"Photography is not a Spectator Sport" by Ken Rockwell

[ronaldo_r]

Very clever little artcile.

</p>

<A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/spectator.htm"> Photography is not a

Spectator Sport </A>

</P>

I think I'm becoming one... haven't taken a photo in weeks. Everything's boring

[beeman458]

Get a new printer. :)

[jennifer_durand]

Loved the article!

We need to take breaks to re-charge and re-position ourselves. Any one who has done

photography for 20 years plus will have changed categories frequently or from time to

time. I loved this saying and it fits my experience of photography.

 

"There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk

about it."

 

One can't just make photographs, one has to have a period of reflection and re-

assessment. We're not robots

[asher]

As some shameful self-promotion: I had a similar epiphany in <a href="http://

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0064Zz"><u>this 2003 PNet post

</u></a>. The only thing I would change about it now is to remove "Leica" from the title...

[david j.lee]

thanks for the link Asher. it is really good.

[dickhilker]

Both pieces are excellent -- I find myself wandering now between the Curmudgeonly and Senile stages, still adding gear as though one more lens will prove to be the Holy Grail.

 

The idea of stepping back for a while until you just have to make more pictures really does work. It also helps to change subject matter, venue, even formats from time to time to prevent going stale.

 

Thanks!

[steve_swinehart]

A lot of image making is learning to relax in the periods between making images. When I was much younger, it was frustrating when I couldn't see the images that were so obviously in front of me. That attitude only lead to a greater inability to see, as I was always trying to mentally be in two places at once.

 

Over the years, I've learned to just continue making images - and by working - the blocks slowly go away and something new emerges. I cheerfully throw whole rolls of film into the trash because that's where the images belong - I know it's part of a journey to a new place. The time spent working on the images is just part of getting there, and along the way I'm always learning.

 

You can call it dues, tuition - whatever you want - but, the work involved is the price to get to the new images. There's nobody keeping score, no points being racked up against an opponent, and like golf and baseball - no set time limit for the game to end. You just do the work at the most appealing pace, and later or sooner, you'll start finding the images.

 

I can't relate in the least to either Rockwell's or Asher's posts, as photography for me has been one long adventure of visual exploration. There have never been stages, just new things to learn about how to make an image.

[david j.lee]

steve, thank you for your very nice post. somehow i relate to it big time, only i never throw

film on the trash, as sometimes things look differently after a few weeks or even months.

[mtan]

While I enjoy taking photos, I don't understand the vitriol that Rockwell has for spectators. In every single one of his analogies (possessions, sports, media, art) there have always been haves and have-nots, and assigning a value to people (e.g. lower level of non-photographer) on either side of that divide smacks of elitism and condescension to me.

 

I think critics and analyzers (who occasionally take photos) also have a place in this world. And so do arm-chair sports enthusiasts. I assume that a good portion of his readership falls into the same categories that he's critical of. Ironic.

[david_senesac]

Thanks for the link Ronald as I can strongly relate to what Ken wrote. I have been in working in engineering here in Silicon Valley several decades and likewise read and studied all manner of technical books and magazines on photography long ago too. However not close to the level Rockwell apparently persued technology and gear but certainly more than the average non-pro photographer. Gear and camera skills are only a part of the game. Another part of the solution for nature and landscape work is about becoming familiar with the environment and natural history where one photographs. One can get out month after month all year long, year after year, and unless one knows what, where, and when, they could be wasting a lot of potentially productive time inefficiently. That in itself is a reason why many outdoor photographers probably hit a ceiling with their body of work while lacking understanding of how to break out beyond that level. Guide books, seminars, and field trips only go so far in gaining knowledge for what, where, and when. To some extent well known photographers probably get inside grapevine information about what, where, and when on photography subjects but one can go a lot further without such passed information as many successful landscape and natures photographers did it on their own. What one discovers upon taking up an active photography lifestyle is one can gain considerable knowledge about the environment, natural history, locations, season, time of day, and what works as an image and what doesn't by actively working in the field with an awareness of whats going on and then reviewing results. However it takes time, a lot of time, and years and years later one is still learning as it is a never ending process of increasing knowledge while technology evolves.

