What and How Have You Learned to See?

[inoneeye]

<p>Luis "<em>And if anyone here actually did, I'd love to hear it</em>." why? "<em>who bet their farm, gave up comfort, financial security, family, safety, decades of their lives, marriages, etc for their photography</em>" I did, am. Assuming that the farm is a metaphor and just one marriage (so far), I have done just that ... word for word. What do you want to know? That is part of how I learned to see ... it is how i live, it impacts nearly every aspect of my life. It would be simpler to tell you what it does not iimpact if I could think of it...</p>

<p>I have also experienced how dramatically Fred's life has been infected by his dedication, passion for learning and doing the last 5 years. The irony is that he used to give me heat for the sacrifice of comfort I made. </p>

<p>Fred "<em>Were we to make an issue of our sacrifice and/or suffering, I can imagine we'd be nailed to the cross in this forum!</em>" 8-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I like the way you talked about seeing things as they are not. I know what you mean and yet I always have a hard time talking about it. That's because I vacillate between feeling as if I'm seeing things as they are not and actually seeing them as I see them and as they are for me. Seeing them as they are not seems to imply to me that there is a way it <em>really</em> is aside from the way I have seen it. I question that. My seeing it (in a different way than another would see it or photograph it, perhaps with blur, perhaps with excited color, perhaps with exaggerated scale relationships) is its own reality. And I tend not to compare it anymore to a standard of Fred seeing that is, shall I say, more tame, more expected, more in line. It actually is often what and how I see now. Even before photographing, some of my more "exploratory" experiences of the 70s have caused me to see differently to this day. What is NOT there is at least part of my experienced visual grammar and vocabulary. The NOT has, at least to some extent and on more and more occasions, become the IS. </p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, I commented on a sudden shift from edge/corner concerns (tight visual framing) to conceptual framing (ie frame of reference), and I speculated as to the reason. Need I ask a panel of wannabe moderators for permission to make such observations? </p>

<p>No, I distinctly wasn't pronouncing judgements on others...there was a dramatic shift and I thought it interesting and "telling." <strong>I specifically pointed out that I have the same issue (or weakness</strong>): tendency to obsess on detail, thereby missing significance. </p>

<p>Like many, I sometimes almost-intentionally distract myself from what I actually know to be most important (most significant) through that very compositional/edge-corner "frame" concern. </p>

<p> I especially wanted to point out that many of the photos we (I) esteem are remembered without whatever's in the corners and edges...which may suggest that <strong>memory prioritizes what's most significant. </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Phylo,</strong> "intellectual-sounding" was a reference to convoluted, florid writing used to discuss common, relatively mundane ideas (re "frame"). </p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>[Left my reading glasses @ home, can't see a thing. If it wasn't for the red underlining of the spell check, I'd be butchering this wholesale]</p>

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>In either case, you are excluded rather comfortably from those 99%, not having any pictures here on photo.net, to judge that comparison from...Which is not a crime I know, but :"</p>

<p>No, Phylo, you misunderstand: There's no comfort for the wicked. I will happily exclude myself from that 1%. I have never made any pretentious claims about my own work, know enough about art and history to have any illusions about it.</p>

<p>When I run across work that I see as truly extraordinary, my ccomments will reflect it. This is not to say that there isn't above-average, innovative good quality work in the PoP ranks. world-Cclass work is something else entirely.</p>

<p>I manage to get into enough trouble here as it is, so no names and after a recent incident, no reviews.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>as if it isn't, why would it need be a review? I thought it was about how we learn and the introduction of dedication or sacrifice.<br /> Luis "<em>It was a serious question</em> ... "</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong><em>"And if anyone here actually did, I'd love to hear it."</em></p>

<p>Cool. Many of us let our photos do a lot of the talking"</p>

<p>Tres cool. I go by that criterion, I'm sorry to report that I am not seeing anything that comes <em>close</em> (in the context of its own time) to what Avedon, Weston, Goldin (whom I do not put at the same level of the others mentioned) and Frank did in their time. How I would love to discover any unknown of that caliber here.</p>

<p>Not that it really matters to anyone but the egomaniacs, because all you are capable of doing at a given moment is more or less a fixed given. All we can do is the best we can.</p>

