Purposeful Photography

<p>Simply put the question is this. Can a photographer create a significant collection of work without a clear purpose? If one photographs for the pleasure of picture taking, for the enjoyment of manipulating the materials to their best advantage, and the satisfaction of securing trophies for the wall, will that not simply result in superficial attractiveness? Stunningly beautiful work possibly, but lacking significance. And of course qualifying what determines significance will undoubtably muddle this conversation, but I hope the distinction I'm trying to make will prevail.<br /> Isn't the image maker whose purpose is to show a subject of intense interest to others using the camera as the best tool for that purpose in possession of more intrinsic value? As for my personal example, I am flailing about with several cameras and several loose ended so called projects. What they have in common is my love of the process, and while that needs no justification, this mostly aimless pursuit has only photography itself to sustain it. I lack a purpose. There is no one important subject that I feel particularly devoted to above any other. And I am suspicious that this may guarantee in the end a pleasing but facile body of work. I fear that because I am not possessed and or obsessed with a subject, message or meaning, and am always instead just seeking a dazzler, that I will never be satisfied with what I do, and never feel that I have accomplished anything. Wonderful, wonderful pictures can rain from every direction, but when you think of a body of great work, is that not often synonymous with a theme?</p>

<p>Well, shoot. Now I'm feeling facile. <em>Thanks</em>, Kenneth. :-)<br /><br />I'd say that your obsession about the lack of an obsession qualifies as obsession enough to manifest itself - perhaps indirectly, and over time - in your work. Love of process will show when you shoot subject matter that involves process, and themes will significantly emerge. Examine what it is about process that fulfills you, and think about shooting things in a context that celebrates the process being depicted. You sound like someone that could do a great job showcasing artisans at work - whether it's barn building, bread baking, or bowling ball buffing. Because you <em>get</em> process.</p>

<p>Very insightful Matt. I certainly do feel in my element when depicting the abilities of others. Sort of like this is what I was meant to do instead of endless trees and rocks. Too much isolation and one begins to feel like iconoclast under glass. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one photographs for the pleasure of picture taking, for the enjoyment of manipulating the materials to their best advantage, and the satisfaction of securing trophies for the wall...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about you, but those sound like three pretty well thought out and targeted purposes for photographing to me. Who is to judge "significance"? </p>

<p> I guess if the pictures are still around and being seen in a hundred years they are significant. If your negatives and prints just hit the trash then that's it. </p>

<p>Kenneth, I didn't wade through your text, chose not to because you didn't share photos. But I do think "purposeful" is the main characteristic of my own photography, whether or not someone else notices that.</p>

<p>I don't wander, hoping, and I have no interest in yet more versions of rocks/water/trees/sunsets etc. Most of my photos have been actively sought, one way or another and I print my own, mostly B&W, because that's the only way I could get what I intended when I made the exposure (crude previsualization). Most of my prints are accompanied by some text because that's what I intended when I made the exposure, it was part of my "purpose."</p>

<p>As to "significance," that's mostly our gamble if that's what we're after. Perhaps an image is significant to us and to others, or perhaps just to us. Worth it either way. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>One more thing, as Townes van Zandt put it sometimes you just have to sing for the sale of the song. Or as Elliot Erwitt said "It is time we start taking photography seriously and treat it as a hobby." </p>

<p>

<p> I remember having a discussion with some friends about whether a song had to have deep meaning in order to be a good song. I felt and still do that a song is better or more significant if the lyrics say something of value, but a song can still be of value simply by having a good sound. That is to say that entertainment itself has tremendous value.</p>

<p>I think that the same goes for a photograph. A photograph that is beautiful or humorous is of great value for that alone.</p>

<p>The Townesman. Just had him on the other night. Tough life went into that mans significance. I took a shot of footprints as they followed about 500 yards of train track from a viaduct, and thought of Johnny Cash. I think what I am is a fair guitar player, that just doesn't have quite the stuff though, and those that do intimidate more than inspire anymore. My failing to see it that way. Kinda like Phil Oachs (sp?) take on Bob Dylan. That didn't end well.<br>

I'll spend hours looking at Flickr "kids" that have done better work in two years than I've done in forty. It's a bit more of a life lesson that I can swing at this time, to accept my limitations. Yet to set goals based on a competitive urge, a personal sense of inadequacy, is also misplaced. I'm too old for this junk, but what can I say. It is persistently troubling. The bottom line that I think I need to face up to, is you've either got something to say or you don't. I can't salve that with graceful detachment or a hobbyists pleasure just yet. </p>

<p>Kevin the answer is yes and many photographers have. For example Bresson, Winogrand, Willy Ronis, Andre Kertesz, Keith Carter, Manual Alvarez,Louis Stettner,Martine Frank, Helen Levitt. Many of these shooters, if not most, just grab (grabbed) the camera and went out and shot what they saw. Most of the great street shooters now living have no specific agenda when they go out to shoot. They simply get into a shooters state of mind and hit the road.</p>

<p>Wanted to post something</p><div></div>

<p>Kenneth, I think you need to do this your own way, no matter what. Can it work? It has for others, but in the end it depends on how good you are.</p>

<p>I'm still early in my development, so for me, my goal is to improve my vision and technical skills. These are enough for me at this point, and being able to see my photographs getting better with time is satisfying.</p>

<p>That said, I understand where you are going. Once your skill is at a certain level, improvements over time become smaller, and you need something else to keep yourself motivated. I've found this same thing in other hobbies I have. Projects don't always have to be fun to do; sometimes it's the less fun projects that are more demanding and thus more satisfying when they're complete. I live in New Jersey, land of the million diners. I'm sure it's been done before, but I thought it would be an interesting project to shoot every one. I don't think it would be much fun, in general, assuming the point would be to take each shot in the most flattering light possible, meaning a lot of travel, scoping out each one and seeing when the light is best.</p>

