Intuition and photography

AJHingel · November 4, 2010

We have discussed at length photography from the point of view of the viewer often leaving aside the initial creative act of the photographer. The central question in all it's simplicity is how to make good photography.

I have found much inspiration in exploring the question in other fields of artistic expression. Painting and sculptures have been discussed by many widely in this forum, but making of potery might be the most revealing.

Many of us have had the experience of seeing, and in privileged moments maybe even touching, ancient Chinese pottery and especially that of the Song dynasty of the XI and XII century, as for example <a href="http://storage.canalblog.com/25/60/577050/40404491.jpg">this example</a>. The perfection and beauty of such ceramics is astonishing and, for me, deeply moving.

In the field of making pottery there is one text that has become a reference text worldwide, that of Bernard Leach: "<a href="http://books.google.fr/books?id=486Ye_1hdRAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+unknown+craftsman&source=bl&ots=GgxEgN2ukn&sig=4iGYaa-P-geQ_51tZBUb84pvHpM&hl=fr&ei=96XSTN7LI4m14gbDmqSsDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false">The Unknown Craftsman</a> - A Japanese Insight into Beauty".

Leach explores "how to make good things in the present state of society" (beginning of last century, but could maybe, with some right also refer to today's world) and argues for the ancient Song principles of "striving towards "unity, spontaneity and simplicity of form". In my eyes these principles can be highly relevant for photography and implies the act of shooting and seeing scenes, composition, framing, under-statement/over-statements etc. In that tradition form and content is one.

Each of these principles I see as relevant for photography but the one I would invite to discuss is spontaneity.

Leach argues that spontaneity cannot be taught and related to the relationship between "seeing" and "knowing":

"There are many ways of seeing, but the truest and best, is with intuition for it takes in the whole, whereas the intellect only takes in a part".

</blockquote>

and Leach employs this to the importance of forms and patterns by the following:

"Pattern is born, when one reproduces the intuitively perceived essence. When the intuition weakens, pattern becomes no more than a formal design. Design as such is no more than an intellectual composition

Pattern is not a realistic depiction. It is a "vision" of what is reflected by the intuition.

Pattern is a picture of the essence of an object, an object's very life; it's beauty is of that life"

</blockquote>

Behind this approach to the importance of spontaneity and the creation of 'good artistic work" (no discussion of art and hopefully no discussion of "essence" either - we have been there!) is the bouddist inspired rejection of excessive self-contiousness which Leach denounce as the opposite of spontaneity.

I have found these discussions and the principles of Leach extremely inspiring for not only reflecting on what we have discussed in previous threads but also inspiring when considering my own approach to shooting photos and making photography.

What do you think?

Norma Desmond · November 4, 2010

There's a lot to chew on here. Thanks, Anders.

The relationship of content and form is significant to me. While I can separate content and form for the purposes of discussion, I often don't when photographing or looking. If I talk of a photo having a visual narrative, that narrative is housed or even unleashed by form. Construction uses light, shadow, shapes, colors, focus: form. This is a portrait of my friend Jim in his living room: content. Often the elements of form overlap and are indistinguishable from the elements of content. Light can easily become photographic content as it reveals that content. Same with texture and focus. It's like most dichotomies. We are stuck with them in language and analysis but often the "job" of the photographer is to blend, unify, contradict, harmonize, create counterpoints with and the blur the lines between those very same things the analyst is trying to get straight.

There's a lot of "truest," "best," "perfect," and "beauty" in your OP. It is laden with absolutes, making it for me a photographic mine field. The OP is also introduced by assuming that the central question is about "good" photography. I get a little hung up there. Does that mean challenging, inspiring, curious, palatable, pleasing, politically effective, expressive, representational, accurate. Photographs I or someone else think I should make or photographs I'm driven to make?