<p>But your mileage obviously vaires, and if you really think you are at that level right now, there are galleries in any major city in the US and Europe you could walk into and be recognized. No respectable gallery owner would let anyone of that caliber slip through their hands undiscovered.</p>

<p>Crucifixions on the PoP? We have no shortage of Crucifiers or wanna-be Jesuses (Or is it Geeziii?)</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"The NOT has, at least to some extent and on more and more occasions, become the IS"</p>

<p>Fred, I am glad that you also see that way. It has been a favourite part of my growth process in life, as well as seeing in photography. I think we learn to see better when we learn to question what we see better. It's only one way of learning to see, but an effective one.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>My response about seeing in 1 degree cones was not related to the nature of your response to Anders about frames, but to how we can learn to see by that obligatory fragmentary seeing function. I directed my observation to you as I assumed that you might be interested in that additional aspect of how we see and how it influences the way we see, just as I am interested in knowing if others have similar or different experiences in learning to see as my few personal ways of seeing that I mentioned in my initial response above. I welcome discussions based upon the continuing development and modification of ideas between the p participants."<br>

Arthur, the flak around here gets pretty dense, so please forgive me for assuming a defensive posture. I should wait until I get back to my glasses to give this post its proper due. You're right: It does interest me.</p>

<p><a name="00X5hK"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1979506">J</a></p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Luis you asked I answered and it is perceived as crucifixion..? Once again we butt heads and for what? Without your help I can only project the why. and that leads me nowhere I care to be.<br /> It is clear (sorry I changed this lead in) I made no claims or comparisons about the quality/placement of my own work and I was not asked. The answer there might surprise you but this is not the place for it. You're backhanded (almost frontal assault) is out of place here.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Josh - "</strong>as if it isn't, why would it need be a review? I thought it was about how we learn and the introduction of dedication or sacrifice.""</p>

<p> It's called thread drift. I do not think I used the word "review". I used "comment". </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Luis theorized about the origin of rectangular "frames" :<br>

<br /><em>"Most of us were born through a er...frame. .. in a rectangular room. We were handed to our mothers swaddled in a rectangular or square blanket. Our mothers held us in a rectangular bed. We stared at a rectangular ceiling. People entered and left the room through a door <strong>frame. </strong>And that was just the first DAY."<strong><br /></strong></em><br /><em>"Our world, as seen through our eyes, is framed in a butterfly pattern. As children, we watched TV in a rectangular frame. Looked out into the world through window frames. Most of us live in cities, and if one refers to either Anders' or Phylo's pictures, we are seeing a patchwork quilt of stitched subframes. That's how we learned to see in frames."</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p><strong>Predictably</strong>, I don't agree that we see "in frames," particularly not in rectangular, and certainly not in Luis's "butterfly" frames (which may have to do with "no-line" bifocals :-)</p>

<p>We construct continually evolving visual panoramas of varying momentary shapes depending on the situation, we see blurs, infants see nipples and breasts.</p>

<p>Neither TV nor windows nor cities, nor the photography of any of us (Anders, Phylo, myself) are a "patchwork quilt of stitched subframes." Those are their own specific phenomena, together they are simply groups of rectangles in the midst of all sorts of other shapes...they do not reflect any native way of seeing, they simply represent convenient standard formats.</p>

<p>btw, yes, in my part of the world we are born through the "..a er.." frame Luis mentioned, but it isn't rectangular. Perhaps he was joking... or maybe women are built differently in his part of the world :-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Josh - :</strong>Luis you asked I answered and it is perceived as crucifixion..? Once again we butt heads and for what? Without your help I can only project the why. and that leads me nowhere I care to be.<br /> It is clear (sorry I changed this lead in) I made no claims or comparisons about the quality/placement of my own work and I was not asked. The answer there might surprise you but this is not the place for it. You're backhanded (almost frontal assault) is out of place here."</p>

<p> I edited out the part you;'re referring to as you typed the above. It was in response to another post of yours, which I have responded to indeoendently. I was addressing Fred's post with the crucifixion reference. I have no interest whatsoever in butting head with you. The why? Here Julie stereotyped me as a "What" kind of guy</p>

