To what extent is photography a solitary pursuit?

igor_smirnoff · May 31, 2010

It might be a valid question for a researher. For personal use, it hardly has any value. You are what you are. Deal with it.

Landrum Kelly · May 31, 2010

It might be a valid question for a researher. For personal use, it hardly has any value. You are what you are. Deal with it.

</blockquote>

Igor, "walk a mile in any direction and taste the freedom of the mountaineer." If that does not work, then climb a mountain, any mountain, on trail or off. Take a photo or two to try to capture what you felt or saw.

Then come back, read the thread, and say that.

--Lannie

Allen Herbert · May 31, 2010

Popular demand...fame and fortune and the girls. In truth, look at any real talent.

They always walked their own path; just doing their own thing, not trying to prove anything to anyone.

Never part of the vocal masses.

stp · May 31, 2010

Lannie, I hadn't read those old posts for years; I enjoyed revisiting that thread. You contributed much to that discussion then and this one as well. I appreciate the ideas folks have offered, and I do hope Igor comes back in several years with a bit more insight and less cynicism.

johncrosley · May 31, 2010

Hi Lannie,

Thanks for the fine words. I really am not so courageous, when people shoot bullets at me, and I have time to reflect later, I start to shake sometimes. Otherwise, it has been 'in the moment', and often I've been too busy trying to save my hide then cowering, as cowering will get one nowhere but knocking at St. Peter's gate. although it may be a natural instinct.

I tried to follow your link, but it failed me. Here is a link to my work to replace. I hope it works.

Give it some time as my portfolio is HUGE and PN is slow. It's to community member page with link to portfolio actually:

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=888636">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=888636</a>

Lannie, I really was only shot and wounded once (and that same bullet felled another guy too - two for one, not a bad deal for the shooter -- very economical!)

The incident in the train in Trenton caused my hospitalization three times, once in Trenton, discharged to police in Trenton, delivered to cops there who drove me through the middle of an incipient riot the only night in their history that their police station was assaulted by rioters (two rioters were killed), and my cop was the lone cop upstairs and the one who held off the rioters with a shotgun as they tried to charge us after breaking into the police station (the frantic dispatcher was the only other cop on duty in the station, all others outside).

There followed in NYC two more hospitalizations, one of very long length (weeks) and another for an operation.

Later, I worked my way to Viet Nam (with camera(s) but my leg became worse over there after a while, as I went about photographing and had separated from my civilian ship.

So, there I was, my leg finally healing but my ship had sailed back to the states (unloaded with 16,000 tons of bombs and mortars it had hauled to Viet Nam), and left me, now more able, but I was scheduled anyway to be medivacced to the United States.

So, I am assuredly the ONLY person to be medivacced to the USA (with $28 and no passport) from Viet Nam, as a result of a bullet wound suffered in the United States, and therein lies my claim to surrealness.

;~))

Then followed in the USA more campus riots, bombings (I almost got blown up by one of those), police sweeps of campuses by truncheon wielding cops, and literally NEVER got hurt. I have a very highly developed sense of 'street smarts' having spent a youth as a student at Columbia College (Columbia Univ. in the '60s).

(As a result of my SF/Bay Area riot experience, I have a very good idea of who killed that guy at the 'Gimme Shelter' Rolling Stones concert at Altamont Pass, CA, though I was not there (I was working for AP in their office at the time, taking film from motorcycle couriers; I remember one guy who came to each riot just to 'cause trouble' and he was a rough dude . . . . . everybody knew he was up to no good and extremely dangerous. Everybody who shot was warned against him and to be far away from him when the shoving and pushing started!!! I always feared him more than cops or rioters, and I think for good reason.

I have not a scintilla of proof, of course, but I have a very strong feeling that with today's video cameras I would be able to offer some proof . . . . . and solve the 'Gimme Shelter' mystery slaying.

