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

luis_g · December 29, 2009

[Geezus, Julie....where is my decoder ring? Barely stirred, not shaken. I've been dealing with the bigger questions these past few days, like how to get rid of the weird gifts without slighting the good people who gave them to me. Can't do it on Ebay, they know who I am. Maybe a big garage sale in the Spring...]

Going back to your previous post...

Guiding principles like Arthur's can be great motivators, are directly connected to how one wants their pictures to look, and in this specific case, easily applied. I understand Julie's comment about potential dangers stemming precisely from that facility, but in the end, it depends on the individual, and if it results in a lot of pictures being created, even ones that suck, and the maker learns something from them, I would still consider it to the good.

I agree with Julie, specially when people are involved, that as one crosses the defense perimeter threshold perspective-wise, things tend to become intimate or really intrusive and tense. Sometimes both, as in:

http://www.michaelhoppengallery.com/artist,show,1,35,0,0,0,0,0,0,henri_cartier_bresson.html

In general, as one goes closer, things usually, but not always, shifts toward increasingly decontextualized content. It's like the difference between Arthur's knives and showing silverware in their drawer. This idea is very similar to some from the Neue Sachlichkeit , the Magical Realist branch.

______________________

Arthur, I think you misinterpreted Fred's comment: " Do you have questions about your own work? Can you give examples?"

From the sentence that preceded that, "These, for me, are preliminary questions about my own work, not necessarily to be answered by others."

I think he was enjoining others to do as he does, to talk about yourself and your work, not so much to have questions answered by others. This is why there were no comments to your pictures. Now, if you'd asked the others what they thought about or saw in your pictures, I suspect the results would have been different and much more to your liking.

Clive's astute mention of Alain Robbe-Grillet's work and ideas was obliquely related to the topic. Perhaps not direct or literally connected to your original topic enough for you, but I and others here got it. The New Objectivity preceded Robbe-Grillet, (and he had antecedents in writing as well). In photography, those ideas re-emerged with the collaboration between Szarkowski and Winogrand. The novel has moved on since Robbe-Grillet's day, as has his influence in the arts.

_____________________________

Rebecca typed: " Less is not really less if less requires a ton of words to explain why it's better."

ROTFLMAO! This is the Philosophy Forum, Rebecca. Everything requires tons of words, and the right words, too. Hmm, could you expand on that, please? At length? :-)

_____________________________

Inspired by Julie, my cryptic observation du jour goes back to Fred's rebop of Arthur's post. When Frank Lloyd Wright designed Florida Southern college, he did not include the walkways between buildings in his plans. The bigwigs at the college were perplexed. Wright calmly explained that he wanted the students to naturally make trails by walking on the expensive, brand-new lawn of the school, and that is where the walkways would go, instead of laying them down and forcing or expecting people to use them. Maybe there's something to be learned from that with regard to this forum.

Julie H · December 29, 2009

Luis, you put that part about your Christmas presents in there just to make me all sympathetic. Maybe I should just ship all mine to you and let you deal with them.

<a href="http://www.alanhoyle.com/comics/fox_decoder-ring.png">Decoder rings</a> do seem to be in order. Every comment to this thread seems to have gotten waylaid in the translation. Compound misunderstandings. [Martin Sobey, in your comment, you are agreeing with me.]

In his college paths story, Luis is giving another (nicely cryptic) take on my (tail wagging the dog) claim that style should not, will not, cannot rule or confine or lead the way to the best -- the (presumably) most desired choices. It prevents or at least hinders, gets in the way of, one from finding the best way.

Wouter Willemse · December 29, 2009

Fred,

I use each as needed.

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.

</blockquote>

So, wouldn't this say that the message defines the inclusion (or exclusion) of details? It seems to boil down to the intent of the photo, or do I misinterpret?

Luis worded it nicer than my earlier attempt:

Will the way we regard details and our consequent decisions aid and abet our vision, or not?

</blockquote>

Not more or less, but choices within a total picture that speaks the words we want it to speak. For me, that is what it should be about in the end.