<p>. There was no frontal or other assault intended. If the Mods agree with you, I am certain I'll hear about itl.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I especially wanted to point out that many of the photos we (I) esteem are remembered without whatever's in the corners and edges</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might be right, John, on that, but still, when discussing frames it might be relevant to mention that some photographers seem to use the extreme of the frame for some good purpose.</p>

<p>Go to Harry Callahan and his pictures of the 70's from Cape Cod: <a href="http://www.richcutler.co.uk/photo/images/essay_01-4.jpg">here</a>, <a href="http://williamgeddes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/capecod2.jpg">here</a> or to a lesser degree this one <a href="http://jasonlandry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/harry-callahan.jpg">here</a>.<br /> Of course not all of Callahan photos use the border to create the "dynamics" of the scene. <a href="http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/macgill-ny-courtesy-museum-of-fine-arts-boston3.jpg">Here</a> is one, with nothing what so ever on the border of the frame, which probably is the force of that particular shot.<br>

You could also look at <a href="http://noravr.blog.lemonde.fr/files/sergio_larrain_1_valparaso_1957_2.jpg">this</a> photo of Sergio Larrain from Valparaso, which uses the same means at the border.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, of course you're right that some photographers use the extremes of frames for good purpose...most of us probably do, at least occasionally. </p>

<p>Photographers who use totally defocused or black or white or otherwise featureless backgrounds do position a subject somewhere, even that frame...yes. On the other hand, their work doesn't depend on our examination of corners and edges any more than Shakespeare's work asks for that. Hamlet could declaim from the center or off to the side for various effects...maybe that'd be significant or maybe it'd just be a director's vanity.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Arthur " I think we learn to see better when we learn to question what we see better. " I enjoy posing questions in my photos but perhaps learn even more by others images that pose,suggest questions to me or at its best works that have me just ask my own question. Questioning has always been a solid technique for me to learn. Even if that seems obvious I found I had to train myself to see works ... and life as you point out, in that way.</p>

<p>I have been following loosely the recent PoP forums. Taste, learning, viewers experience, when is it good yada. I don't recall coming across the aging factor explored. May be wrong...? as i read these forums for me many brought to my mind my aging process as a hugely influential factor. My taste has been in near constant flux throughout my life. What I thought was great 20-30 years ago now has little or less than 0 value to me. Normal right...? a very small handful has endured. Then at different milestones in my life - minor and major - I will respond to images under the influence of what is going on for me. baggage and all.<br>

So images good or bad that tweak the right buttons (i have many buttons) can become useful for me. But even through this personal vail I have learned to see and recognize good even great work that is not to my taste. That ability opens the gates to potential for me to tap. I study in my fashion good work that I would not care to make but in doing so I have a larger vocabulary to work with.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>No need for moderation Luis...yet 8-). we'll just move on.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>In this picture I framed ( released the shutter, framing or working with the edge has often as much to do with timing ) for the right lower corner / edge. Already had the Jesus statue in the middle, and then hit the shutter as soon as the man walked in, I anticipated he was going to walk in there, without him there wouldn't be an image. It created an "X" and a "triangle".</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>What about <em>semiology</em>, and learning / unlearning to see.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, yes. I barely grasp the idea, if at all. Perhaps you could expand on your understanding.</p>

<p>...how does semiotics, the word/concept, relate to "leaning/unlearning to see"? </p>

<p> I think of semiotics in relation to "<em>finding meaning,</em>" which relates to my concern about "significance" rather than "seeing."</p>

<p>Here's one person's expositon: <a href="http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html">http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html</a></p>

[luis_g]

<p> Phylo, I am Jonesing for Chicago from seeing your photos. Looks like you got some good pictures. I've stood right where you stood for both of those.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Tending to particular areas of the frame, like the edges/corners/center/etc is a perfectly OK thing for anyone to do and/or learn.</p>

<p>Seeing the <em>whole</em> frame is, in my experience, the thing, and I don't mean that in an egalitarian manner. Some pictures are naturally weighed one way or another. One way I taught to learn this is to set the camera (and a zoom lens) on a tripod, frame a picture, and make your exposure(s). Now, zoom out, and make another exposure. When you get home, compare the deliberately framed one with the wider one, and try alternate crops of the same view. The differences will tell you something about how the edges were being managed.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>how does semiotics, the word/concept, relate to "leaning/unlearning to see"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In simple photographic terms, it could mean learning to see beyond the symbol / sign we ( automatically ) may assign to a pictures content or to the picture as a whole. <a href="../photo/10498471&size=lg">This picture</a> of yours is besides its literal content of *signs* also a sign/symbol as a whole, but can also be seen as an abstraction, a <em>scheme</em>, of shades of black and gray. Without it being an abstract.<br>

