Re: The Intellectualization of Craft

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"If I can save someone a minute, hour, day, month, year in their own development simply by providing a relevent example, shouldn't I?"</em></p>

<p><em>"You won't get there over night. I've been doing it since '74 and I'm just starting to get comfortable with my work product."<br /></em></p>

<p>As you noticed, I spend a lot of time answering people's <em>requests</em> for critique. Since they've asked, they seem almost universally appreciative of my efforts in that regard. (You didn't mention if you read any of those critiques or just looked at the numbers.)</p>

<p>In 1974, I was in college studying Philosophy. I started photographing seriously 5 years ago. I consider us to be peers.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Lance - "</strong>If I can save someone a minute, hour, day, month, year in their own development simply by providing a relevent example, shouldn't I?</p>

<p>Not always. The student/teacher relationship has its formal aspects. In a classroom setting, it is well-understood that the institution has vetted the teacher, her qualifications, etc. and in most cases, the student's as well. The financial arrangements affirm all this. It is clear that the students in that situation want to learn, and from this professor.</p>

<p>That is just one scenario. With many others, specially informal ones, assuming the role of teacher and assigning to someone else the role of student is inappropriate, if not rude. Lance must have realized this at some level because he acknowledged it was a "shock". I do not recall Fred asking Lance or anyone else for guidance regarding how he should be conducting his life and spending his creative energies. Lance may have meant well, but on an internet forum, coming in and telling someone what to do, how to do it, how often, etc. is trespassing on someone else's boundaries.</p>

<p>Ask first, or better yet, wait until they ask you. Fred's not issuing a cry for help and seems to be on his own path, not acting like a lost sheep in search of a Shepherd, and doing well (not that if he wasn't that I would take it upon myself to assume this is a teachable moment calling out for me). Looking at the number of posts and taking it upon yourself to declare that a misuse of Fred's creative energies is absurd.</p>

<p>[And yes, I am deliberately leaving out the entire idea of simultaneously being teacher and student]</p>

<p>I do not concern myself with whether someone is a peer, above or below me. I <em>always </em>assume they know and have experienced things in their lives, and paid the price, that I haven't and do not know, and <em>would benefit greatly from knowing. </em></p>

<p><em> <br /></em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lance, it seems yours was an affront to the room as well as to me. I hadn't originally considered that and appreciate the kind of moral support I'm getting. At the same time, it would seem more light-handed were the response to you left up to me, since your comments were directed at me, which I feel I adequately conveyed in my own way. But, as I've been told, I can't and shouldn't try to control anyone else's behavior. Though I understand others' desire to respond as well, I just want to say I've become a little self-conscious that each time I've said something in response to you a bit more has gotten added. I'm sorry if that comes on a bit strong. I hope you'll continue to post and share your photographic and philosophical ideas here.</p>

<p>I hesitated to write this for fear of continuing on an uncomfortable path here, so I'd like to quickly bring it back to photography and craft. I was, in fact, serious, when I addressed your "do it again, and again, and again" statement and would like to hear more about what you meant by that or how others perceive or utilize repetition and practice and how it affects the work and photographic abilities.</p>

<p>And, if we don't get into that, I'd love for John and others to continue talking about shooting for the print and the role of the print in their overall approach to photographs.</p>

[elvagabundoviejo]

<p>Firstly, for Luis G. The whole student/teacher thing was a give and take between Landrum Kelly and I and I think it and should be read in that context, not as an affront to Fred or anyone else because it wasn't intended that way. I'm still and ever will be a student and I don't have any misgivings about being a student and trying to learn or being identified that way. I still get it wrong and in particular, a challenge just I gave myseft to take an idea Fred mentioned and execute it mostly failed, probably because I spend so much time on the computer and not behind the camera --oh, the delicious irony, I know.</p>

<p>Much of Fred's first post was about not taking pictures, I merely suggested he do more of the nuts and bolts than writing about it --he opened that door. I'm not controlling or trying to control anyone's behavior, nor would I suggest it. I'm guilty of not taking enough pictures too, perhaps only to a lesser degree.</p>

<p>For Fred, I will post my response to the "do it again, and again, and again" idea in a separate post. While I'm doing that, will you take a picture for me? I'm posting in my gallery a picture I just did (the one I alluded to above) in the experiments directory with the commentary on how I did it, the real nuts and bolts. I failed to get what I wanted but I think you will appreciate the idea. I wanted to use this example, not to poke fun or belittle, or any other malicious intent, but because, specifically in this case, I liked the idea of trying to put into a photograph, the problem we face --I have dishes in my sink too. If you're so inclined, please upload your take on the idea --with or without looking at mine first. If not, that's O.K. too.</p>

