"Less is only more when more is no good."

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not sure how much to add to what Julie so cogently said.</p>

<p>Gesture, yes. Competition, no.</p>

<p>Though Arthur makes the claim that Wright comes from a "negative" viewpoint ("when more is <em>no good</em>"), I don't see Carle's as any less negative ("see things that other people <em>don't see</em>"). Actually, to be honest, I don't have a problem with some aesthetic negativity, on either of their parts. What's NOT there, or what's MISSING, what we leave OUT of the frame, can be as significant as what IS there, what we make visible, and what we include.</p>

<p>Selection, focus, framing . . . choice . . . all have negative aspects . . . good, significant negative aspects.</p>

<p>Life and my vision is sometimes simple, sometimes complex. Tangled webs intrigue me as do clear visions.</p>

<p>Julie bringing "gesture" back into the discussion is key for me as is her emphasizing, as I tried to do, the desire not to use "less" and "more" as terms of value but rather as terms of expression, vision, and understanding.</p>

<p>The several "head shots" that I have in my portfolio were motivated by a certain feeling of clarity and intimacy. If the more complex (I see them as more complex . . . others may not) shots are confusing or not as readily accessible or not as immediately impactful, that's cool with me. If a viewer catches the second orange on the second or third look, great. Then the aesthetic experience has the element of time and unfolding that can be very moving, different but no better or worse and no more or less worth seeking than the WOW factor that a blatant and in-your-face closeup might have.</p>

<p>The interest in the topic, for me, lies not in debate as in sharing how we each make these gestures and what motivates us. I assumed at the outset that each of us does both. The provocative photographic discussion is about both less and more, and what role <em>perspective</em> plays in our approach to each.</p>

<p>I don't photograph as if I'm God. When I find myself considering whether I capture reality in a photo or whether I want to, I feel like I may be waiting in vain to hear the voice of God. In that respect, I'm very much a non-believer.</p>

<p>John has mentioned in several threads -- and we probably haven't discussed it adequately -- the ways in which "belief" can get us into trouble. It seems relevant here.</p>

<p>We've talked recently about adopting a multiplicity of perspectives, which I imagine many of us do (whether at once or in some sort of succession). I tend to think of perspective as a limit that I can transcend in many different ways but also something that keeps me humble. Belief may be a similar thing, to be transcended whenever possible. Perhaps it's all a balance of ego and humility. I wonder if my desire to transcend doesn't lead to the larger and more complex gestures and my humility (sometimes even insecurity) doesn't keep things more simple.</p>

<p>Does the close-up of Juan allow Juan's face and expression more latitude to speak directly to the viewer, to be more the essence of the photo? Does my pulling back and including more with Mark add more of my own statement about the situation and context, asserting my own expression a bit more while more overtly asking something of the viewer as well? These, for me, are preliminary questions about my own work, not necessarily to be answered by others. Do you have questions about your own work? Can you give examples?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Do you have questions about your own work? Can you give examples?"</p>

<p>Fred-</p>

<p>I often wonder if I am really fully conscious of my approach to photographing subjects that interest me, why I select them or present them in the way I do. I think that some aspects of nature or of human intervention awaken in me some feeling of mystery or a need to question existence.</p>

<p>The following are perhaps not the most representative of my feelings or perpective on my subjects and one is a poor photo of a print. The trees perhap show nature attacked or are portraying human survivors of some atrocious event, the abandoned wartime cement stairs at a former beach armament are framed by drying plants and leading where(?), while the two rusted stainless steel knives are perhaps solliciting some reaction to their awkward beauty. </p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>2nd example</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>3rd example</p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p>On this: " There are many things as yet undiscovered by the artist and photographer"</p>

<p> I agree there are always many things undiscovered by all of us, but that's very different from things that have never been photographed.</p>

<p>and this: "and to think not is to sink into the blasé."</p>

<p> I'll respectfully agree to disagree. My position on this is hardly unique. To think not is....to think not. With the greatest respect, disagreeing with you on this doesn't automatically doom anyone to the blase' any more than it automatically saves you from it.</p>

<p>Arthur: "But it isn't all."</p>

<p> I know.</p>

<p> I've never thought for one second that simpler compositions are necessarily weaker or stronger. That can be true in specific circumstances, not universally. Arthur, by now you should know I have no formulas. In fact, I disdain them for myself.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>I think there is a considerable risk, if one tries to make "detail" or "stripping down to the essentials" a guiding principle of or preference within one's work, of having the tail wag the dog. This goes right back to one of the (or probably THE) perennial arguments of this forum: how/when/if photographs are art.</p>