I don't generally strive for spontaneity and simplicity, although sometimes I do. I like complication, tension, and multiplicity. Many have commented about distractions in my photos or wanting me to crop for greater unity or simplicity. I usually think they just don't get it (and occasionally have been persuaded that a crop more effectively yields what I'm after). That being said there is often (always?) spontaneity at play even in my more deliberative approaches. I will get a sudden feeling even while setting up a shot, a subject will glance a certain way or get a look on his face that might seem to break through all the intention, a ray of light will come in through a window that I will gravitate toward, a subject will say something seemingly unrelated that prods me a certain emotional or photographic direction.

I don't mind self consciousness (and seek it often). I can sometimes get involved in that circle of paying direct attention to what I'm doing while doing it, stepping back and forth between observer (of myself) and being observed (by myself) and letting go (of myself). Some recent significant photos of mine came when I was being very self conscious both about myself and about the photographic process, being intentionally focused on exactly what I was doing.

leslie_cheung · November 4, 2010

Each of these principles I see as relevant for photography but the one I would invite to discuss is spontaneity. Leach argues that spontaneity cannot be taught and related to the relationship between "seeing" and "knowing":

</blockquote>

Spontaneity is learned. Learned through our lives from the onset of memory (age ~4-5) to childhood, adolescent, adulthood and constantly evolving though less as we age. It is, in short, the result of our culmination of knowledge and experience. Our likes, dislikes and everything else (like what we choose to see ((or ignore)) etc...)

So, it is not "taught" as in a university course or private lessons but learned in every experience we encounter and how it relate to every other experiences, knowledge we culminated...

Good day, Anders;)

john_a5 · November 4, 2010

I am not sure any of it matters if you don't have anything to say in the first place.

I know this sounds funny maybe, but I think it might be the most missed point of making photographs, you have to have something inside that is meaningful/powerful or nothing is going to come out--an empty container is just empty. You might make well composed images but everything is probably lying on the surface.

(I will ignore the "actual" definitions of content and form here, Fred!)

If I had any beef with the premise here in the OP, it would be this idea of spontaneity as what is important as I believe the words quoted hit it more succinctly using the word intuitively. Finding a way to work intuitively does not always mean spontaneity, it might mean more like not thinking or judging or reacting, but doing what you hear from inside. When you do that, any ideas or goals spontaneity, complexity, tension, serenity etc are irrelevant, what is inside can freely express itself and that may be any of those things--and more. Generally, I think it is easiest to do this when one can find a way to let go of any expectations, of worrying about whether this or that will work or fits with what I am doing, my style or whatever--when you just do it, it always fits--and maybe something you aren't ready to see as yet. The thinking about what you are doing, how to do it and trying to figure out what you want to do has to be left at the door as you walk out with the camera, that part is done, now it is time to just let it happen.

photomark · November 4, 2010

The concept of intuition you're using here makes an interesting comparison to the basic categories of

understanding and relating to truth from Aristotle: Craft (techne), Knowledge(Episteme), Judgement

(phronesis—pretty close to intuition), Wisdom(Sophia), and Intellect(Nous—also pretty close to intuition).

It's really a shame this is no longer taught in school. Every time someone writes a self-help book or one

about artistic inspiration acts like they're the first to discovered that craft and inspiration aren't the same

thing when the discussion is as old as our culture. And few people if any have ever topped Aristotle's

clarity on the subject.

Julie H · November 4, 2010

How can intuition/spontaneity be separated from self-consciousness? For me, they're biceps and triceps; quad and hamstring; tick and tock; difference and repetition.

john_a5 · November 4, 2010

Julie are you referring to something other than the definition of self consciousness? "Feeling undue awareness of oneself" is certainly not the same as acting intuitively or spontaneously, although I find those latter two concepts as different.

Norma Desmond · November 4, 2010

"The thinking about what you are doing, how to do it and trying to figure out what you want to do has to be left at the door as you walk out with the camera, that part is done, now it is time to just let it happen." --John A.

I know many people think this way. I don't.