Or, in a photography context, the term could mean, seeing ( not "unseeing" ) the semiology and identity of a time and place and translating it into the visual.<br>

Again, from <em>Refractions </em>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Every culture evolves its own unigue semiology, its own system of signs and glyphs. It can be the language, music, or entirely visual stimuli that show me the way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is subjective I think for every photographer, in the way he/she can see and translate this semiology into something visual, into an image. I photograph differently in different places, or differently put, let the places speak through the photographs. Like below image from Sicily, which <em>to me </em>was a visual translation to that specific sense of place, with its ingrained Italian identity. It doesn't necessarily shows where its made, but I couldn't make this kind of image in Belgium in a natural manner, which to me has a more dark, greyer, surrealist melancholy pull and fix to it, as a photographic place.<br>

I think Arthur also spoke in the past about the *semiology* of his Quebec, Canada and how it translates to his photographs. It's this kinda *photographic semiology* that I was thinking about, one of time and place, rather than <a href="http://dbanach.com/course/mod/resource/view.php?inpopup=true&id=120">an ant crawling in the sand</a>., which in the end is more about words than images.<br>

I think one learns to see everytime one visits a new place, or remembers and comes across an old one.</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, I am Jonesing for Chicago from seeing your photos. Looks like you got some good pictures. I've stood right where you stood for both of those.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the two in my portfolio ? I returned with some good pictures, still lots to process. I <em>loved</em> Chicago. Was there for only 4 days but will definitely go back. Memories. Next stop will be *somewhere* in the state Maine, some small town there I guess, which I suspect will also have its own ( photographic ) pull and whisper to it.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, thanks. I will invest some thought in this. I do agree with your analyses of my photo...actually felt some guilt about overt use of the words and intentional grafitti-art, but it was so well done, and the tones were interesting...so I yeilded.</p>

<p>Let me commend you for writing with such directness and clarity... the concept is as complex and nuanced as anything we've seen on this Forum, almost always burdened by hundreds of words, dozens of commas...garbled by continual backing and filling :-)</p>

<p>I'm a novel-reader, have a hard time with philosophy but do OK with psychology and science generally.</p>

<p>Scientists don't wrestle with verbage-approximations-of-idea to the extent philosophers do...instead they devise hypotheses, design experiments and test them. Perhaps that makes them like some novelists, who instead of refining plot, devise characters and see how they work when they're turned loose. The virtual people novelists create sometimes belabor philosophy as stand-ins for the author or reader.</p>

<p><em>"...image from Sicily... I couldn't make this kind of image in Belgium in a natural manner, which to me has a more dark, greyer, surrealist melancholy pull and fix to it..."</em> -- Phylo D.<br />Well, the light's different, the language is different, the culture's different, and the cuisine's different. Other than that... :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>Another way I have learned to see is to seek out and isolate irregular or even absurd subject matter, again often in the form of details, that I feel can challenge our sense of what is a normal, or what is a generally chosen photographic depiction of that type of matter.<strong>"</strong></p>

<p> We're on the same track on the above. This is part of what I was referring to when I brought up my exploration of the signifiers of photographic art. <strong><br /></strong></p>

 

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>Our vision is also highly directional (I think that the eye sees most clearly in a 1 degree spot, or something like that) and we are consequently forced to scan scenes, faces, or images, to take in all their parts. I think I am becoming more interested in that scanning function in regard to learning how to see and create an image. It is a good thing, as we are obliged to scan a subject in perceiving it and in analysing how or what we wish to photograph."</p>

<p> The eye automatically moves in its own autonomic rapid native scans. These are called <em>saccades, </em>and they come in two flavors. The major ones can be seen with the naked eye, the minor ones are too quick and tiny to be discernable without instrumentation. Analysis occurs much later, after the photons reaching the retina are transduced into electrochemical signals that travel through the optic nerve and into the brain.</p>

 

<p><a name="00X5fl"></a></p>