What is the force behind your work?

Do you ever wonder why the way we do something seems to be more

important than what we do or why we do it? Skill and technique

become valued over the inspiration or the product or the

experience? Why don��t we concentrate on what is behind our work,

the forces that produced it rather than what can be called the

��conventional qualities�� of the work.

There is constant talk about technique and skill; technique and

skill has to be used and it has to show in your work.��or so that is

the consensus. At any rate, we seem to put ourselves in categories:

professional, amateur, average Joe, artist, etc. according to our

skill and technique��not according to our ideas, our feelings or the

force behind our work, whatever that might be.

Why don��t we talk about inspiration and experience and the meaning

behind our work instead? Is it because we cannot objectify

inspiration and personal experience, and therefore we find it

difficult to talk about? Is it because the person who views our

work is more important than ourselves, and that person can��t

��see�� what��s behind our work in the work itself? Or is it

because, in cyberspace we feel so, so very far from each other that

discussing anything deep about our feelings is difficult or

meaningless?

Some might say that its impossible to say how one person��s feeling

is better than another��s, therefore discussion becomes moot. Could

it be that we don��t mind commenting about something that we can

express in black and white, but when things become gray we feel its

difficult to discuss. At the same time, people continuously state

that the viewer��s reaction cannot be ignored��and so perhaps the

viewer has become the focus of many people��s work, consciously or

unconsciously. In truth a lot of people SO WANT TO BE ACCEPTED that

they have put this before just doing. In school, for example, we

didn��t care what people thought so much. But then once out of

school there seems to be this consensus that ��that��s not the real

world�� or ��that��s not realistic��.

A major draw to PN, for example, is the critique and rating system,

which is a useful thing for those who need validation, but it��s

based on just looking at a photo without really knowing what the

photo is about. What I have a problem with is what it validates��

technique, skill and what we can see in the works which is actually

only a fraction of what the photographer was feeling, thinking,

experiencing at the time.

At the same time, most of the photos in the ratings and critique

forum are ��what you see is what you get�� and I wonder if this is a

result of the fact that personal meaning and experience have become

buried by the expectations of others. We don��t follow our

instincts because that is not ��professional��. Therefore our work

comes away without a professional but very impersonal feel, and so

there is nothing to comment about except ��great composition�� or

��love the lighting��. Technique and skill prevails.

Why don��t we share our experiences, our passionate experiences, our

inspiration, the meaning that lies behind our work? Does it make us

feel cheesy? Do most people just not care? Or does that bother

us?��to think that we have to explain our work��our work should be

understood on its own. Why should it, after all? I mean, we

cannot be understood unless we communicate to others about our

feelings, so why should our work be so easily understood. Why do we

have this idea that people should be able to understand a work on

its own��that that is an indication of it��s success? How many of

us will willingly admit that their admiration for favorite artist or

photographer is due to a fuller understanding or that artist or

photographer��s background, way of working, inspiration or thought.

And so, I wonder how much more we could share and learn from each

other if we shared our ideas, thoughts. But we don��t seem to be

interested in that.

There is a constant effort of validate our level as doer without

much discussion about why we do or raw appreciation for what we do.

There are discussions about equipment, technique, digital vs film,

lighting and exposure. There are all kinds of tutorials, critiques

and ratings. We discuss what art is, discuss what we think about

one photographer or another, and there has even been discussion

about one��s favorite genre. And as a result of this, there are

rules to aid in the classification and division among men who

probably have more in common than not, for the desire to create is a

powerful one that well defines a personality, and most of us possess

this desire.

One easy answer to all of these questions might be that

photographers by nature are interested in technology. But it seems

that the ��philosophy of photography�� has the potential to include

such more personal discussion and commentary that it currently

does. An answer to this question might be that most photographers

satisfy the kind of discussion that I��m talking about offline, with

closer company. But the work that is shown doesn��t reflect that.

There doesn��t seem to be much pursuit of photography at a personal

level that gets away from technique and skill and begins answering

questions about motive and inspiration, life and living.

I have a friend that I met back in 2000. At that time we were

teaching together and he had just been accepted into a phd program

in the philosophy department at the University of Aukland. We were

talking about the uses of philosophy, and he swore up and down that

he��d be able to get a job in the corporate world. He had a friend

in HK who had a Phd in philosophy who was working for a corporation

in Hong Kong. He said corporations needed thinkers, problem

solvers.

I��m reminded of that now because we see today how even commercial

photography is moving away from mainstream ��what you see is what

you get�� into what might have only been considered ��art

photography�� or ��experimental photography�� 10 years ago. Every

time I log into my Yahoo mail account I what is no more than a

snapshop of people, sometimes cropped, sometimes not, always very

colorful, always showing movement, interaction, the personality and

the activities of people having fun, being real. Even if these

photos are set up, run through 10 art directors before actually

being made, the thought behind them is crucial. They work because

they have something��creativity, and the skill put into them. And

they work because they are fresh, new and speak to us about

something that we can all relate to in what is surprisingly

profound.

