How big a deal is it?

How important is an appreciation / understanding of the philosophy of

photography in the actual making of a photo?

 

Specifically, does it enhance your work or provide an extra dimension to the

photo that you produce?

 

Free for all... lets hear it. :)

"Specifically, does it enhance your work or provide an extra dimension to the photo that you produce?"

 

Absolutely it does. All trades and pursuits require one to have a clue. Even the simple act of watching a football or baseball game requires one to understand what's going on or it won't make any sense.

 

Many folks come here saying two things, I'm a noob and I can't seem to do anything original. Gee! Go figure. :)

'Absolutely it does'

 

If I may ask, Thomas - in what way?

"How important is an appreciation / understanding of the philosophy of photography in the actual making of a photo?"

 

What do you mean "in the actual making of a photo"? Do you mean releasing the shutter?

"...THE philosophy of photography ..."

 

No such animal!

"Photography is the only major art in which professional training and years of experience do not confer an insuperable advantage over the untrained and inexperienced - this for many reasons, among them the large role that chance (or luck) plays in the taking of pictures, and the bias toward the spontaneous, the rough, the imperfect."

 

Sontag

Don: Everything from the time an image is formed in your mind, to the timing of the release of the shutter, to post shoot processing.

What is the philosophy of photography?

An unexamined life is not worth living.

 

The only real sin is ignorance.

 

There is no philosophy of photography, only a philosophy of life. Your philosophical and metaphysical assumptions will, however, be obvious in your photography as they will be in every aspect of your life. If you want to have a good life, be a good whatever, or take good photographs, figure out why you are doing what you do. Those reasons are a philosophy.

Larry's comments are fine, but they're only philosophy and are as a result reflective more than sources of guidance.

 

Photography is substantially a technical task. If you lack the technical skills you can't do it. Thinking philosophically about photography means one is not doing photography.

 

I think it's more important by far to have photographic goals or urges or ideas or technical problems to solve, than to have a philosophy about it.

 

Life doesn't require philosophy, philosophy is mostly a concern to life's non-participants. The Nike slogan applies.

Why stimulating conversations with people of intelligence about the writings of Descartes,

Hume, and Kant or a good discussion of ethics isn't participating in life as much as is

climbing a mountain or, for that matter, spending hours in a darkroom, I can't imagine.

"Photography is the only major art in which professional training and years of experience do not confer an insuperable advantage over the untrained and inexperienced - this for many reasons, among them the large role that chance (or luck) plays in the taking of pictures, and the bias toward the spontaneous, the rough, the imperfect."

 

Sontag

 

It would seem Sontag was unaware of Jackson Pollock and others of his ilk!

 

While it's true that mediocrity is more readily attainable with a camera than some other art forms, it's esentially just another means of expression.

 

As such, any philosophical musings about photography would seem to be appropriately applied to any form of artistic endeavor. I do agree with the belief that whatever philosophy we may have about our lives and their purpose would be reflected in all aspects of our activities and not especially in our photography.

 

Perhaps there is no "Philosophy of Photography."

This discussion reminds me of a tale someone told me of a reporter asking a marine sniper what he feels when shooting a terrorist. His reply? "Recoil." I shared this with a buddy of mine in our photo club when he complained to me that our club has headed into too much "touchy-feely" discussion of what we "feel" when taking a photograph. Whenever this discussion comes up in the club now, we just look at each other, smile, and say "Recoil." Certainly there is some tiny bit of "philosophy" there in the back of my mind, most definitely ethics when it comes to going after certain subjects (birds on a nest, for example), but I can't say that I sit there philosophising away when I'm taking a pic of the pretty daisies. All I'm concerned about at the time when I'm hitting the shutter release is exposure/sharpness/composition, I'm not sweating out some philosophical debate in my mind about the image. I just wanna take the purty picture.

"Don: Everything from the time an image is formed in your mind, to the timing of the release of the shutter, to post shoot processing." -- Rosmini

 

For the purpose of this forum what I'd call my philosophy of photography has its effect through releasing the shutter. After that, things are not so clear to me, or perhaps there are simply more variables and I have not worked through all the issues.

 

It is important because it contains the motivation. I'm not a pro so there is no commercial motive, neither is there a spirit of competition, nor the hobbiest's joy in 'fondling' and working cameras and taking pictures -- there is no explicit reason for my photography except as a philosophical activity.

<I>It would seem Sontag was unaware of Jackson Pollock and others of his ilk!</I><P>And

It would seem that you are unaware of Pollock's formal training and philosophy of Art.

Sontag is mediocre. "Years of training, experience etc". Artists have something, a mystery ... that not even philosophy can penetrate.

To answer your question directly: that's exactkly what separates the 'great and gifted' photographers from the mediocre. I personally do not know any great photographer who has not spent years studying art, lighting, human interaction, color, textures, etc.

 

Doug

A "philosophy" is by definition a verbal theory...which means a philosophy can only be hinted at in images, cannot be contained by images.

 

Philosophy, a verbal construct, may provide a framework for one's work, a theme or even verbal explanation of one's work. However, by definition a verbal construct cannot be "equivalent" to something one sees (the word "cloud" is not a cloud) or or to something one does mechanically (releasing a shutter does not state a theory).

 

I can imagine a photographic project devoted to Goethe, but the photographs would at best hold allusions, not philosophy.

