What and How Have You Learned to See?

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, I find it hard to (both understand and) apply to photographic learning and approach what Pulham is discussing, because if I read his thesis right he is not so much supporting semiology as questioning the appropriateness of any constructs that attempt to relate the physical world with the photograph, design or written text about it. I no doubt need to re-read the text, I had tried to struggle through it once before (not being a philosopher, or so trained), but lost track about 3/4s of the way down the text.</p>

<p>On your interesting aspect of, and learning of, semiology and our local society and culture, I acknowledge that the way we make images is connected with our specific cultural baggage, but I think that the picture itself may or may not relate to those references, except in certain cases. While the Silicilian dress was perhaps photographed by you with relation or reference to your culture of Holland, as opposed to that of a photographer from Sicily, I am not sure that the image evokes a Dutch view of Sicily. It is certainly convincing and evocative of a Mediterranean (or even a possible Caribbean) atmosphere - accepting John's reservation of that representation as it can be argued that you could perhaps produce a fairly similar image in Rotterdam or Delft, given a colorful clothesline and light colored building (without identifying gables) - but I don't see it particularly having the imprint of someone from northern Europe. Not like your more intimate images of doorways and windows in a small Dutch village. Perhaps the opposite would also be true, of a Sicilian photographing bicycle riders or canals in Amsterdam or Delft. We possibly transpose ourselves effectively when we photograph in a foreign place, adopting quickly the atmosphere of the place visited. Perhaps the semiology operates best when an American is photographing an iconic American festival or place, or a Dutch person is photographing an event or place in Holland. The references and the representations are possibly much more closely linked in those cases. Maybe this doesn't make much sense, but it does relate to what and how we learn to see, and the effect of semiology.</p>

<p>Luis, your description of the automation of our viewing, with the handicap of a very tunnel vision, is interesting, and I did not know it worked at both a conscious and unconscious level. As the conscious one seems to be the more extended sweeping one, it does imply I think a certain choice in where we arrest our eye, if only briefly, and the exclusion of all else at that particular time. Like an instant in the space of time, it is a fragment in the overall vision. I think I have learned to decompose or disassociate a whole image while photographing it and choosing a part of it that becomes the raison d'etre of my intention to photograph. Iam not usually successful at it, but it is a process, nonetheless. Another person may view the same scene and choose a different element or aspect to highlight. Cause and effect might suggest though that this has nothing to do with the learning of the way the eye works, or that it works in such a blinkered way, but has more to do with the culture, mood, curiosity (empathy with the thing being photographed), or intentionality of the photographer. I would think that the latter set predominates, with the possible exception of perhaps the presence of other (psychological, brain-programmed) forces that make our furtive glance arrest at a specific point.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"The eye automatically moves in its own autonomic rapid native scans."</em> </p>

<p>More obviously importantly to photography (IMO), <strong>the eye is <em>directed</em> by curiosity and intentionality. </strong> Those are of course unpopularly recognized as they imply that some actual human occupies the skull in question.</p>

<p>Among phenomena as minor as "saccades" (and "optical nystagmus" a similar behavior) are "phosphenes,' little spots of light that seem emulated sometimes by digital over-sharpening...known well to physiological (perceptual) psychologists, ignored generally by opthamologists. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, what I hear you saying is that one sees within a context and also that context determines what and how one sees and photographs. Perhaps "determines" is too strong. That context "allows" one to see and photograph as one does. I think recognizing that state of affairs allows me to transcend it to some extent. I then wind up dealing with the tension between being tied to some context while simultaneously affecting that context, thereby influencing and changing it. It's always seemed to me that semiotics recognizes both the limit and freedom inherent in signs, symbols, and contexts. They are like shifting, ever-cracking foundations. They provide a footing but can also cause us to lose that footing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I also appreciate your idea of questioning what we see, for sure. It's hard to learn without asking questions and it's hard to really see without some sense of curiosity, even intrigue.</p>

