What is a "vision"?

[aaron2]

What is a "vision"? Sandy, if I understood correctly, it is an impression about a topic or subject that you reveal/express of it, at a certain preconceived situation, time & place, so as to portray your thoughts about it. Robert Adam's work would fall into this class, right? And you would have a point to make about choosing the subject matter. If this is the case, I was wrong saying that we cannot have a vision in photography.

 

<p>

 

What I want to ask here is whether "vision" is necessary (or possible) in every aspect of photographic work? Take for instance, the work of Stieglitz. His work is broad. While he may have a preconceived idea about "The Steerage" just before the exposure, he probably did not conceive the subject of rich and poor, beforehand. He was "moved" at that instance there and then. He was out there all the time doing "sensitive" pictures he could find in the streets. My point to the group is, "Would his photographs be less "sensitive" had he appointed a project (vision) for himself? Or was he out there just shooting? What about his "clouds" pictures? Your thoughts please?

 

<p>

 

As for Atget, I think now that he was "free" in his seeing because he saw his work as documents and not art.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

[david_payumo3]

Vision is needed for photography. Its hard to get somewhere when you

don't know where you want to go. Stieglitz may have not conceived of

the idea before he photographed the ship but an idea has to be in the

picture. When it is conceived isn't so important. Its just a matter

of time when the photographer understands what they are doing.

 

<p>

 

Atget is the best stock photographer ever. This is not an insult but

one of the highest praise I can give to a photographer. He made

photographs and then people thought of them as art. Critics,

curators, gallery owners and collectors understood what he really

wanted to do. Personally I think the work is okay. Hoever I respect

his impact. He is lucky that Abbott took the work to New York and

people liked it.

 

<p>

 

"Vision is a feedback loop"

- David Payumo (I am paraphrasing. I think.)

[kevin_kolosky]

Aaron

 

<p>

 

I have been following your threads, and even popped in on the first

one concening Atget. I certainly don't pretend to know you or how

you feel or what you want to say with your photography. So excuse me

if I am off base for saying this, but it appears to me that you seem

to be trying too hard to define one form of communication with

another form of communication. Photographs are a language. More

universal than any spoken language. And they speak to those who view

them on a very personal and subjective level such that all of the

spoken language in the world may not be able to describe the message

either sent or received. Pardon me for saying so, but I think that

you are trying to hard to describe photography with words. You

cannot tell another person how to feel about "The Steerage" just as

you cannot tell another person exactly what the words "love"

or "hate" really mean. Yes you can get close, because we are all

human, but you cannot be exact, which is why it is better sometimes

to just allow the language to happen through the photograph itself,

and not argue (discuss) what the photograph really means, or what the

photographer really meant. Yes, it is possible that there could be

some deep meaning that Atget wanted to present to his viewers. On

the other hand, it is possible that Atget said to himself, "I see

this, I think its interesting, I want to show it to other people" and

thats it! I think alot of photographers sometimes are "just out

there shooting" and the vision is nothing more than "I see this, I

think it is interesting in my own way, and since I cannot bring it to

show other people I can bring a representation of it by making a

photograph of it, and that photograph will speak for me in a language

that I don't have to explain (because I cannot really explain it) so

I will let the viewer attach her own meaning to it, and we will have

communicated" Then, of course, after those feelings comes the craft

(the desire to show it in the best way possible)which is even more

subjective (i.e. what film, what paper, what exposure, etc.) Kevin

[aaron2]

Yes Kelvin, you miss the point. Aaron

[carl_weese]

Aaron,

 

<p>

 