<p>I happen to agree with you completely when you said "The photographs talked about in artistic terms often don't measure up to the glow of the words about feelings, emotions, thinking outside the box, etc. We wax on about the deep inner recesses of the creative spirit but does any of that actually show up in our work? If it does, can we describe it in photographic rather than poetic terms . . . do we bother to describe it? What does it look like? Or do we just take for granted that if we talk about it enough it will be there in the photographs?" But I agree even more with the idea that: "We're not going to become photographers (or better photographers) by osmosis of thought, by philosophizing about abstract concepts and by framing everything we do in the form of a debate, this vs. that, or in the form of an abstract intellectual endeavor?" Amen brother.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, you asked: </p>

<p>I shoot for the print because that's the path I've been on since I was 8. It's not a "philosophic" matter.</p>

<p>My mother's print of a dirt road in hills over Palo Alto, cc 1939, hangs matted and framed in my workspace. Kodak Bantam Special <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/superban.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/superban.htm</a> , Elwood enlarger. Along with her prints of sheep in Golden Gate Park, it brought her some Bay Area recognition when she was 19, well before I was a glimmer.</p>

<p>In the early 70s I worked on some gigantic multi-projector (like 32 Ektagraphic plus a few 16mm loop) commercial shows...but gravitated to food photography (loved fussing around with seafood, wine etc...good $$). For several years I've imagined working a'la <a href="http://www.soundslides.com">www.soundslides.com</a>, which has led to some initial exploration of audio. One obstacle is that I've not been a photographic essayist.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Much of Fred's first post was about not taking pictures, I merely suggested he do more of the nuts and bolts than writing about it --he opened that door."</em></p>

<p>Lance, this is, again, offensive, and I have no passes left to give. So, until you change your approach to me . . .</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Got it, John.</p>

[elvagabundoviejo]

<p>Fred, In another forum thread, some of our friends in the PN community were taking about "keepers." You know, the photographs that really hit the mark, both in terms of intent and execution. I don't want to be obsessed with numbers in terms of photographs that are sellable, I'd rather take steps that I know will allow repeatable satisfactory results again, again, and again. I think it's like the scientific method, it's one thing to create a wonderful photograph but, it's something else entirely to be able to create two nearly-identical photographs of the same subject at two different times --not that you would want to as you said, but it's the capability and the comfort, if you will, with the method that is important. And it's important because it allows me spend time creating, or capturing good photographs instead of flipping switches because as I said in my original post, those great moments will get away.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lance, I don't let great moments get away because I prefer to make them happen. We do seem to be on the same page about experience, practice, and being prepared.</p>

[jtk]

<p>As so often in the past, I suggest we click on the names of participants in this thread to evaluate (ie legitimately arrive at our own valuations) the literal worth of posts. This isn't an "eye of beholder" game...if you think it's pleasing, it damned well is. If you think it's stressful and strange and you don't know if you "like it", the valuation is also yours.</p>

<p>Some of us are more oriented to pretty images...well and good...others struggle with more ephemeral issues, often missing their own marks. Click and arrive at your own entirely appropriate evaluations.</p>

<p>Some hold that proper focus, exposure. white balance, and "composition" add up to godliness, others say that Icarus was right to try to fly.</p>

<p>Again, click on the names. </p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Rarely do we talk about how we make and what we put into photographs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm still developing my approach to making photographs. I'm not sure that I'm ready or even capable of talking about it yet. Further, if you'll forgive me, I think I'd like to keep some of my cards close to the vest for a while. Meet me back here in five or ten years? ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You've got forums and pages full of people here on PN and elsewhere using art as an excuse.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would argue that we have forums full of people using GEAR as an excuse. That seems to be a more prevalent problem (as it most likely always has been).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In the name of art, they get away with a lack of craft.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that anyone ever "gets away" with a lack of craft. Karma spins a very patient web.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Our intellectualizing often outshines our photographs. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't feel bad. Lots of people who apparently think that they know what they're doing fall into this trap. Compare their blogs to their galleries. Truth comes through clearly at all shutter speeds.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The idea of <em>praxis</em> keeps coming back to me, the idea, that is, of a combination of theory and practice.</p>

<p>I wish that our posts to threads here kept that idea in mind, so that we could philosophize but keep it close to the central enterprise of how to become better photographers.</p>

<p>I am not trying to be imperially prescriptive in so saying, since I love the philosophical tangents and other forays into this or that topic of literary and esthetic (and even ethical) theory. I yet think that the practical value of all of them lies in how they affect our next work. In fact, I believe that there is ultimately nothing more practical than theory. When the vision has died and the reflection has ceased, we start stamping them out, shooting and printing by the numbers. That would be a sterile and moribund approach to photography, in my opinion. It might be a commercially viable approach, but it would be soul-killing for me.</p>