<p>I hope you'll expand on your thoughts about photographing people.</p>

<p>I get much more out of people's <em>actions</em> than their accomplishments. Accomplishments often seem to me like resumés, a flat listing. One accomplishes things like getting a certain grade, reaching a certain level of school, fulfilling certain goals. I find actions much more telling and much more evocative of mood. Action is an important part of freedom, choice, and morality, all very human. Accomplishment can be fairly barren and also deceptive. One can graduate college, a hollow accomplishment if it's not accompanied by individual academic actions that have some sort of significance. One can accomplish 50 years of a loveless marriage. It is the actions within the marriage that will tell me what I want to know about the individual involved.</p>

<p>Photographing actions, which require some degree of gesture, can be very dynamic and very much alive when people are photographed as more than mere things. I don't think a specific or non-ambiguous human story has to be told in order to provide something human and telling.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Keeping it on the ground and without intellectualizing the subject, I have often observed that certain places make me see without limits and other places seem to close my photographical eye. I normally explain such phenomena by the fact (?) that certain places have obviously (?) a soul (Paris, Barcelona, Hong Kong, Tokyo...) other places are without because they have never had or because it has been destroyed by wars, town planning etc.</p>

<p>I also believe that the photographical eye we are talking about is heavily culturally biased. No because of the influence of the place we are shooting but because of the cultural bias of personal history, education, affinities and common surroundings. The great differences between European, US, japanese photography for example are in my mind a clear reminder of this phenomenon that we normally do not manage to get to grips with here on PN. </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Photographing actions, which require some degree of gesture, can be very dynamic and very much alive when people are photographed as more than mere things.<strong>"</strong></p>

<p> Would you consider photographing a statically posed subject, perhaps in a frozen gesture, photographing 'action'? Can things be photographed as more than mere things? <strong><br /></strong></p>

[Julie H]

<p>I want to add a little bit to something Anders and John were talking about yesterday. Anders quoted John thus:</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>Anders used several Harry Callahan photos to show how the frame is "full" even when it's "empty." I just want to amplify what I think Anders was getting at. A gorgeous gradient "empty" space is not emtpy in a photograph. It's like the space between the notes -- the silence that is necessarily part of the music. Such silences are not usually noticed unless they are very long, or as in the Callahan, used so expressively, but they are no less important to the structure of the whole than is/are the notes of the central melody.</p>

<p>A silence in music is not a good time to cough or check your messages and the space that's not the "main thing" in a photograph is not a good place to leave a bunch of junk or a sky that looks like a disease.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>In my view people do not have to act, make gestures or faces to become human and interesting on a photo. Nothing is more recognizable for all viewers than humans. They would never just become "things" in the eyes of the viewer. They might be treated as things (alienation) and that might be the message of many street photographies or nature scenes. However it is exactly because the viewer knows that humans are not "things" that such photos can have strength and "burn" as Julie so well has formulated it. I think we all have examples of such photos in our portfolios.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[<em>Warning:</em> nudity and opinion in the following post.]</p>

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=193360">people photographed as things and viewed as things.</a> (A giveaway is self-describing these nudes as "artistic" in the folder title, a word often used as an excuse, in this case for erections.)</p>

<p>I agree with Anders that people do not have to act, make gestures or faces to be human and interesting in a photo. I talked about action to make the most obvious example I could think of in response to Arthur's thoughts about photographing humans.</p>

<p>I disagree with you, Anders, that people never become things in people's eyes. People become things in others' eyes (both in photographs and not in photographs) all the time. Some nude "studies" of people make them things and I love some of those photos. I don't mind people being made into things with awareness. But they can also be made into things unconsciously or with malice or under pretense of "art" and that can be dicey.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, yes, things can be photographed as more than mere things. Weston's pepper simultaneously is "thingy" and transcends its "thing-ness". It is a pepper extraordinaire and a beguiling photograph of a pepper. The latter part of that description is one of the ways in which it transcends. The light and shape, and the gesture of the photographer, are aids toward transcendence. The focus of attention on the pepper is transcending.</p>

<p>As for the question about a statically-posed gesture, for me there's a difference between gesture and action. My choosing "action" in order to respond to Arthur's hesitation about what photographs of humans can be and his belief that what we accomplish (among other things) "defines" us was, again, meant to make my point as obvious as possible, though I believe many other things suggest humanity in a photograph, including gesture, both photographer's and subject's. Gesture <em>suggests</em> action, IMO, more than it <em>is</em> action. <a href="http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID983/slideshows/100214083038stieglitz_georgia_okeeffe_a_portrait_1918.jpg">Static poses can be very dynamic when photographed and certainly can suggest humanity.</a> There are, of course, also active gestures, but I wouldn't think of those as static poses.</p>