Julie, yes, I think despite some lively discussion here, most of us are mainly on the same page with some (minor) details left to be discussed. That said, to me, bringing some thoughts into words and trying to formulate what "feels" logical is very beneficial. It forces me to consider my thoughts and structure them, and to use a somewhat decent verbal structure to communicate those thoughts. Selfish reasons to have a discussion, sure, but I think I'm not the only one why likes these kind of discussions for such reasons. So even if it was a "battle for a square millimeter", I still regard it useful. But maybe that's just me. (if somebody sees a new topic start in this, feel free)

Allen Herbert · December 29, 2009

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

There's no less or more it's only about how the photo works. Every photo is unique with its own story and personae much like us sad lot. It can be exciting and clever with a message to reach the heavenly hosts or as boring as hell…….that is, if hell is boring. But one thing it does, in majesty or banality, and that is........ it tells a story.

Very nice to see some photos on this forum.

Thanks enjoyed.

mizore · December 29, 2009

If a contemporary work requires vast amount of exegesis to be comprehensible to an average member of the anticipated audience, it's got problems, or the culture/sub-culture/anticipated audience does.

More can be more if there's a simple way into the work, perhaps. I like more that has a trail marker or two.

That's more words than I wrote the first time.

clive_murray_white · December 29, 2009

I'm pretty much with Wouter here, the philosophy thread about the only venue where you can selfishly sort out your own thoughts.

The fact that we dart about in, out and around a topic is very good - I, for one, have benefited from the random injection of the sub-topic of the role of explanation or "if it needs words it can't be any good" line. In this respect I realise the biggest problem my picture faces is that almost nobody would bother to look at it. I think its an awfully good idea but that can be very dangerous because there is always the chance that it can be really deluded, so I road test everything. I even posted the same picture in another forum and set up a different context for it by giving the contribution the catchy title "Tell me I'm nuts".

The first four replies simply said "you're nuts" but when I started explaining it many people started to "appreciate" what I was up to, that in itself just shows that I have the ability influence people through argument. The more artistically ignorant the viewer is the more likely it is that you'll get a clear cut opinion about what is wrong with your contribution. I actually think that's very helpful.

In the process I got the "why not use a fisheye that'll make it interesting" or "crop out the clutter and just leave the 2 "main" trees" or "why not use even shallower DoF" or "what about macro a leaf". All reductivist suggestions which could lead us to conclude that romantic* minimilism is by far the most acceptable photographic format.

* romantic is this context alludes to subjects that concentrate on "the smallness of mankind in relation to nature" or "the wildness of nature" or phenomena. Maybe exotic minimalism would be a better title.

Arthur's title "Stainless" influences how we look at a picture of 2 knives, the requirement that we caption pictures has a massive effect on how people see these web images. I wonder how we would have seen it if he had called it "2 knives"

Steve's Santa Fe Yard has really got me thinking - One bit of me wishes that I could let myself go to that extent, another says it really throws in the idea of a democracy of parts in a picture in a pretty uncompromising way - the other has me wondering if my taste is becoming quite perverse through viewing so many "normal" images.

aplumpton · December 29, 2009

As Luis shows, Wright was also about freedom. Freedom of the architect to create something that is not constrained to being a single and unalterable statement, and freedom of the viewer (or in his case the user of his architecture) to follow his own footsteps within that creation and to re-interpret it in his own way.

I think that the open-endedness of an artistic creation, and the freedom of the creator or the participant, is a valuable aspect of art, and perhaps an interesting future topic of discussion in this forum.

One of my vacaton reads was "The Architecture of Happiness", by that most curious and probing of young popular authors, Alain De Botton. I think we can find parallels between the movements of architecture and those of photography, how some persist without apparent reason, how others support rationale that is societal but non-artistic, and how others are evolved to repudiate existing norms.

Clive has a very good point. "Stainless" is not the right title of my third image. It should be either "Two Knives" or "Untitled". The image, and indeed many others, should not be handicapped by a 'directive' title.

