Learn the rules to unlearn them

<p>I have always been a great fan of Socrates. Actually, I was very proud of myself when I learned that such a great man and I shared similar ideas. Artistic expression is possible only if one becomes completely free from any kind of confinement or mental boxing. But freedom takes its toll. In my experience as a musician, the braking point came when I realized that my mind was finally able to understand music and my hands were able to play it. That was a very important moment for me, as a new and immense world appeared before my eyes and I was finally able to forget about everything I had learned so far and move on into this new world. That's the point: you must forget everything you learned once you have learned it, as there are no rules and we don't really know anything. However, in order to reach this stage of not-knowing and lack of rules, we must first learn all the rules there are to be learned and everything there is to know. Know to not-know, learn to unlearn.</p>

<p>Whenever anyone brings up rules in the context of photography, I have to ask the question "Where's the rule book?" </p>

<p>Antonio, I don't think your online photos, handsome though they are, put you in a position to tell other photographers what they "must" do. Handsome is easy, many fine photographers find it boring.</p>

<p>Your experience with music may not relate in any generic way to photography, though I don't doubt that it does for you. Music performed isn't necessarily equivalent to photographs printed, though there are undoubtedly lessons in it, just as there are in cooking and hang-gliding. </p>

<p>I commented positively on one photo in your portfolio, one that echos a sequence of my own from thirtyfive years ago (shot with HP4 rated 800, Edwal FG7/no sulfite, Nikon-scanned). I strongly suspect that many of the rest of us have made the same photo of our sleeping lovers...it'd be fun to see them all, printed big (by the photographer herself/himself, of course) and hanging in a well-lit galley. Welcome aboard. Like the rest of us you've got a lot to learn, and I doubt the lessons will involve rules.</p>

<p>John<br>

My opening post doesn't want to be a lesson or a statement from somebody that overvalues himself but rather a question. I put out there an intimate thought that I had, wondering whether it could be applied to photography and I think it could. I'm thinking out loud here. Sorry for being unclear on that but the use of my English isn't always impeccable.</p>

<p>Antonio--</p>

<p>Learning and knowledge were of paramount importance to Socrates. He envisioned a kind of ladder of existence. Opinions were the bottom rungs and knowledge was at the top. The senses, untrustworthy, were at the bottom, but if used properly they could help one's intellect ascend. I don't recall him ever encouraging forgetting what we know, though he is famous for saying that all learning is remembering and that Wisdom is knowing what you do not know.</p>

<p>So, how does this relate to photography? Loosely, if at all. But I like a good stretch.</p>

<p>The things I learn about making and viewing photographs are not forgotten, they evolve. I utilize them, sometimes with great effort and over time with more ease. Something about photographing feels like it's always been there waiting to emerge. Maybe on some level I did already know it and it's now like remembering. <em>Deja vu</em> all over again. Socrates was into <strong>STRIVING</strong>, an aspect of Eros. I pretty much reject his put down of the senses. Art, for him, was a mere imitation of what the senses bring us which he felt were already only imitations of a truer reality that was known by our intellects. I reject that, too, for the most part. Many photographers think photographs are imitations (representations) of reality. I'm not one of them, except in isolated and specific cases.</p>

<p><strong>CRAFT</strong>. The Greeks' only word that approximated art was <em>techne</em>, which meant something akin to craft. His most significant and famous contribution was his theory of Forms: what it really is to be the thing or person something or someone is.</p>

<p>What is the form and what is the content of my photos and of what significance are they to each other, to me, and to others? How separable, if at all, are form and content?</p>

<p>The Socratic method is also profound. <strong>DIALOGUE</strong>. Learning demanded questioning. A photo, to me, is a questioning and a dialogue of sorts (actually for me it is a set of dialogues -- between my subjects and me, other photographers both historical and contemporary and me, and viewers and me), a visual dialogue, not necessarily and not foremost a literal, verbal, meaningful, or interpretive one. He referred to his own brand of dialogue as midwifery. And photographs can surely deliver.</p>

<p>If you get results you like from what you are doing you do not need to know if you are breaking what someone else has decided to be the rules.</p>

<p>Speaking about rules.<br>

What rules can you all mention, so that we are sure to oversee them to satisfy all those that get overexited when hearing about them. <br>

We can all mention the <strong>rule of thirds</strong> (which would be worthy of a lengthy debate, by the way).</p>

<p>Other rules ?</p>

<p>The new rule is, don't follow the old rules. Unless you have an old rule that works, in which case it's not a rule, it's what works.</p>

<p>Seems to me that Darwin more or less covered this some time ago. And look where it's gotten us. <a href="http://www.explorebiodiversity.com/Mexico/Pages/Habitats/species.htm">At least 1.4 million species</a> and we ain't done yet.</p>