<p>I've said before, and it's worth repeating here, that what we look like and what's on the surface is also very human. I don't think we always have to dig "deep" to find humanity. There is humanity in persona, mask, skin texture, clothing chosen (usually an action performed freely), etc. I can <em>see</em> humanity. I can show and be shown it. I don't have to be told about it.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>This is for <strong>Josh</strong> and a little bit for <strong>Fred</strong> (I'm worried about you!), in response to <strong>Luis</strong>'s bit, "Although everyone here <em>talks </em>good game, who bet their farm, gave up comfort, financial security, family, safety, decades of their lives, marriages... "</p>

<p>... that completely misses the point. Casanova, Don Juan, Romeo, [fill in your local favorite lady-killer or man-killer] became Casanova, Don Juan, Romeo [or your local favorite] by giving up "comfort, financial security, family, safety, decades of their lives, marriages ..." but I don't hear them complaining. ("All those tango lessons!", "The cost, the pain of those hair-implants!" ...) </p>

<p>Doing what you love is not a sacrifice or a hardship. It's not "talking a good game."</p>

<p>[i, on the other hand, lie in bed all day in my pink chiffon nightie eating bon-bons. Sometimes I poilish my toenails, but that's <em>so</em> exhausting ...]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, no need to worry, but thanks!</p>

<p>People sacrifice without complaining about it all the time. Rest assured, there have been no complaints from Josh and you'll hear none from me.</p>

<p>There is a kind of tension wrapped up in the idea of sacrifice. That tension is described in one of the on-line definitions of "sacrifice": <em>"selfless good deeds for others or a loss in return for a greater gain."</em> Losses that yield greater goods are still very much losses, especially to the one losing something.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred, to a great degree I agree with you, people on photos are often treated as things - maybe even mostly. This is exactly what alienation is all about. The good news is however that to a great degree people treated like things by photographers are viewed as real human beings by viewers. Not necessarily individuals with private life, history and feeling but as archetypes of humans acting in a social world.<br>

<br /> I can make a photo of what some would call street theatre, treating people like actor in a show they are not themselves aware. The viewer would probably, if I succeed, see it as people doing their private business. Here is one on two levels.</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, I find it hard to (both understand and) apply to photographic learning and approach what Pulham is discussing - Arthur</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too, while interesting and stimulating, I simply pointed to it in line of John's own link on the topic of semiology / symbols / signs. But I was rather using semiology here as it can be used from the "straightforward" photographer's point of view, as it's being used in R.G's <a href="http://www.steidlville.com/books/213-Refractions.html">Refractions</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the Silicilian dress was perhaps photographed by you with relation or reference to your culture of Holland, as opposed to that of a photographer from Sicily, I am not sure that the image evokes a Dutch view of Sicily.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not was I meant in showing it and / or talking about its semiology, for it to evoke a <em>Dutch view</em> of Sicily, I meant for the images ( plural as it belongs to a series ) to evoke a view and feel of the place I was in, which was Sicily and Palermo specifically, with its own semiology and symbology attached to it. I opened up ( with succes or not ) to let that semiology speak through the photographs, instead of marking my own use of symbology on it. Which is not to say that I wasn't seeing and photographing from my own personal perspective. But this is not a Belgium photograph for example, even if it <em>was</em> made in Belgium, it wouldn't belong being made there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, what I hear you saying is that one sees within a context and also that context determines what and how one sees and photographs. Perhaps "determines" is too strong. That context "allows" one to see and photograph as one does. - Fred</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's the allowing to see and provide <em>a context</em> even while we are being determined to see within nothing but our own context. <br /> ----------<br /> ( Arthur, I'm not from Holland but from Belgium, they are close but yet world's apart ! )</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo,</p>