 

A philosophy is inherently a theory. One might see hypothetical proofs for the theory in one's photographs, but the theory itself would only exist apart, likely found via links to one's sources.

I think philosophy can inform how you think and will undoubtedly affect how you choose subject matter and how you "perform" with your camera. It's more of an indirect effect IMO. Who you are as a person takes you beyond just technical merits (wow what a beautiful photo) to artistic merits (that artist really has something to say, and wow that's beautiful). It's like the difference between Weston and Burtynsky. Both make beautiful images, but the latter takes you one step further- that the beauty is used to suck you in, then the details tell the story. Every has their reasons for creating how they do. Many people are fine with just creating a beautiful shot, and that is valid, but there are others that want to say something with their work, not just capture light and record memories.

"And It would seem that you are unaware of Pollock's formal training and philosophy of Art."

 

Thanks, but I am aware of at least the fact that he studied art. An artist friend who was acquainted with him back in the fifties, shortly after his "drip period," felt that behind his facade of sophistication was a mischievous sense of perpetrating a monstrous hoax. As I view his paintings, I can't help but agree, but the millions folks bid for them and similar works by Pollock wannabes seems to suggest I may be missing something in that sort of artistic expression. Throwing paint on a canvas and poking at it with sticks seems tantamount to throwing a camera in the air and letting it "do its thing."

Susan Sontag was a critic and writer of novels etc.. To my knowledge she was not a

photographer. Her ideas and theories about photography were widely accepted by the

scholars and academics in photography at the time. Susan Sontag has since withdrawn a

fair amount of her old theories - she's changed her mind as so many of us do. So where

does that leave us?

 

Jackson Pollack is acclaimed for his innovation in art. He was the first artist to work in this

manner dribbling and dripping paint onto a canvas. Many examples of new innovation or

daring new ways of expressing art exist. Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, and many many more

have one thing in common - they did it differently.

 

In order for art to be made an artist has to have an idea and work out how that idea will

best be expressed. Notes, sketches and research will be done by the artist to find out how

other artists have dealt with the subject before. After many hours, days, or years of

thought and trying out the ideas the artist may then embark on the work. Changes and

new ideas are born out of old ideas in a process of developement. In most cases the end

result is very different from the original idea. This process is often painful and difficult.

 

When an artist uses a camera the same development occurs. Some photographic artists

gather images over many years for a single exhibition or body of work.

 

Now to answer Rosmini's question -IMO the more thought, time, planning and

development put into a photograph the more resolved end result.

Ho hum. I used to be a check pilot in large airplanes. How much do you think I cared about my examinee's philosophy of flight. In aviation it wasn't even much of a subject for bar talk. All I wanted to know was if he or she had the skill and judgment to fly professionally. In my philosophy, which IMO Mr. Kelly correctly identified as theory, the more pictures you take and develop the more you will learn about about photography which will lead, just as in flying airplanes, to better results (better pictures and better landings). Both endeavors are judged by tangible results. There is a famous portrait of I believe of a Pakistani woman with a memorable haunting stare on the cover of National Geographic. I don't care what was in the photographers mind that made the picture. I just care about the photo which is one of the most arresting I have ever seen.

Al Durer & "Artists have something, a mystery ... that not even philosophy can penetrate."

I think you'll find its just plain hard work.

 

Doug Axford - I totally agree.

 

Dick Hilker - Artists are known to do funny things in order to achieve all sorts of funny

images that they later call art. Its called experimentation, sometimes it works, sometimes

not.

"Specifically, does it enhance your work or provide an extra dimension to the photo that you produce?"

 

"Absolutely it does."

 

"If I may ask, Thomas - in what way?"

 

It's a bit of a long winded story. Trying to keep it simple in my below.

 

I'm not a documentary or portrait photographer as I create an image. There's much thought (philosophy) which goes into most, not all images that I create. If I were doing documentary or portrait photography, yes, I'd be inserting my views on life into the image making process as I'm not a mind numbed robot. The more one is aware of themselves, the more consciously it's done.

 

I don't go out and just grab shots, hoping something will come of it. On any one outing, I might seek out, two to five subject matters, make a series of three to five images surrounding the singular thought in front of me and after several series of shots, stop. I've gathered all of four to twenty shots, and that's it. There's no point in continuing as the secession is over. Now it's time to process the images.

 

I find myself in my head, rattling about, asking what I'm doing; why am I getting this shot, what about the scene in front of me do I find so photographic (interesting) worthy? Is it just a shot of another pretty flower? Or is there a message, a flirtive emotion (visceral) that I'm feeling and capturing and hoping to convey.

 

I want my images to be much more than just another image and only by understanding myself, my personal philosophy and injecting this awareness into my images can I create what I'm wanting. So to me, "Absolutely it does."

 

"Free for all... lets hear it. :)"

 

My feeling (opinion), if one doesn't have a photographic philosophy, they're just pointing the camera, tripping the shutter and "hoping."

"I don't go out and just grab shots, hoping something will come of it." -- Thomas

 

The approach you describe is similar to mine. What I've found is that the most interesting photograph is the one that stopped the "rattling about" and was not looked for, not searched out, and not carefully considered, or planned for. It is a "grab shot" in that it is of the moment: this perspective, this light and not any other -- and this 'me' at this moment. One's "philosophy' doesn't have to be explicit and conscious in order for it to operate. If anything, it gets in the way, at least it is my experience, comparing the exposures from an outing.