By assoiciating the notion with a preconceived idea, I think you are

confusing a vision with an agenda. A century ago photographers were

sidetracked by imitation of painterly effects. Today academic

photographic training has convinced many photographers that they must

start from a preconceived, highly verbalized, program and then go out

and make photographs to express the agenda. I suppose decent work can

be done that way, though I see little. I think it's a serious

sidetrack from photography's real strength. For me photography by its

nature is at its strongest when used reactively, interpretively. An

artist's reactions and interpretations are plenty of material to

constitute a personal Vision, as the current thread on Weston's

vintage print show in LA points out. Weston had a vision, and it may

be that he had an agenda to express that vision in his photographs,

but the photographs themselves were his discoveries and reactions and

interpretations of the world around him, not a pre-conceived and

verbalized 'statement.' Some of the worst photographic criticism I've

seen (Sontag comes to mind) fails because it insists on analysing

photographs as though they were a text. For a photographer to approach

the making of photographs as though they constitute an expository text

is, I think, an equally b

[kevin_kolosky]

Aaron

 

<p>

 

Although he said it with different words, Carl said the same thing I

did. Perhaps it is you that is "missing the point".

 

<p>

 

Kevin

[carl_weese]

still getting the end of messages chopped off...anyone know how to fix

that? add a few returns at the end?

[andrew_held]

It is possible that "vision" is something that is as much unconscious

as conscious. I know that I have looked back at quick street

photographs and discovered that I unconsciously included elements

that made them much more powerful to me than if the placement had

been a merely random "snapshot". I think the more experienced we

become as photographers the more effectively we are able to pursue

our vision through photography on an unconscious as well as conscious

level. This is not to devalue the active process of thinking and

previsualizing, but to say that it often works in tandem with

processes that are unconscious. I think what made Atget a poweful

photographer was his innate confidence in his conscious and

unconscious ("intuitive") sense of what makes a strong image. To me,

what separates good, competent photographers from powerful ones is

their ability to make sense of the world's chaotic imagery through

both processes. I find Stieglitz fascinating because he was so

capable, and had such a pathbreaking ambition for photography. On

the other hand, I find him intuitively cold and austere (except when

photographing Georgia O'Keefe). There is a cold draft emanating from

his work, that is so different from the work of his contemporaries

like August Sanders and Paul Strand.

[james_chinn]

My vision revolves around seeing a subject that personally resonates

with me, then trying to communicate that feeling on paper. If the

end result produces something that others enjoy, great. If it

produces a finished print that I look at and can say captures how I

felt when I first saw the subject, my vision has been achieved.

 

<p>

 

My vision seems to be best achieved with certain subject matter. I

enjoy finding abstract subjects and found urban/suburban landscapes.

I work at night also. I have learned that my vision is dependent on

making images that I want to make and not images I feel I have to

make because I sometimes use a large format camera.

 

<p>

 

When I first got a 4x5 I imagined producing Adamesque images of

granduer. I pursued many a landscape when time would allow, but I

was always disapointed. So I got an 8x10- same result. The first

photo I considered grand was one taken about 10 miles from home of a

flooded park and some half submerged vehicles with birds sitting on

top and wonderful reflections on the water of the surrounding trees

and buildings. Pretty mundane for an 8x10 image by some people's

standards, but it was a return to my personal vision and subject

matter.

 

<p>

 

Sometimes I think it becomes easy to try to emulate others because

the medium allows us the technical ability to come close to the

quality of their work. If your desire is to produce similar work and

that is your vision great. But don't be afraid to explore things

that only you may be interested in. You may be surprised where

your "vision" may lead to.

[aaron2]

No Kevin, it's not about what Carl said that's not different from

what you said. It's about you saying that I'm putting my opinions

about Stieglitz's image onto others. I never did. I remember reading

what Stieglitz said about what he "saw" and "felt" and that he felt a

release being separated from the rich (something to that effect). And

as one poster pointed out in the other thread, Atget called himself a

documentary photographer. So I thought he must have been "free" from

a certain burden in his work. Why do we read "The Daybooks"? To

understand the artist, isn't it??

 

<p>

 

Yes, I'm trying hard to communicate, because I'm the one needing help

here. How am I supposed to get help if I do not open up myself to

scrunity (spelling?)? And I'm getting help here (I'm learning)! Not

Arguement! So please be kind.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

[hugo_j._zhang1]

Aaron,

 

<p>

 

I agree with what Kevin and Carl. Photography is only one means of

artistic expression. It's more a journey than a destination.

