"Less is only more when more is no good."

<p>Arthur's recent thread "Details, Photography, and The Power of Less" has been silent for a few days, so I felt it best to carry over some thoughts into a new thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Less is only more when more is no good."</em> <strong>--Frank Lloyd Wright</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><img src="http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/PNimages/juanandmark.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Above, two of my photos: on the left a closeup (detail), on the right, a wider shot with more details and elements. I think they have a similar degree of impact but are different visions and expressions. The photographs and their styles aren't in competition. They each are what I desired to express and they convey what I want.</p>

<p>I was moved visually at the time and can attribute that to some sort of gut response (and I believe a perhaps unformulated intention) with regard to each situation. The space Mark inhabited moved me and his accidental dress (as well as various details) when I met him seemed to play well in a room I was enthralled by. On the other hand, Juan and I were in an uninteresting environment and I found his eyes and expressiveness enticing, so that's what I went with.</p>

<p>As per the Wright quote, there can be advantage in maintaining economy when one can. There are clearly cases where "more is no good" and the savvy photographer or artist will tune into that. That same photographer or artist will know when more is desired/necessary and may tune into that as well.</p>

<p>Photography is well suited to many views. I doubt I'll ever explore the full range of visions that a camera has the potential to access in my hands. But I make an effort to be open to all of them.</p>

<p>Some may prefer one of the above photos over the other. I think that's a matter of taste, not economy of detail.</p>

<p>I know I am moved by and often really respect a quote -- for example, Wright's quote -- that captures in only a few words the essence of a grand idea. It can be powerful. Good closeup and less busy photographs can have that kind of power.</p>

<p>The reason I like Philosophy books and discussions in addition to pithy quotes is that the immediate capturing of essence of the latter co-exists nicely with a more detailed, more wordy explanation of and argument about it. I don't think Philosophy and short quotes are aiming at the same things. I don't think Baroque and Japanese architecture are expressing something similar and I relish each for what it achieves.</p>

<p>In the previous thread, Arthur rightfully reminded us that there's a difference between "less is more" and "seeing <em>details</em> that others fail to see." A good distinction. I think good photographers will sometimes see a <em>big picture</em> that others fail to see as well.</p>

<p>How do you find yourself using less and more, detail and big picture, respectively in your photographs? Though you may not think about it in the moment or in advance, do you see it in your work when you look at it? Can you talk about it? <!--EndFragment--></p>

<p>I've caught myself, more than once, trying too hard to un-busy or avoid seeing a background or environment, and have wound up with a subject lost in space, time, and unanchored to a concept. Sometimes less can <em>definitely</em> be less.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Dec 23, 2009; 02:24 p.m.</em><br>

<em>How do you find yourself using less and more, detail and big picture, respectively in your photographs? Though you may not think about it in the moment or in advance, do you see it in your work when you look at it? Can you talk about it? </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, here's an example of when "more" is the whole point of the photo. Total congestion, yet a tranquility in spite of itself. That's what I saw, that's what I felt and that's what I captured. Fascinating topic.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p><div></div>

<p>Wright's ideas have value <em>only</em> (IMO) in the context of his work...which I happen to admire. </p>

<p>Without considering Wright's work (the actual buildings, not mere photos or dissertations) his quotes are just one more cult leader's hot air. That's my impression, and it's what I've heard from two of his Taliesin-experienced architects, one of them a long-ago client. I happen to be moved by his work, as were both architects...</p>

<p>I think that if someone comments on Wrights ideas, rather than his architecture, those comments need to be weighed against that person's own work (photos on Photo.net specifically) and her/his direct experience with Wright's work. No photos, no direct experience: no value.</p>

<p>My experience of Wright's architecture (a couple of homes, Guggenheim Museum in NY, and Marin Civic Center in CA) is of profound simplicity. They're rich and multi-dimensional, lots goes on, it all works: they don't feel like a busy designs to me. They feel profoundly simple in the same way many organic forms feel simple (conch shell, for example).</p>

<p>Photographically I don't want "less." I'm attracted to snarly messes rather than simple graphics because the obvious is absolutely less. The pleasure comes from finding a whole. I don't even think of photographs as graphics so much as, perhaps, theatre or poems...</p>

<p>I enjoy the thrill of finding a whole experience in complexity. That's what photography's inherently about, for me.</p>

<p>On another thread there's a little discussion of David Hockney. I've enjoyed his work for a long time: His individual photographs (Polaroids), like his swimming pool paintings, seem nearly worthless taken as individuals, but in multiples they acquire value. The same is true for me with Warhol's work...in fact I think that's fundamental to "Pop Art" generally: it's "less" in the absolute sense when it's taken out of context or as individual pieces, "more" in context and in collections of related pieces.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sometimes more really is more...like Rococo art...and some photographs require more as that is what the photograph is all about...</p><div></div>

