thought shared many ideas may come to above questioning , I am summing up in shortly there happens anything but like my close photographer friend in one point a progressive work itself prove authentic when one always keeps or dream with truthfully that goal is hypothetically thought have to be indeed true. It lastly keeps to any patience.<br>

</p>

<p>I doubt if connecting with a photographer to advertise a commercial site is consistent with the theme of this OP, or am I missing something of profound nature?</p>