What is the force behind your work?

[dickhilker]

Thanks, Chris -- I'll be there, too. Your images evoke a lot of nostalgia for the days when the arrival of a steam train (the only kind!)was a big event and we'd place pennies on the track to be flattened as it pulled into the station. The seats were hard and in the Winter, the only heat was from a coal stove at the front of each car. With the windows open, passengers were usually covered with soot by the end of a long journey. But, travel then was an adventure and the engine seemed a living thing, breathing smoke and steam and making a thrilling sound as it chuffed out of the station.

[rconey]

A picture is worth a thousand words. Not every picture brings a thousand words to mind. I enjoy those that do.

[Doug Keller]

</P>Robert Coney: <I>"A picture is worth a thousand words. Not every picture brings a thousand words to mind. I enjoy those that do."</I></P><P>With all due respect, I beg to differ. A picture is a finite slice of a universe that only truly comes to higher life when our tiny feeble intelligences light it up! ... click ... click ... and a bonfire of words appears ... a goddam super-nova .... a miracle of life. Every word ever uttered ... every thought ever ... uh ... thunk ... every thing ever seen ... every feeling ever felt ... if you look for it ... is right there ... in every single photo ever taken.</P><P>... with all due respect, that is.</P>

[sknowles]

You hit the nail on the head, "...I mean, we cannot be understood unless we communicate to

others..." As one professor said to me about an essay I handed in, "When you learn to write

effectively, I'll read it." You really do need to cut down on the coffee, or whatever you're

taking, and either organize and edit your post or find someone willing to help. You may have

some good ideas and questions, but they're lost in the shuffle. My advice, write, rewrite

cutting it in half, and rewrite again cutting that in half, then start over with step two until you

achieve the crux of your thoughts. Good luck.

[Doug Keller]

Yes ... my words are a lot like my pictures. What I need is a Photoshop for words! :-) Thank you for taking the time to instruct me.

[Doug Keller]

Oh, man. Scott, talk about a lack of clarity ... and miscommunication. When you address a person several replies up ... you need to call them out by name ... otherwise, the logical person that you are replying to is the one above your own. At any rate, matt's already explained his wayward format ... and, for me personally, I actually liked it; just as I like Pierre Bourdieu's style for similar reasons: one must actually concentrate in order to understand the word orders; one is forced away from the tendency for most readers, through oodles and oodles of mental conditioning, to read tired or stale meanings into what might otherwise contain within an adulterated style ... creative insights.

[sknowles]

Doug, my reply was to the original post, that shouldn't need clarifying, only to other

responses. That's the format and purpose of the format (see the response window). And

everyone has the right to express their view, even if it is redundant to the original post. I

found it convoluted and suggested he rewrite it so the rest of us can understand what he is

saying. I also noticed that many of the responses don't address the post but follows their own

thread. Shouldn't they create a new question so people can focus on that issue or question?

[john mackay]

<p>All the talk of steam with Matt and Chris' very good photos achieved its effect and had me come over all nostalgic. So much so that I felt compelled to create a presentation of my family's recent adventure aboard the <i>Kingston Flyer</i> powered by one of the retired steam engines of Her Majesty the Queen of England.</p>

 

<p>I've been on rollercoaster's in jet planes and on motor bikes but none of them compared to this.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/slideshow?presentation_id=320384">

http://www.photo.net/photodb/slideshow?presentation_id=320384</a> </p>

[h._p.]

It's taken me a long time to read through Matt's original posting but I think I have my head around it, just a little, now. I think that one point he's articulating is quite important. We are all islands, as John Donne so famously did not say, but we need to throw out bridges to one another if we are to thrive. That implies an element of risk and the internet, wild and wooly as it is, can be a dangerous or, at least, uncomfortable place to do that.

[rconey]

OK. I went back and finished reading the original post. I admit I dropped off about 2/3 of the way through the first time. Some ancillary questions suggested:

 

What is the force behind your choosing to photograph?

What is the force behind your choosing to post your photographs on photo.net or similar forum?

What is the force behind your choosing to read something under "Philosophy of Photography"? To respond to such reading?

 

Interesting questions and point acknowledged. I'm sure each person reading answers them somewhat differently. For me, I am interested in learning more about photography. different experiences come through in the photos.

 

A forum such as this I view as food for thought. It is really, in my mind a separate activity from the photos themselves. Pictures are sort of "anti-word". this is the word side. The two do not necessarily need each other, although I've read a good many books by Galen Rowell and others whose work I admire. In that context the original rant is correct.

[robert x]

I like the photo that Matt posted with his original post a lot. I feel that I understand him a

lot better from seeing that than by struggling to decode the post, perhaps.

 

The actual "question" seems to be hidden in the thread title. I think about that sometimes

and am, like Dick, at a loss of how to describe it. In my pictures that are a success (to me)

I think it is there, but I am at a loss to describe it.