<p>While other photographs may require less...you look at what you're photographing and make the photograph reflect what you are seeing.</p><div></div>

<p>i like less because i have tasted more and it left a sad after taste. there is another reason for my distaste to the more. i can never do well with more. i don't see the more well and i can't compose with more. somehow, less is within my spectrum and all the more achievable.</p>

<p>There are different kinds of detail; different kinds of "less." For example, I recently ran across a sentence in an essay that I was reading:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... the fetish is that fragment that initially receives special attention because it refers to an absent object in order to hide it and to occupy its place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is interesting to think about -- a fetishistic detail displaces, nullifies the thing in order to represent some alien concept/desire/intent <em>as opposed to</em> the kind of detail that is particularly expressive of some greater whole and therefore is sufficient to evoke that whole.</p>

<p>I also think that a photographer's style can become a fetish, or a "detail" in itself. The stripping down to almost nothing can be done for its own sake. I won't call names, but if you think of well-known photographers where the style is often the first thing you notice and sometimes the only thing you remember, that visual "stamp" overwhelms and therefore simplifies/reduces the content.</p>

<p><em>"Above, two of my photos: on the left a closeup (detail), on the right, a wider shot with more details and elements."</em> - Fred G.</p>

<p>While some may agree when Fred <em>asserts</em> that one photo has more "details and elements" than the other, I don't <em>see</em> them that way. </p>

<p>The background trinket and the attire in the wider shot might be easy to dismiss as costumery and decoration : friends might think them important, but someone else might think them artificial and dismiss them (stop noticing them). </p>

<p>Maybe the tighter shot has more information: facial information, hand details, skin details, age, balding, tension from pose...and of course. the B&W may be a significant statement of photographer's intent (another symbol at very least, but to me it seems conceptual symbology, holding far more information than a mere dangling motorcycle trinket).... </p>

<p>So...for me those aren't examples of "less" and "more." They're just tight and loose. As well, one's a portrait, while the other may be more of a collection of symbols.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Starvy--</strong></p>

<p>Cool! As good a reason as any. When I first started shooting, I was more inclined to stay tight as well. I challenged myself over time to step back some and see more context and story and I'm feeling good about doing that. Thanks for the candor.</p>

<p><strong>Julie--</strong></p>

<p>A good point. I agree that <em>less</em> and <em>detail</em> do not need to act symbolically and do not need to suggest more. They may be simply what they are. Sometimes simplicity is simple. I can say "less is less" without the second "less" being a value judgment. Less doesn't have to go beyond itself (though I often like when it does).</p>

<p>I like the "economy of detail" notion, because to me it touches exactly on what the point would be: enough is enough.<br>

OK, so no one-liners....It's not about less or more, or less being more than more. It's about what you want to tell with the photo, and/or what we want to see in it (oh my, somehow I always end up with the matter of intent). But the phrase 'economy of detail' does to me simply catch what it is about: get the framing right, include what needs to be included to show what you want to show. If that means getting a lot in the image, to show chaotic environments, that that's needed. If it means a tight-framed portrait, to amplify character, then that's it. To me, it seems like means to an end.<br>

In a way, of course also aesthetics creep in; we cannot always control the environment of what we shoot, and the composition as such needs to be pleasing (and/or aligned with the intent), if that means a detail creeps in that you did not need/want, it's a simple pro/con story.</p>

<p>Whether I use less or more in my own photography.... well, I'm not disciplined enough yet, to be honest. So I can only say what I'm aiming for. I am aware of the bigger and the smaller stories around me that I could/try to capture, and my preference is definitely with the smaller stories, the details. But I need to learn way way more before I'll be any good at showing those stories. But the learning curve is enjoyable, and ultimately that's why I have this hobby.</p>

<p>I'm with Wouter on this. He's talking about photography, not using words to chase their own tails. As well, he writes coherently and honestly...a breath of fresh air...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wouter has said a lot of what the intention of the parallel "details" thread is concerned with and very appropriate in this thread.</p>

<p>Wright says it from a rather negative viewpoint (when more is no good, although it applies well to much architectural design), whereas Carle (the cinematographer) has a very different take and says it from a positive or opportunistic viewpoint (sort of like the search for the details in life, because the truth may be found there). I prefer Gilles Carle's viewpoint.</p>