Sometimes (often?) it happens for me precisely when I am thinking about what I'm doing and how to do it and working hard and intentionally at what I'm doing (with the camera right there in my hand and the scene in my scope). Letting go for me sometimes means addressing all these things, considering them, and letting go of the idea of letting go. I see a lot of photos where either the letting go or the striving to let go is obvious and, instead, a little more deliberateness and thoughtfulness (right there in the moment) would have helped. Onc can get hung up and therefore lost in searching for the photographic orgasm rather than just doing what's in front of you, which may include a plan.

For me, it's counterintuitive to say that only the emotion has to be at the point of impact and the point of impact has only to be emotional, spontaneous, without thought or consideration. Besides which, it's a matter of degrees. We think and feel, not one or the other. I can be thinking about myself (unduly so, according to some and even to myself) and still be spontaneous, which is unpremeditated. That I may be at times overly self aware does not mean I'm planning at those times. Stuff happens that's out of my control, even when I'm obsessing about myself or a photograph I'm making.

AJHingel · November 4, 2010

Fred

The relationship of content and form is significant to me. While I can separate content and form for the purposes of discussion, I often don't when photographing or looking

</blockquote>

I would fully agree with you on this, Fred. For me what I see is form that speaks, or shouts as it has been said earlier. Form without content becomes as Leach writes: "pattern becomes no more than a formal design. Design as such is no more than an intellectual composition". The form, the pattern is a "vision" where "the essence of an object comes to the fore". I don't know if it is possible for us to discuss these subjects without going back to a discussion of "essence", but I hope it is enough here to write that certain forms are viewed by the photographer as having content, others not.

Of course when Leach discusses the relationship between form and content he refers to a a very specific type of object, mostly a porcelain bowl, which although having multiple elements which constitutes its form, cannot directly be transferred to the understand of form in photography. And yet, at least what catches my eye when it comes to form in photography are very basic broad features that builds it's form which often can be marked by "simplicity" - another of Leach's principles. By reflection and analysis I can point at a complexity of multiple elements that support this basic form of the photo and which in fact are essential for it's "unity" - yet another of his principles. The job of the photographer is as you write Fred:

to blend, unify, contradict, harmonize, create counterpoints with and the blur the lines between those very same things the analyst is trying to get straight.

</blockquote>

I chose not to open the discussion on the principle of "unity" because it might be even more complex to discuss but all the elements you mention are elements creating "unity" of the form in a photo - or dis-unity.

I agree with you that there are many terms like : "truest," "best," "perfect," and "beauty" in the OP and it is indeed a photographic minefield . Such absolutes are fully coherent with the philosophical and religious background of the analyses of Leach. When you are in front of a bowl of the Song Dynasty you sometimes have the impression that you are confronted to (divine) perfection. I would, as you I'm sure not transmit directly such experience to photography, but I would believe that we all have had the experience in photography where you have a deep feeling of having succeeded not only a "good photo" but a photo that approaches a perfect images expressing what you feel a/the photo should express. There are indeed good and bad photos produces by us all. What Leach tries to do in his discussion is to communicate the principles of the term "good". "Good" as felt by the photographer and not necessarily shared by the viewer.

John wrote:

I am not sure any of it matters if you don't have anything to say in the first place

</blockquote>

I would not be that arrogant and proclaim that some people don't have anything to say. All have. Some try to say it in photography, others don't. Some succeed brilliantly. Others fail miserably. So for me it all concerns anyone that tries to express him/herself in photography or any other of the arts.

When John further writes that

you have to have something inside that is meaningful/powerful or nothing is going to come out--an empty container is just empty. You might make well composed images but everything is probably lying on the surface.

</blockquote>

it is almost as quoted from Leach as you can see above, and I would fully agree.

When it is mentioned that "intuition" cannot be taught, the message is that it is not based on "knowledge". It is, as Lesley writes - by the way good day to you Lesley, too ;) - surely based on "learning". John questions whether "intuition" is not a more appropriate term. I don't see the great difference between the two (my linguistic limitations, surely) but I fully agree on John's outlining of what that means for the photographer. Even spontaneity (or intuition) as an conscious intention would threaten "intuition" in the act of making photography..

