Unified Theory of Photography

Einsten almost equate how the universe function with an equation...or

did he not?

Almost all human diseases can be tracked, diagnosed, treated and

researched. They even mapped the genes of SARS in no time.

 

Most physical phenomenona can be explain with physics, maths and

higher sciences.

 

Even serial killers can be profiled and studied. Human emotions can

be explained somewhat.

 

 

Art, most specifically photography, cannot yet be explained. There is

no universal explanation for SUBJECTIVITY. No true determinants of

what makes a good picture and what makes a not so good one.

Photographers and critics are constantly evaluating others/own work

based on their personal experience, attachments/detachments and

emotions.

 

 

In your opinion, will there ever be a day when we can put an EQUATION

to photography?

 

e,g

 

Bad picture/Good picture = (composition x exposure x media used x

subjects x tones x timing x camera used etc) in their various

predetermined proportions and functions?

 

SO in year 2050, a 6 year old kid would follow that equation and

respectively produce a bad/good picture based on what variables he

chooses in that equation?

 

 

 

Or will art continually be sujective, which isn't a bad thing IMO ;)

 

 

I know, I have too much time. Thx for looking out. ;)

 

Happy shootout!

Travis, you mention many of the endeavors of man to understand the world around him.

 

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know", so says Keats.

 

No greater truth than God, from who all truth resides, and all beauty flows trough his Creation. We as men, cannot quantify this, but can enjoy it.

I think I'd rather spend my time making photographs than entering into philosophical debates which do nothing but waste valuable time.

Here is the equation for good photography:<P>"Astound Me!" -Alexei Brodovich

Travis, Travis. From anyone else I'd suspect a troll :-)

 

There is no such thing as good photography or bad photography. There's only images you like and images you don't like, same as all art.

 

At this point some idiot will jump up and tell us how his degree in the philosophy of art qualifies him to pronounce some things good and other things bad. At moments such as that I wish I lived in America so I could reach for my gun...

"There is no such thing as good photography or bad photography. There's only images you like and images you don't like, same as all art. "

 

Harvey, I believed I heard the above from you first sometime back and I really like that statement. I wish I can carved it somewhere. Did you come up with that by yourself? ;)

I firmly believe that art, like love and really good mexican food, just cannot be quantified. If you can put an equation to it, it's just not ok anymore. Much as I respect math and physics, I don't think they parallel music and art, and when the two mix, I stop watching/playing/listening. Feel free to flame away showing the precise mathematical relationship of musical theory (I play guitar)...but that's just my 2\

The subjective areas of an image, to me, are always the most interesting. The film, "The Dead Poet's Socety, at one place, sort of addressed the issue of rules and formula. Over the years, I've encountered many articles that espoused a contrary view, that is, they presented a plethora of adamant *laws* that covered all the usual considerations - composition being one of the principle issues.

(I think it was Edward Weston who remarked that "composition is the strongest way of seeing" - maybe a little enigmatic, (hardly an edict), but fulfilling upon sufficient reflection!)

 

The real poetry of an image - that elusive but compelling layer of metaphor, symbolism, or association - will never fit easily into any academic formula (or assessment) because the variables are contigent upon the viewer. I've wrestled with the issue of uiversality for years - undoubtedly the only art that can hope to rise above all the different cultural biases is the most basic, minimalist, sort - the least moving and the least mysterious (for me)! But if one wanted something that is quintessentially emblematic of *high art*, modern minimalist stuff would easily fit the bill. Perhaps the non-quantifiable layers of personal passion and affections, fears, dangerous psychic explorations, and so on, are truly (as described by Nerdrum) - kitsch, and hardly worth the notice of art-world professionals at all. Along with this, it's easy to conclude that the most poetically complex imagery would necessarily belong to the same world and, along with other "kitsch", be self-invalidating by reason of its obstinate non-conformity.

Bravo Travis.

 

Of course photography is scientifically measured.

 

I just read it here. 99% of us are inferior.

I tried to do a HCB in the temple today. I whipped out my calculator, but nope, didn't work..<div></div>

A writer, Borges, I believe, was asked what books he would recommend to aspiring young writers. His reply: "Read what you like; write what you must." Paraphrasing that to "View what you like; shoot what you must" sounds ok to me.

 

Science is definitely linked to subjectivity, I think. There are principles that help make something work, or not, whether or not you're conscious of using them. But nothing is carved in stone, either; the ground beneath are feet is shifting all the time. I think that's what allows novelty, surprise and delight.

Fibbonachi (sp?) once claimed that the ideal proportions in art were given by the ratio of 1:1.618. In recent times, we often use the "rule of thirds" to obtain results that look right to us. But there's no ratio or equation that separates worthy from trite subject matter. I think that to an extent, what looks right depends on the expectations that have been programmed into us. Fibbonachi's golden section and the rule of thirds may just be examples of this programming.

"There is no such thing as good photography or bad photography. There's only images you like and images you don't like, same as all art. "

 

If that is to mean that any image you like is art, then the statement is just tosh. It's perfectly possible to like the most naive snapshot, but that doesn't make it art. Art in any medium requires some rigor on the part of its producer to communcate with an intent, not with an accident. This goes for Winogrand, Pollock, or Beethoven. Simply put, its the before and after editing, mental and physical, that makes it art. Society then has to be talking the same language for it to be understood beyond the individual.