<p>Please excuse my confusion about your home country. If I had read more carefully your interesting post, it should have been obvious. I once visited both Belgium and Holland, was impressed by both, and appreciate their individual uniqueness. It appears I also missed your point about your type of seeing in respect of your Sicilian image (which I find quite fresh, and I share the interest for the type of seeing you have learned to do, with your attention to details as key elements in making an image). Making that image in Belgium would be quite a bit more difficult, as you say. In a related context, I wonder though what most often influences our seeing, the adopting of the 'aura' or atmosphere that the subject and place communicates to us, or the infusing of our own cultural experience into the image? Of course, that will vary between individuals and it is probably more difficult to infuse one's cultural experience or signature into an image of a foreign place, although our specific style (that more apparent part of our signature) of the photographer might be more readily evident in the image.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I do not photograph people with the quality of approach and attention to them as you do so well. Perhaps introducing to a portrait their accomplishments does not support a human portrait too well, as it always seemed to me a bit gratuitous as a method to see a sportsman photographed beside his medals or racing bicycle or kayak. It is a sometimes too evident connection. Going deeper than that is not easy, unless one can place the subject in a context that mirrors some quality related to his or her accomplishments. I can imagine a tennis player or gymnast being photographed while walking along the top of a board fence, or at the edge of some natural or man-made precipice. But again, that doesn't really get into the human, it only makes some superficial association, however relevant. I think that perhaps the image background or the context in which the portrait is made can perhaps serve to describe the individual, as you have done in several of your images. I personally went through a very questioning period (one of many) about 15-20 years ago and took a few photographs of myself (shadows) and friends (multiple exposures with background references) at that time which may show some of the feelings I reserved then for myself (somewhat universal issues of "alone in the world" and "direction") and others. I will upload them sometime this week and either reference them to your OT or put them in the "request a critique" space and let you know. I think this OT on seeing is very useful.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>BTW, Anders</strong>, you really are good with that social world theme in your photographs. There's an unsentimental, uplifting quality to it, of what we are and can be. Reminds me of some Berenice Abbott and Renee Burri.<br>

____________________________</p>

<p> <strong>Julie...</strong> what I said yesterday wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. Fred needs no defense <em>because he was not attacked.</em> My post was not about him. Who bound the idea of sacrifice to <em>complaining</em>? Read back, because *I* didn't, so please do not ascribe it to me. I openly asked about sacrifice. I did not equate an answer to "complaining".</p>

<p>For the record, I've <em>never </em>spoken of sacrifice in regard to myself here.</p>

<p>It all goes back to the still open question about how does one get from fambly snap to Weston, Goldin, Frank and Avedon. Hard work is not enough. Recipes and guidebooks will not do. Technical perfection is not required (besides Avedon, none of the others were/are technical prodigies). No maps, roads or trail markers. All we have is the history of how these photographers did it (and it is filled with lacunae, at that).</p>

<p>My answer, and there are many, was that one gets there primarily via personal transformation (and honed talent, and many other things that just because they're not being mentioned are not being denied). Apparently, no one else here agrees ( Julie's endless stream of insightful and incisive quotes allude to it constantly) and that's fine.</p>

<p> [ And as with everything else in life, there are glaring exceptions. Bill Brandt was a trust-fund baby, lived quite well, never had to worry about a job or the rent check, and with very few exceptions, <em>did not photograph between assignments.</em>]</p>

<p><strong>Julie- </strong>[i, on the other hand, lie in bed all day in my pink chiffon nightie eating bon-bons. Sometimes I poilish my toenails, but that's <em>so</em> exhausting ...]</p>

<p> I only eat baby food nowadays. Trust me on this: Outsource the toenail polish, it's too much of a sacrifice.</p>

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

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>as it always seemed to me a bit gratuitous as a method to see a sportsman photographed beside his medals or racing bicycle or kayak. It is a sometimes too evident connection. Going deeper than that is not easy, unless one can place the subject in <strong>a context that mirrors some quality related to his or her accomplishments.</strong> - Arthur</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I find this Friedlander'esque <a href="http://www.witzenhausengallery.nl/images/works/work_1604.jpg">picture</a> of Lance Armstrong by Anton Corbijn to be doing, mirroring speed / peak, with the element of the tree "growing out of his head" to be mimicking the pointed aerodynamic form of a time trial helmet. If not that literal, the composition / placement of elements somehow does mirror the sports character of the subject pretty well I think, <em>focused towards a point</em>.<br /> Of course, part of it in this case is knowing who the subject is.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>That's what I find this Friedlander'esque <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.witzenhausengallery.nl/images/works/work_1604.jpg" target="_blank">picture</a> of Lance Armstrong by Anton Corbijn to be doing, mirroring speed / peak, with the element of the tree "growing out of his head" to be mimicking the pointed aerodynamic form of a time trial helmet. If not that literal, the composition / placement of elements somehow does mirror the sports character of the subject pretty well I think, focused towards a point."</p>