So putting ideas and feelings and emotions and personality into one��

s work is not an ��artsy fartsy�� thing to do, though it might be a

contemporary thing to do. Being creative is important and today

being creative means more than being able to compose a photo better

than your uncle who only has an old Canon Sureshot. It means not

just looking at the world in a new or original way but instead

thinking about photography in a new way. It means reinventing

��what is a good photo��, ��what is a good composition�� ��what is

good color�� ��what is subject matter��. These are, I think, the

kinds of things that should be discussed by contemporary

photographers. But that requires sharing ideas that are vastly more

personal than are being shared now.

I enjoy the discussion on the Philosophy of Photography forum. But

at the same time I know that it is missing something that could

really benefit us all in an important way.

<div></div>

Read this: http://www2.actden.com/Writ_Den/tips/paragrap/index.htm

I think this is a great point. You should however, for ease of reading, use real punctuation and paragraphs. It would encourage, rather than discourage reading.

 

The point of concept is very postmodern, and is inescapable. Even attempting to shoot a simply beautiful photo is a concept. I think trying to say something works very well with photography and art because it is, in essence, communication in a visual format. To deny that would be ignorant.

 

I do, however, prefer images that link concept and technical brilliance. Great photos are sometimes happy accidents, but to excel as a photographer you need more than accidents. I know photographers as well that work on basic technical levels and produce great work, because they have an understanding that may not be quantifiable. They may not be able to make a chart about bellows extension compensation, but seem to just know how much to compensate.

 

Its the understanding of light and familiarity of equipment that takes you to the next technical level, but its a better understanding of self and the surroundings that take you to the next level of communication.

How many cups of coffee did this take?

I applaud your sentiment here ... but, a challenge, why not kick off this campaign with a personal comment on each of the photos in your own gallery?

 

This all reminds me of how, when I first arrived at PN, I was also a little miffed that more people didn't use their comments section to flesh out in words what they attempted with their pictures. To my way of thinking, this would make the sight much more personal, much less competitive, and much more social ... not to mention much more instructional, both philosophically as well as technically. But I soon realized by a few of the comments that I read that people here were seemingly devoted to some mythical notion that true art was supposed to be universal and therefore a photographer's comments would somehow pollute the pure process of artistic appreciation ... or something like that ... the viewer would become "biased" by the words. My suspicion, though, was that many of the talented leader-type people felt that they'd only risk messing up what seemed like near-perfection to them (and one could insert here a discussion on some of the bizarre obsessions with things technical on the site) by interjecting something of their own imperfect human personality and thought into the process. I suspected that they were simply playing into their strengths in order to get a maximum return of social recognition for their investments of time and effort and money in developing their narrow photographic skills ... to the probable neglect of living a more perfect life in the real world; Was it fair that a dull person (mentally or emotionally) should be forced to bare his weaknesses and flaws in the face of his art? Wasn't that what initially attracted him or her to become "artistic" in the first place? ... a way to be somebody without actually being that person in real life? ... isn't that a great part of the expressive process? ... a getting out ... what is banished to within? But these are, of course, generalizations ... and I should say that I think that there really are a large number of people who show at least a little of their souls when they write about things photographic; even if these showings are almost entirely indirect and random.

 

Show something of yourself, Matt, and maybe some few will follow. I'll go on record that I very much enjoy seeing a little of the artist alongside the art.

I can't draw or paint. I want to capture my daughter's infancy before I miss it. and It's fun to look back at good times.

Ever hear of paragraphs? How do you expect to read this, particularly on a computer monitor?

 

--Mitch/Paris

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned about talking about your work being easier in person than online. When you are conversing with someone in the flesh you can get to the point quicker and interject when needed.

 

Personally I got over the need to tell people why I photograph a long time ago. I've also lost interest, for the most part, in why others do what they do as well, unless they are interesting people who've had an impact on photography as a whole or on me in particular.

Thanks for the severely impacted words, Matt. I suspect that once digested, your words will distill to something that can sneak around a kidneystone.

Ivan G, are you Ivan Greene, notorious gunks bouldering legend?

What is that?

Your answer to that is already in the thread. If we share our experiences we will be crucified. Not only for what others may see as less than original thought, but for punctuation, grammar, and anything else some weazel can pick an argument with.

I go home in the evening remembering, that if I had a busy day, if I am tired, I should be aware I am prone to be short on manners and offensive to my family.

One of the problems with the communication system we use here? Of course it is.

We have anonymous, bored, tired, insensitive, agressive, capricious people and soulfull, gentle, imaginative angels, swimming in the same pond.

If we are lucky/unlucky, we sometimes brush against our own ilk.

 

Don't give up on the idea Matt.

I grew up in a world of steam-locomotives, coal-mines, coal trains, brickyards, smoking chimneys and soot-stained houses. It's all gone now and so have the people. All I have to show people what it was like are the photographs.

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>Thankyou for your thoughtful post. After reading and agreeing with much of it

I finally arrived at the realisation that I cannot talk about what photography

should or should not be for others. All I can hope for is that I get the chance

to express myself through my work and meet other photographers that share my

philosophy and somewhat more importantly learn from the ones who don't share it.