 

...David Senesac

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

[asher]

Steve wrote "<i>I can't relate in the least to either Rockwell's or Asher's posts, as

photography for me has been one long adventure of visual exploration. There have never

been stages, just new things to learn about how to make an image.</i>"<p>

 

That piece that I wrote a few years ago was pure jest, just for a laugh, albeit with some

elements of truth for some of us, including learning "how to make an image". In fact I never

consciously stated "I am now in stage <i>x</i>"... It was just some bits of Seinfeldian

observation.

[Spearhead]

It's a load of crap.<p>

 

This line makes it obvious what a load of crap it is:<p><i>Photography is a creative art. </i><p>In fact, it's a load of elitist crap, based on that line.<p>There is nothing, <i>nothing</i>,<b>nothing</b> that requires photography to be a "creative art." The most creative photographers I know wouldn't say that "photography is a creative art." <p>

 

Photography is a method of recording something. For most people, it's a method of recording memories, moments, activities. It is not inherently a "creative art."

[jacob_brown]

Photography is photography. It can also be art. Painting is painting. It can also be art.

 

But terminology does not interest me as much as photographs do. Photography is actually many things. It is visualization sometimes, other times not. It might involve previsualization, other times not. It usually involves editing, focusing, paring down -- both in terms of selecting images to show and in terms of post-processing of some sort. But not always. It can be art, but not necessarily. It can be a creative endeavor, but that bar is sufficiently low to incorporate most anything.

[ronmatt]

For me ( and really, who else matters? )photography is the ultimate 'spectator sport'. Being a graphic designer / illustrator the world is all about being a spectator. An observer and translator of all the shapes, forms, colors and visual moods the world has to offer and to integrate them into design. The camera ( photography ) is a valuable tool I use to focus these observations. To stop and smell the roses, so to speak. Casual observation of the world around me becomes more intense with camera in hand. I may witness a sunset and be drawn to the gradient transition from blue to red that may be perfect as a page background. I photograph it, because color memory doesn't exist. I think nature/God/or whatever personal deity you subscribe to is,by far, the ultimate designer/artist. I am a mere spectator of that design/art. My camera copies it for my viewing pleasure at a later, innumerable time

[ronaldo_r]

"...color memory doesn't exist..."

 

Huh? I know that dogs can't see colors but we are humans. What I can see I can remember.

[ronmatt]

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-01242002-225721/unrestricted/thesis.pdf You may think you do, but you really don't. Sure, you remember that grass is green, the sky is blue etc. But try this. Look at a color in a piece of, say, fabric. Then go to a paint store and pick that color of paint using memory only. You could get close, but to nail it exactly would be almost impossible. Not to mention some other factors regarding the quality of ambient light. RE: in the morning there is more ambient ultra violet light, in the afternoon, more infra red. This effects how you see, thus, how you remember color. This especially effects neutral colors such as greys and beiges and whites. If you've ever used a color viewing booth you know that reflective color changes dramatically when you switch the light source from 6500K to 9500K. I guess to qualify my previous statement, I should have said reliable, accurate color memory doesn't exist. Yes, I too remember that my car is red. But I wouldn't go and pick out some touch up paint based on that memory.

[ilkka_nissila]

Dogs can see colors. Where did you get the idea that they can't?

[ronaldo_r]

Dogs are unable to tell the difference between red and green. Google dogs and color blindness.

 

Ron, your example is slightly flawed. Cameras are colour blind. They need a WB point to recalculate RGB values. Try playing with WB and you'll know that cameras are less precise with color than our eyes or memories. Reality, both real-time and remembered, is invariably more truthful than any proto reproduction.

