Viewing Potential

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, interesting addition. Thanks. I like your idea of bracketing away the "usual" (even while we probably still rely on it to some extent for grounding). I hadn't and still don't think about viewing "the thing itself" because I don't think there is such a thing. But I think there are different ways of viewing what's in front of me at any given time. And I tend to view photos empathetically, which is along the lines of what I mean by "getting outside myself."</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<p>This is a most engaging little discussion with a number of tantalizing themes intertwined. I am going to try and tease them apart a touch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What about good viewers? Do they think outside the box and therefore open themselves up to different visions? If one can become a "better" photographer over time, can one become a better viewer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, absolutely. I very much think that appreciating and relating to photography or art is like many other things in life where experience matter tremendously. I could compare this to music appreciation or to becoming a more accomplished reader. However, I think maybe gastronomy is more relatable.</p>

<p>Let's say you are going out to eat food that is not of your own background (i.e. "ethnic" food). The more experience you have with that type of cuisine the more you will able to understand and enjoy it. You will be able to grasp what a given dish is trying to do and what it is related to within that food culture. You will come to understand the norms expected of food in that cuisine.</p>

<p>Now, maybe a truly great dish can transcend these sorts of barriers and be more universally appreciated by those without those experiences. However, that is a very rare thing to achieve, indeed (if it is even possible).</p>

<p>So, returning to photography, experience and interaction with all sorts of photography is important in broadening the breadth of our knowledge and understanding.</p>

<p>There are many subjects in my life that I have purposely undertaken an effort to better understand. These include such disparate things as dodecaphonic music, Dada, and offal. Some of these I have come to appreciate and understand, but still do not love, and others I now truly enjoy and can barely remember when I had a strong aversion to them. <em>In fact, the very type of photography I am now engaged in most frequently was one of those things where I took it upon myself to confront an aversion.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>And maybe it can take me <em>outside myself</em> to someplace new if I let it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think my above discussion makes it clear that I am open to this approach. An attempt to understand an image from a position with as few rigid preconceptions as possible is the most likely to result in the photograph being viewed on its own merits. Perhaps, as much as is possible, such an approach will allow a connection with the image that isn't rooted in a material understanding of it, but in a response to it – an appreciation of it. However, sometimes a distracting element is simply distracting and sometimes an ineffectual image is just that (at least for you/I individually).</p>

<p>In reviewing images and responding to viewer responses/critiques, I think there are basically two competing issues.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The photographer needs to divorce themselves, as much as possible, from their intentions with the image. They needs to try and see the image with as much of the distance of a new viewer as possible. Only in this way will they have a chance of seeing that there is too much 'noise' to see the sought-for signal.<br /><br /></li>

<li>The viewer needs to divorce themselves, as much as possible, from their preconceptions. They should try not to think about how they would approach such a subject (a very hard thing for an artist to not think about when viewing art – or for a dedicated cook not to think about when dining). They should try and respond to the image as presented/experienced – understanding its context not their own context.</li>

</ol>

<p>Now, a powerful piece of art can force the viewer out of their preconceptions to a certain extent and get them to have a genuine response without much effort from the viewer. And, in a similar manner, a good viewer, a dedicated viewer, can overcome the challenges of a weak work not communicating its own message clearly.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Because they see something in the work or because I may talk about something I see in my own work, there is often an assumption that that's what I intended. When I talk about a photo after the fact, people seem to imagine my having some sort of philosophical dialogue with myself while I was shooting or post processing. It doesn't quite work like that.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. Care to expand on this?</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ian, I agree that there is a burden of objectivity for me as a viewer of my own photos. Standing back is one of the most difficult positions for me, but it's getting to be also more fun as time goes on.</p>

<p>Expanding on what you've quoted: I can relate it to my recent self portraits in the window. I think there is a lot to see in and understand about the photos. They do seem to go beyond the mechanics of what I was doing when making them. Yet, at the time, they didn't. So, for example, through the peace and quiet of the outside street something was gnawing at me. That was what I was feeling at the time but that is not what I was necessarily aware of or focused on at the time and I was not consciously trying to represent or, worse, symbolize it. I was adjusting light and the height of the tripod and my concern was with those mechanics and not with what I was feeling. I simply let what I was feeling guide me but I wasn't attempting to communicate it. Now I look and I see something being communicated as do others. What is being communicated both is and is not related to what I was, specifically, feeling at the time. And I don't presume to "know" just what I was feeling anyway.</p>