</blockquote>

luis_g · November 4, 2010

Fred - "One can get hung up and therefore lost in searching for the photographic orgasm rather than just doing what's in front of you, which may include a plan"

That seems like a ridiculization of other kinds of thinking than your own, or imposing your way on others. One can work in other ways than yours, and they aren't necessarily better or worse than the way you have chosen. There are many other ways of working (and being) than yours -- or mine. They are not more or less legitimate, nor are they guaranteed to produce better (or worse) work. They just are, and they are no more lost than you are.

Fred - "For me, it's counterintuitive to say that only the emotion has to be at the point of impact and the point of impact has only to be emotional, spontaneous, without thought or consideration."

It is a mistake to see intuition (and ensuing spontaneity, not impulsiveness) as only emotion w/o thought let alone consideration. Everything that contradicts our thinking is not counterintuitive per se. It's just different, and it doesn't have to be that way.

Julie - "How can intuition/spontaneity be separated from self-consciousness?"

What is self-consciousness? Can anything be separated from it? How do you know you have it, say, as opposed to consciousness? Are you self-conscious all the time? Or does it come and go? If so, when is it at a minimum? (No, "when sleeping" is not an answer!).

Anders - "The central question in all it's simplicity is how to make good photography."

I'm sure that is true for Anders, Fred, John K, Arthur and others, but it is not for me. The central question for me here is, as the forum charter states, about the philosophy of photography, the why. The prevailing Oprah principle of self-improvement (and the apparently endless search for formulae, incantations, rules, divination, tool kits, procedures, guiding principles, recipes, 12-step programs to go with it mean nothing to me. Just read The Secret and be done with it!) belongs elsewhere in my opinion, but it seems to be the guiding principle of the philosophers here.

Philosophical exploration is good enough reason for me to be here.

aplumpton · November 4, 2010

I don't know fully how intuition controls or inspires my photography, or that of others, but it does exist. Buckminster Fuller said something that suggests why, on those occasions when I might have passed by a scene, or event, a detail or a happening, I somewhat unexpectedly stay with it:

"Call intuition cosmic fishing. You feel a nibble, then you've got to hook the fish."

Luis, it unfortunately ain't as simple as that ("make good photography"), it's often a personal exploration, inquisitiveness (what, why) and release for the mind, amongst other conscious and unconscious desires or needs.

john_a5 · November 4, 2010

Fred, when I read your last entry, I can't help but feel that you aren't talking about what I mean as working intuitively or that your description of how you work is somehow in opposition to it, at least in the absolute. If one produces work that is self conscious, as in "or the striving to let go is obvious", then they aren't working intuitively in the sense I suggest. One of the problem with these sorts of threads is that we try to get our point across, sometimes a point we could devote a chapter or more of a book to, in a few paragraphs.

When I say working intuitively, I am not suggesting that we somehow visit La-La Land and suspend all thought and just shoot fancy free--although I suppose it might work for some. It is just that we allow ourselves to listen to what is inside rather than forcing something because we remain so mentally active with thought that we lose our own rhythm. Working with intent or being thoughtful or deliberate isn't counter to working intuitively, it is just that maybe not working intuitively is the difference in chasing a photograph instead of creating/recognizing one that presents itself. The difference with struggling to figure out what the best shot might be instead of knowing and recognizing what the best shot is--even if that means directing someone else.

When I suggested the "leaving it at the door" I guess I was sort of alluding to how a professional athlete might work. You spend a lot of time looking at tapes of how you do your job (reviewing contact sheets/previews on the computer, reading art books, reading philosophy or literature or listening to great music etc), you work with a sports psychologist getting your head in the right place (discussing ideas and thoughts with others, reading inspiring work as above) and you do repetitive tasks to develop muscle memory(shoot a lot so the mechanics don't consume your attention, looking at lots of work to build a visual vocabulary). Then, when you actually go to play the game or do your event, you analyze what your situation is and intuitively make adjustments while doing it. The heavy lifting was done before you got to that point and you just do what is required to get what you are after--this certainly doesn't mean one is not deliberate or thoughtful.