The "vision" comes from within yourself. You have to dive into

yourself to find it. It's an accumulation of your experience(pains

and bliss), of what you have learned, of your memories of past and

observations of HERE and NOW. You have to ask yourself a serious

question: Do I have to use cameras to express myself? Be honest with

yourself. If the anwser is a simple no, then do not take photography

seriouly, there are millions of happy hobbiests in this world. If the

anwser is YES, and photography as a means of expression so important

for you that you can not live without it, then start to build a life

around it. Your can not ask other people opinon about your photos.

They are irrelavent. Do not expect to make a living out of it. It's

more a sacrifice. Take your time to learn, and do not rush yourself.

Try to observe THINGS. When you look at a tree in its fall glory, try

to imagine yourself as that tree, feel the warm golden light on your

skin. In addition to Rilke, read Van Gorh's letters, some Proust, or

even some Zen books. Sometimes you have to get loose. If you have the

verbal anwser for the big question of "vision", why do you need

photography? Photography is a very sensual experience, enjoy it. If

you do not have an an anwser to your question, be content that you do

not have an anwser. To finish, I want to quote you some wisdom of

3000 years age:

Do not seek fame. Do not make plans. Do not be absorbed by

activities. Do not think that you know. Be aware of all that is and

dwell in the infinite. Wander where there is no path. Be all that

heaven gave you, but act as though you have received nothing. Be

empty, that is all.

The mind of a perfect man is like a mirror. It grasps nothing. It

expects nothing. It reflects but does not hold. Therefore, the

perfect man can act without effort.

[pemongillo]

Aaron, you are spending way to much time trying to apply a formula or

scientific technique to creativity. The bottom line, is don't take an

image unless you are moved by your subject matter. I spent the last

two weeks of September wandering (mostly alone) and exploring the

ruins of Cedar Mesa, Utah. I only took 31 photographs, but I have

five maybe six outstanding images. I took a couple just because I

nearly killed myself getting to one particular ruin. The image is not

impressive, but will always remind me of the ordeal I went through to

get there.

 

<p>

 

Ordinary things may not move you as they do others. Only you can feel

what that motivation is. I can't imagine myself finding beuty in a

fork, but others might and will probably blow me away with the image.

If you aren't moved by your subject, how can you expect your audience

to be moved by your final image?

 

<p>

 

On the scientific end, you need the technical skills to bring what

excited you to the final print. What moved you when you took the

image may or may not play a role when you decide to print it.

Something different may grab you months later in the darkroom.

Develope the technical skills you need, then stop thinking about it.

Just do it....

[jim_galli4]

Hi Aaron,

I'm going to answer and read the other posts second.

 

<p>

 

I love to over-simplify because I feel everybody, yourself included,

makes this too hard.

 

<p>

 

Vision is simply how "I" "me" see. I'm a processor progammed by 50

years of life experiences. Tears, joys, my family, my faith, my

loves, my hates, my fears, who I am. Put a scene in front of me and I

"see" it differently than anyone else. It's not something that I have

to go looking for, it's there. Over time I see 3 maybe 4 bodies of

work that could be roughly categorized that all are a direct result of

"my" vision.

 

<p>

 

Since it's built in, and I can't/ won't do much to change it, the

natural fear is to say, "Does this guy have anything to say?" Well, I

do or I don't. That's for others to decide. Doesn't matter because

I'm not going to change and be somebody else, "Adams" "Weston" "Mann"

whoever to please the masses. I'm just me, and the pictures I take go

through that filter/ processor, and over time that combined vision

becomes a style if you will, a signature for good or for bad.