<p>I think that there is a common misperception that in order for a photograph to be art, it has to have been, somehow, hard to make. With the emphasis on "make." One must work <em>against</em> the medium in the sense that it requires effort to strip out or only include what you want versus what the camera "wants" to include. Effort, control, making the picture be (show) what you want ... will make your pictures "more" yours (more art-ful). This is all well and good if it's a method in the service of a larger desire/idea, but it's a tail-wagging-the-dog thing when it is done <em>for its own sake</em>, where the idea (if there is one) is secondary or nonexistent and the pursuit, the laborious effort, the stripping down results in an elegant, but greatly diminished, or at worst, so lacking in interest as to be boring -- picture.</p>

<p>A parallel (though less widespread) mistake, in my opinion, is to equate exoticism with art, and humanism with non-art (or lesser art). The exotic; the odd, the extraordinary, the irregular, the bizarre or grotesque are indeed often seen in good art but that's coincidence, not cause >> effect. To believe that pictures of exotic things = art is to mistake a part for the whole. Again, tail wagging the dog.</p>

<p>===============================</p>

<p>Unrelated to the above, I have a few additional small thoughts on more/less:</p>

<p>When a photograph is made within (human) reach of a subject, there is a shared (comfortable or uncomfortable depending on the participants) sense of forced proximity.</p>

<p>There is also, at close distances, some awareness of touch; of texture, temperature -- synesthetic effects.</p>

<p>And, last, I think that the more controlled the picture appears to be, the more "made" it seems, the more the maker, the photographer, seems to have been outside of the scene. A controller, as opposed to a participant. To me, with a wider frame, or a (seemingly) less controlled arrangement, the photographer seems to have been <em>in</em> the scene.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, I wonder if you're moving quickly from using a guiding principle in one's work to something being hard to make. A guiding principle can be applied with great facility and ease.</p>

<p>I don't agree that working even with stripping down to detail is necessarily a difficult guiding principle and I don't see it as working against the medium. One can focus on detail by working with, not against, the medium. I also don't agree that working against a medium and/or working with great effort will yield belabored-feeling art. Sure, if it yields diminished and/or boring results, that will be a problem, but that won't necessarily or likely be because of ideological methodology that may have produced it. Today's working against a medium often becomes tomorrow's working with it. Creativity is often a working against what traditionally had been seen as the medium's essential purview.</p>

<p>Something appearing "made" is no more or less likely to be great art or of visual interest than something appearing "posed." If the "maker" is genuine in his or her endeavor and not trying <em>clumsily</em> to pass something off as something else, I see no problem.</p>

<p>I think most good artists who set out with a guiding principle will choose ways to do it and subjects with which to do it that are in some ways compelling more than just to service their initial idea. Perhaps John would say, and I'd agree, they will explore a guiding principle as a hypothesis rather than adhere to it as a strict belief.</p>

<p>Finally, a second-thought about belief. Passion about one's beliefs, even if the beliefs turn out to be wrong (not line up with the way things are or not work to produce the desired results) can, I think, produce good art. Passion and religious faith have certainly helped produce beautiful art throughout the centuries. I wouldn't suggest to many religious artists that they "explore" other possible belief systems in order to produce better art.</p>

<p>I suggested in another thread recently (I forget which) that even malevolent intentions can produce compelling works of art. I think passionate, misguided beliefs can do so as well.</p>

[Julie H]

<blockquote>

<p>I also don't agree that working against a medium and/or working with great effort will yield belabored-feeling art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say that. I said that it's not <em>sufficient</em>.</p>

<p>What I am saying, is that it (working against the medium and/or with great effort) is, or should be, the servant, not the master.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I understand that, Julie. I just don't agree. I think working against the medium can be the "master" and work out just fine. Just as I think allowing a guiding principle to be the motivating factor can work out well. I don't think it <em>should</em> be one way or the other. I think an artist, a good photographer, a creative person will make it work either way.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Luis-</p>

<p>Disagreement is absolutely fine in my books. I welcome it. That is what philosophy is about, and it's a good thing. My own approach is hardly to try to impress anyone with my academic qualifications, or "vécu", which are in any case in another field, but to simply exchange as sincerely as I can what photography means to me and why it is my presently preferred vehicle of expression.</p>