<p>The idea of "believability" was addressed with regard to one of those photos. Belief is overrated. I've read some compelling thinkers (David Hume, for example) for whom beliefs are just very strong opinions. And we all know the value of a lot of opinions! A concern with a believable photo, to me, might come into play when talking about forensics, documentary, photojournalism, etc. But as regards what I'm doing, belief seems beside the point. Besides which, what's not to believe? That is a photo of a street, it is me reflected in the window, those are the gestures I was making at the time, the facial expressions I was wearing, and the tripod I was using. Am I asking you to believe anything? Or am I asking you to look at and see something? I am as likely asking you to suspend belief in order to see something significant.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<blockquote>

<p>What is being communicated both is and is not related to what I was, specifically, feeling at the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, I understand <strong>that a creative process can yield creative results even if those particular results were not explicitly sought</strong>. However, wasn't the effectiveness of the images the cause for you to share them? Isn't the editing and publishing of your images part of the creative process? Would you have presented these photos if you didn't think they spoke to more than mechanics of their creation?</p>

<p>I know sometimes people see things in my images well beyond my intentions and assume that I intended the result. However, my experience has been that either I still do not see this in my work even after they have expressed it, or, although such impressions were not the cause of the image's creation, they are the cause of its presentation. At some point I "thought philosophically" about the resulting image before making it public.</p>

<p>There may be happy accidents of creation. However, the choice to share them was no accident.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It depends what you mean by effectiveness. What causes me to share images isn't the hope that a viewer will understand them as I do. I choose images to share because they spark something in me and I think or hope they have the potential to spark something in the viewer. What, specifically, they may spark is not always relevant. Sometimes, I have something more specific to "communicate," in which case effectiveness may depend on a bit more specificity. Someone seeing insincerity in the recent self portraits does not mean to me it wasn't an effective photo. Since I deal openly with sincerity and artificiality and consider it often, just the mention of sincerity shows enough effectiveness for me. I'm not looking for mention of either sincerity or insincerity, however. Had I thought it just dealt with mechanics, in a visually compelling way, yes, I would share it. In this case, I did think it went beyond that. But where that beyond takes people can be all over the map. Sometimes people will comment in such a way that makes me feel I've missed the mark. I will suddenly see an expression or element in a different way and decide to modify to suit what I want out of it more. But that may not translate terribly literally to anyone else.</p>

<p>The recent self portraits, for example. If they didn't seem effective to a lot of viewers, that wouldn't concern me much. They articulate something significant for me and explore something in a way I needed to explore it. If that's not recognized that's OK. Sometimes, being misunderstood can be as effective as being understood or appreciated.</p>

[jtk]

<p>This thread has to do with honesty or truth, as always a matter of questions rather than answers (thanks Fred).</p>

<p>To the extent that we answer (e.g. announcing what our photos are "about") we are creating a short circuit, intentionally hindering truth.</p>

<p>Fred's questions here are crucial...and/but there's the matter of stages (or continuum) of personal development over time. <strong>None of us are at the same stage </strong>(which is not to say anybody is "ahead" of anybody else).</p>

<p>My particular stage at this time is not the same as it was a few years ago, nor is it the stage of any other person (nor is theirs mine). <strong>The fun (or whatever) has to do with making connections across stages (just as in theatre?). </strong></p>

<p>Sometimes we are unable to address more than, say, scenics, street, cats, or architectural details. Happiness as an unchanging one-trick-pony seems similar to considering oneself handicapped.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"They articulate something significant for me and explore something in a way I needed to explore it. If that's not recognized that's OK. Sometimes, being misunderstood can be as effective as being understood or appreciated." (Fred, in discussing his recent self-portraits)</p>

<p>Yes, we can be misunderstood or understood and appreciated. I think we often forget, as creative photographers, that there is a third possibility, that of simply not being understood, which is different and perhaps more problematic than being misunderstood.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, not for me. Being not understood is no more problematic for me. Understanding isn't all it's cracked up to be.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<p>Fred, I'm trying to wrap my head around this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Had I thought it just dealt with mechanics, in a visually compelling way, yes, I would share it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You see, I would count being visually compelling as part of being 'effective', and you ascertaining that effectiveness for yourself as part of your own consideration of the image.<br>