[sandy_sorlien]

Hi Aaron,

 

<p>

 

To clarify what I wrote on the other thread about vision: Of course I

don't mean that one sits around in a vacuum, comes up with an idea,

and then goes looking for ways to express it. As others have already

written eloquently in these posts, your vision does evolve over time

and is made up of your experiences and your attention to the world

outside yourself and well as inside yourself. That includes attention

to the work of those artists who came before you, in any medium.

 

<p>

 

While it is somewhat frustrating and sometimes futile to communicate

with words what is a visual experiences, I do believe it is a great

help to write down your thoughts about your work and life, as someone

already suggested. In school we make our students learn how to write

artist's statements, and pull their work together in series. All that

really helps you see what you have been doing. Remember the creative

process does not stop after the shutter is released. Editing,

choosing, cropping... SEEING your pictures after they are shot is

equally important as making the exposure.

 

<p>

 

Yes, Carl, add a return to the end of your post and it won't cut off.

 

<p>

 

Cheers!

[kevin_kolosky]

Aaron

 

<p>

 

Please please do not get the impression that I want to argue with you

or that I think I know all of the answers. I certainly don't. But I

do know this becasue I have experienced it many many times. Two

people can go to a gallery or a museum and look at photographs. And

one person will say, " I see this and this and this in that

photograph and I think this is what that guy was saying", and the

other person will say, "well, I guess I see it this way, and I like

this and this and this, but I really don't like what you liked, and I

really this the guy was trying to say this instead of what you think

he was trying to say". And that whole conversation can and does

actually take place AFTER both people have read about the

photographer and actually studied what the photographer had to say

about his own work!!!!!!! Consider this. You and I could go

out "crusing for snaps" as they say, and we might each at the same

time see the same thing and tell each other we want to stop and

photograph that thing. Heck, we might both even put our tripod in

the same holes. And our prints may look exactly alike. But if you

showed your print to one person and I showed mine to another person,

we may each get a different expression from those people as to what

the photograph means to them. And those expressions about "the

photographers vision" might be completely different from what you or

I felt when we made the photograph. Which is why I said before that

even though we might use words to convey a little something about

what we saw and felt when we exposed the film, those words may not

convince the viewer because the viewed may not "see", or as you

say, "have the same "vision" as you do.

The bottom line is,and has to be, that the image speaks for itself.

You feel something and you make the image. You present it to someone

else for approval. Either they approve it or not. And if you are

strong enough in your character and your belief in your "vision" you

accept what they have to say for what it is, you continue to believe

in yourself, you continue to expose film and make prints, and you

live your life. You may never in your own lifetime have knowledge of

whether other people believe you had a "vision" or not. All you can

do is feel how you feel, go about your business in as comforatable a

manner as is possible, live your life, and if you choose, tell other

people about yourself through your words and if you are so inclined

through your photographs. In addition, and it sounds simple enough,

remember that a photograph is and must be about the "thing"

photographed. I think too many people get mixed up about that. I

might have a "vision" that we live in a beautiful world, but if I

only photograph ugly things I certainly didn't go about showing

my "vision" did I. And then the question becomes, is what is

beautiful to me also beautiful to you. All we can do is rely on

ourselves and our feelings, and put them out there to be judged, and

be happy in the knowledge that we were in the arena trying our best,

and every once in awhile be really happy when a viewer comes up and

says they see the same thing you saw. If that happens You have then

communicated, which means that another person has recognized you as

having worth, and life is good! Kevin

[michael_chmilar]

"Vision" is Kodak's name for its current motion picture reversal

filmstocks (2383, 2393, 5242/7242, 5246/7246, etc.). It is not

available in sheet film sizes, just 35mm and 70mm bulk rolls. (And,

yes, I am just being a smartass!) :-)

[ellis_vener_photography]

A photographer's "vision' is usually something that is defined by

someone looking back over a photorapher's body of work; the

person doing the looking is usually someone other than the

photographer and sometimes the photographer buys into that

"niche' and sometimes they just keep making images of the

things that interest them (which can be changable) and in ways

that interest them. and ignore the pigeonholeing. Some people

have their "vision" defined early on and either dig deeper into it or

say that's nice and try not to take it too seriously. (it's important to

take your work seriously and more important not to take yourself

seriously) .

this sounds that I'm dismissing the value of input from others.