For myself, I have had other experience where intuition has served me, things hard to explain and maybe the LaLa land sort of thing, but those never had to do with the actual intuition used in the making of a shot, it is just a sort of an effortless knowing when it is working right.

luis_g · November 4, 2010

Arthur - "Luis, it unfortunately ain't as simple as that ("make good photography"), it's often a personal exploration, inquisitiveness (what, why) and release for the mind, amongst other conscious and unconscious desires or needs."

Maybe, and I agree with the above, but we hear it, literally, all the time.

Norma Desmond · November 4, 2010

John, yes, I'm glad you clarified what you meant about leaving thought, etc. at the door. I did take it to be a little more la-la than you meant it! That being clarified, I think we may still work differently and are communicating pretty well. I don't necessarily think I work intuitively or want to in the same way that you do. I often do find myself struggling to figure out what the best shot might be rather than knowing or recognizing what the best shot is. It is that struggle and that heavy lifting that I do right there with my camera. That can exhilarate me and preoccupy me and provide just the shot. I am often much more outside than inside (especially the case when I'm relating to a live subject) and often likely to force things rather than to listen to what is inside. Honestly. ;)))

AJHingel · November 5, 2010

I agree that if someone believes that they can make "good photography", what ever that means, by respecting certain rules they are most likely to fail. However, what I tried to refer to were not rules on how to concretely conceiving a photo (concrete layout, composition etc), but certain principles concerning the approach to conceiving it.

The main message, which I only partly would buy myself and surely only partly follow in my photography, is the message of "spontaneity" putting aside any intentions of proving yourself, representing yourself, respecting rules, doing better than..what ever. Making way for something from inside yourself (which is of course you but without the conscious "I") that just feels that the scene you are about to shoot is just right there, and now.

Personally I'm much more cerebral and conscious of what and how I'm shooting, but I find the reference to other works like pottery inspiring because I regularly experience the feeling (physically, mentally) of "perfection" when contemplating for example a Song bowl and I can put myself in the place of the maker and his approach when making it. In the same rare cases, I believe the same feel of being right is experienced in relationship to photography, prior to whatever intellectual reflection providing understand, explanations, references and cross-references happens. For me this latter reflections almost always happens but it is of interest to concentrate on what happens prior to it. For me Asian arts (read pottery, poetry, painting, calligraphy and maybe even photography) are superior to Occidental arts (too large categories, I know) because of their historical, philosophical and religious, philosophical approaches to the very process of making art.

john_a5 · November 5, 2010

Yea, it is sort of funny to me Fred, how we all use words in different ways. When I first read your "inside" "outside" comment, I took it more in my own sense of the two words and then thinking about it, and knowing a bit about you, think you have a different meaning. If I were to think of myself as working on the outside, I would think of it as resorting to something safe or being out of control in a more negative way, not being tuned in to what is going on and forcing something whereas I think you might mean pushing beyond where you are/were and discovering something new-being in the moment. On the other hand, when I say that I work intuitively and listen to my inner voice, then I know I have turned off those filters that keep me from pushing beyond my own limits and that is when I discover something new or create something I might not even fully appreciate for some time--working out of control in a good way, with confidence and knowing.

Working intuitively, to me, is the sort of exhilaration and preoccupation you suggest(sometimes more preoccupation than exhilaration per se depending on what I am doing), again it may be semantics and even possibly the way we filter the experience, but we get in those great moments, I believe, because we aren't lost in our heads but present in the moment and listening to what is inside (which may be hidden from our own everyday awareness).

Norma Desmond · November 5, 2010

John, I'll say for a final time that, though we may use words a bit differently, the significant thing here to me is that we are each describing different approaches to the way we make photos rather than describing the same approach differently. Do all photographers' methods have to agree or be similar? Do ours? I'm glad we approach it differently. We're individuals. Hopefully that shows in our work. I imagine the exhilaration we get is similar but I think that exhilaration comes from two different ways of working. Actually, I suspect we each have a multiplicity of ways of working. At least I know that some photos come much more from my head and for some I am more in the moment. Some come from a place of self consciousness and some don't. Some of the ones that I take self consciously show that right in the photo. Others don't seem to show it at all. That a photo shows self consciousness to me is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, please believe me when I say there are many things I accomplish when I am lost in my head. Remember, I have a couple of degrees in Philosophy! I don't always turn that off when I've got a camera in my hand and a subject in my lens.