<p>To get away from the maize of "word thoughts" of these columns, I have put down a few "image thoughts" as Fred requested of us. They may not represent very well what I am after in my search (an unending process, in any case), but I hope they might do a bit better than any complex or "educated" text that I might construct and communicate on the subject at hand.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>Julie Heyward- "I think there is a considerable risk, if one tries to make "detail" or "stripping down to the essentials" a guiding principle of or preference within one's work, of having the tail wag the dog. This goes right back to one of the (or probably THE) perennial arguments of this forum: how/when/if photographs are art." </p>

<p>Working against the medium is a hallmark of much great work. Maholy-Nagy is one of my favorites, making details and stripping photography down to its essentials, exploring the medium creating amazing de-constructivist work. Photography doesn't have to be about the decisive moment either. Although I work to both create photographs and let them occur "organically" , there is no right or wrong- nor is there a "set" of guiding principles that everyone must cling to. As to "<strong>considerable risk</strong>"- as we all know, the saying goes, "the greater the risk, the greater the rewards." Maybe you should start taking more risks? Sometimes I think I'd rather be the tail wagging the dog, versus being yet another photographic lemming.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lately, Arthur, I find myself thinking less about subjects and more about the photograph itself. Kind of a gestalt approach, I suppose, where subject, lighting, mood, composition, texture, etc. all come together and inform and affect each other. Sometimes I do let the subject dictate a lot. Sometimes I am conscious of relating in certain ways to the subject as the stimulus behind the photo. But sometimes, and it's been increasing, it's the photo I have in mind either in advance or based on the situation I find myself in (or put myself in) that actually guides my relationship to the subject and other elements. Sometimes the situation itself guides everything and the photo just seems to happen.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Arthur's previous Less is More/detail thread got me thinking about whether less actually means simple, highly ordered or minimal, or detail was a separate thing again. And in the back of mind was a very relevent idea that has intrigued me for many years, I seem to remember being fascinated by Alain Robbe-Grillet's way of describing scenes - he had a rule, I think, of only describing what he could actually see - with no artistic licence, and he would only do it for as long as he was interested.</p>

<p>I actually think this is closer to how we "see" than any other philosophy I've ever come across and so far the pictures shown don't quite get to the point as I see it, so I went out the other day to attempt to create some images that go some of the way to explain what I mean. The attached is one.</p>

<p>I would call this a less is more picture though I acknowledge that many would call it more and that it is a picture almost entirely made up of detail. And from my point of view also allows the viewer to "choose " what they look at in pretty much whatever order they desire.</p>

<p>A sort of democracy within the one work</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"what he could actually see - with no artistic license,"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Grillet's description of seeing seems like an artistic license itself, a benign imposition, or at least just one way of seeing. I don't find it descriptive of how we <em>actually</em> see. I think it's natural to see subject appearing out of ground as well as foreground and background. I think we naturally organize and prioritize what we see. I think his ideas would yield compelling photographs when used inspirationally and it fits in very significantly with what we're talking about. Thanks, Clive, for offering it.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>We may be heading towards a discussion about the range of ways we can "see" through our cameras. Implicit in that are the very great limitations of the medium imposed by the depth of field options which run like a series of transparent screens stacked in front of each other. In short the camera orders as much as we do.</p>

<p>Your point about his (Grillet's) ideas yielding compelling photographs is probably the most useful observation we've had because it really means that as soon as any photographer believes in his or her way of seeing (deluded or otherwise) the resulting pictures are going to contain "belief" which is somehow automatically conveyed to the viewer as a positive.</p>

<p>I know you intended us to view your 2 pictures as separate propositions to instigate this discussion but I've found myself being unable to separate them, pull them away from each other. They work perfectly together and become an intriguing essay in opposites, one image big one small, one near one far, Black and white v colour, space and no space and what I'll call the 2 "Ys", in the composition on the left a white (ish) Y made by the hands and on the right an upside down black Y made by legs/trousers. </p>

<p>Although I like my picture quite a lot, it does come with a few problems, none the least being that many people wouldn't really be able to see what they are "supposed" to be looking at, personally I don't mind that at all, but it does bring up the question of how much work can you ask an audience to do?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Clive, I'd say it's likely some combination of belief and passion which gets conveyed to the viewer as a positive. As John has said a few times recently, beliefs can be troublesome because they can act like dogma and can cause us to avoid exploration. At the same time, it is Hume (the 18th Century British/Scottish Empiricist) who suggested that belief is to a great extent a passion. We can <em>feel</em> the strength of a belief. So I think it may not be the belief <em>per se</em> that gets conveyed to the viewer as much as the passion, which actually transcends the belief. That's why even a delusional belief can convey or translate through to the viewer as a powerful and even a positive visualization.</p>

