Illustrating ideas

<p>Have you ever thought of your photographs or others' photographs as illustrating ideas? I don't know that I've ever set out to do this, but friends of mine have. Would it matter if the idea were immediately apparent? Not to me. The photographer might actually have to express the idea in words in order to shed a kind of light on the photos. A friend of mine did a jazz series of photographs. They were not of jazz musicians or anything that might be immediately associated with jazz. You might not guess they were motivated by and depictions of the look of jazz. But, when you read the titles, it becomes apparent. That doesn't spoil anything. It's simply how it is.</p>

<p>A lot of art is idea. That's how I think about Duchamp's <em>Fountain</em>. I don't get off on looking at the urinal -- even when I'm in a museum where it's right in front of me -- as much I get off thinking about what it's saying to me or what it means to the history of art, to art appreciators, and to curators. I also can't isolate it from Duchamp's body of work. (It does compel to look in a certain way, however, not just at the fountain but at the world around me.)</p>

<p>Especially when I go to modern art museums, there's a lot of stuff shown that I value and appreciate but would have no interest in owning or seeing on my wall or in my house every day. That's because the visual or tactile elements are NOT the most profound qualities. They may not even make me feel as much as they make me think. Of course, when I think, I feel. Thinking, for me, is palpable, moving, and often emotional. Having my thinking expanded by something I see is powerful and often enough for me.</p>

<p>So, in the case of my friend, I would want to hang these photos on my wall because I do want to look at them again and again. Actually, one is hanging over my piano, where it's been for about 20 years. And the idea behind it, with which it is labeled, is significant to it. In some other cases, such as pieces in modern art museums, the Ideas actually exceed the visual interest and demands.</p>

<p>How do ideas apply intimately to (some of) your photographs or to (some) photographs or art that you've seen?</p>

<p> 1) Because I rarely think verbally I rarely notice distinctions between thinking and feeling: Some of Fred's thought is "palpable" and "emotional" so we may be on the same page there. We may differ here: I don't experience my own photographic ideas as words, even if I can address them in comments afterward. The cornball-but-important "one-hand-clapping" koan evokes the same sort of thing...the obvious and shocking ("satori") answer is a non-verbal idea (unless a pedant tries to explain it, like explaining a joke).</p>

<p>2) When "...Ideas actually exceed the visual interest and demands" it sometimes has to do with what viewers project onto someone else's work. Viewing a print over 20 years, we may make discoveries we've missed in the past, or we may instead apply layers of invention (e.g. "interpretation"). Those extra layers can be sources of pride, joys in themselves, but they may not have much to do with the artist's intent or even the work itself, if that's a concern (it is to me).</p>

<p>3) I'm working on prints in exploration of a visual idea: images with important but very faint features. Just happened to see a Tiffany exhibit yesterday that did something along that line as well.. solid even-toned exhibit panels contained almost ephemeral hints of Tiffany design elements, easily overlooked. They echoed an idea I've worked with for years with non-photo media. </p>

<p>4) I want to photograph some people who frighten me (look like gang bangers) but who exhibit tender interests that I won't name here.. to convey an idea and attendant emotions/thoughts in print. The visual "idea" includes a secondary visual idea, the way in which I'll execute the project..</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is a photograph by Eva Rubinstein which fascinates me (<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dAxg9htytOw/TYEuL9TNjCI/AAAAAAAAEYA/lIa3s6i5huQ/s1600/mirror-eva-rubinstein.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ghostinsnow.blogspot.com/2011/03/where-did-you-go.html&h=415&w=640&sz=19&tbnid=pCLbr_2dv0E8UM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=137&prev=/search%3Fq%3DEva%2BRubinstein,%2Bimages%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Eva+Rubinstein,+images&hl=en&usg=__BAwdvP2JitmWbi7MiPHFvsBZd0w=&sa=X&ei=Dj3-TYDpKsvn-gb1pe3PAw&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ9QEwAg">Link</a>). I have never seen the original but would love to do so. Even as a reproduction in the pages of a book the picture intrigues me. It is, I'm sure, intended to say something that goes far beyond the mere pictorial content. The picture is indeed rather minimal - a bare wall with a mirror in which is reflected a bed and part of a window - yet I find I am almost mesmerised by it. I'm not sure what Rubinstein intended but to me there is something morbid about the picture. I don't even know the title of the picture - perhaps that might throw some light on Rubinstein's intention.<br>