<p>I've also found that having short term and long term goals helps, even if the short term goals are part of the long term ones. Having a sense of progress helps sustain motivation.</p>

<p>I think it's up to you to set goals that you'd like to accomplish, and plan them out so you have milestones along the way. If you're satisfied just taking nice pictures, why agonize over it?</p>

<p>Kenneth, nobody knows what the "great photographers" intended, especially not people who buy into what they wrote, or who accept what other people claim they intended. Look at the body of work...only your responses as a viewer count.</p>

<p>In jazz and athletics the performers talk about their own individual grooves. If they can't find their grooves, they say, they just can't do what they hope is possible. I think that applies to photography as well.</p>

<p>Some photographers find a couple of grooves...Avedon and Penn and Weston found several each (as did Picasso and Miles Davis). Few Magnum photographers seem (to me) to have had that many, and they were all highly purposeful (even HCB). My sense is that we may or may not have potential grooves. Cameras don't make photographers.</p>

<p>If we do have potential grooves, we won't find them without the work. I found traces of a groove decades ago, skipped out of it several times, and have never committed sufficiently to it (the usual alibis of life).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jay, Can I just suggest NOT photographing every last one. Thats just my opinion of course, but please give it some thought. Inventory can be such a drag for everyone involved. No offense, but maybe George Tice would be a better example.</p>

<p>Boom, wow John, the timing... must have similar morning rituals. I appreciate the groove thing. It's a word I overuse myself. I go in and out along the way, the day, sure, you work it up or not, but that's not directly associated with my concern. I don't think you can do better than hit and miss with this medium, but I still think you have to have something to contain and channel your efforts. As you described your process earlier for example. But this I lack. I hit the road as J. Elder said and hope for the best. Fine, let's hope I'm such a whimsical poet I can grab a few apples, but hmmm, seems like weak tea after all. Making pictures to make pictures. It just isn't enough. And an arbitrary assignment, a random theme, just to frame it up and get going, god no. Never that.</p>

<p>OH GOD, Japan. </p>

<p>Semantics do get in the way. What I think, personally, is that there are people who have something inside that comes out in their work (purpose, maybe) and there are those that just go out to shoot. The reality is that it is a continuum, everybody makes a decision on what to shoot, but those working with more internal conviction will come out with a more cohesive body of work whether they ever verbalized it, directly pursued it or it just showed up.</p>

<p>I also don't judge the internal conviction sort of thing, it is just when the use of the camera is in contact more deeply with what is inside us, then something more happens. Some people don't have any interest or connection with the camera in doing that sort of thing. Some may not have any particularly deep thing they want to express or need to.</p>

<p>Bottom line, I like bodies of work where images work together and have less interest in what might be seen more as random or pictorial sorts of things, but that is a personal preference.</p>

<p>A purposeful life will follow purposeful photography, and vice versa. That doesn't mean that it will be any good or any better, but it won't be without a purpose.</p>

<p>Kenneth, I did understand "have something to contain and channel." A cabinet maker can do work that's just as significant as a furniture maker, but they may not be effective in each other's channels.</p>

<p>I don't use "groove" very often, but I'm not aware of metaphors that are as evocative. Some of the Photo Philosophy folks would undoubtedly prefer epic paragraphs with armies of commas. </p>

<p>There's no upside to "purposeful" or anything else without risk. Bland is nearly risk-free, virtually lossless. Risk means potential for wasted time and total failure. The safest photographic things to do are to wander the streets or woods, hoping something will appeal. Rocks and rowboats and piers in lakes, homeless on streets, cats and sunsets, old barns, someone else's architecture. You know the drill. A groove may lead somewhere, but that probably begins with resonation to someone else's work...rather than just recognizing it as generic success. </p>

<p>You're a lively writer. Maybe you could start with the concern you've expressed here, illustrating the situation photographically. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Please excuse me from this discussion for now. Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>Enjoying photography is an obvious first criteria of purpose, and something that doesn’t need trophies or even recognition of others.</p>

<p>You recognise some of the value in photographs made by younger people. That makes you someone who is capable of objective and generous thought, I think. The apparent success of others is no impediment to your own potential.</p>

<p>If you are not to date satisfied with what you have been doing in photography, maybe you have been stuck in some paradigm of thought and type of photography that you should consider the need to break out of. I may suggest that you read some of the more advanced photo texts or books on artistic approach, go to museums and understand the approach of other artists or photographers, take a few short courses on perception and image-making, write down what you want to photograph and try putting down some more novel ways of doing so (different from what you may be familiar with or what one normally sees of the same subject matter). Perhaps find others who have similar questions or can perhaps aid you in your development (age is no handicap, photography goes across generations). Sketch out a photo shoot and do it. Experiment with light, motion, compositions of different subject matter. Try the less obvious approach before a more familiar standard one.</p>

<p>All or any of this has plenty of purpose, and there is no admission charge. Even the finest artists have creativity problem moments and frequent blank canvasses. It’s part of the game. The fun is in surmounting one's paradigms and breaking out (having said that with more than just passive conviction, I think that I need to do some of that too).</p>

<p>Good luck. </p>

 

<p>"Can a photographer create a significant collection of work without a clear purpose?"<br>

Significant in what terms, and to whom?</p>

<p>If we want to pretend the need for our photographs to have any purpose at all, we can never exclude the world from our photography, or photograph as if the photograph comes somehow prior to the world and is detached from it, either by being below or above it.</p>