But I'm not, it is really great to have other people look at your work

and give you feedback about it, to help you see elements &

themes in your work that you either take for granted or that you

just don't see. This process can open paths into your work that

you just weren't aware of. You have to develop a sense of whose

opinions to trust and whose not to take to heart. This , like,

vision, takes time, work, doubt & sweat.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Aaron,<P>I just read an interview with the actor Jim Carrey in the

Dec, 17, 2001 issue of the New Yorker. In it he says something

that should make you feel better:<P><I>"Well I've asked for a lot,

you know. I pray for wisdom, and when you pray for wisdom you

get your ass kicked."</I><P>Happy holidays!

[jim_galli4]

Three large format photographers are riding through Yosemite together.

The first guy yells "Stop" and we stop while he sets up his tripod

almost in Ansels tripod holes and does a picture of "Monolith

Halfdome" He's bemused that neither I nor the other photog even set

up a tripod. We continue on and after a bit I yell "STOP" and I set

up my tripod and take a picture of the remains of a fueling station

that operated in the park from 1927 to 1941. I'm careful to include

line and detail that to me speaks of a previous generations style and

quality and mood. The other 2 guys think I'm crazy. Eventually we

proceed on and after a bit the 3rd guy yells stop. He sets up his

tripod and does a picture of an illegal fire ring with beer bottles

and trash lying around and just in the corner of his wide angle,

almost out of focus is Yosemite falls, an Icon recognizeable by

anyone.

 

<p>

 

Fiction of course but 'nuff said.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Let me guess at the photographer's real names :<P>(1st

photographer) Fred Picker (never had an original idea)<P>(2nd

photographers name) John Sexton (Places of Power)<P>(3rd

photorapher) Robert Adams (our (humanities) impact on the

enviroment.

[ellis_vener_photography]

let's rename the photographers:

#1.) Fred Picker<P>#2) John Sexton <P>#3) Robert

Adams<P>Aaron, your homework assignment is to go find

books or info about these three guys and determine why I chose

them. You have six months to research and study.

[chris_jordan3]

Aaron, i believe the concept of a personal "vision" is overrated and

misunderstood. Artists love to talk about their "vision" in terms

that make them feel important, as if they have some special magical

talent that no one else has, and you can just forget trying to "find"

a vision because it's too amorphous and vague of a concept; you either

have it or you don't. I believe something quite different; a person's

"vision" IS a special and magical talent, totally unique in the

universe; the part where I disagree with many others is in the

definition of what a "vision" is, and who gets to say they have it.

 

<p>

 

My belief is that EVERYONE in the world has a "vision," which is

simply defined as one's own unique perspective. The reason everyone

has a unique perspective is that no two brains or experiences are the

same, and so no two perspectives could possibly be the same. And so,

when you say a word like "tree" to a thousand people (whether or not

they are artists), they will all think of a different thing based on

how their brains work and what their experiences have been. If a

thousand people were to stand and look at some particular thing, or

scene, they would all see something different.

 

<p>

 

In my view, then, the artist's biggest challenge is not to "develop" a

unique perspective, because we all already have that built into our

brains; it is to RECOGNIZE our own uniquen perspective. Strangely,

though it sounds easy, this is an incredibly challenging task. We

naturally assume (totally incorrectly) that everyone else sees the

world in just the same way we see it, and so as we walk around in the

world, although every moment of our lives is a unique experience that

will never be repeated again in all the possible permutations of

infinite universes, we mislead ourselves into believing we are having

a mundane experience the same as everyone else's. And so we disregard

the magic in front of our eyes, and wonder where the heck we can go to

find something unique to photograph. And so we go to Yosemite and

copy other people's work. Which, hopefully you can see, is

counterproductive if our goal is to find our own unique vision.