By way of contrast, in W Eugene Smith's photograph, 'Tomoko and Mother', from his Minamata series, the idea is very clear. Although the picture is of a specific subject, it invokes much wider and deeper considerations. In that one picture one sees the tragic consequences of the decisions made by a company exemplified in this one victim who thus becomes an emblem for a entire legion of people. Though I regard this photograph one of the greatest ever made and, in its way, beautiful, as a Renaissance painting of Christ's Deposition from the Cross is beautiful, one cannot look at it for long - it arouses too much emotion. In this one photograph is crystallised so many ideas that one would need an entire book to express them all. <br>

You mention Duchamp, and, for me, his last major work, 'Etants données', resonates with the Rubinstein photograph. Whatever he is saying, the idea is buried in this similarly cryptic work, awaiting revelation.</p>

<p>Duchamp's works are mainly ideas expressed by visual means, but ideas that to a large degree are additionally expressed in his notes and his many interviews. One of his major works <a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-06VXLWQAYUs/TYZEd4Ou2LI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/7Okf7yc1PbM/s1600/duchamp_largeglass.jpg">"The Large glass"</a> (also called "La Mariee Mise A Nu Par Ses Celibataires, même / The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even", 1915-23) was intended to be accompanied by a book an intellectual prolongation to "the glass" (see <a href="http://www.dada-companion.com/duchamp/largeglass.php">here</a> for some details). When Chris refers to "<a href="http://apolide.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/duchamp-etant-donnes-part-1946-66.jpg">Etant données</a>" (1946-66) (nudity warning!) the ideas behind are even more complex (see <a href="http://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_3/Articles/Hoy/etantdon_en.html">here</a>, if interested). <br>

Fred is of course right that "<em>A lot of art is idea</em>" or rather most works of art are ideas, or when mainly feelings are the subject, they are often expressed based on ideas about the function of art.</p>

<p>Personally I would not be able to separate my photos from ideas. I see most of my photos as prolongations and in complementarity to what I have expressed in writing and speaking throughout my professional life. I would not see and shoot a photo like <a href="../photo/13438573">this</a> or <a href="../photo/6695257">this</a>, for example, without ideas that go far beyond the visual effect of the scene.<br>

However, many of my photos are shot because of ideas of easthetics, like <a href="../photo/13288092">this</a> or <a href="../photo/12323591">this</a>. </p>

<p>As you know Fred I often use my photography to illustrate 'ideas' to a viewer. Thoughtful as a painter sometimes. Knowing the image you gave as an example and as the author of it, i can say that the jazz series was produced very thoughtfully, intentionally. But I also remember it as an experience of the gut and strongly spontaneous... Steve recently mentioned his experience with the influence of music (i forget what music) on his shooting. The jazz series was my response/acknowledgment to - of how ambient music can and most often does influence the way I shoot.<br>

With that in mind I wanted to illustrate jazz as it impacts me. The photos were primarily constructions. I <em>chose</em> the method to accomplish my intent. I constructed the images from top to bottom - very thoughtfully. But then I let go of my internal dialogue and let the music take over. On that series it came together for me. I felt like a sponge for the music. It felt like drawing, sculpting and photography. </p>

<p>Many photographers have no desire to begin the (nearly) 'total' control process of creating a photo to illustrate ideas, perhaps preferring to have ideas present themselves only after the capture and/or when accessed by a viewer. I frequently take that path also but get great satisfaction from going out to create from scratch an image that illustrates an idea. start empty canvas.<br>