<p>I enjoy Fred's two images, and I wouldn't describe either as being too much (more), unless one might feel that the hands in the left portrait are too much (possibly distracting from the real character of the individual, or déjà vu) or the background in the right photograph is too much (the orange certainly isn't, it IS the detail, although another approach might have been to have painted it BLUE, ...but then that might simply constitute an alternative level of fantasy).</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks to Fred for catalysing the discussion of "details versus", as I for one think that this is a good subject for photography.</p>

<p>I just noticed the presence of the second orange in the background. This alters the perception of what is essential to the image. Blurring or downplaying the background would remove that element (as would painting the orange blue...), and perhaps also the context that Fred wants to show for his subject. So, perhaps there is too much in the left portrait (in my opinion) and just enough in the right one. Or is the second orange too much? Ouch. Subjective, n'est ce pas?</p>

<p>Here is a group of images that I think show uses of less and of more. They are listed from less to more, though the last two are about equal:<br>

<a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/gibson_priest.jpg ">priest</a><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-lint.com/s01/image/58153264157635846367/ ">priest</a><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-lint.com/s01/image/2744101426882727884255/">priest</a><br>

<a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/priest_georgerodger.jpg">priest</a><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/13752259713164579447269375/">priest</a></p>

<p>[<em>Linked photographs are by Ralph Gibson, Renate Scherra, Ezra Stoller, George Rodger, and Harold Chapman</em>.]</p>

<p>I'm glad Arthur emphasized the photos over the word-play.</p>

<p>The pose of the man on the left, along with what seems (<em>to me</em>) to be his expression of discomfort, may tell a complex story, along with the B&W conversion and perhaps-flattering post-processing (re skin).</p>

<p>The pallid skin of the man on the right, along with his fireman costume and soft build (the firemen and women at my gym are obviously muscular, required by their departments), his decorative beard, and the motorcycle trinket, may tell a story. The oranges (I missed earlier) may simply be nice color...or they may be a dada reference.</p>

<p>The symbols in the "fireman" image might be more <strong>interesting without him</strong>. By contrast, the man in the portrait is presented as a complex human being, directly presenting himself ... his <strong>complexity and issues crowd the frame</strong>.</p>

<p>One man seems barely be there in his own photo: that's "less" in my book. The other man fills his photo, may even over-fill it: "more".</p>

<p>Both are fine photos.</p>

<p>Julie, why you reckon they are ranked less to more?<br>

My impressions, if you take the word "priest" only: the first one, yes, it says priest and priest alone. The second, a priest, as a person, individual. The third, a monastery, the priest giving away the "use" of his surrounding. The 4th and 5th tell complete stories with a priest in it (both about the tension between the priest and the surrounding).<br>

So frankly, in my view, not a more/less exercise, but different messages, different stories and probably different intents.</p>

<p>Maybe I look upon it different... the notion of a priest is nice though, while I type this, christmas has started here. To those who celebrate: happy christmas.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie, why you reckon they are ranked less to more? -- <em>Wouter Willemse<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me try to explain, because I believe Fred's initial intent is being seriously misunderstood (and he will correct me if I'm wrong ... ). Think about his core quote:</p>

<p><em>"Less is only more when more is no good."</em></p>

<p>He's interested in investigating the <em>difference in the varieties of gesture</em>. The words <em>less</em> and <em>more</em> are unfortunate in that they are so tied to <em>value</em> which is not what this thread is about. I think we all agreed, in Arthur's preceding <em>Details</em> thread, that value does not correlate in either direction, to more/less detail. What I believe Fred is interested in is simply considering the <em>difference</em> in the less/more <em>gesture</em>. The difference between a wide sweep of the arm with a "Behold!" statement versus the sharply pointed finger tapping insistently on one particular spot that says "Look at <em>this</em>!" -- right <em>here</em>.</p>

<p>This is about the photographer's gesture (more/less; expansive/precise); not the "quantity" of meaning of the content (value; more/less) that the photograph contains. It's about the difference that the specificity of focus chosen by the photographer makes in the resulting image. What difference does it make when a photographer <em>allows</em> or <em>permits</em> (intends!) you to see less -- or more? When the viewer's gaze is more or less actively, insistently directed by the photographer? And so forth. Such questions are what I think Fred is interested in exploring.</p>

<p>One's <em>comparative valuation</em> of Fred's two example photos, or of my <em>priest</em> examples was not the point -- or rather, the fact that the pictures' value does not correlate to less/more just proves his starting point (see the Wright quote) and should allow this discussion to move beyond that to considering the <em>difference between the two approaches</em>.</p>

<p>This is not a better/worse discussion! It's simply about considering or filling out one's awareness of what specificity of focus does to a picture.</p>