[ronmatt]

Ha! Foiled again..There is a flaw in my thinking. All I know is that practically every time I thought I had 'remembering a distinct color hue, I ended up missing the mark. So to qualify even more, 'I' don't have reliable color memory and 'I' get closer using my camera ( WB adjusted ) My 24 step greyscale card is pretty accurate when photographed and sampled in Photoshop. I think that's the best I can do to adjust the camera.

[DickArnold]

I am much more sanguine about all this. I worked damn hard at photography selling my images to wedding and PR clients and a newspaper for seven years after I retired from a forty one year career. I frankly admit to practicing photographic prostitution as I tried to please both my editor and my clients and none of those pictures rose to the level of inspired art. I enjoyed doing it most of the time. I used to run very large technical programs and yet I realize that the camera is only a tool and I don't go overboard on issues like ppi and edge sharpness and splitting hairs over equipment. They were making some pretty fantastic images in the civil war with chemicals on glass with long exposures. I am now retired and I enjoy what I do with my cameras and studio. I don't get very excited about what Rockwell thinks of what I do nor can I, after having been in a war and lived through lots of other travails, become righteously indignant about what he says. There is some truth in what he says. I think doing good photographic work takes a lot of effort. One luxury I have now is that like many others participating on this site is that I may talk more about photography than what I do about it but at seventy-five I have earned the right. I spent my professional life doing rather than talking and that's how I got ahead. So I think Rockwell is right in his contention that there are doers and there are talkers. It is true in every profession like my previous one. However, in that profession the consequences were much more dire.

[john falkenstine]

My vote goes to Jeff Spirer on this one.

[tony bell]

So much more blather filling space in the form of inspired revelation and knowledge from Ken Rockwell. Big deal.

[anthony_d.]

Maybe Rockwell is unaware, but landscape photography is the ultimate spectator type of photography. Just because you may have to get up early to catch a sunrise doesn't mean you are creatively engaged in the process. You are just waiting for something interesting to arise so you can take a picture. Still a spectator.

 

Sports fans put up with alot of hassle to get to the stadium and take their seats in the bleechers...but ultimately they are just there to watch something interesting develop on the field. Same is true with landscape photography, at least of the variety Kenny Rockwell is describing. So the amount of hassle it takes to arrive at a location is not meaningful in the least.

 

So,it would seem, Rockwell still doesn't understand the essence of truly creative photography. Judging from his portfolio, I would almost categorize him a photographer-wannabe. If that sounds a bit harsh, well... I put myself in that category too. But at least I know where I rate on the totem pole. Pitiful Mr Rockwell thinks he's a photographer. Its sad really.

[anthony_d.]

In the above comment, I meant to say Rockwell thinks he's an 'artist'. In my own mind that is the meaning I ascribe to the word 'photographer'. Rockwell is merely a picture-taker.

[beeman458]

"Rockwell is merely a picture-taker."

 

You, outwardly, seem so far from the truth of what photography is and has been about. Shameful. :)

 

Think about it, without spectators, there'd be no purpose for modern-day sports and mostly, one captures landscape images to share with others who don't have the time or ability to arrive on scene at a particularly decisive moment and place in time.

 

Photography was originated by a bad painterly "artist" et al, who wanted an easier method in which to capture landscapes.

 

Here's a wonderful site worth exploring.

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/beginnin.htm

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/talbot.htm

 

"So,it would seem, Rockwell still doesn't understand the essence of truly creative photography."

 

My, how attitudes have changed since the beginning of photographic time. Stieglitz and Adams would spin in their graves at your above. History is such a terrible thing to waste. :) Photography comprises of many genres, each requiring their own particular brand of creativity in order to make and keep it interesting. Not everybody has and can keep at the ready the fierce independent determination Alfred Stieglitz carried with him nor equally, the gentle laid back and jovial nature of Ansel Adams, all the while showing a quiet determination to create his version of the ultimate print.

 

One does not need to think themselves to be an artist as everybody's an artist; no permission necessary.