Allen Herbert · December 29, 2009

"The Architecture of Happiness",

The book reveals Proust’s thoughts on how to revive a relationship, choose a good doctor, enjoy a holiday,

Funny.

Freedom of the architect to create something that is not constrained to being a single and unalterable statement.

True, or, a variation on the theme.

Norma Desmond · December 29, 2009

"So, wouldn't this say that the message defines the inclusion (or exclusion) of details? It seems to boil down to the intent of the photo, or do I misinterpret?" --Wouter

</blockquote>

I don't think the "message" defines the inclusion of the details. I think the photo does. I tend not to think of photos, both when I make them and when I view them, in terms of messages, but rather in terms of visualization.

Sometimes I can be rather literal both in approaching and in viewing a photo, but not often as literal as an actual message would suggest.

The reason I like Wright's quote is because I find it more suggestive than explanatory. It allows the visual medium -- which I am using the quote in relation to -- some room not to be overly determined, something I think both Arthur and Rebecca are getting at, each in their own way.

Wouter, the reason I am stimulated by the less/more quote, even though I understand and agree with what you say about details and the choices we make, is because of the structure of the quote, the way the words are used. By making equivalent and using two opposites (less and more) the way he does, I think Wright opens these ideas up more. He is suggesting to me that I look with somewhat altered vision. Perhaps he's just getting me to pay attention to something, to what less is and what more is, what details are, what a subject is, what foreground and background do, what context provides, the very things we've been discussing (at least to an extent) here. This type of quote I read as I do poetry, not so that I can define the terms used in a fixed, logical sort of way but so that I can let the circularity of the concepts envelop and inspire me. I find the quote asking me to see.

Circular reasoning in logic can be problematic, in the aesthetic arena, not a problem at all. The very fact that we have touched on less and more having and not having value and perhaps not even referring to quantity is charged with possibility. Creating a circle of less and more, where they come back on each other, is the exploration here. I don't think the quote makes a point as much as it suggests a journey.

Yes, we could say something similar to what Wright said in some precise terms and we could each, perhaps, reach a definite conclusion as to what he might have meant and what it means for us. Or, we can see it as a challenge or an open-ended starting point.

So, yes, I do see it as a less and a more question and not just a question of what the photo is trying to accomplish. It's kind of like two or three or four people taking a picture of something. Someone might come along and ask why person number three is taking a picture of something persons number one and two have already taken pictures of. Most of us might laugh at that question.

"Less is more" may boil down to "whatever details are necessary to achieve the picture" (and for me, it's that but it's also a lot of other things), but there's every reason why it's stated as it's stated and to me, it suggests all that it suggests because it's stated as it's stated.

Allen Herbert · December 29, 2009

“stated as it's stated and to me, it suggests all that it suggests because it's stated as it's stated”.

A stated circular reasoning without a logical statement.

I wonder who is doing the stating….the photographer or the photograph.............. there’s a thought.

Norma Desmond · December 29, 2009

When I said " . . . to me, it suggests all that it suggests because it's stated as it's stated," I was referring to Frank Lloyd's Wright's quote, not to a photograph or a photographer.

I'd also like to add to the idea of it being circular logical reasoning, which it doesn't have to be, though it sounds circular, and I think sounding circular adds to its power (not unlike the power of the circular architecture of NY's Guggenheim which I was just in today, to see an extraordinary Kandinsky exhibit). The quote can be understood on some level by contextualizing "less" differently from "more" so that the logic of it will not be circular. Examples: Less detail is more [fill in the blank . . . perhaps powerful, perhaps effective, perhaps whatever]. Less information is more [fill in the blank]. Less context is more [fill in the blank]. Less [fill in the blank] is more [fill in the blank].

"Less" and "more" can be adverbs, adjectives, or nouns and can have a variety of referents. This makes the quote that much more creative and, to me, stimulating, and open to many interpretations and usages.

jtk · December 29, 2009

I think that alleged quotes by someone famous (without citation of source of the "quote" many would properly begin with doubts about authenticity) it's not as "stimulating" as it would be if the poster expressed his own ideas.

aplumpton · December 29, 2009

Allen "The Architecture of Happiness",

The book reveals Proust’s thoughts on how to revive a relationship, choose a good doctor, enjoy a holiday,

Funny.