As for helping a viewer get in touch with that idea, well I have no qualms about doing that. Guernica is not a lesser piece because it is titled or because the title opens a door to further exploration. </p>

<p> On my series on retention ponds, which are very deadpan urban/city scapes I am illustrating several ideas, from the most basic, the futility of the specific material design of the ponds, to several other levels. Plus illustrating continuing personal (meaning to me) ideas related to my own way(s) or working, like trying to stay away from "acccess pictures" and photographing easily available subjects (things anyone could photograph). IMO, the work more embodies than illustrates the ideas involved.</p>

<p> I also photograph for articles on a frequent basis. There, the pictures illuminate text, and vice versa. Mentally, the process is very different, though I often carpe diem & make pictures that have nothing to do with the article, and are expanding strings of connected photographs, or the tenuous scaffolding on which other images may grow. Simultaneously, I am wordlessly ideating the text and photographs, all in a very incestuous and seamless manner.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't think I ever set out to take a picture of some idea I had unless you consider something of beauty an idea. Of course most of my pictures are landscapes. I think I may hit upon an idea if I'm shooting people but often it's with a sense of humor. I love satire and being able to laugh at foibles. Do you consider that an idea, Fred? <a href="../photo/11945175">http://www.photo.net/photo/11945175</a> <br>

Luis: Do you have a link to your pictures so we can see what you mean?</p>

<p>Alan, I think that picture shows how sometimes photographs illustrate ideas that evade the photographer. Yes, I do have a link, and no, I'm not posting it here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We're not talking about the Cheshire Cat here; here the smile (the picture) doesn't point to the missing cat; here the smile in the picture points to something that has nothing to do with cats, right? The OP is asking about the pictorial embodiment of things that have no body of their own -- they have no prior or "given" physical form?</p>

<p>In addition, this is sort of a special-case use of "illustrate" in the sense that in common usage illustrations are neither sufficient nor necessary, whereas here, since the picture is the point, the illustration is still not sufficient but it is necessary?</p>

<p>Semantics aside, in almost all kinds of art *other than* photography, I love work that embodies ideas that are otherwise unembodied. But in photography, and this is striclty my personal opinion -- I'd even call it a visceral, physical reaction -- I absolutely <em>hate</em> it (where it is the sole point of the picture; not where it's a subordinate suggestion). For me, one of the central, characteristics of the photograph is that it insists on bringing its own textures, its own colors, its own vectors and attitudes. That "liviingness" is, for me, really, almost the whole ... point? nature? power? buzz? of making photographs. It's what makes me want it.</p>

<p>To me, photography might be thought of as like a dog (unless you hate dogs; heck, make it like a person). That dog has its own embodiment, quirks, attitudes, appearance. I will live with it, love it, train it, get it to conform to my lifestyle ... but I won't eat it. I won't use it or make it into something other than a dog. In return (now there's an interesting phrase ...) the dog enriches my life.</p>

<p>Fred: I'd appreciate some unpacking of your question? Are you referring to ideas in general? Were you considering anything more specific?</p>

<p>I see photography as more cat-like. It snoozes a large percentage of the time... sometimes comes when called, sometimes not....it claws your favorite furniture...snatches flies out of the air...nests in your packed luggage or fresh laundry....incurs huge vet bills..has extra senses....is incredibly finicky.... loves to play with abandon...never stops trying to do the impossible....is always curious..does mysterious things or some kind of encrypted feline rituals...and more.</p>

<p>Oh, and it will curl up with you , love you, appreciate being loved, train you and get you to conform to is lifestyle. And you'll be grateful.</p>

<p><strong>Chris</strong>, your post brings to mind, for me, the difference between photos stimulating ideas (many of them) in the viewer and photos that start out with the photographer wanting to convey a more specific kind of idea. If we take your examples, the Smith photo was made to document something specific so, yes, there was a clear idea behind it yet, as we discussed in Luca's thread, there are universalizing aspects to that photo that take it well beyond the original idea. Many good photos will do that. In illustrating/conveying/embodying an idea, they will often also transcend that idea.</p>

