Purposeful Photography

[jtk]

<p>...and <strong>I salute Kenneth Smith's stable-wise perspective:</strong> I don't have to do the work, so I'm free to intellectualize it :-)</p>

<p>Keep this in mind though: if you find a big pile of horse manure you may want to dig in... there may be a pony under it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, re your 12:40 comment, with which I cannot agree. The man's purpose was indeed WRONG, because it was blind. He could not take an independent step away from the process and thus made it too forced and self-conscious and he also primarily wanted to win a prize or show off his impecable horse to some friends in anticipation of their admiratioin. His purpose was not a high one, and I think that is what the Chinese wisdom was addressing.</p>

<p>Art is the horse. It doesn't care a bit about the artist's conceited or egoistic purpose, only the realisation. I think that was what Kenneth may have been getting at in his moment of slight discouragement, in recognising the art of some of his peers (when we realize in seeing such work that the task is not so easy, that purpose alone is not sufficient to produce great art, although it is one of the building blocks to that achievement).</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Thanks John. I can say that this catharsis has resulted, not only in many stimulating thoughts and links, but to my OP a sense of ridiculousness, in a good way. I sensed it from the start, as any dichotomy is usually doomed to unsatisfactory itemizing of pros and cons. The synthesis however takes me at task for imagining that random compiling vs. conceptualized theme is really the heart of the problem. It isn't. What is however, I cannot honestly say I know yet. Purpose, audience, communication, recognition, sincerity, authenticity, alienation, ... its all in there. And resolving all those is no easier now than it ever was. Ah well. Maybe I'll go dig out that vinyl I got a while back, "Under Milkwood". </p>

[jtk]

<p>Kenneth, are you seeking a way to fit photography into your identity (or equivalent). Or wondering if you "should?" I've been playing guitar for nearly as long as I've photographed, but I'm no good at it so don't call myself a musician. I've done a little better with photography and am willing to accept that label.</p>

<p>Thanks for not dragging poor, meaningless "Art" into this discussion. Nonetheless, it's interesting to think that might be the name of Chuang Tsu's horse. The manure might overwhelm Philosophy of Plumbing forum (which has fewer participants than this thread), but he (the horse) might be happy there.</p>

<p>As well, thanks for not worrying about right/wrong...we have enough of that on talk radio. Presumably right/wrong wasn't a concern for Chuang Tzu, not a person of any of Abraham's lines (a Taoist, if anybody ever was).</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Evaluations of "significance" and "interest" have to come from the viewer. A photo that is deemed significant or interesting by one person will make no impression whatsoever on someone else. I don't think the photographer can be the judge. Our photos are significant - to US. That doesn't mean that they're of interest to anyone else.</p>

<p>Purposeful? Well, if you point a camera at something and make even a half-hearted attempt to expose an image, you have done something purposeful. If you think that something is visually interesting and you want to capture a photo of it, you have acted purposefully.</p>

<p>Better to get out and shoot than to over-think the process.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Dan, I'm pretty sure Kenneth has something more weighty in mind than "half-hearted attempt" when talks about "purposeful." That word has life-crucial implications from a zen or Tao-informed perspective, which seems to relate to his thinking. "Significance" also has special implications for some photographers...it's not necessarily mystical or earth-shaking, is maybe something like the "hook" in a good rock song, or the groove in bebop.</p>

<p>"Capture" is digital-snap slang. I think it dumbs a person's photography down, implying that the image was out there waiting to be snagged. Granted, if a person only does minor post-processing he is usually working at that level...but some are working toward something bigger, such as the "body of work" Kenneth mentioned. That suggests he disciplines his work, has certain kinds of focus or interest.</p>