I can see that guy's face to this day (photographic memory).

john (only shot -- physically connected -- once)

(I was shot at a lot more than once, however, and chased once at highest speed and long too, through LA's South Central until cops stopped my chasers with a shotgun: 'FREEZE MUTHUS -- HANDS ON WHEEL" with shotguns in my chasers' car windows!!!!)

It's been an interesting life for a guy who practiced law once 16 hours a day, kissed the wife and kids then did it again day after day after day after day.

I put more that passion into my photography; I hope it shows.

john

John (Crosley)

iliafarniev · May 31, 2010

Socializing is for pussies. Eagles hunt alone.

mjferron · May 31, 2010

I think the serious, wandering photographer is a loner at heart. Not always but often when two serious shooters bump into each other, equipment in hand the meeting is awkward at best.

Landrum Kelly · May 31, 2010

So, I am assuredly the ONLY person to be medivacced to the USA (with $28 and no passport) from Viet Nam, as a result of a bullet wound suffered in the United States, and therein lies my claim to surrealness.

</blockquote>

So that's the rest of the story, John. . . . Glad to get it straightened out. I was shot at while driving a cab in Durham, NC after the murder of Martin Luther King, although it was a very confusing situation. Lots of stories to tell from that epoch in my life, while my wife-to-be was at UNC (ten miles away) getting her graduate degree in library science. We got married on June 1, 1968, just days before RFK was shot in L.A.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 31, 2010

Not always but often when two serious shooters bump into each other, equipment in hand the meeting is awkward at best.

</blockquote>

I know that feeling, Michael. It is even worse in an ocean kayak, I think. One talks a bit about the winds and the tides, then moves on. There isn't much more to say. Then one watches as one's paddle swirls die away behind one, leaving no trace that one was ever there. Talk about a "trackless waste. . . ." I have never done any serious photography in the ocean, however, preferring to take only disposable cameras.

--Lannie

Wouter Willemse · June 1, 2010

There is a difference between photography being a solitary pursuit, and photographers being 'loners'.

Photography, as a whole, is not solitary pursuit, since the result is created to be seen, and (usually) shared. So, it is in a way social and unsolitary.

The photographer self... well, every story is different. John Crosley - many thanks for yours. An interesting read, especially after having seen (and enjoyed) your photos first. But also from the other replies, it's to me sufficiently clear you cannot state so easy the photographer is like this or that. Photography isn't the only thing about us, it's "just" a creative outlet of a person, one of the aspects. To say anything more would be an assumption at best.

I think in a way the vision and ideas that we (as photographers) put in our photos, is a solitary thing, because it is ours and ours alone. It's how the photographer sees it, not anybody else. In that sense, there is something solitary in photography as an activity. But next, we share that solitary vision... So. Schrödingers cat is dead and alive again.

Landrum Kelly · June 2, 2010

I think in a way the vision. . . that we (as photographers) put in our photos, is a solitary thing, because it is ours and ours alone. . . . In that sense, there is something solitary in photography as an activity. But next, we share that solitary vision. . . .

</blockquote>

Aye, Wouter, there's the paradox, and a lovely one it is. The question for me is how and to what extent the latter fact, that it will be shared with others, affects the former process, the solitary conceptualization and creation of the image. Is the "vision" really, as you say, "ours and ours alone," if we are too conscious of the fact that it is being made to be shared?

That is, when we are conscious of the fact that something that we create is to be shared, there is also the consciousness that it will be evaluated. To what extent does that fact affect our own evaluation and thus our own artistic judgment and vision?

--Lannie

Wouter Willemse · June 2, 2010

To what extent does that fact affect our own evaluation and thus our own artistic judgment and vision?

</blockquote>

A per person decision, I think, mostly. How important is the audience, what are the evaluations, and how are they brought to you? Quite possibly most here heard often enough "really nice picture, you have a nice eye for it" or something along those lines... at photos one does not really like oneself. What does that do, how do you respond, how do you value such feedback? Likewise for negative valuations. Of course, this amplifies when the feedback is eloborated, exemplified, given by somebody who shows some knowledge and insight. What do you pick up? (*)

I think, especially for those of us doing this as a hobby with enough aspiration or art photographers, there is a bigger need to keep it more "genuinely" yours. Even when that means loosing the audience. If you're in business, the money often enough will speak.