<p>How many great works of art are appreciated by decomposing their composition into elements that speak of rules? I think we appreciate them more for their originality and their effect on us. It is important to have a knowledge of what has been known to work but to never be a slave to those rules. The subject matter must be treated in a manner that provides you with a subject (the image) that you feel works, independent of a fixation on rules.</p>

<p>In my folder "Seated or not" there is an image called "Free flight". It is not composed according to rules, although I did wait until the floating objects (there were many more than are seen here) made a subject that looked right to me. "Free flight" observes no rules (sorry, I don't know rhe rule for creating a "link" to it) and I believe originality of perception is more important than adherence to rules. Rules can help, but they cannot create an original image by themselves.</p>

<p>Rules are a language not everyone speaks, they form a framework in which viewers can communicate ideas constructively. I agree with Arthur, we can not say something is a beautiful piece of art because certain rules were adhered too. Instead we stretch the possibilities and tweak the 'known world' into creations we hope stir emotions or a response of some sort. The rules/framework is left to those who feel it necessary to deconstruct a work of art down to a dialogue level, to find new understanding and essentially learn from what they have witnessed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Arthur, we can not say something is a beautiful piece of art because certain rules were adhered too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Barry</strong>, I would certainly agree too, but it goes surely also the other way: we cannot say that something is beautiful because it does not follow certain rules, either.<br>

As <strong>Julie</strong> wrote, the rule is that we do not have rules. Then why does the question continuously pop up. Rules that go beyond not having rules, must play some kind of role out there. So I repeat my question: Which are those rules out there.</p>

<p>I think Barry is right when he writes </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The rules/framework is left to those who feel it necessary to deconstruct a work of art down to a dialogue level, to find new understanding and essentially learn from what they have witnessed.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I would think that I'm among those that try to learn from work I see by such deconstructions (through reference to typologies or frameworks and not necessarily rules). I wonder what would be the alternative, if you wish to communicate what you are seeing and not only be left to referring to what happens in my guts when viewing the thing or just describing the elements in the scene: a chair, a plant, a naked women etc.</p>

<p>I've always believed that "Rules are for those that don't know what's going on."</p>

<p>Whether they are to be broken depends very much on how you see yourself and your skill level. Which of course may be rather subjective :)</p>

<p>As someone who is really interested in the history of photography, I tend to see "rules" as the conventions of a period. Knowing them helps me understand the motivation of a photographer in producing a specific print. In addition, the field of the psychology of art and representation has been well documented (e.g. E.H.Gombrich and Rudolf Arnheim).</p>

<p>A while ago I posted a question about what Frederick Evans knew that made his cathedral pictures so much more powerful than what is generally published today. He was a London bookseller by profession and was very familiar with art theory and, I assume, John Ruskin. Some responses were thoughtful, others seemed to be generic rants against intellectualizing photographs.</p>

<p>Since we are bombarded constantly with images that define current conventions, I doubt that anyone is not influenced by them. Ignorance of the "rules" is not a anti-intellectual virtue; it implies that you are unwilling to put something in context and work from that.</p>

<p>As I said before, I'm thinking out loud and I'm not sure exactly where this is taking me, maybe nowhere. The socratic concept of <em>I know that I don't know</em> made me think about this whole thing, that's why I referred to Socrates. There is no connection with him and photography per se. In music, I learned that technique, experience and learning process are slowly absorbed and metabolized as a musician grows until they are "forgotten" and become a baggage that must serve music making, or else it becomes self-destructive. Technique, like in many other fields, must be used to reach the ultimate goal which is making music. In photography I believe it should be the same thing. It's not only about technique and rules but also about influences and models, that need to be absorbed and metabolized until they become the baggage mentioned above. Then they must be "forgotten" or "unlearned" in order to leave space to thinking and instincts. Am I getting anywhere here?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As someone who is really interested in the history of photography, I tend to see "rules" as the conventions of a period. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are of course right <strong>Jon </strong>that "rules" wherever they can be identified are mostly period specific. Specific rules were surely present in most schools of painting from the very first treaties like Leonard da Vinci's "Treaty of Painting" to André Breton's "Surrealist manifesto". Other influentual writings like Albers's "interaction of colors" from the Bauhaus group provide maybe not "rules" in a strict sense of the word (or does it?) but surely knowledge of what works and what does not work; what works better and less good. </p>

<p>What is special about the post-modern period after 1960 has by many been described as a period where rules of artistic expression became abolished. Extreme expressions of that is predominate in these threads and have also come to the fore just above in this thread. We might be some that however do not see ourselves as post-modern, or act as such as photographers, in that sense. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ignorance of the "rules" is not a anti-intellectual virtue; it implies that you are unwilling to put something in context and work from that.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Strong words, that I personally think are fully justified. </p>

<p>Thanks for the reference to the cathedral photos of Frederick Evans, that I did not know. <br /><br /></p>