 

<p>

 

On top of the difficult of escaping the assumptions built into our

brains, there are powerful forces out there that take us in exactly

the opposite direction of personal expression, that tend to make our

work homogenous and derivative. For example, look at the 10,000

nature photographers out there who are all making identical images of

the same places, any of which could be interchanged with each other in

different photographers' shows and no one would notice. For some

reason people out there think they're developing a personal "vision"

by precisely copying the work of thousands of others. I think the

basic need being satisfied here is the need for security.

 

<p>

 

So, without going on too long here, here's my advice: forget the large

format for awhile, and go out with a 35mm camera and shoot a CRAPLOAD

of film. Take pictures of everything that even remotely interests

you. Try to make all the pictures good (i.e., don't just shoot for

the hell of it), and look at everything you shoot from every angle and

perspective you can think of. Shoot during the day, during the night,

with wide angle, telephoto, color and B&W, grainy film and sharp film,

long exposures and short, with a tripod and without. And then look,

look, look HARD at the results. Out every 1000 photos you shoot, 999

of them will be crap, but then once every 1000 frames or so, you will

see something that will make your heart jump a little because you'll

think "hey, I've never seen a photo quite like that one before." That

is your personal perspective showing through.

 

<p>

 

Okay, that's all for now. Write me privately if you want to discuss

further.

 

<p>

 

Oh, and one other thing: Only take artistic advice from people whose

work you respect. So, check out mine, and either strike me off the

list of people who you want to hear from, or write me.

 

<p>

 

~chris jordan (Seattle)

 

<p>

 

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

 

[jonathan brewer]

You pick something to photograph, and you present it in an

interesting way. That is vision. Or you write, or sculpt, or paint.

 

<p>

 

You do this for yourself, or for recognition(whether you want to

admit it or not), and/or in addition to being paid. You get good, or

very good, or great at it, after awhile. You enjoy doing something

you know you can do very well, and it validates and fulfills you.

 

<p>

 

No matter what you've done, you think you can do better, and if

you see someone above you, or ahead of you, then you try to pull

yourself up to where they are. If whoever is ahead or above you is

secure within themselves they have no problem extending a hand to pull

you up to where they are. They don't mind this because they will

always be them, and you will always be you.

 

<p>

 

Then we all share. In the vision and the Art. Art was put here

to serve us, for us to enjoy, and whatever gift we have for being able

to see what few others can see, we have so that we can share with

others. In a dark room, if you are lucky enough to have a flashlight,

then you show everyone in the room the way.

[jonathan brewer]

Aaron.....as I've said before you've clearly got an itch you

can't scratch. You've got all this advice, and as some folks have

suggested you need to think about things, then make some choices and

changes, change gears, change cameras, travel, read, and while your're

doing that pick somebody out and ride with them.

 

<p>

 

Chris Jordans suggestion of a switch to 35mm is a good one, maybe

you don't shoot enough to develop/discover you style/vision or

whatever your 'feelgood' or 'comfortzone' is.

[kevin_kolosky]

Well said, Mr. Jordan. Much of what you said I think I said also but

in a different way. The only thing I would add is that when you take

out that 35mm camera and shoot tons of film, try and shoot it on

something that you really really care about. I don't care if its a

person, or a tree, or a mountain, or a car, or whatever in the hell

it is. Just make sure you care about what you shoot. Why I say that

is because I do think that photographers do better (subjectively)

when they have an emotional stake in what they are photographing, be

it whether that emotional stake is genuine care, or whether the

emotion is the desire to do well for someone who is paying you money

for the photograph. I disagree with those who would complain

about "originality". Heck, if a photograph is well done and provides

viewing enjoyment for me then I don't care who did it first or how

many times it has been done. I also disagree that one can only learn

photography from those who photograph, or that only those who

photograph can critique photographs. Those who photograph might be

able to teach craft or style, but they can't teach feeling or art

which is sensed rather than learned. Okay, I'm done. I won't say no

more. Kevin