<p>"Don't overthink" applies sometimes, of course. But maybe it's not good advice when a person actually needs to do that thinking. It'll be interesting to learn Kenneth's take on this as he deals with it. My bet is that he'll continue to think in the terms he used, "significance" and "purposeful." But maybe he'll abandon that and "just go out and shoot" or even forget about photography.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>All the purpose anyone needs is to refine their understanding of the art and craft of the medium and make pictures they want to see. Why question the important human urge to make beautiful objects or pictorial comments about the world? There is no fundamental requirement to make some sort of pointed intellectual assertion in everything we do. Must we be profound to make a contribution? Look at art going way back to the Paleolithic. Why does it still move us?<br>

There are things to keep in mind when pondering your own work. One is that the art we see of the photographers we most admire is but a small sample of a lifetime's work. Another is that even most photographers of high-quality will never see their work in books and collections.<br>

Artists need a sense of connoisseurship. Look at a lot of pictures. There is a wonderful exhibit on now until 6-19: <em>Conversations, Photographs from the Bank of America Collection</em>, at the Museum of Fine Art here in Boston. I have returned to see it just to be humbled. Why is a photograph to my experienced eye and skills so wonderful? Being a connoisseur is a worthwhile, purposeful occupation. It helps you judge how your work measures up.</p>

<div></div>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Starting from the top. Refinement involves the intellect. It's not enough to be a virtuoso craftsman. I'm not questioning the urge to make. It sustains me. But I do question the depth of my involvement to avoid coasting on good looks alone. There is certainly no requirement to justify anything to anyone but yourself, and maybe not even that. Haven't worked that out yet. We certainly do have to be pretty exceptional if one wants to stand out today, although standing out and recognition are not my interest. I swear. But the amount of talent in the arts, accessing a world stage is formidable to say the least. I personally don't understand Paleolithic art as we see art today, and I don't think there's a bridge to be had. Maybe we can sneak a little peek at what it means to be primal and essential, but I personally can't get there. I'm not moved by the cave drawings themselves as much as I am by the idea of the occurrence and the time frame. They may be untainted, but I'm not. I'm all taint.<br>

I definitely agree that what we see is often the choice work. But that's as it should be. I have a Walker Evans catalog, and there's a lot of boring grunt work to be sure. I saw a Walker Evans exhibit and was stunned in awe by those beautiful contact prints. So of course curatorial elements go a long way. I could put on a pleasing show or book with select pieces, but I don't think it would attract much interest, really. But Flickr has certainly shown me how many unknowns there are and how extraordinary their work is. I've looked at tons of work, and in person too, and now a godawful amount online, and I've almost humbled myself out of existence. I give myself a C+. OK maybe a B-, because my print quality is very good. But overall I think the exceptional are more purposeful than I. I think they work with ideas and subjects and their materials better than I have done, and I have to be honest about it, and look for ways to come up to the bar, or quit harassing myself and just dig my thing for what it is. Thinking about it is not a waste of time, unless of course you obstruct yourself and dwell on the wrong end of the question. Physically, in case there's anyone out there that wants to repeat that condescending don't think, do it statement, I have never in forty years spent more time shooting or in the darkroom than I have in the last decade. But that appears to be, not enough.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Dan, I'm pretty sure Kenneth has something more weighty in mind than "half-hearted attempt" when talks about "purposeful."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. But even a half-hearted attempt is purposeful. Sometimes the purpose isn't discovered until after you've made the exposure. Maybe not until long after. Better to shoot it anyway and ponder the significance (or the lack thereof) later.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That word has life-crucial implications from a zen or Tao-informed perspective, which seems to relate to his thinking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I prefer to avoid discussions of religion. I don't want to risk offending Buddhists by using the word 'Zen' in a cavalier manner. Nor do I care to discuss the implications of photography to Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic perspectives. It doesn't add anything to the topic.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Significance" also has special implications for some photographers...it's not necessarily mystical or earth-shaking, is maybe something like the "hook" in a good rock song, or the groove in bebop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Significance has implications to all human beings of sound mind. I have yet to meet a person that does not strive for significance in some form or another.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Capture" is digital-snap slang.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also used the word 'expose.' Does 'exposure' qualify as 'film-geek slang' in your dictionary? The words are synonymous to most modern photographers, and I employed them in that spirit. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think it dumbs a person's photography down, implying that the image was out there waiting to be snagged.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Forgiving the awkward colloquialism "to dumb down" for a moment, if a hunter or fisherman captures an animal, or if a policeman captures a fugitive, that doesn't necessarily mean that thing being captured was waiting around with passive expectation that capture was imminent. We should all be able to agree that such real-world 'captures' require work, planning, effort, time, skill, strategy, determination, and specialized equipment, just as photographic captures do.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Granted, if a person only does minor post-processing he is usually working at that level...but some are working toward something bigger, such as the "body of work" Kenneth mentioned. That suggests he disciplines his work, has certain kinds of focus or interest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that all but the most casual photographers are interested in building a body of work whether they acknowledge it consciously or not. But a body of work is built one day and one photograph at a time and may not be recognized as such until a considerable portion of the work has already been done.</p>