<p>I've often said that there is not necessarily a one-to-one or a simple direct relationship between what goes into a photograph and what is seen by a viewer. The passion and emotion behind even a delusional belief is abstracted through the visual medium of the photograph and the passion and not the delusion may be the significant aspect here.</p>

<p>Not that we need to dwell on delusions, by any means. I certainly don't think Grillet is laboring under a delusion. He is simply passionate about (therefore he has a strong belief in and may be universalizing his own way of seeing) his description of seeing and may be successfully instilling that passion into his photographs while also focusing his beliefs visually in the course of making/taking his photographs.</p>

<p>Sure, sometimes the beliefs themselves will be important to me, the viewer. More often, the passion carrying and giving texture and strength to those beliefs will be that much more important. That will be where the aesthetics of the photograph becomes significant as opposed to my judgment of the beliefs themselves. So much religious art reaches me at a very deep level and really penetrates to a core place in me, yet I can easily reject the beliefs behind the work. What I respond to is the passion instilled in the artists by those beliefs.</p>

<p>Grillet's idea of photographing without a structured order to seeing and where elements don't take on the roles of subject or of foreground and background seems to be a challenge worth pursuing. I understand what you mean when you say that idea could be construed as "less is more." Less ordering, less structure, less visual expectation and perhaps less representational meaning or logic. I would probably, at first, have thought of it as "more" (because of the complex of details) but I am persuaded to consider it "less" given your explanation.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"He (Alain Robbe-Gillet) had a rule, I think, of only describing what he could actually see - with no artistic licence, and he would only do it for as long as he was interested."</p>

<p>Nothing new here. Provide a few images at a juried competition and you will quickly note that the two or three judges will pass over the significant elements of your work quite quickly, concentrating only on those that arouse their purile interest for a few seconds. Yes, they have to look at lots of images, but that is no substitute for intelligent perception, often lacking in supposed critical examination.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding the attempts of Clive and Fred to"sanctify" this most unintelligent approach, if we take Robbe-Gillet's assertion at its face value (more than apparently he is engaged to do for the images he inspects), we can only assume he absorbed too much Christmas wine, or some bucolic equivalent, before he ventured to make his comment.</p>

<p>For me it is absolute nonsense, and does nothing for this topic. With all respect to Clive, I think that anything said to support it is a wasted effort.</p>

<p>The thread apparently derailed at about the point that Fred sought (and I thought sincerely) the photographic responses of other photographers here.</p>

<p>It now appears that this was as much delusion as those of the Robbe-Gillet comment. I provided some images to complement the postulate of the thread and have received absolutely no comment, only tangential "Art Journal" prose on beliefs and passion and the importance of the absence of structured order.</p>

<p>Poke me if I am asleep, but in my books "structured order" is an important human intellectual activity and one normally accepted input to artistic design or creation.</p>

<p>Happily, I know what I wish to achieve, and order my thoughts accordingly. </p>

<p> </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Arthur - No slight was intended, we have afterall recently contributed around 100 posts discussing your photos and we could add the 40 or so in this spin-off thread as being a direct consequence.</p>

<p>I do think however that you are being a little harsh on the revolutionary French novelist and film maker, Alain Robbe-Grillet whose ideas about perception and time undoubtedly imfluenced countless artists, writers and film makers in the mid 20th Cent. Your "nothing new" statement is only correct in as much as there have been 50 odd years since he invented it, before that it barely existed. A little first hand experience of R-Grillet's work would at the very least reveal that the last thing he could be called is unintelligent.</p>

<p>The whole question of less is more etc relates directly to the set of evolved philosophies dealing with how we see and how we choose to depict nature, truth or anything else. Image making requires choices to be made about what is important and what is not and in western art 2 approaches have stood toe to toe for hundreds of years and slogged it out, each taking it turn to be in the ascendant, one that goes under the generic title of Classicism sees the greatest human attribute to be the ability order - the other, Romanticism sees humanity as a part of nature and controlled by it. Both streams produced great work up until the Impressionists who really put the spanner in the works by questioning both ideals simultaneously.</p>

<p>This I believe occured because of 2 separate concurrent events, the invention of photography which changed how people saw, and the rise of the idea of democracy or that people had equal rights. Since art has always mirrored the political, religious and scientific attidudes of the society it finds itself in it is not unreasonable to expect that different types of ordering in art will occur, or that Rembrandt's way of ordering will be somewhat obsolete today.</p>