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, those are good examples of two idea photos and two "aesthetic" photos, though I think aesthetics in today's world includes expression and emotion and is less restricted to beauty than it was historically. In that regard, I see your two last links as examples of photos exploring the beauty of design and nature or design in nature and your first two look more penetratingly thoughtful. Did you have specific ideas you wanted to illustrate in going into the two photos you link as idea photos?</p>

<p><strong>Josh</strong>, you bring up a couple of important points. A photographer who may want to illustrate an idea at times doesn't limit himself to doing that at other times. And that a photo may start with the germ of an idea or even a big old tree of an idea doesn't mean it gets shot "thoughtfully." It may be shot very spontaneously and from the gut, simply being influenced by the idea that was had at some other time.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, yes. I remember your talking very specifically about those retention pond photos. And your photos illustrating articles is something I had in mind. Where the photos are literally illuminating (as you said) text and not a case we speak about often where the text is meant to illuminate the photos (which I also don't think is a bad thing unless it's done badly). I like "wordlessly ideating." Yes, of course, ideas have verbal and non-verbal aspects.</p>

<p><strong>Alan</strong>, I think of "capturing beauty" as an idea, of course, but I don't think of the types of photos you describe, landscapes meant to capture beauty, as idea photos in the sense we're talking about here. What you describe with people comes closer to what I was suggesting in the OP. I see your photo as an ironic juxtaposition of a heavy set woman next to the mannequin of a runner. It pokes fun but I don't find it satiric.</p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, <em>"The OP is asking about the pictorial embodiment of things that have no body of their own -- they have no prior or "given" physical form?"</em> Yes and no. Some ideas are disembodied, and they can then be embodied in a picture. Some ideas are already formed in pictures in my mind, and they can be photographed. I can think of the idea becoming the picture. Sometimes, that's in the sense of the idea stimulating the picture, but sometimes it really does feel like its embodiment.</p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, I was thinking of specific ideas the photographer might have. That's why I talked about jazz, for instance, a distinctive musical form. Those specific ideas, when illustrated by a good photographer, probably will stimulate many more general ideas in the viewer.</p>

<p>I wanted to add that the initial idea may but does not have to act as a limit, or it can be both a limit and a freedom. Knowing Josh's jazz series, for instance, it was motivated by jazz and illustrates it well but there are other ideas, feelings, and instincts put into it as well. I think most people don't see an idea for a photo as a restriction but rather as the opening of a door. It can lend a kind of coherence to many disparate things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you have specific ideas you wanted to illustrate in going into the two photos you link as idea photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A reasonable question after all.<br>

Let's take <a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/13438573">this</a> photo first which is shot in Rue Saint-Denis in Paris one of the hotspots for prostitution, but also a very busy street of textile and garment producers and wholesale shops with numerous sweatshop in the backyards.<br>

When I'm at a place like that (one of the 'hundred vlllages" of Paris, all different) with my camera, I don't come with a predefined "idea" waiting to be illustrated, by appropriate photos. I try to become part of the surroundings, like others. Take a my black coffee with locals, buy local products and talk to as many as possible, ready to talk. I take my time and try to "feel" the place at that particular time of the day (lunchhours).</p>

<p>I could of course try (dangerous!) to shoot photos of the prostitutes around and their potential clients; of the young men on the street corners waiting to earn a euro or two by transporting garments and textiles; of the (clandestine) workforce on their way to long working hours in a backyard workshop etc etc. That is not however my type of photography. Others have done and will do such documentary shots.</p>

<p>I prefer going for the indirect telling of stories. This specific photo is therefor my way of telling the story of people that have seized to be fully individuals. Alienated by the toil of work. Playing their role in an economy and society that transform individuals into shadows and a world where images like the ones on this wall are at least just as "real "as the people passing by (the two men with bend backs). What caught my eye was therefor the scene of the straight proud back of the girl on the wall together with the open (naive) smile of the other, and the bend backs of the passing men as well as the hands/fists of the men and the open empty hand on the wall. </p>