<p>In some cases, a photographer's body of work might have less to do with his or her initial objectives than to the opportunities that life presents. If Ansel Adams had grown up in Cleveland or Moscow, his body of work might look somewhat different. He might have photographed Red Square or the Great Lakes instead of Half Dome and the Sierra Nevada. I can think of no more important factor in building a body of work than learning to be open to one's surroundings and discovering the complex and varied opportunities that they the present.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Don't overthink" applies sometimes, of course. But maybe it's not good advice when a person actually needs to do that thinking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not over-thinking the process is useful advice to someone for whom concerns about significance tend to impede their progress. I don't know if Kenneth is such a person, but given that he bothered to post a query about significance, he very well could be. Some of the people who stop by to read this discussion could be similarly impeded. If my advice inspires any one of them to stop worrying and start shooting, then it will have been worth my time to post it. For everyone else, they may feel free to ignore every word that I have typed. This isn't a for-credit course, and there's no final exam (except to find satisfaction in one's own portfolio).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It'll be interesting to learn Kenneth's take on this as he deals with it. My bet is that he'll continue to think in the terms he used, "significance" and "purposeful." But maybe he'll abandon that and "just go out and shoot" or even forget about photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kenneth will find the path that's right for him. Along the way, my advice would be to do as much shooting/exposing/capturing as he can. He can always discard the images that don't suit his "purposes" or that fail to meet with his own definition of "significance." But he can never go back in time to photograph lost opportunities. Shoot now, evaluate later, and come back to shoot again as necessary. Or as the great Ken Duncan puts it: "<em>Stop talking and start taking.</em>"</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As an alternative viewpoint, I see no reason to do as much shooting as I can. A lot of that would simply be a waste of my time, just as thinking might be a waste of time to others. Diff'rent strokes.</p>

<p><em>"Stop talking and start taking"</em> might work for some. It sounds off to me (because it's suggesting a false choice). I easily have time for both. I don't have to choose between the two. I even have time to eat, read, and watch a little TV as well.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Bunches of sound reasoning from a working man who needs to get on with things judging by that portfolio, and I thank you Dan.</p>

<p>But the upbeat summation of stop talking, and get to shooting does miss the mark. I won't spell out how many pounds of film and print has choked my every storage space, I'll just say that the amassing alone has not resulted in the achievement of depth that I was hoping for. I am not the kind of photographer or artist that I admire, and after forty years of shooting, with not one month gone by without shooting, thank you, I'm faced with having to own up to what I have feared all my life. Death of a Salesman. Mediocrity. Ohhh, that's a tough call. But I'd rather make it than Pollyanna myself with kindness. In the face of so much great work, I find mine pretty modest. So I ask the question, "Is this because you were just crusin along hoping it would all fall together?" That the curatorial summation would somehow look pretty good? I guess maybe the Real Deals that have inspired and carried you all this way had a little more on the ball after all. Purpose, intent, a need to communicate something important to them, a deadly serious work ethic, or maybe just more joy. John Kelly said it best, my identity is too terribly caught up in this. It's been a lifetime of photo angst, with a generous helping of inadequacy. I have got to stop looking at Flickr too. Kids with two years behind their D40's kicking my tail to the floor. Damn.</p>