<p>At some point I would also like to see a thread on the workflow--but I do not mean that in the narrow technical sense so much as in the sense of the flow from idea to shooting to printing, etc. I do believe that the best and most memorable photographs, apart from certain street (and kiddie and pet) shots that no one could have anticipated in advance, are often those that show some continuity of vision throughout the entire creative process, from inception to completion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Some reflections:</p>

<ol>

<li>Photography is a craft and it isn't. Nobody cares if a craftsman/woman produces the same works. A photographer producing always "the same" pictures (<em><strong>note the quotation marks</strong></em>) is boring, at least to me. Photography is a craft in the sense that uses processes (in the highest sense of the term): the process of learning to use the tools, the process to compose, to capture motion or to stop it, to capture certain forms of light, to develop (<em>in case of film</em>), to proof (<em>again</em>), to edit and select (<em>sorting out the good ones from the bad ones</em>), the process of elaborating images (<em>I'm not so fond of it, but it's a common practice, and has been</em>), printing, framing, publishing (<em>eventually</em>).</li>

<li>Photography requires much more creativity than any craft (<em>this does not mean that craft doesn't, only that visual communication through photography requires a <strong>much higher degree of creativity</strong></em>).</li>

<li>Photography requires <strong><em>conceptualisation</em></strong>: the elements of a photograph are virtually unlimited. Some can be controlled, some are beyond control. The limit is extremely fuzzy. This make photographs very complex from their visual communication. The understanding of the whole wealth of elements of a photo, which determine their visual message, requires conceptualisation (<em>philosophical discussion?</em>). Photography can't do without philosophy, which has the purpose to try to define the conceptual categories to understand it. The understanding of photography - an <em>ex-post</em> activity - has a very important bearing on the activity of creating photographs, which is placed <em>ex-ante</em>.</li>

<li>There is an issue with the <em><strong>quantity</strong></em> of photographic production, which makes me disagree with the exhortation from Lance to Fred:</li>

</ol>

<ul>

<li>photography requires selection, which is not only indispensable after the main photographic process has been completed (when the picture is on the desk/screen). The selection has to happen <em><strong>also </strong><strong>before</strong></em> pressing the shutter. I have to decide when <em><strong>not to press</strong></em> the shutter. Not pressing the shutter is one of the <em><strong>key elements of photographic composition</strong></em> (in my view). Philosophy of photography and the concepts derived from it are absolutely necessary for the <em>ex-ante</em> and the <em>ex-post</em> selection process, which necessarily limits the amount of photos worth showing.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>"<em>going out to shoot</em>" and "<em>doing more of the nuts and bolts</em>" will not necessarily do good to photography if there is no related reasoning and conceptualisation process going along. Otherwise we would act like <em><strong>monkeys with a camera</strong></em>, who might leave the entire visual message of an image to <em><strong>mere chance</strong></em>.</li>

</ul>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Luca</strong>, I understand what you were getting at with this: "Otherwise we would act like <em><strong>monkeys with a camera</strong></em>, who might leave the entire visual message of an image to <em><strong>mere chance</strong></em>."</p>

<p> In reality, if you look at people's pictures, those who do not philosophize or care much about process, you will find non-random threads and consistency within the work. I'm not saying masterpieces or anything like that, of course, but they really aren't camera-transporting bots, either. They're people, just like us. Ok, maybe not as crazy as we are. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie,<br>

While a fascinating idea, it would also for sure be the thread with the longest answers ever. Try catching your own creative process in words... and then write it in humanly readable language. I'm sure I can't, at least not sufficiently clear and concise.</p>

<p>Luca, much agree with your reflections, with Luis' addendum as well.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, your exhortation to know when NOT to shoot is a great creative counterpoint here.</p>

<p>Reminds me of an old joke:</p>

<p><em>How many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb? Two . . . one to screw in the light bulb and one not to screw in the light bulb.</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Luca,</p>

<p>Once again, thanks for your very perceptive comments. I agree with their essence and will surely read them again as inspiration. What is very important and which you have previously mentioned, is that good photography is TOUGH. It requires a lot of thought, inspiration and much sweat. It is perhaps the paradox of photography as an art that it is one of the easiest of media to use initially, but one of the hardest to master well, requiring intellectual, craft, creative and personal concentrations that are not easily applied and combined.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Luca, I hear you saying (among other things) that truly great photography requires a great deal of thought and not just technical expertise (which is also absolutely necessary, of course--it simply is not sufficient). I could not agree more. I have not yet achieved that kind of excellence, of course.</p>

<p>Great post, as usual.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p> There is such variety in the photographic experience... on the one hand we have Lance's often and lots idea, Lannie's praxis, and many others.</p>

<p> There have been renowned photographers, who like Luca, also knew when <em>not</em> to photograph (keywords: Wei wu wei). Some did not photograph between assignments, apparently remaining idle for long periods of time, others make a relatively small number of exposures -- and print nearly everything (and no, they're not using LF). The most successful (note I did not say best) landscape photographer of our time prints in very small print sizes. Others do not work in "projects" or "series". </p>