<p>This being said it should be mentioned that such "ideas" (and others related) are not post-rationalized and interpretation of what happened to end up in a shot, but ideas the inspired me to shoot it, and many like it, in the first place.</p>

<p>The other photo (<a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/6695257">this</a>) of laughing faces (Palestinians) which were first shown on the Israeli concrete walls separating two people and signs of occupation and apartheid (not to start a discussion) were for several month hanging on the walls beside the Beaubourg centre (Modern Art museum) in Paris, next to one of the most joyful fountains in Paris, the Tinguely fountain. The "idea" of the photo was to illustrate a simple solidarity contribution of Paris to the joy of the men on the wall which might have been the "idea" of the city, in the first place, to hang the laughing faces exactly on that wall, and not elsewhere. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I think aesthetics in today's world includes expression and emotion and is less restricted to beauty than it was historically</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just one comment on this formulation, Fred. I totally agree, but wish to insist that aesthetics is also "beauty" and that beauty has its own contemporary forms to be found in cities and landscapes as well as in portraiture, and different from the classical ideals of beauty. It is therefore still a central theme of photography. This is another discussion I would think is worthwhile discussing in details elsewhere, maybe.</p>

<p>Josh's mention of Guernica brings to mind the fact that "it" is really ("only?") the culmination of literally hundreds of drawings and dozens of smaller paintings, work Picasso did over an extended period of time and with variations and evolutions around some central theme. </p>

<p>It's apparently "about" the horror of a specific attack on a specific village by the then most "modern" barbarians humankind had seen. But we can't know exactly what he had in mind without laboring to stay attentive to the work itself...rather than explanations... remembering that Picasso's ideas surely must have been in flux, with ideas ebbing and flowing, emerging and vanishing.</p>

<p>In my experience the big Guernica, as well as the sketches and cartoons, takes a tremendous amount of time and visual labor to appreciate. It deserves that investment. There's so much that it is a temptation (is always for me anyway) to draw and re-draw conclusions. Like all good work (my hypothesis) it takes work to appreciate.</p>

<p>Fred: Maybe we just don't have the same sense of humor and it's true that my tongue can be cutting at times. But I posted, <em>"I love satire and being able to laugh at foibles."</em> I believe my picture falls into the definition of satire and foibles as it makes fun of people's gluttony and vanity (trying to "look good" by running) in a juxtaposed photograph that conterpoints both foibles. How many people eat like slobs and then go to the gym to trim down? You don't have to agree with my picture. You can even think it's crass. But that does not diminish it's power of expressing an idea. In fact, if it gets anyone upset, than it's done it's job better than I think. </p>

<p><em>satire: trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.</em><br>

<em>foible: A minor weakness or failing of character.</em></p>

<p>Like identify "Guernica" as one painting, calling music "jazz" sometimes suggests a lack of awareness of context. I'm not saying that's the case with Josh because I've not seen the work and, of course, I'm no authority. </p>

<p>But I think the "idea" of jazz is undisputed, most fundamentally to do with black roots, rythm, and improvization.</p>

<p>Players white and black and asian say there's something inherently African-rooted to it. The most famous white jazz musicians I can think of at the moment gravitated around bossa-nova, which if you know the roots are distinctly African...but it initially appealed mostly to white musical tourists like Charlie Byrd and Stan Getz, just as New Orleans jazz appeals mostly to white tourists today. There may be no such thing as "jazz" outside an individual's notions within some very broad and traditional parameters. I'd be eager to see what Josh means by the term. fwiw I attend live jazz several times a month and play "jazz guitar" badly, biased toward Django Reinhardt.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you ever thought of photographs as illustrating ideas?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, do you mean like THESE photographs (Teamwork, Service, Excellence)? </p>

<p>http://www.successories.com/categories/Motivational-Posters/Corporate-Impressions/16/1</p>

<p> ;-)</p>

 