<p>But thanks for adding your good thoughts. They are sound. I don't remain impeded in the least. I just don't know why I keep clicking away.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>All the purpose anyone needs is to refine their understanding of the art and craft of the medium and make pictures they want to see. Why question the important human urge to make beautiful objects or pictorial comments about the world? There is no fundamental requirement to make some sort of pointed intellectual assertion in everything we do. Must we be profound to make a contribution? Look at art going way back to the Paleolithic. Why does it still move us?<br>

There are things to keep in mind when pondering your own work. One is that the art we see of the photographers we most admire is but a small sample of a lifetime's work. Another is that even most photographers of high-quality will never see their work in books and collections. It is not that they are not good enough. <br>

Another thing an artist needs to do is develop a sense of connoisseurship. Look at a lot of pictures. There is a wonderful exhibit on now until 6-19: <em>Conversations, Photographs from the Bank of America Collection</em>, at the Museum of Fine Art here in Boston.. I have returned to see it just to be humbled. Why is a photograph to my experienced eye and skills so wonderful? Being a connoisseur is a worthwhile, purposeful occupation. It helps you judge how your work measures up.</p><div></div>

[don_essedi]

"I just don't know why I keep clicking away."

 

Then stop. You might consider stopping your whining and moping, too.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Kenneth - </strong>"I am not the kind of photographer or artist that I admire, and after forty years of shooting, with not one month gone by without shooting, thank you, I'm faced with having to own up to what I have feared all my life."</p>

<p>This is going to sound sickeningly simple, but in practice, it's true: In mountain biking, when one is zipping down singletrack (a narrow trail) and there's a rock in the way, with a narrow gap on one side that one must thread through, if you focus on the rock, you'll almost certainly certainly hit it. Focus on the gap, and your chances of making it go much higher.</p>

<p>Quit focusing on your fear of mediocrity. It becomes magnetic. This is not a contest. The best we can do at any moment is to be ourselves. In order to do anything else, we must change.</p>

<p><strong>K - "</strong>Death of a Salesman. Mediocrity. Ohhh, that's a tough call. But I'd rather make it than Pollyanna myself with kindness."</p>

<p>And it is to your credit that you haven't deluded yourself as so many do.</p>

<p>Let me ask you: If you rubbed your old Exakta while cleaning it, and a genie popped out, and gave you the option of reliving the past forty years, would you still photograph, knowing what you know now? Or would you elect to do something else?</p>

<p>You're still alive, and have arrived at a realization that many will not make in a lifetime. This is a great opportunity to break out. Instead of looking backwards and bemoaning what should have been (you the great photographer you imagined you would be), look forward, empowered by your realization, and run with it.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>First to apologize to that handsome man Don Essedi. I am embarrassed by the direction this OP took. I would rather have heard more about what others think and do with their own work. The emphasis however became too much about me. People these days are more empathetic and inclined to want to solve the personal side of the problem another faces, and lose sight of the core discussion. I wish the discussion had stayed focused and explored more of what makes for exceptional bodies of work over a lifetime, but it didn't. I think a lot of people feel it's relative, personal, or just don't want to intellectualize it to death. Either way, sorry you had to read this goop, and make your out of the blue p. ant comment.</p>

<p>Luis. Thank You as well. I will look to the gap. And as much as I'm itching to answer the genie question, I think it's time for this me me me thing to end. Essedi's right.</p>

[don_essedi]

The burden of growing old and the burden of forty years experience, one becomes desensitized to "purpose" and "significance", which, for a photographer is summed up by 'seeing' (and not by 'taking').

 

For me, purpose and significance are in the domain of what I see. My task is to photograph it and realize it in a print. I can share its significance and purpose rather than a significance or purpose I've invented. I don't have that burden.

 

Unburden yourself and follow your heart.