So, yes, I think it will affect to some extend, nobody is that much of a loner.

(*) I find this also the risky part often in posting feedback here. Maybe some people really want to hear "oh nice photo, well done!"? Are you condenscending when giving feedback with ideas to improve? Being a good audience shares the paradox in reverse, it seems.

Norma Desmond · June 2, 2010

"I think, especially for those of us doing this as a hobby with enough aspiration or art photographers, there is a bigger need to keep it more "genuinely" yours. Even when that means loosing the audience. If you're in business, the money often enough will speak." --Wouter

Wouter, yours is a good reminder that there are many motivations for photographing and different photographs, different genres of photographs, and different photographers come with different needs, choices, and intentions. _______________________________

Some of my photographs consider the subject of the portrait, not the outside viewer. Some consider future clients. My documentary work considers the viewer to the extent that the clients want to portray certain aspects of their community and want that to come across to viewers. Some of my portraits are more about self expression, an understanding I establish with the subject. In those cases, my subjects "lend" themselves to me to create what I want: a solitary vision based on a relationship I establish with the person I'm photographing. My solitary vision allows me to be open to my subjects' expressions, poses, gestures, who they are. I wouldn't know where to the draw the "solitary" line.

I'm aware that there will be viewers. Photographing can be a means of expression and communication. A poet knows his words will be understood by English speakers, say, as opposed to Russian speakers, and he also knows different interpretations will be given to his words, different reactions to the common understandings that knowing a common language assumes. Similar with me and photography. I don't photograph for an audience but I am aware of commonalities of experience and understanding with groups of viewers, etc.

I think consciousness of a photo's being shared and consciousness of a photo's being evaluated are different. The first doesn't imply the second. Also, consciousness of a photo's being evaluated doesn't mean you care about that or adjust your photos because of that. One can often learn more from reactions than from evaluations.

Landrum Kelly · June 3, 2010

I think consciousness of a photo's being shared and consciousness of a photo's being evaluated are different. The first doesn't imply the second.

</blockquote>

You're right, of course, Fred. Even so, anytime we plan to put anything on public display we typically do think about how it will be received, and so we tend to anticipate some kind of informal evaluation at the very least--and that fact can encourage us to modify the work we do, even at times to the point of censoring ourselves.

Perhaps that (self-censorship) is the worst kind of censorship, although I hope that you realize that by "censor" or "censoring" here I mean to imply no particular kind of censorship. I learned a long ago on Photo.net that political commentary is not at all welcome in discussion threads, and yet photographs themselves are often political or have political implications. Does that fact tend to make me censor my photos for their political content? I really am not sure. I hope not.

I almost want to say that "Photography is inherently political."

Ah, another topic for discussion: "Is photography inherently political?"

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · June 3, 2010

"Even so, anytime we plan to put anything on public display we typically do think about how it will be received, and so we tend to anticipate some kind of informal evaluation at the very least--and that fact can encourage us to modify the work we do, even at times to the point of censoring ourselves." --Lannie

I could accept this if all "we" were changed to "I" so that you were referring to yourself. I believe and respect that you operate this way. As written, though, I can't accept it. I don't think everyone operates that way by any means. There are many artists, and political activists and messengers as well, and all types of others, who I don't imagine censoring themselves in that way.

I've had several political discussions, especially on the photo pages of PN. I agree with you that there's a political component to a lot of stuff and there's a sense in which a lot of stuff is political. I consider my own work to a great extent political . . . social commentary, and others have certainly taken it that way, though people tend more to discuss aesthetics in the abstract and in isolation on PN.