Norma Desmond · November 5, 2010

Addition: Thinking about it, I imagine some photographers not feeling any exhilaration at all. Many are probably depressed and clicking the shutter might just add to their sadness or forlornness. Actually, I can think of one or two of my own shots we're I was feeling more upset than exhilarated.

aplumpton · November 5, 2010

A part of us does I believe want to make good photography, in whatever way we interpret that latter term. The definition of our photographic aims is not always constant and we may be grappling with that moving target unconsciously, or consciously, with making good photography (successfully realising our aim or goal) still somewhere in our thoughts. I guess I can generalize in saying that many who are interested in philosophy of photography or of art are also exploring the various ways we can approach our photographic goals. Good photography can mean different things to different photographers and Anders is right in saying that it is how they can relate to our approach, and not to rules per se, that is important.

I don't have a few degrees in philosophy as Fred, and no doubt my intuition is less influenced by such knowledge (even though philosophy readings are part of my background) as it affects Fred's own intuition when it comes to assembling visual subject matter into a subject of a work. My degrees are in applied science and research. The scientific method and my knowledge about matter and its behaviour may influence my photography, but probably not as directly as a philosophical background. Perhaps a desire to create equilibrium of form and masses in a perceived image or to do the contrary (asymmetry) as a metaphor for tension is an instinctive response for me and perhaps shows to some extent in my photos. Intuition is likely influenced by the knowledge of states of matter and forces between them that I have worked with in most of my career.

Intuition is an important parameter in photography as it is elsewhere. In the recent decade, I was working on two new processes, one of which was to recycle aluminium smelting waste products into one or more viable products, the other to transform asbestos mine tailings into magnesium. In one case, the latter, I faced a number of roadblocks to progress in a simplified novel process flowsheet. Information and calculations from colleagues allowed progress to be made in perfecting some of the postulated steps, but it wasn't until, in the absence of theoretical data, that I had the intuition to use the element chlorine in one of the final transformations. Why, I'm not sure, but it worked, although its toxicity and difficulty of use put one of the brakes on a patent application. Similar intuitions occurred to me with the aluminium waste, where a form of processing uncommon to that industry was successfully applied. Another former project sought to clarify apple juice. There, intuitive thinking allowed the application of an unrelated European dissolved flotation methodology for treating wastewater to the task of fruit juice clarification.

Sorry if I bore anyone with these personal experiences, summarily related. One can ask, were these small explorations the result of intuition, or simply a more universal reading of science and technology? I think both, and they acted in somewhat the same way as intuition in art and photography, which is important in seeing things that may not be immediately evident or overshadowed by other aspects or by a preoccupation with the more conventional rules and approaches. My intuition often applies when I add a chair to a scene to heighten some visual message, or see a tree form as providing some allegory, or recognising the buoyancy effect of water and movement of suspended chairs and the inverted importance of their shadows. Perhaps the intuition does not always lead to so-called good photography, but intuition can be a partner in the quest for photography that questions rather than simply display.

john_a5 · November 5, 2010

Sounds a bit condescending Fred. I was just trying to dig a bit deeper and understand what you were describing and ferret out the differences and similarities that were being expressed that might be hidden behind the words--maybe I don't understand discussion threads or just didn't leave enough escape routes?!?. I have been around creatives most of my adult life, professionally and personally--in photography as well as the plastic arts and music-- and understand a bit about the differences in the way folks work but also see many commonalities. I think there is a continuum in the way one works and intersections between folks that otherwise appear in opposition occur, and maybe more often than thought once one understands and recognizes the nuances. Even what you just offered as different in your way of working is not actually, or necessarily, in opposition to what I would suggest from my own experience described as intuitive, just further tuning of the idea and the recognition that things are not always tidy in neat little boxes. But, WTF...............you told me the final time.........

fate_faith_change_chains · November 5, 2010

The way of NEN :

"The 7th-Century masters had become aware of time as composed of ultra-short time-fragments which they called NEN, thought-moments of such flashing brevity that for all practical purposes they could be called timeless.