<p><strong>Julie typed - "</strong> This is not a better/worse discussion!</p>

<p> Exactly. The earlier thread was about "The Power of Less", or "Less is more". This one expands on that considerably with Wright's quote, which brings makes the statement not absolute, but relational, or contingent.<br>

_________________________</p>

<p> As to FLWright, I lived in Oak Park, west of Chicago. I have also visited several times since leaving, and am personally familiar with the two dozen Wright houses nearby, some his earliest designs. I've been inside half of them, worshipped in the Unity Temple, and drank from the water fountain Wright designed for the town countless times. I've visited his own house/studio there dozens of times, attended lectures, spoken at length with current owners of some of the homes about their strengths and shortcomings, been to fundraisers, parties, etc. I've toured through the Robie house several times, visited the Guggenheim and Florida Southern College dozens of times, and seen the Marin Civic Center once. I've also visited several homes and buildings designed by his students and employees in Chicago. My father was an architect, and in my immediate family, there's three other architects still practicing. One is a professor emeritus and an authority in the field. I've been familiar with this my entire life, listening to discussions about Wright since I was a child.</p>

<p> Wright was a brilliant, ambitious and difficult man who burned many bridges in his life, some in very creative ways. One of the things that has always impressed me about him, right from the beginning, is how he managed to step into the shoes of the residents and visitors to his homes, creating a very natural, uncontrived-feeling, progressive spatial, textural etc narrative as one enters, moves around the house and exits, too. Extremely conscious of the play of light, color and space throughout the day. He also crammed a lot of things down the throats of his clients, and many of the houses, while being virtuoso pieces, are not very livable. Nor is the furniture, climate control, or the closets. There are lessons in FLW's work and life any photographer can benefit from. With Wright, one has different dimensions of less and more. The genius that went into his works was definitely of the 'more' variety, but its manifestations are often of the 'less' kind.<br>

__________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, Julie, I am not trying to make it a better/worse discussion. My point is: I feel it's not about more or less that is just one of teh details and choices made while creating. It's about the message, or intended message. So, a comparitive does not work if the messages are different, because different intents require different inclusions and exclusions.<br>

How can we seriously seperate the gesture of the photographer from the content? Isn't the final content defined by those very gestures? I'm not against raising awareness of these things, and like discussing them, but aren't we over-analysing if we try to keep content of a photo out of the discussion?</p>

<p>It is interesting how a subject dealing with the power of details in art becomes one of more or less, a question of comparison rather than of a profound analysis and synthesis of why details may be important in a visual communication.</p>

<p>Philosophically, the power of less is not one of "more" power, but a different power, an opportunity to say something different and perhaps significant through the use of details in life. In that sense, the "details" thread, perhaps moribund due to the Christmas season (My best wishes to all who celebrate this event, or simply the end of the year!), only briefly and superficially responded to the topic I raised, and seemingly spent too much time in the "comparison mode" rather than in the investigative mode (vis-a-vis the opportunities of details of life in the art of photography).</p>

<p>If it is indeed dead, I hope at least that someone will bother to pursue the topic in a more investigative intellectual manner at some further time. Sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but I think it is important to say ("a spade is a spade is a spade").</p>

<p>Wright's statement is probably "right on" for architecture (which at best I feel is in a navel gazing state at present, especially domestic architecture). As I think Luis intimated, Wright didn't fully succeded in that sense, although he brought a more organic approach (relation of land to architecture) to his structures. I find that approach as amusing as the 300 year plus infatuation with the Rennaisance forms (finally and justifiably dethroned). We already were aware of the humble (non-classical) but beautiful vernacular architecture from Medieval times, where the local materials and earth-water-climate context greatly inspired the building styles, (and assymetry of design was simply a consequence of function), much as Wright was to "re-invent" many hundreds of years later.</p>

<p><em>"Less is only more when more is no good."</em></p>

<p>I would approach that quite differently from Wright in an application to photography, with something like</p>

<p>"Less is more when the choice of less (details) communicates more significant information to the viewer than it would if buried in the mass of more complex, less impactful and/or disorientating information."</p>

<p>What manner of making photographs benefits from that? Not a subject over-explored to date (sadly). It would be nice to hear from others on that, either in the "detail" thread, or here.</p>

<p><em>"Less is only more when more is no good."</em> <strong>--Frank Lloyd Wright</strong><br>