 

I must admit I am still also trying to imagine just what the rollercoaster inside the airplane

was like that John claims to have been on was like......and I thought the Hefner Jet was cool

! ;0]

[sknowles]

Ok, for Doug, and to Matt, the original poster, I read the diatribe about the lack of

philosophy on PhotoNet, and the focus on techniques, technology and all things related to

the production of an image than about the thoughts of the photographer behind the

image. It's a good question and likely, as he said, it's talked about with friends and other

photographers, usually at taverns (ok, literary license there).

 

But the answer can also be rephrased about writers, painters, poets, and other artists, and

have the same result, and has been discussed ad nauseam by professors in graduate

seminars about their academic discipline (been there, done that). Photographers, or artist

for that matter, don't often think about what they're doing in the process, it's an after-

the-fact discussion because you're concentrating on the scene and getting the images. It's

only in the review and production stages we see things, with the often asked question,

"Huh?", "What the..", "What was I thinking...", "Well, that idea...", and so on.

 

If you (Matt) want a good reference on the issue, read and study LensWork magazine. You

might also study the photographers of the 1920's and 30's when you had to think through

the photograph because you didn't have a lot of film, or listen to large format

photographers who still practice that method for the same reasons.

 

And sorry, I don't understand the photo, "Old car in parking lot at unknown location." But

that's the beauty of photography, it's all personal to each of us. Good luck.

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Scott</b> <i>Photographers, or artist for that matter, don't often think about what they're doing in the process, it's an after- the-fact discussion because you're concentrating on the scene and getting the images.</i><p>

 

Agreed. Philosophy is all about looking back to study something. Making a visual work is largely an immediate action that is lead by what the artist/craftsman has learned (or not) by experience, retrospection, silent self-criticism. I doubt many good artists talk to themselves like a coach or quote philosphy as they work.<p>

 

(Got the lenscap die made. Back to work to press one.)

[colmmccarthy]

>What is the force behind your work?

 

Existential despair

[KenPapai]

I cannot read your post, like others you need paragraphy breaks.

 

How??

 

Press the ENTER key twice, like I did here.

 

Anyway, quick answer to the subject's question: It is Part of Me. Not being able to take pictures is like not being able to walk or not ride a bike. It is MAJOR part of me. Document your Life!

[AJHingel]

Matt I appreciate very much your efforts in trying to express something you feel is lacking in our sharing here on Photonet. I must admit that I have difficulties in following your flow of words but one message comes across: That of insisting on knowing more about why we take photos and what we try to express.

 

In my view we have on photonet two types of photographers:

 

- those that take photos because they want to show something to others (my children, a birthday, my pet, a beautiful landscape, a football match..); and

 

- those that want to express something by photos and communicate it to others.

 

You have of course also people that express themselves by photos but don�t bother whether others can see it, but they would not bother being on photonet either, I would expect.

 

Well, for me what is of interest is the category of photographers that express something through photos that in one way or another invite us to �see� differently the world and add new qualities to our life. Big words, I know, but this is what artistic experiences is about and what makes us go back to many artistic works again and again.

 

Where is the individual artist in all this apart from that he/she makes it all possible, and where are all the personal intentions and individual reasons for artistic expression? For me it is all not necessarily very relevant or interesting . What is important, in my modest view, is solely what the photo conveys - and of course how. That�s where the artistic expression is hidden and what we should concentrate in our sharing on Photonet. Just a personal view.

[rconey]

From the view of a person examining a photograph, having the photo explained is like having to have a joke explained. The fact of needing an explanation suggests that it fell flat. When a person puts a photograph out for others to view, IMO it is in the hope that people will "get it".

 

If a viewer is intrigued by the photo, they may want to learn more about the creation of the photograph. The comments section in the critique section leaves ample room for such questions, although my experience is that few people avail themselves of that.

 

The current format allows a photographer to initially put out his feelings or allows viewers to ask about the creative process. There is choice all the way around.

[Allen Herbert]

What is the force behind your work?

 

Pure natural talent to be honest....i just cannot contain it.....it screams for release.

 

Matt, i tried very hard to read your post, but i got a headache.....please can you use paragraphs in future.

 

Thanks.

[mark_l3]

"what is the force behind your work"

 

a strong back and shoulder to carry the 4x5 with tripod, thats what!

[Allen Herbert]

a strong back and shoulder to carry the 4x5 with tripod, thats what!

 

Just a thought for you,Mark.

 

My good mate Peter A (Petey to his mates) has just purchased a rather nice beige coloured wheelbarrow to move his latest purchase of Hassle gear,and assorted tripods, about.

 

He tells me it has done wonders for his back....just a thought for you,Mark.

[ping_pong1]

A photographer with a wheel barrow. Cool image Allen.

[zapata_espinoza]

teariness and weariness on my part...

[yann_r.]

Sorry, I just understood the head question (got a headache after the third line of your block).<p>

The force behind my work is simply Pleasure. Yes, I'm not a Jedi.