To me, censoring suggests limitations and I prefer to see endeavors like photography, for myself, as more liberating than that. Yes, freedom implies choices and a choice implies something not chosen which can be seen as a sort of censorship or limiting factor. But I don't see it that way. It's probably a cup half full / cup half empty sort of thing. I would find seeing my work and my life decisions as "censorship" stultifying. Others don't.

When it comes to my relationships with others, I tend to put things in terms of empathy, integrity, respect, and care. Evaluation and censorship are things I'm not that occupied with. I care what you think and feel, but your judgments of me are relatively insignificant.

aplumpton · June 3, 2010

"Is the creative process an individual process or a social process?"

This resumes much of Landrum's interesting question. The answer, if there is one that might be universal, is no doubt the same as that if you similarily question the writer, the poet, the sculptor or the artist-painter. Individual it must be, I believe, although some creations, often laboriuosly dull, do come out of committees. As for the pressure of society, the great photographers and other artists no doubt lead the way, so they are not being influenced by, but are in fact influencing any social reaction. Lesser artists do require public acceptance or approbation, and are often playing to the desires of others in order to survive, mentally and physically.

I am certainly not entiurely distant from the latter category, although not always by choice. When you see one type of image being continuously preferred and bought, and those you cherish being ignored, it is sometimes difficult to be completely individual. The occasional or rare "strike" of an individual work does make the game pleasant, but whether it happens or not doesn't deter many, for whom individual creation is the only worthwhile approach. Happily, a lot of those individuals don't need to put bread on the plate through their artistic activity.

Landrum Kelly · June 3, 2010

I could accept this if all "we" were changed to "I" so that you were referring to yourself. . I believe and respect that you operate this way. As written, though, I can't accept it. I don't think everyone operates that way by any means. There are many artists, and political activists and messengers as well, and all types of others, who I don't imagine censoring themselves in that way.

</blockquote>

Fred, I imagine that I am about as courageous as most people and a lot more than most when it comes to putting myself, my ideas, and my photos on the line. The fact is, however, that most persons (and perhaps all) do not say everything that is on their minds that they might have if there were no one around ready to pounce. To what extent this carries over to photography is not clear.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · June 3, 2010

As for the pressure of society, the great photographers and other artists no doubt lead the way, so they are not being influenced by, but are in fact influencing any social reaction. Lesser artists do require public acceptance or approbation, and are often playing to the desires of others in order to survive, mentally and physically.

</blockquote>

Arthur, I suspect that what we find in the real world is more nearly a continuum than simply two classes: great artists and lesser artists. Intellectual (and artistic) courage is a precious commodity, but does anyone always have it? I'm not sure that greatness requires that.

In any case, "censoring oneself" was not meant to refer to a conscious process so much as the almost inevitable fact that we are affected by the world around us whenever we decide what to write, paint, photograph, post to the web, etc. It would be nice to think that there is some godlike class, sort of like Nietzsceh's Zarathustra, who are above societal concerns and pressures. Every human being that I know, however, is all too human and a good bit more circumspect than even they might be willing to acknowledge--even to themselves.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · June 3, 2010

Lannie, what you're describing I would simply call fairly natural and evolved social behavior. Likening it to censorship (even the non-political, benign kind you're meaning) doesn't make sense to me. I think calling it censorship makes way more out of it than is necessary.

But I don't want this to be a semantical discussion nor should it be an either/or discussion. It's not: either we censor or we don't. Given that we all censor (and I use the word in deference to you, though I don't think it's appropriate), how important is that censorship to each of us, when and why do we do it consciously and unconsciously, and how much a part of our photograph making is it.

Your statements had me thinking it was significant to you. I think to others, it's much less significant a consideration. That's not because they're blind to it or because they would deny it happening to an extent, but I think they would deny the same degree of influence it has or consideration it's given for themselves. Some are influenced by these societal and interpersonal constraints (rules of behavior, moral prescriptions and proscriptions, whatever you want to call it) to a greater degree than others. I'm not suggesting that one way is necessarily better than another. But I am suggesting we all differ on the scale of concern and adjustment of behavior because of it.

