Jump to content

Why is photography philosophical?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Travis, Of course it is. But it can be more if you want it to be (or even if you don't want).

 

For example, why do we take pictures;

what are we trying to achieve;

why do we succeed or fail;

what constitutes "good" or "bad";

comparisons with other visual arts;

whether any aspect (the above) beyond the picture is justified;

and on what basis?

 

 

Grant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly Grant. So why complicate life? Shoot the pic you want and print it. But it's a choice, I know, to be philosophical about it. It must be quite fustrating if one cannot share his photography philosophy with anyone else, am i right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So why complicate life?"

 

Because doing so can be fun and sometimes doing so leads to interesting results.

 

If one contemplates, beyond their intrinsic beauty such events as spaghrainbows, the images seen in raindrops, and the colors in oil slicks, etc., one eventually learns how to build cameras, filters, and other gadgets other people can pick up and use.

 

There's no requirement that anyone complicates his life with considerations of philosophy. However, there can be benefits, it doesn't always end up in a tangle of mental worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis, Photography for me is strictly personal; other peoples' views or opinions (or fashions) don't enter into it. I don't know any photographers in my area, and rarely meet any.

 

I can't think of anything more boring than exchanging small-talk on the merits of lenses or cameras. I did meet an artist (painter) one day but we talked about art, architecture, selling work, conservation, everything but photography.

 

There is nothing intellectual about taking pictures - we all just want to produce stunning (to ourselves) pictures. It is the things beyond, but relevant to, photography which are of interest to me. But this can be applied to almost any field.

 

We are fed much mind-numbing and dumb bull-shit on the tv, radio and press, and these forums are one of the few places that permits one to rise above it.

 

It is better to share, but not vital.

 

Grant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as you can pick up a paint brush and paint the side of a barn or a sensitive portrait, you can hastily point, shoot and print or you can use a camera as a means of expressing the gamut of human emotions and thought. Your choice.

 

As with everything in life, the more you put into something, the more you're likely to get out. The kid whacking away at a guitar and the accomplished violinist are both making music by vibrating strings, but the results are a world apart.

 

When you think about those differences, you're already starting the philosophicaljourney. A photographer who is an artist using a camera and a technical photographer are both making pictures, but the message of those pictures and the thought that went into them reflect different philosophies toward photography.

 

So, photography is philosophical when the person with a camera wants it to be, when it makes the experience more fulfilling and satisfies the need to express something with that voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me act and react, it makes me wonder why I see what I see and question the

purpose of reality around me...walking down the streets photographing a headless doll

with butterfly wings through the reflective glass of a shoppingwindow, and I'm

thinking,contemplating, why do I need to take a picture of it? but then, in a fraction of a

second, the image is made and the damage is done 'cause maybe all I ever wanted was a

setting sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H. P.:

>>isn't it a simple activity of picking up a camera and shooting a >>scene you like and then print it?"

 

>Yes

 

Why would an anti-intellectual read here and write frequently to espouse the same? What's his agenda except to antagonize?

 

A contributing response could posit that a photographer can pursue his work without words, working in an intuitive plane, however I would expect some visual evidence of it.

 

Just posting that everyting is neutral with "feelie good" aspirations is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis, Yes it is important to shoot what interests you. In fact, thats what is really imoportant. Afterall, creativity is about decision making, conscious or subconscious. The view you choose, the subject of focus that you choose, all the technical camera settings that you choose, the moment of capture that you choose, etc. etc.,All of this is, in the end, what makes your work different from others. Each image is an individual moment capturing an interpretation through your own expression form. It is only after much time and thousands of other such creative moments that trends can be noticed in youir work. It becomes known how you view life, over time. If the Artist is projecting a pure vision of themseves the chance of a philosophy coming through in their work is possible. So just keep clicking away, someday it might all make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"isn't it a simple activity of picking up a camera and shooting a scene you like and then print it?"

 

What you are describing is the 'act' of taking a picture. The 'act' of playing the piano is just pressing the keys but the results may not be anything we might call music. In the same way, merely knowing how to press the shutter may not be anything that we would call 'photography'.

 

When dealing with any artistic endeavor we have to be concerned with more than the 'act'. There is the 'craft' (knowing how to use the tools to perform the 'act) and there is the 'art' (know the intangible elements that makeup an effective picture). You need to have all three.