<p>I saw the pointy tree behind Armstrong as more of either a wizard's hat, or a metaphor for a pinnacle. The smaller dead trees over to the left of his head as a sign of the end of a miraculously long and distinguished career. The nubbins of architecture behind him look like mausoleums to me. I see it as a premature eulogy for his halo days.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"My answer, and there are many, was that one gets there primarily via personal transformation"</em> <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p>Actually, Luis, your answer, as far as you stated it in this thread, was:</p>

<p><em>"They developed, cultivated and individuated themselves along the way to a degree that is hard to grasp. They sacrificed . . ."</em></p>

<p>And you added to "sacrificed", importantly:</p>

<p><em>"what most of us here never have."</em></p>

<p>An assumption such as this, especially a false one, served to emphasize the sacrifice part and allowed me to negate other considerations you might have had in mind but didn't specify. It also read to me as a challenge (not to me personally but to the group).</p>

<p>It seemed even more of a particular type of challenge when you said:</p>

<p><em>"everyone here talks good game"</em></p>

<p>I think what it takes to go from snap-shooter to Weston is also: intention (one wants to get to that level, though some who don't even think about it get there any way), talent, luck, an innate gift. It depends if we're talking about getting to the level of photographer they are or getting the recognition they did. To get recognition it's often about timing, who you know, the circles you travel in, personality, etc. To get as good photographically, it would take as compelling a vision as they had and their ability to express that vision with camera and post processing tools.</p>

<p>Personally, I'll be happy with a vision and a coherent body of work and also with a few people asking me to create a portrait for them. I'm not competing with Avedon. I'll be happy with a continually-evolving Fred.</p>

<p>I wanted to address this because you've brought it up a couple of times and didn't want to seem like I was "ignoring" it. You asked me a few questions about seeing which I answered and I'm wondering if there was anything further about those issues that might still be pursued, especially regarding the visually telling aspects of action, pose, and gesture, <em>how</em> we see and show them and <em>what</em> we actually see and show with them.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Luis, yes, a good reading of the background, etc. I do think the photographers main intention ( what Corbijn *saw* ) was placing Armstrong in front of that specific tree, "regardless" of background. The tree being then an aerodynamic continuation ( *speed* ) of Armstrongs body, head and shoulders, towards a *peak*.<br /> Here's a very different <a href="http://www.artrabbit.com/images/dataobjects/images/_348.jpg">portrait</a> ( Stephan Vanfleteren ) of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Merckx">Eddy Merckx</a>, another, uhm, *accomplished* cyclist / sportsman. He's photographed in his old shirt, calling back to the days of glory but without portraying / photographing him any less glorious.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>"[ And as with everything else in life, there are glaring exceptions. Bill Brandt was a trust-fund baby, lived quite well, never had to worry about a job or the rent check, and with very few exceptions, <em>did not photograph between assignments.</em>]" --Luis G</strong></p>

<p>Luis, I think highly of Brandt's work, hadn't been curious about his finances (like HCB's?).</p>

<p>How are Brandt's (or HCB's similar) finances relevant, in your estimation, to his work? A case could be made, undoubtedly (but not by me)...what do you mean to imply ?</p>

<p>Is it "better" to photograph between assignments...or is it "better" for some to refrain ?</p>

<p>Take this a step further with another photographer. Forget the security that Life Magazine employment meant for W.Eugene Smith...did his divided life (jazz hanger-on, audio recording, and photography) contribute to the overall significance of the photography or does it raise questions? Would his life's work be "better" if he'd focused more and financially struggled more? <br /><a href="http://www.jazzloftproject.org/?s=book">http://www.jazzloftproject.org/?s=book</a></p>