<p>Ideas can be fleeting, or they can be developed over time. It therefore seems to me that all photographs begin (in a logical sense) with ideas. </p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, perhaps. What interested me was to talk about the different ways different kinds of ideas influence our photographs and the photographs we view, some directly, some indirectly, some more specifically and some less so. Whether we ever focused deliberately on a particular idea to illustrate (such as "jazz") or see that kind of specificity in certain other photos, perhaps with the help of accompanying titles or statements. I didn't think of it as a question of logic as much as one of practice. </p>

<p>Small, obvious reminder: "jazz" isn't an "idea." It's a word. Some "jazz" -labeled musicians have always hated the term. Handy of course, but the gulf between the word "jazz" and thinking in ways that bring the breadth of the music itself directly to mind is far wider than verbal formulations can begin to bridge. When I think of Dizzy Gillespie I think of him playing "Salt Peanuts" and this sort of infinitely complex image: <a href="

<p>I'm sure that African-rooted music can be touched on photographically because so many fine photographers seem to me to have come close, even as expressed in the white-most-brilliant players' manafestations (eg Cal Tjader or Joe Pass), which is the most we're likely ever to see connecting the visual and the musical.</p>

<p>Here's an interview with Pete Turner on "jazz" and his photography. When Josh/jazz came up I immediately thought of of Turner's LP cover for Wes Montgomery's "Down Here On The Ground" ...I was six feet from Montgomery when he performed some from that album just days before his death. Poignance/schmaltz/superstition/ignorance/hubris, all of which I enjoy, can influence ideas.<br /><a href="http://www.amcorner.com/features/interview_view.php?fetchtopic=14">http://www.amcorner.com/features/interview_view.php?fetchtopic=14</a> (you may have to cut and paste)</p>

<p>Here are Pete Turner's "jazz" covers, including "Down Here On The Ground": <a href="http://www.dougpayne.com/pturnerz.htm">http://www.dougpayne.com/pturnerz.htm</a></p>

<p>I'd like to see Josh's work with his idea, or to know what "jazz" implies for him.</p>

<p>Folks, I really didn't have an agenda with this post. Originally, I hadn't decided whether this is something I'd want to do for myself or not and hadn't really pinpointed how the illustration of an idea can actually take place photographically.</p>

<p>There may be a problem relating ideas to photos because photos are often shot and understood literally. A couple of weeks ago, I saw an Elliot Erwitt exhibit at the International Center of Photography in NYC. <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_npHLYQlxwsI/TNriR7B5B9I/AAAAAAAAAB4/PlVdoarcSxA/s1600/Elliot_Erwitt2++Dog+photoshop.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a> is representative of a lot of his work. It's a visual pun, a cute juxtaposition, a capture. It's very founded in this world, in the raw materials on which it's built. And it doesn't, in my mind, transcend those raw materials. It speaks directly about them. (I preferred some of his other work.)</p>

<p>Photos can more specifically and more conceptually embody ideas. They can be creations from scratch, from the mind, which uses the world's raw materials as a painter would use paint. The things in the world would not be used as we normally would use them but rather would be the raw materials of a construction that we put together in order to express something we're thinking about. We would not just go out hunting, we would not just wait for the right moment, we would not just hope to capture something that strikes our fancy. (In making these idea photos, we might do any of these things, but we wouldn't <em>just</em> do them. These approaches would cohere around an idea/conception we've formulated. And I'm not putting down these methods for those who utilize them with no pre-conceived idea.)</p>

<p>I'm trying to focus and be specific here. Take my work with middle-aged men. I start out with the idea of middle-aged men and so shooting middle-aged men will likely get that idea across. But what if I now want to take the conceptualization a step further? I might want to convey <em>nostalgia</em>, as it relates to middle-aged people or <em>fear of or embracing of death</em>. Can I go further into concepts where the literal showing of those concepts is less at play than the literal showing of older men. How do I shoot nostalgia? For that matter, can I shoot "middle-aged man" without using middle-aged men as subjects? [These are somewhat rhetorical questions. I'm not asking for advice on my own work. I'm asking if anyone has similar questions and is working on coming up with ways of shooting such things . . . for themselves.]</p>