 

Take an expert photographer who knows how to construct a picture but take away his camera and give him a canvas and brushes and paint. He may be able to conceive the image. He may be able to put paint on the canvas (the act) but because he doesn't know the 'craft' of painting and drawing...his results will not be up to same level as his photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, although your point has some validity, "the craft" is only important to the beginner. The way he framed the question,I think,puts Travis as a beginner. However, Craft is the least important thing once you know it. In fact it must never rear its head when creating. Most Artists I know feel traped when the "craft" dominates. Especially in painting. It must be subconscious and a part of us ,like air we breath that we dont remember breathing. It is though, perfectly possible for a photographer to paint a painting with nearly no experience as long as he is relating to the subject with his true nature. The same goes for the painter taking a photo with little experience with a camera. These are all gross generalizations and depend on the individual circumstance. To the real Artist or phographer, "craft" should always be a distant second to the 'act" or intent in creation. When craft is most important , content gets lost, We only see the how and not the why. Philosophy comes from the mind and heart, not the craft, I think. Hips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Travis was a beginer other than that the way he posed his question showed a lack of understanding and experience with the medium. I am open to the possibility that what ever made him ask the question also is interested in possible answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

H. P.:

"Anyone who knows anything about Travis knows he's no beginner. You can compare and contrast this with Pico who only ever seems to have posted pictures stolen from other photographers."

 

Are you refering to the pictures that I posted and you machinated to have removed? Those are my pictures. I have plenty more. Are you so small that on the one hand claim they are "boring" and on the other too good to be mine? Yes, you are that small. Or smaller.

 

It must suck to be you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bubba,

 

I'm 55, an English Lit major from Chapel Hill, and a lawyer, a man of words and discussion by inclination. But I've also been an administrative judge, dealing with "the public" for 30 years, and that tends to put a damper on the "inner ultimate meaning" chase, and force one to put things in the simplest and most direct manner. As a result I too am pretty bored by a lot of what passes for "philosophy"

 

I tend to agree with you, as far as my photography goes. I look for colors, shapes, lines, contrast, etc. that make a visually interesting and entertaining shot.

 

But there is some philosophical consideration in the matter of what am I pointing my camera at, and why? And why are you pointing yours at something different?

 

I want to convey beauty, and a sense of the wonder of the landscape (my favorite subject). I don't usually harp on conservation, but will at the drop of a hat, and I do want my viewers to appreciate it's need.

 

Others want to illustrate the human plight, or the human spirit, or the soul or something, I dunno. They have a reason for what they photograph, like I do, and that reason is the result of their, and my, "philosophy of photography".

 

I guess most of us don't talk it to death, or even sit down and try to puzzle it out for ourselves, or feel the need to, but it's there.

 

OK, I'm tired of this, think I'll download my CF card and see what I liked this weekend, might even wonder "why" in a couple of cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with CR that a conscious focus on the gear and how to use it (the 'craft') can get in the way of the 'art'. And I agree that a novice will be more conscious of the workings of the equipment and, as experience is gained, the operational details become internalized and no longer need to be kept in the forefront of the 'act'.

 

It is like when we first learned to drive a car. At first, we are hyperaware of everything...our speed; the other cars; traffic signs...we start out being very conscious of all of those things...but as we gain experience driving...we internalize the variables of driving and may no longer think consiously about them...BUT we still drive in the correct lane, we signal our turns, we stop for red lights...but the 'craft' of driving is still a part of the 'act' of driving even if it is no longer our primary focus...our focus is to get from here to there in one piece. In Photography, the understanding of our gear can become internalized so that we don't need to consult the manual for every setting change...but that knowledge is still essential even if it is not the primary thing on out minds...our focus at that time is to get the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meryl, The comparison to driving is a good one. Remember Sterling Moss the graet English

driver who had a bad crash and never recovered mentally enough to continue driving? He was

so in tune with his instincts that after the crash he started to think consciously about what he

was doing while driving and lost that instictive relationship. I couldn't drive in a race if he was

conscious of the craft of driving. The violinist Menuhin suffered the same thing after his

teens when he started to think about his craft and how he made music. He retired from

playing for many years. He could not play anymore once he started analyzing his technique.

The list goes on and on of Artists self examining themselves and destroying the source from

where it came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...