I don't have the foggiest idea why I shoot what I do. What about you?

<p>What I shoot obviously has no commercial value, nor is it particularly popular or valued very highly here on Photo.net. I wonder what it is that impels us to shoot what we shoot and then seemingly compels us to try to share it with others.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/13756652&size=md"><strong>HERE</strong></a> is an example of one of mine that leaves even me shaking my head. Yet, yet, I must have found something of interest there when I shot it, cropped it, resized it, and posted it. It's not the worst thing I have shot, but I think that it is a long way from being the best. Dare I confess that I rather like it, even though I cannot give any particular reason why I should?</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17613675&size=md"><strong>HERE</strong></a> is another that puzzles me. What on earth did I/do I think I see here?</p>

<p>Nor am I alone in my puzzlement. Andy K of Photo.net once wrote me to say, "Lannie, I cannot begin to comprehend why you shoot what you do." Nor was that a rare or isolated reaction.</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://un-posed.com/">HERE</a></strong> is some of Andy's own work, which I dearly love.</p>

<p>Please post something of your own that you enjoyed shooting quite part from any particular rationale as to why you should have.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Actually, I see that the link that I gave to Andy Kochanowski's site was actually to a link to site that he linked to from his site.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.akochanowski.net/"><strong>HERE</strong></a> is the main link to his site.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>You do it because you love it!</p>

<p>Yes, Tim, but what precisely is it that I love in specific shots? What about you? Do you ever find yourself shaking your own head at what you like to shoot?</p>

<p>Love your work, by the way. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Its not about what you shoot, but what you decide not to delete.</p>

<p>Not shooting is logically equivalent to deleting, I believe, Sanford. You're just deleting in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>See<em> The Shot Not Taken</em>, by Fred G.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

To quote the title of one of Richard Feynmann's books "What do you care what other people think?"

Great book, you should read it.

 

Here is another even smaller book which ai have been reading lately (it's on my lap right now in fact): "The War of Art" by

Steven Pressfield. I also highly recommend that.

 

Lannie, maybe this quote from Garry Winogrand will help you: "I make photographs to see what things look like when

photographed."

<p>There is a trigger -- a special light, beauty, a line, a curve, masses and shadow, incongruity, humor, etc.<br>

When you succeed the rationale is clear, when you fail, it can be a mystery.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, maybe this quote from Garry Winogrand will help you: "I make photographs to see what things look like when photographed."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like that, Ellis!</p>

<p>I'll have to check on the books you mentioned.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What do you care what other people think?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Communication with others, empathy for others, sharing with others are all very important to me. I care a whole lot what other people think. Because I'm human and want to be part of something bigger than just me. How I behave in light of what other people think is a different question, but that I care about other people's thoughts, I have no doubt.<br>

<br>

Which leads me to why I photograph what I photograph. To find common ground with others through an expressive act.<br>

<br>

Specifically, I shoot gay male contemporaries to give them and me a voice. I shoot people with emotional and physical disabilities to provide understanding, visibility, and a lot of fun for all of us. I shoot people to connect. I shoot the street, when I do, to help me understand it better and relate to it more personally. I shoot other stuff to see what I can find and whether I can look at it anew. <br>

<br>

I shoot to make pictures, "make" being the operative word, to make something. <br>

<br>

Rarely do I not have a pretty good idea of why I'm shooting what I'm shooting. And, Lannie, I think it's terrific that you don't. These differences are amazing to consider.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5916058-lg.jpg" alt="" width="511" height="720" /></p>

<p>I don't know either and quite honestly I don't care. I've said many times here before that I'm just having fun. Works for me. One young lady who looked through a a stack of my pictures many years ago said I was living vicariously through the people in the photographs. Maybe, maybe not. Like I said I don't care and I don't think anyone else does either.</p>

<p>Lannie -- To address your photos first.</p>

<p>The shot of the raindrops in the street, seen large, is pleasing to me. I like the tactile feel of the drops hitting the street, and maybe it also brings up the memory of that scent that arises when a summer rain first hits dry pavement. It's an interesting view in that it really forces the viewer to focus on the drops themselves. Not a rain-paved street from a distance, but the drops themselves up close. I don't know if that's what you had in mind but I can see wanting to capture that. The shot of the tangled tree. To me, the tree is different from any that I am familiar with, and the odd tangles and contortions of the branches make it interesting. Both the rain drops and the tree have a level of visual interest which is, in most cases, what a photograph is all about.</p>

<p>I have a somewhat more than foggy idea of why I photograph what I photograph, but what compels me to do it in the first place is a different story. It's certainly not for money or fame. To say something about the world? To capture some moments from the world? To attempt to show subtle odd moments from mundane daily scenes? I'm not entirely sure.</p>

<p>Interestingly, the link that you first provided, which leads to the Un-Posed website, is now bookmarked in my favorites to peruse more thoroughly in the near future. From what little I saw, it is just my cup of tea and I found that some of the photos I saw inspired me (I've felt in a bit of a rut lately) and made me want to get back out there (wherever "there" is).</p>

<p>This is not exactly what you were talking about, but there are times when I capture a photo that I really like, but for the life of me cannot explain why I like it. (I come across the same problem sometimes when I see the work of another photographer that I really like, but cannot put into words why I like it.) The photo below is a good example of one of my photos that I really like, but I have no idea why. I do not like it because I took it (there are more photos of mine that I do not like, or are ambivalent toward, than there are ones that I really like). I would like it if it had been taken by someone else. I took it because I was in the street (technically, along North Beach in Chicago) and something about the moment caught my eye. But beyond that I have no idea why I took it, or why I am fond of it. In that sense, it echoes a little bit of what you wrote about some of your photos above.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Not shooting is logically equivalent to deleting, I believe, Sanford<br>