<p>Is a photographer who works constantly likely to produce work that's as stellar as s/he might produce with less constant image-making? All work, no play, dull boy etc?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - This: "</strong><em>They developed, cultivated and individuated themselves along the way to a degree that is hard to grasp.<strong>"</strong></em></p>

<p>I rephrased as: <em><strong>"</strong></em><em> personal transformation"</em></p>

<p>Are they really that different?</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I'll be happy with a continually-evolving Fred."</p>

<p> Exactly. That's what I was referring to when I said that only the egomaniacs fret about being at the top.</p>

<p>As to this: "You asked me a few questions about seeing which I answered and I'm wondering if there was anything further about those issues that might still be pursued, especially regarding the visually telling aspects of action, pose, and gesture, <em>how</em> we see and show them and <em>what</em> we actually see and show with them."</p>

<p> I am, in this instance, doing my best to try to understand you. It's not that I don't know if a thing can be photographed as something else, you know I know. My questions were to draw you out into making finer discriminations clear. If I didn't care, I'd just blow by it. For example, making the distinction between "action" and what you see as action-suggested-by-gesture. That clarified your position. </p>

<p> No, I am not leading up to anything and there is no ulterior motive to my questions.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Though my photographing has taken over my life some in the last decade, I also need to live without a camera always at my side in order to be who and what I want to be ("be" being a fluid, not static, concept). My traveling, my loves, sex, grief, my relationship with my father and family and friends, are not done to advance my photographic agenda, yet they do, precisely because I am able to let go of that photographic agenda long enough to be in the moment when the moment is not (directly and specifically) about photographing. I can bring that stuff to a photograph when the time is right. This seems to work for me.</p>

<p>I, too, wonder how many of these "lifestyle" issues are related to our work. I think some surely are. As Phylo noted, context will affect a lot of what we produce. But some of the biography stuff is besides the point and a distraction to the work (including the process of working) itself. A lot of artistic sacrifice is mythologized, though a lot of it is very real. And a lot of financial benefit doesn't help actual photographic ability one iota though it makes it easier to afford gear, tools, travel, and even access, which can certainly be useful.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"No, I am not leading up to anything and there is no ulterior motive to my questions."</em> <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p>Nor am I. I asked because I wanted to hear your thoughts in addition to your questions, which did, in fact, help me refine some key distinctions.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>" A gorgeous gradient "empty" space is not emtpy in a photograph. It's like the space between the notes --" </em> --- Julie H</p>

<p>Yes, to the extent that a photograph is equivalent to a musical performance (Ansel's famous comparison had to do with the act of printing, not with the print). However the question I asked had to do with "significance" and what one "remembers," it didn't have to do with composition, "design", dynamic tension et al.</p>

<p>I don't think composition/graphic design is nearly as important to strong photography as are many other factors.</p>

<p> That one does brilliant, long-practiced, unconsciously well-composed grab-shots ("street") is not similar to saying one does significant photography. </p>

<p>Composition, not very relevant to significance IMO, is easily learned (eg dynamic tension, off-centered "subject," relation to edge, no awkward tangential touches etc). When one brags about doing it semi-consciously it seems (to me) the merest vanity. Hallmark Cards used to hire the very most highly-trained illustrators and designers and then subjected them to further training in composition...their greeting-card success had substantially to do with knowing what most-commonly appeals (cute image, good composition).</p>

<p>I don't think Picasso or Weston or Avedon or Arbus (etc etc) put much stock in composition, they were concerned more with a certain kind of portrayal of their subjects, known or unknown. In general, they positioned their subjects in the middle of their "frames" and went on with more significant aspects of their work.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I agree with your assessment of composition, at least to the extent that there are more important factors.</p>

<p>When I talk about the details that may be important in a background, it's because I think they impact the signification I'm giving to or getting from the subject, if there is a clear subject, which my photos usually have, being portraits. Though I would expect few to home in on such details and fewer to remember them, they may powerfully affect impact and alter response, even if not with awareness on the part of the viewer. What I and what a viewer remembers from viewing a photo or being somewhere is obviously important, but is not always indicative of <em>how</em> s/he remembers, what it feels like to remember . . . the tone or voice or character of the memory. </p>

<p>I think significance is to a great extent about such character. I think unmemorable backgrounds and details (whether details of the subject or details in the background) can provide such character.</p>