I just read it here. 99% of us are inferior.

 

Not me Ray, i'm putting myself in the elite 1%. So There!<div></div>

Travis, how do you find the time to take pictures AND comtemplate navels?

 

The UTP: Preparation + Serendipity = Art (photography or otherwise).

Travis: You clearly have way too much free time on your hands :)

 

Actually, scientists (psychologists) have studied this very topic, and you can research it yourself by browsing some obscure tomes on the subject... In simple summary, they found that a work of "art" was more pleasing to test subjects if it had any of the following characteristics:

 

1) It had symmetry -- and the closer the symmetry was to perfect, the more beautiful the object/subject was said to be.

 

2) It had a balance of "complimentary" colors OR any non-complimentary colors were balanced by even distribution throughout the object/image. (I believe black and white were considered non-complimetary, but I'm not 100% sure.)

 

3) The image/object brought on "pleasant" memories from childhood.

 

There were more "traits" that I cannot remember, but these were the main ones.

 

Cheers,

Art can be good or bad, or even great. I know enough to appreciate why Shakespeare is a great writer, but I still prefer Marlowe: more violent deaths in each act (but cf. Titus Andronicus).

 

A lot of greatness, as Steve pointed out, has to do with the place of the work of art in culture, society, history and other vague terms, and these things change. People change, too. Late Beethoven is a very different beast from early Beethoven.

 

But maybe a good picture is one that succeeds on its own terms. Your thoughtless flash snapshot at a party may be a better photo than some carefully-planned artistic selective-focus thing that I haven't quite managed to pull off. Similarly, we look for things in a 4x5 that we don't demand in 35mm. A successful colour photograph has things that a successful B&W one doesn't. A interior-design photograph for a glossy mag has different standards from a PJ shot for a newspaper. We don't read a lyric by Ashbery in the same way we read a novel by Faulkner. They do very much different things even though they both use the English language. Etc., etc.

 

It helps to be first, too. Muybridge will always be more famous than anyone else who tries to take an action sequence of a galloping horse, even though we now have better lenses, better metering etc.

The whole point about the arts is that they are not predictably quantifiable, and that there is much room for personal tastes and preferences. Best examples are in music: from monastic chanting in all cultures, to native american, asian and african drum styles, to Mozart to Karlheinz Stochausen to R&B to rapping: just when society figures there's a set formula for what is enjoyable, something intrudes with a new set of rules. It's happened in the world of painting and sculpture too. Photography is a little behind; I think it's held back by the too-frequent insistence on technical and compositional(rule of thirds, etc) perfection. I LOVE naive snapshots. I really enjoy pictures that break rules(and succeed): otherwise we all go to work in Fuji's new ad campaign and grind out "masterpieces" according to whatever formula the agency is using.

"Did you come up with that by yourself?"

 

Er, I think so. On the other hand, it seems self evident so perhaps I picked it up somewhere.

 

"If that is to mean that any image you like is art, then the statement is just tosh"

 

Aha! The thought police step out of the undergrowth, eyes glimmering, jowls quivering, ready to stamp out the slightest trace of unorthodox thought. After all, they went to school and were taught how to think so everyone else who has a different view is wrong...

 

So let's try this: Suppose a giant intelligent amoeba arrived here from Proxima Centauri in a starship that was clearly thousands of years beyond our technology, took a look at all of humanity's 'great art' and fell about laughing. Suppose he/she/it then looked at a watercolour daub produced by a three year old and pronounced it great art of the finest quality. Who's right?

 

If your answer is anything other than 'everyone' you are in urgent need of a fascistectomy.

you've got too much time.

To me, art is probably the closest humans can come to sheer utter creativity. Math and science are usually derived from nature. The concept of humans coming up with something that has no basis in nature is like working with nothingness. But, art to me seems to kind of transcend this requirement. Kind of, but maybe not fully.

Travis

 

Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong was asked "What is Jazz?" He replied: "If you have to ask, you will never understand."

 

The same adage is applicable to music: "The are 2 kinds of music. Good music is music you like and bad music is music you don't like."

 

Thanks for all the stimulating posts.

 

Cheers Lah

.. some time ago, a year or two.

I know how to put together everything, so the elements and lagnuage of pictures can be rationally taught and learned. I wrote a number of articles, and wanted to write a book - it was to be a good, lively book full both of deep sense and amusing anekdotes. I do not believe in academism in explaining ideas. I am great - but no one wanted to read it.

 

So here I am, sometimes showing my indefinitely superior puctires (because I know, now to make them, I understand the language of art, I am grrr.. - already told you, though, didn't I?) - and bark at a bunch of tyros at photo.net forum, that crawl helplessly like blind newborn puppies.

 

It is hard to be a genius.

Unbeknownst to you, Travis, there's a new site that defines the exact rules of making

Art. I've followed them myself for the last month, & my photographs have all

improved immeasurably. I highly recommend you check it out (& that you memorize

the rules in the exact order they're given).

 

www.10RulesforMakingPerfectArt.org

 

Good luck, man!<div></div>

Patrick, that image looks like a close shot of a worm-shell colony.....Petaloconchus varians perchance?