<p>It seems obvious that everybody here has addressed the OT well, even richly and sometimes with simple precision...though some may also wish to avoid coming to grips with multiple truths such as: in photography an idea can be a starting point, a passing thought, a verbal interpretation, a delusion, a real assignment (photograph middle aged men at play) or a more ephemeral self-assignment (as with assigning oneself to make "equivalents" of verbalizations).</p>

<p>It's certainly possible to start with verbalized assignments we give ourselves, or that others give us, and transcend the mere verbalizations to produce brilliant work (see links to Pete Turner above).</p>

<p>It's also possible to fool oneself (and others) by proposing a starting point that doesn't exist (as with the pretense that a word IS an idea rather than mere annotation). Scientific method, a comparison that arguably can be made to photographic assignments, begins by recognizing that it's the wrong tool if the subject of the proposed inquiry is inherently ephemeral, impossible to pin down, impossible to measure. That's why scientific method isn't applied to vague ideas like "good" or "up" or "soul." Photography, like literature, can pursue ephemera and semantics but its limitations, like those of scientific method, may be worth considering.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I'm asking if anyone has similar questions and is working on coming up with ways of shooting such things . . . for themselves."<br /> ... when I create/design a photo or series that "...more conceptually embody ideas" it is sometimes motivated by the belief that i am going to learn more about the language of photography. maybe I can add to my metaphoric tool box. After the jazz series I explored (and still do) other music flavors. I now feel that I have 'spices' i can call upon to flavor my work. Much like learning about eye movement as a viewer. Some eye movement is uncomfortable some is relaxing some may be energizing. Not an absolute of course but still useful. This approach of drawing upon (ideas - concepts) non physical elements is an adaptation that surfaces in my 'real' job even more blantantly (architectural design). I think it becomes more discernible in other than 2 dimensional work. moving image - acting - dance - still image series - editing - etc.<br /> As an architectural designer I have learned that for me ambiance, juxtaposition, scale, movement through a space & many other things that in a photo may be non physical ... all can be hugely significant to an experience. and can be used to have some control over the experience. That carries over into imagery I capture or create. Elements of an image become great resources when I 'use' them to go for an 'idea' a concept. <br /> Nostalgia is a wonderful example of a challenge to convey. How I might accomplish that requires a lot of thoughtfulness and intent, or sometimes serendipity. But one (of many) avenue<em>s</em> I might use now is ambient music and my response to it ...<br /> to Embody & evoke and to question or inspire a question is most often the goal that carries me on creatively.</p>

<p>When I read your original post Fred ... the 'jazz series' example, the questions do lean to conceptual for me. But i do believe there is some , solid ground to browse with the topic. Actually you have asked ( as often happens here) a very large question. I appreciate your approach in your last post "... to focus and be specific here".</p>

<p>As Josh points out, I think you've (Fred) asked a very big question; too big. Like Michael Linder I (still) think all photographs always come from ideas. When you (Fred) say you're talking about what is beyond "something that strikes our fancy," I would say that <em>all</em> photographs originate in "something that strikes our fancy."</p>

<p>If I may approach this from the other side, I recently ran across James Agee writing this: "It seems to me there is quite as considerable value (to say nothing of joy) in the attempt to see or to convey even some simple thing as nearly as possible as that thing is. I grant the clarifying power [of art] in this effort of the memory and the imagination but they are as capable of muddying as of clearing the water and frequently indeed, so frequently that we may suspect a law in ambush, they do both at the same time, clouding in one way the thing they are clearing in another."</p>

<p>... and I have thought about it and thought about it and I can't think of any man-made thing or event -- barring accidents -- that can be done without imagination or memory, and I can't think of any man-made thing or event -- including accidents -- that can be viewed without imagination or memory. Which is to say, ideas.</p>