<p> I mention this not to undermine anything that is said by anyone, but only to point out that there are many paths to this medium, all valid.</p>

<p> </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In reality, if you look at people's pictures, those who do not philosophize or care much about process, you will find non-random threads and consistency within the work. I'm not saying masterpieces or anything like that, of course, but they really aren't camera-transporting bots, either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely true. But these are rare.<br>

However, the "monkey" rhetoric was an hyperbolic one. Every photograph, even if not "thought" contains the human characters of the photographer. It was just to stress the concept.<br>

<strong>Arthur</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is perhaps the paradox of photography as an art that it is one of the easiest of media to use initially, but one of the hardest to master well, requiring intellectual, craft, creative and personal concentrations that are not easily applied and combined.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree 100%.<br>

<strong>Luis</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There have been renowned photographers, who like Luca, also knew when <em>not</em> to photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually I was thinking of "<em>pressing the shutter</em>", meaning that after spotting a scene, framing it, looking at it from different angles, I decide not to take the picture, because it's not worth. Not rather "stopping photographing". :-)<br>

<strong>Fred</strong>,<br>

do we come to terms with our own internal contradictions? :-))</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Luca, </strong>I appreciate hyperbole more than most.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_tyler]

<p><strong>Can we combine philosophy and craft? </strong><br>

I'll avoid talking around this =) and simply state "yes." (in my most humbled opinion).</p>

<p>I think that one concept that I'd like to interject is "experience". Now that I'm a little bit older, I realize that what many people think is junk (or lacking the essence of art), is "junk" because it is either unappreciated, and at other times, because they fail to realize that it's the product of a beginning/blooming/budding artist who has yet to collect enough experience to output visions that others will regard as "art".</p>

<p>Philosophy, I believe, warrant's it's weight also. While it may not make a whole lot of sense to someone in the very elementary stages of artistic development, I feel that it is important because it requires hindsight - AND - because actively engaging in the philosophy of art, can be very stimulating for creative and inspirational purposes.</p>

<p>I'll also add that certain types of art, inspire philosophic thought!</p>

<p>Thinking is good! And perhaps not all the time.<br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"because they fail to realize that it's the product of a beginning/blooming/budding artist who has yet to collect enough experience to output visions that others will regard as 'art'."</em></p>

<p>Matt, I just looked at your bio and you haven't said much on PN but what you've said here is really important, insightful, and likely worth an entire thread in itself.</p>

<p>Potential. Unrefined or inexperienced, there can still be "budding" skill and vision. It does take a lot of experience to recognize that in others and in beginners. It means sometimes setting aside our own tastes and prejudices. It also takes willingness.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[matthew_tyler]

<p>Hi Fred! Many thanks for the kind words. I have been familiar with PN for quite some time. I haven't had the time until recently to spend time interacting on message boards, and I discovered this lovely site while searching for techniques and reviews a few years back.</p>

<p>Your post really hit home with me, because it is a concept that I frequently questioned within my photography and music. All to often, I realized that my judgement of others extended to myself as well.</p>

<p>Today, I always try to view myself in "the third person", and try to reveal what elements of my own creative process are "new and budding". In the past, I have suppressed many of my own concepts and ideas because I felt they didn't conform with once learned standards.</p>

<p>Tonight, for example - I am throwing away everything I've learned about lighting. I'm in the process of creating a speed light accessory that serves as a "beauty dish". Brass colored spray paint ($2/Kmart/ten years ago), dollar store plastic containers ($2), a few bolts (garage), and a razor-blade (toolbox). More often than not, I've found myself awe-struck by the creations of my photographic-peers. If I saw how they obtained their results (prior to seeing the image), I would swear to them they had it all wrong =) </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Very good points, Matt. Especially the bit, "it's the product of a beginning/blooming/budding." That reminds me of an analogy that philosopher Gilles Deleuze likes to make (though not quite in this context). He's talking about how embryonic development can only be observed, not experienced by the adult:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"In themselves, they are lived by the individual-embryo in its field of individuation. Furthermore [... ] they can only be lived, and lived only by the individual-embryo: there are 'things' that only an embryo can do, movements that it alone can undertake or even whithstand (for example, the anterior member of the tortoise undergoes a relative displacement of 180 degrees, while the neck involves the forward slippage of a variable number of proto-vertebrae). The destiny and achievement of the embryo is to live the unliveable, to sustain forced movements of a scope which would break any skeleton or tear ligaments."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that is true for the physical, it need not be true for the intellectual. One can choose -- deliberately, intentionally -- to keep growing, keep developing even if it entails, metaphorically, "forced movements of a scope which would break any skeleton or tear ligaments." Creative destruction.</p>