 

Good Luck

[jtk]

<p>a note regarding zen and Taoism: zen isn't a religion at all, and Taoism is more a matter of teachers than deities. The horse story was specifically Taoist, but hell, he wasn't a Christian or Jew after all and we are of course free to interpret the story in any we want. Me, I think it had directly to do with attention and distraction and the importance of our individual lives. </p>

<p>Some folks in Wasilla surely doubt the earth revolves around the Sun. Gregor Mendel was probably a communist because he wasn't raised in Indiana, which proves Darwin was a communist too, or a Muslim. </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Stop talking and start taking"</em> might work for some. It sounds off to me (because it's suggesting a false choice). I easily have time for both. I don't have to choose between the two. I even have time to eat, read, and watch a little TV as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, it's true that we have time to do both. I was concerned that Kenneth wasn't doing enough of one at the expense of the other. But now that I've learned that he's been shooting for forty years, I realize that this does not apply to him.</p>

<p>Kenneth, here's a suggestion. Put together a mini-porfolio of somewhere between six and twenty-five images that you feel represent some of your more interest work. Not necessarily your best photos from a technical standpoint, but the ones that convey the most meaning to you. Show this collection to some folks whose opinions you respect. They needn't photographers, but people who have taste and intelligence and who you can trust to be straightforward with you. Listen to their assessment of your work. Listen carefully without interrupting or contradicting them. If they miss what you are trying to express, figure out how to close the gap. What kind of images would add magic and meaning to your portfolio?</p>

<p>Next, you might sign up for a workshop with someone whose photographs you admire. Experiencing how someone else approaches the craft and art of photography might give you a useful jolt along with some new techniques and fresh ideas.</p>

<p>I wish you all the best and I hope that you'll find the emotional photographic payoff that you seek, wherever it may be.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>There are in excess of 2 billion photographs just on Flickr. There are 5 billion cell phones in the world - most with cameras. Is it safe to say the pot o' photographs grows by a billion a day? 10 billion? Let's find the most purposeful, the most significant in the pile. The most important. The most artistically virtuous scribbles in the mounds of digital detritus. The numbers don't do justice to the question. There are, for all intents, infinite images, and the pile is growing. Just when you think you took the most incredible picture of a nude....<br>

No matter the breadth or limitation of one's definition of art, some degree of rarity or scarcity has to be considered. Just as farce has co-opted politics, likewise art has been democratized. You and your five-grand worth of mega-pixels, or s/he with a fifty buck Holga? Photoshop Actions for God's sake! Who's the hippest in town now? Who is significant and relevant now? The Banksy phenomena.<br>

The modern digital "machine guns" with a 32GB card is like the invention of the knitting machine. A creator of inexpensive commodities. Socks. Did grandma search for relevance in her knitting?<br>

How seriously can this stuff be regarded?<br>

Smile! You're on camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M--</p>

<p>If you check out other sources besides Flickr, you might be surprised. Don't know where you are, but go to some photographers' studios, check out some local galleries and musuems. You might start being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. (Which doesn't mean there isn't some great stuff on Flickr.) There are some great Internet sites as well.</p>

<p>While Weston and Avedon were working, my parents were taking pictures at the New York World's Fair in 1939 (some great shots) and also a bunch of family snaps. So were most of their friends. Didn't seem to get in the way of Weston and Avedon. Today's no different, except for quantity. More chaff, and perhaps a little more wheat but not that much.</p>

<p>I think of it this way. Painters of canvases aren't affected by the millions who paint cabinets, walls, and houses.</p>

<p>Also . . . is more good stuff a problem?</p>

[don_essedi]

Fred, you are whistling past the graveyard.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks for the characterization, Don. </p>

<p>You wouldn't be the first, or second, to pronounce photography dead. </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Yes Fred, you are precisely correct. Today's no different, except for quantity. The geometric expansion of the numerator improves everyone's odds of having a winner. And, as an aside, vintage family snaps are suddenly hot commodities in the lucrative hip commercial greeting card markets.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Is the goal having a winner?</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Absent a winner can purpose be found?</p>