Anyways, I'm not sure this requires a response at the moment. I'm going to dwell on these exchanges a bit more.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>I think that if I "understood" the work of another photographer I'd be fooling myself. The fun is in the questions that are raised.</p>

<p>"Compelling" can be fun. I think that's a personal preference. It commonly involves strong graphics, bright colors, but there are other approaches. I think the pursuit of questions and ideas is more interesting than "compelling." </p>

<p>I'm not interested in compelling anyone, but I do wonder how they're responding. When I billed for my work I did want to be compelling. Different strokes. Interesting idea.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ian, I was going to caution against seeing that quote about "compelling" as any kind of summary of my thoughts or point worth isolating. The thrust of my posts here is better captured in these statements: <em>"What causes me to share images isn't the hope that a viewer will understand them as I do. I choose images to share because they spark something in me and I think or hope they have the potential to spark something in the viewer . . . and explore something in a way I needed to explore it."</em></p>

<p>As for the mechanics of making a photograph, I could be content to show that well. Graphic or compelling in that case would be fine, though I understand the limits John sees in those descriptions and generally speaking I want more. An occasional good photo that addresses the process of making a photograph is fine with me. And an occasionally graphic image -- in the way Escher or Moriyama can be graphically compelling, for example -- is fine with me as well. Escher and Moriyama, of course, go beyond "graphic." Even more strict graphics, when good, are usually more than they seem . . . Mondrian, for example.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I think your ideas about stages is worth pursuing. I still connect to my early work even though I've changed my approach (from stalking) for the most part. It's a stage I went through (had to go through?) in order to be where I am now. Though hiding, I learned how to look at people and see stuff on the surface. Maybe not getting to know them for a while gave me a heads up, not in my relationships, but in some of the tools I'd need for making photographs. I'm building as I go. It's easy to say "the world is a stage." It adds something to say it's a bunch of stages. Making connections among various stages, from your stage to mine, helps me further my own theatricality metaphor, which is good.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<p>I do not think I am able to anticipate that an image will 'spark something' in a viewer without also having/wanting some idea of what that 'something' will be.</p>

<p>If the presented image 'sparks something' that I didn't predict or consider, that is fine. But, I couldn't have come to the point of sharing the image if there wasn't something I was expecting. If no one shared my expected response, and I would be concerned. Of course whatever the response, it is valid. Perhaps I could come to see the image as a viewer did, but I'd still be concerned.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Even more strict graphics, when good, are usually more than they seem . . . Mondrian, for example.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. However, I know Kandinsky, Malevich, and Klee certainly had preconceptions about the greater possibilities of their abstractions. I am fairly sure that Mondrian did as well. </p>

 

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<p>I've looked at your three recent self-portraits and I going to make a few comments on them, but as an aside, I have to tell you that I find the drama of the comments posted to them to be excessively interesting -- almost as good as an ongoing TV show ("Will anybody see what seems obvious to me?") The suspense is killing me ...</p>

<p>I find the three pictures to be about a man (Fred, but I'll stick with "man" as if I'm an anonymous viewer in a famous gallery) playing with "being watched." In particular, with windows and all that windows connote. In particular with lighted or unlighted windows and all that light connotes (through or behind; occupied, awake, looking, not looking, reflecting, transmitting etc. etc.) Particularly, in particular with the lit windows that the "man" is either embracing, challenging, or turning his back on -- that, however do/does not show any interest *in* the man -- it's occupied but indifferent or, if not indifferent, then furtive.</p>

<p>The three are a good (possibly very good) theme to explore, in my opinion. I think that, as they stand, #1 is the best but with the least potential for further development. I think #3, is the worst as it stands, but by far the richest in potential (the white, white, undefended curvaceousness of soft flesh versus the black angularity of all the rest; the positioning of the windows and the window frame and roof "pointers," etc. I like the man smaller and smaller ...)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ian, I guess we just differ, which is fine. Particularly with these three, I really wasn't aware of anticipating or caring much about the viewer. (I allow for the fact that a lot of stuff happens under my radar/awareness and because of things I've learned or thought before, my vision may have been directed by such anticipation, though I wasn't concentrating on that.) In the past, for example, Gordon's comment about my insincerity would really have hurt and bugged me. Probably because I wouldn't have anticipated it and wouldn't have wanted it. Here, though I still don't much like someone saying that about me, it has much less power over me. It also seemed a genuine response and seemed in the right ballpark which is sometimes a more helpful response to me than hitting a home run. I don't need or want people to guess at what the story IS or be RIGHT. Because there's no <em>particular</em> story (although there is a story) and no RIGHT.</p>