<p>It would be a mistake to say one was ordered and the other was not, it only reasonable to say they are ordered according to different values.</p>

<p>The greatest complicating factor as I see it was caused by the relatively recent invention of ecology which concentrates on the interrelationships between all things which are all seen to be at the very least worthy of existence. How you order your photgraphs when you accept that there is a democracy and inferred equality between the parts of a picture becomes a very interesting puzzle.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thank you, Clive. I am generally a deterministic type of photographer who chooses more often to create the image than one who seeks to observe nature and human activity and then record/interpret them. There is much I do not know about art history and art movements. Your generous enlightenment on some aspects of that gives me a point of reference for further reading and practice.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>At first glance, some might think there is too much detail in Clive's picture, too much "more". I guess that was my own first reaction, although I enjoyed this unforced view of nature. The presence of the single reddish toned trunk and the less well defined dark trunk in the background capture attention in a different way. I found that when that happens, the rest of the leaf and branch detail, important in a supporting way to the nature of the photograph, don't intrude directly on the viewer's perception. The two tree trunks are quite different and provide for me the main subject and one which I canot ignore when looking once more at Clive's picture. I may be stating what is obvious to others, but it is for me a picture of detail (the two very different trunks and their interaction), a photographer's personal response to some elements within the complex beauty and mystery (or intrigue) of nature.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The subjective comments I made on December 27th (8:13 PM) were ill-considered and not very gracious to two Photo.Net contributors whose opinions I hold in high regard. They threw a temporary cold towel on the discussion and I hope that they and others will pursue this most interesting thread at their convenience. </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong> The subjective comments I made on December 27th (8:13 PM) were ill-considered and not very gracious to two Photo.Net contributors whose opinions I hold in high regard. They threw a temporary cold towel on the discussion and I hope that they and others will pursue this most interesting thread at their convenience."</p>

<p> The comment that drove me, one of the "others", away was made Dec. 26th, @ 12:52 PM.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[<em>This post is not directed at anybody in particular, or to any previous post; I'm just trying to stir the pot a bit.</em>]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One morning when I got up, I thought that my bed depicted my life, that it was disorderly enough, so I threw a few handfuls of hair pins in it and photographed it. [ <em><a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_119642_225070_imogen-cunningham.jpg">link to photo</a></em> ]<br />-- <em>Imogen Cunningham</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>AS OPPOSED TO (or not?):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It will be seen that the rule of giving equal notice to everything is the necessary counterpart to the demand that he should communicate everything that occurs to him without criticism or selection. <br />-- <em>Sigmund Freud</em>, "Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psycho-analysis"</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[mizore]

<p>Less is not really less if less requires a ton of words to explain why it's better.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While I don't think less is better, the idea of "less is more" as it relates to a visual medium may be that it takes a lot less visually to show what it takes many more words to tell. (I said "may be" because I don't think that has to be the case every time.)</p>

<p>Whether it takes more or less words in any given instance, the <em>explaining</em> is seeking to accomplish something different from the <em>showing</em>. The two shouldn't be conflated and aren't in competition with each other.</p>

<p><em>Showing</em> with less and <em>explaining </em>"showing with less," even by using more words, can be perfectly harmonious, each being significant in its own way, despite the seeming irony of it. They are different methods of achieving different goals.</p>

<p>I maintain there's a difference between Photography and the Philosophy of Photography. I'm glad I have both to explore and to feed each other.</p>

<p>I'm glad Rebecca brought this up because I think it helps emphasize a point I was making above, which is that a "less is more" photograph is not necessarily trying to achieve the same goal as and is not in competition with a "more is more" photo any more than an explanation of a thing is trying to achieve what the thing achieves.</p>

<p>I use each as needed.</p>

<p>Sometimes I am moved to strip things down, to economize, to lay something as bare as possible. Sometimes a fullness, a confusion, a complex will overwhelm me. Less and more seem to act in counterpoint for me when it comes to making photographs.</p>

<p>Surely, the close-up of a facial expression can be a very complex and detailed matter. In my own photographic vocabulary, I would often still say that including surroundings with that expression is including more and is usually trying to tell a different story.</p>

<p>The way we show figure and ground, subject and predicates, details within an environment may really key into a different emotional component than when we isolate something to show. Leibovitz's portraits are not reaching the same place as Avedon's portraits (for a variety of reasons, one of them being the role of surroundings and environment shown).</p>

<p>There is one kind of beauty in the close-up of a tree bark, the intimate detail and texture, etc. There is another kind of beauty when we see the forest for the trees.</p>