<p>Antonio -- I wonder if what you're getting at is more along the lines of "letting go of what we think a viewer's expectation will be."? And it might be those expectations which could be seen as rules. "Don't place my subject in the center of the frame…avoid merges….use a shallow dof to get rid of a distracting background…use a wide angle lens for this landscape shot…increase contrast, or dodge and burn, so this monochrome does not look uniformly gray…get close for this street shot…straighten the horizon or tilt it enough so that it's clearly intentional….don't over-process…convert this to black and white and add a vignette so people will know it's a work of art…clone out this distracting person on the left so I'll have a shot at POP Photo's shot of the month…don't clone out this distracting person on the left because this is a documentary or news photograph…etc." </p>

<p>Whatever the photographic genre, there are going to be expectations on the part of at least some (if not most) viewers. And, in some ways, these expectations could be seen as rules. And if you're talented and experienced enough, you can break those "rules"? (I know this does not apply to all examples: a PJ who alters an image is hardly going to be greeted as a groundbreaking genius for their efforts.)</p>

<p>Is this the kind of thing you"re getting at?</p>

 

I disagree completely. You don't have to forget anything, let alone everything. Are you saying that you can't play music

until you forget how to tune your instrument or how many eighth notes are in a measure of 3/4 time or what the third note

of a G minor scale is? That's just silly.

 

Unless you want to sound like Ornette Coleman you need to remember everything that you have learned. You can still

choose to bend the rules selectively such as choosing to play a minor sixth in Dorian mode. This is an informed choice

that you can use to surprise the audience to gain a certain effect.

 

In photographic terms, maybe you choose to focus on the background and leave the subject out of focus. It's a creative

choice, and it's unexpected, but it doesn't require forgetting anything. On the contrary, if you didn't understand depth of

field you wouldn't be able to create the desired effect.

<p><strong>Steve</strong><br>

I don't really worry about viewer expectations for a couple of reasons: 1. I am not taking pictures professionally (never will) and I don't get payed for them. 2. I believe the influence of those expectations on me would alter my ability of learning and would take me to a dead end.<br>

I read of a PJ of the LA Times that was fired about a year ago for digitally altering one of his photos...</p>

<p><strong>Dan</strong><br>

I sense you like jazz... :) I quoted "forget" and "unlearn". Forgetting how to play would be like forgetting how to walk or take a leak. It's not about that, it means that in order to really play one must switch his mind from the instrumental part to the realm of senses, philosophy and intellect. Forget means "put aside". Do you remember Miles Davis' slapping Coltrane because he was playing too many notes? One of my teacher asked me: "Do you like to play the violin or you like to play music?". By the way, I play classical but would love to learn jazz some day, a great passion of mine. Not so easy on the violin.</p>

<p>Antonio, continuing your parallel between taking photos and playing music I would forget the word 'rules' and instead use the word 'technique'. A musician has to master the technique of playing an instrument first before he can make music. Once the technique is mastered then it becomes the foundation and the vehicle for the music. Playing techique allows the musician the freedom to express feeling through music.</p>

<p>To my way of thinking the same tends to be the case to a lesser extent with photography. Although it is a technical medium many good (and a few great) photos have been taken by people without much technical skill - something which never applies to the violin! </p>

<p>The photo "Free flight" is one example I have of an image that was constructed without conscious attention to rules. I simply observed a dozen or so floating objects, walked around them, and waited for them to divide and come into a pattern that "spoke" to me. No conscious rules were applied, only a certain perception of counterpoint and enigma that eventually resulted from the movement of the chairs and their shadows. I think it works quite well and can serve here as an example of an image that invokes no prior knowledge of compositional rules.</p>

<p>I have not unlearned what rules I have acquired, I simply have consciously ignored them in this case and created the photo on a sort of whim.</p>

<p>I would be quite interested in seeing photos that others have taken, and which are felt to be particularly successful, while ignoring an acquired knowledge of rules.</p>

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

<p>I'm puzzled by the ongoning confusion of "picture making" with photography.<br>

There seems to be no awareness of anything in the realm of "significance" ...beyond "pretty" and "likable."<br>

...seeming zero awareness of human physiognomy, implied tension, hints of historicity or commerciality or eros...</p>

 

<p>I learned piano the traditional way as a child, didn't play for decades, then started picking it up again, but this time started out trying to play by ear. The old rules float up and make themselves useful on occasion. I can see where you're coming from.</p>

<p>Arthur,<br>

I doubt it's unintentional that the chairs are not shown upside down.</p>

<p>Jon,</p>

<p>You have an interesting observation, but unless one is a very young baby who has yet to view things in the way we all do (as to which side is up) the question of how one normally looks at any object or scene is not really a photographic rule, but simply a practical convention governing human viewing. </p>