<p>Julie, I remember a moment about halfway through the shoot, when I heard voices on the street as I then saw three 20-something people walk by. I live on a quiet street and it was the middle of the night so it surprised me. That was the first time I was aware of the potential for being watched. I didn't get the feeling they noticed me.</p>

<p>Yes, Julie, it takes awhile to set aside what seems <em>obvious</em> when we look, both as photographer and viewer . . . if we want to do that. I notice often that critiquers seem to get upset when others don't share their interpretation of a photo. Usually, when I listen carefully to what people are saying, I see a basic similarity at a foundational level and more differences arising as things get personalized and interpreted and thoughtfully responded to.</p>

<p>On another matter, does viewing photographs seem to demand a <em>judgment</em> from us? Why?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I notice often that critiquers seem to get upset when others don't share their interpretation of a photo."</p>

<p>It works both ways. If I critique something and the photographer gets indignant and starts justifying things, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not insulted in the slightest. Like Fred, I appreciate adamant behavior, and am no stranger to egomaniacs ( yes, Fred, myself included) in photography. If the photographer says that it doesn't matter what anybody says, that's perfectly fine by me, but the review is over. I will never do even a comment on any more of their pictures, unless they explicitly ask me to. They just wall themselves off. The number of people asking for reviews is apparently endless.</p>

<p>That number is huge compared to the (currently vanishing) far smaller number of critics, or people who care at all to say anything about anyone else's pictures. No symmetry there.</p>

<p>In the real world, due to this inequity and the real constraints of most of the contexts in which reviews are conducted, or comments made, time is at a (usually expensive and/or rare) premium. Go to a real portfolio review sometime, or undergraduate class. There are legions waiting besides you. The notions of establishing long dialogues about <em>one </em>picture are as absurd an ideal as your Doctor taking a few hours to explain to you in detail why you need a defibrillator and Coumadin to stay alive.</p>

<p>Infinitely more common is this type of behavior, as noted by Josh Root:</p>

<p>"... the harassment, childish attacks, and vulgar emails that came from normally sane members of the site when they thought they were "wronged" by a low rating."</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>On another matter, does viewing photographs seem to demand a <em>judgment</em> from us? Why?"</p>

<p>Maybe from you, but not from me. 99% of the time it is because the person whose pictures are being reviewed <em>demands it.</em> They are starved for feedback, most are convinced they're the new (unrecognized) Atget, and desperately want a simple positive judgment/affirmation of their expectations from the reviewer. When they don't get it, most fly into denial and anger, as Josh so beautifully described in the above quote.</p>

<p>In my experience, maybe one in five deal with it as maturely as Ian when he says: "Of course whatever the response, it is valid."</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Maybe from you, but not from me."</em></p>

<p>"Maybe" is the crucial word here. I asked a question. (Does viewing photographs seem to demand a judgment?) I didn't suggest or imply my answer. I will now. I find myself moving more and more away from judgment. I tend to accept what's put before me rather than judging it good or bad and rather than caring whether I like it or not. For me, "liking" and especially "disliking" have been getting in the way. When I started photographing, as you observe with some others, I wanted to know whether people "liked" my photographs. I cared about their response. Now, I think and care less whether others like what I'm doing. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate feedback. I love hearing what people see, what they think, how they feel. I don't mind them telling me whether they like something or not. It just doesn't affect me much any more.</p>