Wright was talking about architecture, not photography. Secondly, Wright speaks <em><strong>for</strong></em> more, but not over-doing it. It is about pairing down- pulling things out of an overwhelming scene where the important part gets lost in a mess of too much visual information. Intent is part of it. Aesthetics is too. What you want to communicate, however, is the real meat of it. Photography is a communication tool, so if the message doesn't come across, you missed your target. Editing- Its one of the hardest parts of photography- and in most things. Get rid of the un-necessary stuff and you'll probably be better off, more focused.</p>

<p>Martin,</p>

<p>Amen! Welcome to the sect.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter - </strong> Thanks for clarifying. I think we're on the same page. You ask a central question: Will the way we regard details and our consequent decisions aid and abet our vision, or not?</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - </strong> Fred's FLWright quote elaborated on Arthur's original point. It doesn't end up a "question of comparison rather than of a profound analysis and synthesis of why details may be important in a visual communication." There's several sub-threads developing simultaneously here, and sometimes some fall behind.</p>

<p> Arthur's new quote, ""Less is more when the choice of less (details) communicates more significant information to the viewer than it would if buried in the mass of more complex, less impactful and/or disorientating information." is similar to Wright's, which we all know was about architecture. Maybe it's just me, but the characterization of complexity seems a little biased toward the negative.</p>

<p> The first thing that comes to mind with details is that they enhance the illusion of looking through the print as a window upon the subject, not a representation unto itself. The "photo-verite'" or you-are-there thing. Most people, including photographers, see photography in exactly this manner.</p>

<p>This illusion can be played at least two ways, synching with the overall visual momentum of the piece, or contrapuntally, against a surreal or photo with a heavier "mirror" aspect, creating tensions and resonance(s).</p>

<p> Details hold the eye, specially in a picture with few elements. I think the eye tends to pause at details, and races around complex compositions looking for symmetries and breaks in them. Details are information. I think Fred may have thrown us a pair of ringers because while there are strong lines in the close-up head shot, I can't see much texture in the subject's face. The more complex picture abounds in detail.</p>

<p> Details are of importance in perceptual processing from 2D to 3D imaging (see Fred's 2nd picture). In strongly graphic pictures, like Gibson's, the detail may add credibility, yet at times can introduce smaller fields within the frame, like his textured rock. I tend to unconsciously hunt for and find subtle secondary geometric relationships in simpler compositions.</p>

<p> Of course, to what end one utilizes detail, and how it works in a specific image is something else. It can get buried, as Arthur puts it, under complexity, and it can also dissipate in a morass of emptiness (though that can be made to work sometimes).</p>

<p>Arthur typed "What manner of making photographs benefits from that? Not a subject over-explored to date (sadly). It would be nice to hear from others on that, either in the "detail" thread, or here."</p>

<p> I would submit that there's no extinguished subjects, only creatively weak minds. Of course, some places do have the bar raised high. Is there anybody left who hasn't been to Havana, Cuba to photograph the old cars, dancing Cubans, colonial and commie signifiers and aging buildings? Or to Disney world? Or Daytona Bike Week? To go to any of those things and come back with something fresh, of your very own, is not easy now that so many greats have photographed these things. It's not what you photograph, or what you photograph it with, but how you photograph it.</p>

<p> I would have to consider a thing like this on a case-by-case basis. It's difficult to set a formula as to what will work when, and life has a Houdiniesque way of eluding those traps. I guess as close to an answer as I can give you is: "those where more is no good".</p>

<p>Every subject has been photographed a zillion times.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Every subject has been photographed a zillion times."</p>

<p>Luis-</p>

<p>I think we are not at all on the same page regarding details of life. Yes, the half dome and Disneyland may be photographed ad infinitum, but the details of life or of human existence have not. There are many things as yet undiscovered by the artist and photographer, and to think not is to sink into the blasé.</p>

<p>I am not at all talking about the details that might make up a photograph or the many details that appear in Fred's second photograph.</p>

<p>What is hard to communicate to others here is the thought that details of life are often those overlooked or poorly understood things that beg to be interpreted (and not just simply reproduced optico-mechanically) by creative artists, and are definitely not part of another image of an overphotographed subject by the me-too crowd.</p>

<p>Think like Gilles Carle of the "details of life" or "details of our existence", and you will see what I have been trying to get at. Martin has come fairly close to seeing that I think.</p>

<p>"I tend to unconsciously hunt for and find subtle secondary geometric relationships in simpler compositions." (Luis)</p>

<p>Yes. of course, Luis, that should be part of it. But it isn't all. A simpler composition does not mean a less powerful statement. I guess we can paraphrase Albert Einstein in his suggestion that the most important relationship (equation) is the simplest possible one. Carle incessantly looked to explore that in his feature films, and I am intent on looking for that in my more recent photography.</p>

<p> </p>