An example is some of the things you said in the nude threads about treatment of models, reactions to certain kinds of "profane" and even so-called debasing nudes, and expectations surrounding behavior of photographers toward models, viewers toward photographs, etc. I think many photographers and artists wouldn't adhere to the same ethical constraints you do. They would express themselves in a manner more freed from those kinds of judgments. I don't think they're any better than you. Some pay the price for it. Some earn a good price for it.

jtk · June 3, 2010

I don't know how it's possible to be a "loner" if one is photographing participating subjects or working within graphic design or art-directed context, or intentionally sharing one's experiences with others. VanGogh and Edward Weston were far from loners.

In any case, my obstacles have mostly to do with getting myself together and reaching out beyond my habits to do new or otherwise challenging things. "Self censorship" is the least of my worries.

My feeling is that if one has not done something significant and new recently (eg in the past month), one might be happier with the honest recognition that one has stopped, at least for a while, being a photographer. And who cares about that identity anyway? Isn't the essence of that identity a matter of new images?

HCB decided to stop being a photographer in favor of drawing, after all, and he always considered his photography a craft or trade, rather than art (according to his wife)

Landrum Kelly · June 3, 2010

Lannie, what you're describing I would simply call fairly natural and evolved social behavior. Likening it to censorship (even the non-political, benign kind you're meaning) doesn't make sense to me. I think calling it censorship makes way more out of it than is necessary.

</blockquote>

You're probably right, Fred. Although the idea of self-censorship is probably appropriate when discussing a very real phenomenon in the realm of the overtly political, it does read a bit like overkill even to me as I read back over what I have said in this context.

My feeling is that if one has not done something significant and new recently (eg in the past month), one might be happier with the honest recognition that one has stopped, at least for a while, being a photographer.

</blockquote>

John, I guess that, according to those criteria, I have to ask myself when I am going to start being a photographer. I can't think of anything significant or new that I have ever done, although my shots have meant something to me personally. I'm just having fun out there. I'm certainly not an artist, and I am still struggling to master the technical aspects of photography. I'm still absolutely terrible where the accuracy skin tones is concerned, for example. It might be time that I learned something about white balance, since I have only shot digital over the last year or so.

--Lannie

jtk · June 3, 2010

"I have to ask myself when I am going to start being a photographer. " - Lannie

That seems reasonable. I ask that of myself regularly, but then I realize I don't care...and then I do make photos or I don't.

Sometimes I make photographs, other times I make pasta con vongole. Am I more a pasta chef or a photographer? How can an answer matter? Are the photos worthwhile? Is the pasta properly al dente?

Suzuki Roshi wrote a book called "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind." I don't read that kind of thing but the title has a ring to it.

philippartridge · June 4, 2010

For me at least, highly individual.

Creativity is not a groupthink process. I'll go further, as I have read an enormous amount of Jung's work: everything worthwhile in the world begins with an individual. Institutions are unethical entities because all morality resides in the individual as a personal attribute. The larger the institution, the more repressed is the individual, and the less moral is the institution. Twas ever thus. Society turns its back on the individual at its peril.

don_essedi · June 4, 2010

My desert photography is a collaboration with my wife, who is also a photographer. We've worked with geologists, artists, and writers. My city photography is solitary, mostly -- occasionally, we shoot together.

ted_raper1 · June 4, 2010

It's a loner pursuit for me for one simple reason: I get deep into "right brain" when photographing, almost like a trance, and I would barely acknowledge the presence of anyone who was around me. My wife learned this long ago - if we're together and I start taking pictures, she knows to just go away and leave me alone. I don't do event shooting, I do photos for galleries which means I'm mostly out in wonderful nature, and I don't need an assistant. So I go off in my own little world when I get deep into the camera.

Sign In

To what extent is photography a solitary pursuit?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

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