Allen, possibly you were thinking about "How Proust Can Change Your Life". Same author, different book. The former was published in 2006, the Proust volume in 1997. My reference was to his treatise on architecture.

aplumpton · December 29, 2009

Art X Photography · December 30, 2009

A good point for discussion and one that photographers, I believe, often struggle with (less is more..or less). For me, I try hard to only showcase what I feel is important in a shot, while placing context at the same time. This is a struggle and only after I look back on my work do i sometimes recognise I have made an image unnecessarily 'busy'.

Fred, looking at both your images I find their impact equally appealing because both express the humanism of your subjects. Less is more and more is equally balanced in both images. I thrive on the ability to never reach, what I consider the holy grail of artistic expression, the ability to look at a completed work and be wholly satisfied with the end result.

If I am ever satisfied completely with an 'finished' image I will look for something better to do :) I hope never to fully judge when less is more..or less in any of my work

Norma Desmond · December 30, 2009

Art, I appreciate your bringing up "looking back" at your images. I often find that when I look back at my own and others' images, ones I had an initially positive response to, I see more . . . in a good way. Not too much, but more of significance.

"More" can mean not only quantity of details or elements or busyness but more layers to the photo, more depth to the visual relationships, more richness or variety of feeling, sometimes more meaning.

I especially appreciate seeing more potential. That's why I often post-process my photos over a period of days and usually try to allow a day or two of not looking at a photo before I consider it "finished." After that day or two of rest, I often do find more to do. In that case, it's not a matter of more detail. It may be a matter of more subtlety (which sometimes will mean lessening the processing). It is often a matter of bringing something out more (realizing potential) and often doing that so that it doesn't feel like it was "brought out."

I wonder if subtlety is a "less" quality. Less blatant. Something calling less attention to itself but nevertheless acting more powerfully on an emotional level precisely because it gets a less obvious kind of attention. I think of digital transitions particularly, which can be tricky and often feel a bit harsh and obvious (the edges of bodies especially in light against dark situations). In many of those cases, where I want a more organic feel, less will be more. Less sharp line, less awareness of distinction . . . will mean, in many instances, more evocative power.

tonyguinn · December 30, 2009

In the spirit of the subject, I'll keep this short. If more doesn't support the story, the story gets lost. Id rather have a reason to get lost in the story.

sobeystudio · December 30, 2009

Julie-

I must have mis-read. I apologize- and think your BRILLIANT! :)

Are people still on about this thing?

Julie H · December 30, 2009

I apologize- and think your BRILLIANT! :)

</blockquote>

*laughing*

No need to apologize and thank you the "BRILLIANT". Made my afternoon. If less is more, then perhaps we can twiddle the meaning of "brilliant" ...

You, Martin, are a ray of sunshine.

clive_murray_white · December 30, 2009

Fred's mention that he visited the Guggenheim to view the Kandinsky exhibition and Arthur's mention of Architecture has got me thinking again. Frank Lloyd Wright designed the G is responsible for the quote that kicked this thread off but is also responsible for a far more useful one.

Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union. Frank Lloyd Wright

His mentor Sullivan being the author of the original Form follows function. The "less is more" is in effect less useful than "the form follows function" philosophy and was probably an off-shoot of it.

Of course the craziest element in this tale is that the NY Guggenheim is the classic example of an architect failing to notice all of the functions that his form had to be able to perform, he chose to make it easy for people to view the work by walking down the ramp. He imposed his will on viewers because if they felt that had missed something they'd have to trudge up the ramp to have another look.

Most paintings are rectangular and are designed to hang parallel to the floor something that can't happen in that gallery - so the architect puts unreasonable pressure on individual artworks.

I have, for quite some time now, believed that architecture is the greatest of the arts not because its better than any of the others but because it controls them all. All art has to work in relation to architecture.