I'd say not quite. Sometimes you might want to see how something is going to look after you play with it before deleting it. I'm kinda like Marc, I don't know, I'm kinda like a crow, something catches my eye and I take a pic. Though for a while I like to shoot flags and also for a while I often liked to include a palm tree in a pic in Southern Cal. </p>

<p>Reflections of a red post and fire hydrant with rainsplash craters superimposed--what’s not to like? I’d love to see a crop of that part of the image....<br>

Why I photograph what I do? Because something catches my attention and I’m trying to figure out why, and then I’m trying to understand its attraction well enough to distill it into a concise image. I spent over an hour photographing the most overphotographed landmark in my town a few days ago, all to try to find out what it is I like about the thing. I ended up with one frame I liked out of a hundred taken, but I solved the puzzle. So for me, photography is a way of learning how to really see things. In the process, I end up with lot of why-on-earth-did-I-take-that shots, but it sure is a lot less painful now in digital.</p>

<p>I've said it many times, the visual world literally reaches out and grabs me and says: "look at this" and if I have a camera with me I take a photograph. </p>

<p>"Rationale" ???</p>

<p>My rationale is whatever is not rationale. It's the not-known that seduces.</p>

<p>... the madness of light ...</p>

<p>... whatever is illuminated ... </p>

<p>etc. etc. etc. </p>

<p>Then there's the 'touched by death' thing intrinsic to photographs. Like you, I am old.</p>

<p>[Ellis, Feynman thought philosophers/philosophy was ... stupid. Maybe that's why you recommended him to Lannie?]</p>

<i>I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower

and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a

scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he

sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I

can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine

the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension,

at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the

colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It

adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting

questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I

don't understand how it subtracts.</i>

 

<p>I wouldn't trust Feynman further than I could throw him.

I shoot because I like messing about with cameras. And camera bags and SD cards and computers. And…

To Fred G:

 

You wrote "Communication with others, empathy for others, sharing with others are all very important to me. I care a

whole lot what other people think."

 

Once I have created something I care very much what people think. But when ai am creating just for myself (as opposed

to creating for others on commission or assignment) I don't give a fig about what other people might think about it and

knowing your work a little I do not believe you do either. I think we both do the work we do, the real work, because we

have no other choice if we want to feel the joy of something we can't express any other way. When other people see it

and connect with it it strengthens our bonds to our community.

I shoot to please myself. I shoot to please others when I shoot swim meets as the pictures are posted and

printed to please the swimmers. When I had my photo business I did it to please my customers. When I did

weddings I did it to please brides and their very close relatives and to please whoever was paying me. When I

worked for a paper I did it to please my editor and those who read the paper. I did high school sports for the

paper mostly to please the parents. When I shot for shows I did it to please the judges but I soon disabused

myself of that. I have 170 pictures posted here on PN. I don't know whether that has been to please me or the

few people here who look at them. Some of them are not very good but I am too lazy to take them down. Most of all I enjoy the human contact between me, the photographer, and the subjects. I think I am somwhat adept at evoking some kind of emotion that shows in the photograph. That gives me great satisfaction.

<p>I shoot (paint, draw and make sculptures) to communicate, what I fail to express in words.<br>

I keep photos which show more than what you see.</p>

 

I just want and enjoy taking photos of my family and the things we do and places we go. I like mechanical camera's a lot

so it makes since to have a couple of them to use. Currently I am on a trip to see my son graduate from college and of

course I wanted pictures. After I develop the film and make prints I will display the pictures on the piano and then into my

photo album. We went hiking in Montana and I took a few river pics and I will process a couple of those also to document

our trip. Anyway family photos is my interest.

<p>when I don't have the foggiest idea what to shoot, I look for fog ;)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Almost all of my family are artists. I'm the black sheep, a critic. I am a professional analyst of art styles, that is.<br>

After a lifetime of using photography to document archaeological research and to document archaeological sites for use in teaching, my first goal is always to get some kind of record. After that, I worry about fine points and more "artistic" goals.</p>

<p>I am actually quite happy with my photography. Others, not so much so. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have the foggiest idea why I shoot what I do. What about you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not surprised. Reasoning is equivalent to translating our thoughts into words, and words can barely start to describe the aesthetics behind many visual art forms. If we could define all visual art in the form of words, there would be no need for the former. For example, there are many photographs (e.g. abstract works) that would be clubbed into the category whimsical or mystical, if asked to describe in words. However, such description barely skims the surface of the ocean that lies beneath. </p>

<p>While seeing art, I look for a mental resonance, an inner feeling that immediately tells me that I like it. After that, whatever words or reasonings I use to justify that feeling doesn't matter that much. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes not. Many times I feel the futility of words while writing critic for a picture that I like. Sometimes when I get back to a critic that I wrote a while back, it looks so naive. If given the chance, I will write it in a different way. Even that may seem naive in future. In contrast, my feelings for the picture remains unchanged with time, which shows the irrelevance of words in such a case.</p>

<p>The bottomline I think is, first ask yourself whether you like your work or not. It takes a while to distinguish real liking from projected liking (whether others will like it or not). I can categorize my works into ones that I genuinely like, and ones that I think will be popular. If you like a picture, that is in itself a justification that it is good. No need for literary reasons.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/2645130">Here</a> is a picture I shot and I am still not completely sure why. One critic asked me why I shot this and I tried to justify myself in my reply to him. They are all valid reasons, but can they explain why I shot it, or what I was thinking at that particular moment? Not sure.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2645130-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="483" /></p>