When my eye perceives something in the outer world, it registers it during the first, immeasurably short mini-instant or NEN, in a direct vision which is purely intuitive and cognitive, as in a flash of profound insight into that which is seen. This first mini-instant of direct apprehension or insight into Reality, however, is followed immediately by a "second NEN", and with the same lightning speed by a "third NEN".

The second NEN is a flash of mental reflection, of becoming aware of my intuitive insight, of this profound "knowing". But in the "third NEN", which follows just as rapidly, this awareness become "my" awareness: both previous flashes become integrated in my continuous stream of consciousness; are processed, as it were, in that region of the mind where reasoning, labeling, introspection - in short, ego - feeling - take over. The experience now becomes part of "my" consciousness and at once the Me begins to interpret, to rationalize and to draw "logical" conclusions from the direct perception, to distort the direct, "clairvoyant" grasp of the first NEN, and to imprison it once more in words and concepts. These cogitations, analyses and conclusions snowball further until the intuitive revelation of the first Nen is totally lost." - Fredrick Franck, The Awakened Eye

</blockquote>

-------------------

I liked browsing through your website John A, following that Amtrak trail, what a photographic adventure that must have been...

albert_richardson1 · November 5, 2010

Anders please comment on the connection between spontaneity and planning. Spontaneous actions often tell more about a person's impulses than his intuitive grasp of what he is doing. Much of the photography I've done required some sort of effort on my part to set things up ahead of time to get things to come out right in the end.

luis_g · November 5, 2010

John A., for what it's worth, I do not think you misunderstood anything about threads.

___________________

"Sex and beauty are inseparable, like life and consciousness. And the intelligence which goes with sex and beauty, and arises out of sex and beauty, is intuition." - D. H. Lawrence _____________________

Intuition can also be part of the viewer's experience:

“The photograph touches me if I withdraw it from its usual blah-blah: ‘Technique,’ ‘Reality,’ ‘Reportage,’ ‘Art,’ etc.: to say nothing, to shut my eyes, to allow the detail to rise of its own accord into affective consciousness.” -- Barthes.

______________________

From Minor White: “The state of mind of the photographer while creating is a blank. I might add that this condition exists only at special times, namely when looking for pictures...For those who would equate ‘blank’ with a kind of static emptiness, I must explain that this is a special kind of blank. It is a very active state of mind really, a very receptive state of mind, ready at an instant to grasp an image, yet with no image pre-formed in it at any time. We should note that the lack of a pre-formed pattern or preconceived idea of how anything ought to look is essential to this blank condition. Such a state of mind is not unlike a sheet of film itself-seemingly inert, yet so sensitive that a fraction of a second’s exposure conceives a life in it. (Not just life, but a life.)"

There really are other ways of working, whether we allow for their existence or not, and they can and often do produce stellar results (in the right person, of course).

“When I paint and start thinking at the same time, everything’s lost.” --- Cezanne, as told to HCB.

"I have a terrible lucidity at moments when nature is so beautiful; I am not conscious of myself any more, and the pictures come to me as in a dream." -- Van Gogh

Weston knew this way of working well. On his peppers: “...the presentation through one’s intuitive self, seeing ‘through one’s eyes, not with them’".

Last (for brevity's sakes, because the list of intuitifs who were/are also Masters in Art/Photography is endless), and not least, because Fred has carried on at length here about her concept of 'significance', Suzanne Langer, Philosopher and professor, in her book, _The Problems of Art_ said:

”I do believe, with many aestheticians and most artists, that artistic perception is intuitive, a matter of direct insight and not a product of discursive thinking...” (Langer, 1957, p. 61.)

Imagine that.