:)</p>

<p>To achieve this I realise that I have to put aside my fears of appearing

stupid or saying something dumb on the grounds that these minor embarrassments

pale in comparison to my fear of doing nothing as I too, like your photo, have

felt as if my life was parked. :))</p>

<p>You have talked to the very reasons that have seen me digging deeper into art

and philosophy than I would ever have imagined. </p>

<p>Cheers...John.<br>

P.S. It looks more to me like you've experienced a formatting glitch when making

your post and I hazard a guess that MS-Word is the likely culprit with it's

extended character set that the text parser fails to recognize.</p>

Chris Waller <i>

I grew up in a world of steam-locomotives, coal-mines, coal trains, brickyards, smoking chimneys and soot-stained houses. It's all gone now and so have the people. All I have to show people what it was like are the photographs.</i><p>

 

I for one would very much like to see your photographs of that era. I recall very clearly carrying coal and feeding the furnace, the smell of coal smoke in the air, picking up clinkers by the tracks, throwing coke chips, and the honor of wearing a starched white shirt mother labored over for Sundays. Coal smelled of prosperity and comfort then, and I saw steam locomotives, but not many, and largely in Germany and about the British Isles. However, we had no camera in the family then.

For years, I've shown my work at regional art shows and local galleries, depending on the photographs to speak for themselves. Now, as I'm preparing for my first one-man show, I'm forced to confront this same issue in preparing an "Artist's Statement": what's the motivation and reason behind what I do?

 

Compared to most of the ones I've read, I feel like Charlie Brown seeing "horsies and duckies" in the clouds, while his chums see the clash of Titans and other grand images. When I try to articulate just why I make photographs, it seems almost trite -- because it makes me happy. What am I trying to say with my body of work? I suppose it's no more profound than wanting to share the joy I feel in discovering beauty. Should I get out my biggest shovel and pile the BS as high as possible in order to not seem foolish, or simply state what I feel and let the photographs carry the load?

 

As much as I've enjoyed the discussions here, I seldom contribute because I realize I'm not very sophisticated in my approach and might not have much to add to the often lofty topics. I agree with Matt that an exchange of our intimate feelings might be productive, but also realize that anyone who does "let it all hang out" is likely to be ill-treated by some who apparently consider themselves superior to the rest of us. One thing I've noticed is that the most critical seem to keep their own photographic accomplishments from view: I wonder why?

There's a lot for me to think about in theser resonses. I'll go and print them out and sit on it. This photo is for Chris. What you said about the coal trains and all else that has faded "spoke to me".

 

Sorry for the formatting problem. I did have paragraphs. And I proofread this several times before copying out of MS word and pasting it into PN. If anyone can teach me how to avoid this problem in the future, I'd appreciate it.<div></div>

<b>Mr. Hilker:</b> <i> I feel like Charlie Brown seeing "horsies and duckies" in the clouds, while his chums see the clash of Titans and other grand images. </i><p>

 

Thanks for the candid and heartening comments. You made this day a bit brighter already. Indeed, seeing "horsies and duckies" while other see titans can put one into analysis-paralysis.<p>

 

You have already written your statement! It is highly unlikely that an informed and sophisticated viewer will disrespect a sincere, light-hearted statement; in fact, it may bring more respect than the common obtuse statements. And, of course, the images stand on their own merit forever, while statements can be changed.<p>

 

If you like we can probably craft a two-line statement about your charming observation, or just leave it be.

Dick, "makes me happy...to share the joy I feel in discovering beauty".

 

In today's climate that would be truly radical (and welcome). Unfortunately, some will be totally disoriented by simplicity and fundamental truths. Stick with it.

 

Grant.

Thanks, Pico and Grant -- I feel better already! I'm really excited about the show and want everyting to at least appear as though I know what I'm doing, so would appreciate any other thoughts you might have. As a fairly late bloomer (mid 70's,)I'm more interested in having a venue to share what I've been working on with the community than I am in generating interest in my work from a commercial perspective. I do sell quite a few pieces, but I view the sales more as validation of the worth of what I do than as income.

Many of my favorite photography books have had a lot of words in them. I love a good "photo essay", which I conceive as something where words and pictures that EACH are strong enough to stand on their own are combined to create something greater than the sum of the parts. I do want to know what people were thinking and feeling when they took a picture. I'm afraid, though, that a lot of the time it would turn out that they aren't thinking and feeling much of anything, and often when they are, it might be too long a story to share easily.

 

The "Presentations" feature on this site presents the possibility to do that. However, the presentations I have seen so far are all technical in nature and do not have well-crafted prose. If there were a stimulating, thought-provoking, or moving presentation on photo.net, I'm not sure I'd know how to look for it. My impression is that it's the most under-used tool on pn.

Matt,

 

Thanks for that - it brings back memories.

 

Pico,

 

I have an online exhibition opening on 16th May at www.samizphot.co.uk. But, here's another shot ...<div></div>

And another ...<div></div>

John Knowles:

 

I will look for your pictures on www.samizphot.co.uk. "Memories of steam" is particularly appreciated. I can almost smell the air. That might seem silly, but it's what I remember!

Thanks for those images, Chris.