<p>In my own critiques of others, I try to empathize and not distance myself. I usually avoid saying whether or not I like something. I've had very few complaints about even my negative critiques. I tend not to give negative critiques any more. I talk about stuff and ask questions. Since I find hearing what people see helpful to me, I try to tell others what I see and what I don't see. Sometimes, something I say sparks a question from the photographer. That's the best result I can think of.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>IMO, there are many desirable outcomes, and they're going to vary according to the parties involved and the boundaries of the situation. I'll be happy if see them motivated to work smarter and harder, to see their work grow, improve, and/or evolve. Whether I spark a question or a hateful snarl, it's the work that matters. It's <em>never about me, or whatever might be helpful to me, since usually they are paying me, not the other way around, and I am in their service, to help them, not myself.</em></p>

 

[jtk]

<p>"...does viewing photographs seem to demand a <em>judgment</em> from us? Why?" - Fred</p>

<p>That doesn't seem to apply to "viewing" so much as to certain viewing personalities and formats. P.N's numeric rating format (now down to one numeral, hopefully none soon) relies on judgements, but that has almost nothing to do with photography.</p>

<p>Sometimes it's evident that a photographer wants suggestions...sometimes a photographer might gain a lot from suggestions s/he may not want (life in the fast lane). Suggestions are, hopefully, not offered or taken as judgements.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I don't consider suggestions necessarily to be judgments though I often think they are tied to them. I take "I like" as a matter of taste, often bordering on judgment ("that's good").</p>

<p>You're probably right that judgment isn't a matter of viewing, strictly speaking. But I think many, many viewers tie judgments (I know I used to) to seeing. Many first <em>view</em> (see) very superficially and decide whether they like and then from the liking or disliking stance they see more, usually missing a lot because of judgments they've already made.</p>

<p>I agree it can be quite evident that a photographer wants suggestions. That doesn't mean suggestions are the best or most effective things to be given. People want religion to solve their moral questions for them and they want suggestions often because it's easier than working out their own vision. Been there (both as the one wanting them and the one being asked for them).</p>

<p>Luis, you're getting paid. (<em>"They are paying <strong>me.</strong>"</em>) That's about you. Don't sell yourself short.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"Many first view (see) very superficially and decide whether they like and then from the liking or disliking stance they see more, usually missing a lot because of judgments they've already made."</em> ---Fred</p>

<p>Sure. But I've consciously disciplined myself, hoping to minimize losses.</p>

<p>For example, I've started to pay more attention to rave photos, despite their easy wild colors and other flashy extremities. Dancers at raves are doing something more significant than I first imagined.</p>

<p>Minor White (yet again) said something like "a strong response to a photograph indicates it's feeding something in us, whether we like what's being fed or not." </p>

<p>That quote immediately began to serve as a reminder foor wake-up. It can be rewarding to attend to images I "dislike." And it's worthwhile to be cautious with images that too-easily attract me.</p>

<p>I do "judge," writing off certain repetitive categories (but I noticed myself giving undue respect to a cat photo recently).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>Clarification:</em> The kinds of suggestions I back off from are specific photographic "do this" and "do that". Burn this in. Crop this here. This should be in black and white. On the other hand, I see very differently suggestions like . . . take a look at ______'s work or read this book or think about using different lenses for differing results.</p>

<p>Luis, I will say that in the critiques I've read on PN, I haven't seen you offer the kinds of suggestions I tend to back away from. I don't know whether you do in the critiques you give outside PN. You, like me, seem to talk about what you see. You are adept and articulate in putting things you see in the photographs into context.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, yes, I sense you have disciplined yourself. I also sense most viewers have not.</p>

<p>I like the part about the strong response. A strong response tells me something as well. My strong response isn't necessarily accompanied by a judgment. Like you, I find myself trying to get more out of photos I dislike, though as I said I don't go to "dislike" as readily as I used to.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Back to stages, the acting kind. Actors act. Sometimes I'm well served by acting. Including acting as if. For example, as if I like it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Does it demand judgement? No, never. Do we judge (involuntarily)? Yes, most of us most of the time. It takes discipline not to.<br>

And we do not do it only with photos, though possibly photography does it stronger than many other things, because most people perceive it as "real", so when it does seem to carry other messages, viewpoints or perspective (literally and figuratively), people tend to get judgemental. Unavoidable, as most people do not have any incentive to discipline themselves and accpet that their opinion is just some opinion, rather than a truth.</p>

<p>As for critiques... it's hard, writing a good one. I try at times, but some small (technical) things can spoil a photo for me, and not commenting on that seems to be beyond my discipline for now.</p>