____________________

[i am well-aware of the problems that intuition, letting go of self and discursive thinking/inner dialogue/meetings with your homunculi, presents for many, but then, that's for them to deal with. Denial is laughable.]

AJHingel · November 5, 2010

I'm glad Luis took the initiative to quote a series of artist announcing their close attachment to the intuitive when working. I think they are illustrating well what Leach writes about on the subject.

I agree with Fred that we are all representing different approaches. I would however believe - ensuring you of not referring to anybody specifically and not being pejorative - that I find Leach formulation of what happens to "form" or "patterns" as he writes (and surely consequently to content) when intuition weakens : patterns become "design", and: Design as such is no more than an intellectual composition. It might be correct to consider that we in fact, because of very different approaches to making photography also have very different types of photography some of which can be described as "formal design" and other maybe more profound kinds of photography are striving towards the perfections of Song Bowls, as discussed by Leach. However, Leach goes further and proclaims that: Pattern is a picture of the essence of an object, an object's very life; it's beauty is of that life" - design is not.

Following that discussion of intuitive work, I'm mostly making design, I must admit. I can as Fred only rarely put aside my own academic degrees (economy, social sciences) and not least my lifelong research and intellectual work when I make photography. I interpret on a continuous basis what I see around me and find current "mythologies", examples of "alienations", "exploitation", "social constructions of reality" social roles, classes, role distance, "games people play", "cargo cultures" etc etc all around me in the cities and countries I live in and photograph. Very little I do is probably intuitive in the sense of Leach. I might be much more in line with an intuitive approach when it comes to seeing works of art - but as mentioned, in case, only as a very first initial appreciation of the work. After that comes immediately the intellectual appreciation on the basis of accumulated knowledge of the subject and related subjects. I have studied Chinese and Japanese culture and arts since at least Thirty years, so that is maybe why the writings of Leach speaks so strongly to me.

Albert invited me to formulate myself on "spontaneity and planning". Notwithstanding the nuances between the two terms (spontaneity/intuition) on the basis of what I have written just above, one could say that whatever we personally do in the field of photography currently, has been "planned" since years because we "carry" with us, our learning, experiences and whatever knowledge we have got (or general ignorance, as well, of course) when we make photography.

However conscious planning is another question. Again, we are engaged in very different types of photography with each their own types of planning. Planning of work involving models is surely very different from street or nature photography. I would believe that some organizational planning almost always is involved (In city photography I decide to go somewhere because of the light, weather, season, events; I decide to take with me a specific photographic equipment in view of certain specific types of shooting; I bring a tripod of not etc). When it comes to intuition and spontaneity in photography I find it most relevant for the very concrete act of deciding to frame and focus a scene and shoot. Some scenes demand clearly intuition to shoot, or they would never be shot ("just in time" scenes) other scenes are shot intuitively because they are perfect (unconscious?) analytical representations ("designs") of knowledge about the seen. Most scenes are shot, I would believe, with a weakened intuition and the reflection and planning has taken over.

By the way, I'm grateful no-one followed up my formulation above about "rules on how to concretely conceiving a photo" and "principles concerning the approach to conceiving it" because it was probably confused to say it kindly. I think it corrected itself or was ignored. Good !

tonmestrom · November 6, 2010

is the bouddist inspired rejection of excessive self-contiousness which Leach denounce as the opposite of spontaneity.

</blockquote>

way too deep for me because for one it leaves out motivation. Why do we pick up a camera in the first place? It's a self-countious act by definition. Frankly I would go even further and call it a selfcentered act because after all, what we do and how we do it is defined by our own set of criteria, excessive or otherwise, and directed at just one thing, namely to please ourselves first and foremost. As such "good" photography is merely what we ourselves define as such. If you think about it quite autistic in fact and I think that is a good thing because that in the end is what separates us from other photographers.

In such a context spontaneity is of no practical use because it's not something you can control or generate at will. Also if you get down to it it's almost always defined after the fact. Furthermore I think that most succesfull photos are the result of a good balance between ratio and emotion on both sides, that of the photographer and the viewer.

Sign In

Intuition and photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in