The wildest thing about the G is that eventhough it doesn't work, and shows that FLW slipped up on the form follows etc - it is an inspirational space.

Kandinsky, who was a brilliant artist, is responsible for one of the most influential Less is More quotes of all time, he claimed that a triangle and a circle suitably composed within a rectangle could have the emotional and spiritual power of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel "hand of God". Its blatantly deluded but had the majority of 20c artists believing it. I wonder what that means?

Clive

sobeystudio · December 30, 2009

Julie-

Yes let's. Brilliancy and Rays of Sunshine. More simply, light. Photography wouldn't be possible without it, nor would life for that matter. Little itty-bitty parts of atoms cranking down at us at 186,000 miles per second. The simple stuff makes up the big stuff.

aplumpton · December 30, 2009

"Of course the craziest element in this tale is that the NY Guggenheim is the classic example of an architect failing to notice all of the functions that his form had to be able to perform."

Clive has raised a point on architecture that is also very valuable in photography. The function of the image (what it is intended to communicate) is often lost in the act of creation. Function does not always interact with form. In those cases, where form doesn't follow function, more is very often less.

Architecture is one of the great arts because it relates so closely to and is necessary (in either classical or vernacular forms) for human existence, it is in fact predicated on satisfying the human need (Yes, Hitler's proposed "Germania", the late 19th century bank fortress buildings, and buildings made to satisfy power or status (e.g., Brasilia?) are not very closely related to indivdual human needs). For all its beauty and invention, and inspirational value as Clive has noted, the NY Guggenheim fails in some very important ways as a functional building, as does the Disney auditorium on the other banks of America in terms of the other part of the equation, which from my limited viewpoint (I haven't been inside it) is a disaster of external form (more is less).

In architecture, thare are many notable examples, but the one that parallels the Guggenheim museum example for me is the recent Daniel Liebeskind (of the Berlin Holocaust museum fame) addition to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Ontario, a wonderfully conceived amalgamation of mineral single crystal forms as a museum building structure, growing up and out out of the classical design existing buildings. However, the exhibition of paintings in the interior space is a nightmare for museum curators, as no rectangular elements are present in the trapezoidal type interior and only the sculptures, including Egyptian and Chinese art, can really make efficient use of the oddly shaped interior rooms.

Contrast that new ROM building to an even more recent addition (2008-2009) to the AGO (Art Gallery of Ontario), a few blocks south. Canadian architect Frank Gehry has utilised on its north side very organic shapes and natural wood beams and wood surfaces with an undulating window surface that mirrors the 19th century houses on the other side of the avenue. In doing so, he has not, like Libeskind, ignored the interior, but instead has created a beautifully lit space for paintings and sculpture, contrasted with metal sheathing and minimialist design to encapsulate an adjoining smaller historic bulding. In my opinion, this is far more appealing than his Walt Disney auditorium in L.A. Of course, the master architect is not new at the approach characterised by Sullivan and then Wright as "Form follows Function". Even before it opened in 1997, the undulating, titanium and glass Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in Bilbao, Spain has been the building for which he is best known and which is perhaps the best known recent modern buiding.

Does his work exemplify the "power of less"? Perhaps, at least in the cases of the Spain Guggenheim and the Canada AGO.

jtk · December 30, 2009

IMO the NY Guggenheim is a huge success. Why? Because it's stuck in my mind, is always remembered with joy. The inconvenience of curators is a plus, of course: Like museum-goers, they need to be kept uncomfortable.

clive_murray_white · December 30, 2009

But Martin, Light (Brilliance) is no good without its opposite, the absence of light (otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it) so photograpy is as much about light as it is about darkness.

Art X Photography · December 30, 2009

Fred, I think your use of the word 'subtlety' hits the nail on the head. It's the subtlety that impacts on the viewer more so than the blatantly obvious. There in lies the balance of subtle information versus blatant sensory overload. "More" can often be perceived as such over time rather than instantly (I think that's also what you're suggesting but i dont want to put words in your mouth)

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in