Photographic Statement and Purpose

[jtk]

<p>What's wrong with being "scared sillly" about lack of purpose? Might be the right response for you, an energizer at the start of an important quest. </p>

[rossb]

<p> Well Fred I guess I really do not think about it much to tell the truth. I just take the pictures such as tomorrow it is my #2 daughters birthday and Saturday my future son-in-law is graduating from UC Berkeley. They are events in our lives and I will take some photos of them. On the 3rd my youngest of 6 will graduate from High School and I will be lurking around trying to get myself into position for some photos. A couple prints will go into albums and the rest will be saved digitally. I must say I never really think about the pictures as a project, art form or anything other then just photos. I used to go on photo adventures to try and find some nice landscapes or just an interesting photo but gas is expensive and with film on the back burner (continous lab problems) I have lost interest in that type of photography. I do have a few pictures framed in my home and they are very nice but one of my kids is an artist and she occasionally gives me something that she has done. I pull down my photos and hang her work up (painting, drawings, etc). The things she does is much nicer then anything I could ever do with a camera.</p>

<p>I guess I am pretty boring in the photography thing. I just take pictures with no goals with it. I know how to use the camera and my photos are of excellent quality. Basically I know how to do what I do. I do not even always take a camera. Such as tonight we went to the Senior dinner at the High School and I did not take a camera with me. However my wife has a camera and she took care of the photography for me. Maybe I will become more interested in the activity when I retire in a couple years. I was planning on some bicycle touring before it's to late in life but I do not have a camera currently that I can carry on a bicycle. My stuff is all to bulky and heavy. I do envy folks such as you that have such an interest and passion for it. </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong><em>"I make pictures and afterwards look for a motif in them, by which to make a statement with."</em></p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>It strikes me that's a kind of dialogue (which may capture what I'm talking about better than the word "statement." Again, going back to what Luis said, the work tells you where to go."</p>

<p>Provided one <em>listens</em> to the work, of course, and everyone has their own way of doing that. For me, reviewing unedited/un post-processed takes seems to do the trick. There seems to be a cascading/branching out thing in the development of a group of photographs, and to a different degree, in individual photographs as well, and one can look at it in a commutative, time-backwards kind of way, too (thinking of Phylo here).</p>

<p>I do not want to give the impression that I always work from a statement/kernel. I also follow hunches insatiably, have no problems working without a discernable statement or kernel, or intuitively and/or rapidly. Most photographers I know, myself included, have multiple modes of working. A few put them to good use. One can think of it as a kind of artistic schizophrenia, or multiple levels of creative existence.<br>

<strong>Fred G- "</strong>Are their specific photographic maneuvers you made to highlight or show the "sham" part of the ponds?"</p>

<p>Yes, I did it by mostly by relating the comparative size of the buildings' footprints compared with the usual hot-tub sized pond visually. If one focuses on the ponds the point gets lost, though a few definitely help to illustrate how they work. I wanted a problem that was extraordinarily difficult photographically (i.e., a second-order problem) to state, not to mention the aesthetics, and this has not disappointed.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>About 2 years ago I picked up photography as a serious hobby and became interested in birds and other wild life as subjects. Fred's question made me stop and think, review the photos I have posted here and query if, in the process of becoming more and more familiar with my suburban wild life neighbors, I've become coherant enough about my feelings towards those subjects to where statements, of sorts, have started to form. I certainly didn't start out with a clear idea of a statement I wanted to make; but I do think that I've become increasingly aware of intent in my picture taking that grew/grows out of an exploration of a part of the wild parts of the world around me. At times, with birds, the only opportunity I have for a statement is to take a picture that says 'this species looks like so'. At times, the statement I want to make about a particular bird: I can't quite capture what I want the bird to convey to the viewer. </p>

<p>There are times when I work hard with a clear idea of a statement I want the picture to make. For example, in my Nature folder I've a picture of a bee where the statement I wanted to make was that it isn't so easy being a bee, showing one doing some heavy lifting. It took focus and concentration to get the right bee at the right time and there was little accidental in that capture.</p>

<p>Another example of a clarity in my purpose is in the pictures my dog. There I want to show him living the life of a country dog where, in a developed area, its hard to find places to get him off leash. My intent is to capture him when he is at one with his wild dog nature and convey something of the joy he exudes when allowed those excursions. The areas he can so express himself are, as I've learned, ideal habitat for coyotes. I was drawn to his coyote cousins. I began to document the life cycle/working life of a particular coyote family and have an intent to capture the beauty of the animal and something of the family life in which they are engaged which are statements to encourage tolerance and appreciation of them, to the point where I occasionally post coyote photos on another person's educational urban coyote blog.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>perhaps im overlooking the obvious ....but it feels more like i dont know where to start <strong>--Dennis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dennis, sometimes the obvious isn't so obvious, right? What if you've already started? There may already be a statement starting to form in the words you wrote here and it may just take some time for you to translate it into some kind of understanding or further motivation. Reading your post and looking at the pictures included, I am mindful of design, atmosphere, and symmetry.</p>

<p>I spent a good deal of time wanting to do . . . something, and then to say . . . something. I tried my hand at philosophy, at music, at envy of others who could get out of themselves and free themselves in some way. I for so long felt like a kettle about to boil. For me, it took turning 50 and a few other life-altering events to come to photography and, even then, as has been said throughout this thread by a variety of people, the statement came together out of the work as much as it led the work.</p>

<p>Perhaps a way to see it is <a href="http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/escher/drawing_hands.jpg">THIS.</a></p>

<p>If you were assigned to write a one paragraph statement that no one but you would necessarily have to ever read (unless you wanted to share it), could you (WOULD you) do it?</p>

<p>[Welcome. It's great to see a new face. Your post gives me a lot to think about.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ross, go for it! Those photos will be prized, now and in the future. I never tire of looking at old family photos, especially as I get older. There is a connection to those photos and in those photos. In so many ways, you're shooting in the moment . . . and for the future. I've heard the stories of Dad returning from the war, Mom going to her sister's wedding, the friend's club picnics before I was born. They're told with love, intonation, laughter, eyes ablaze with memories. And then there are the pictures. Not <em>trying</em> to do what the words do. Just being themselves. And telling their own kind of story nevertheless. They fill in a lot of blanks.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Yes, I did it by mostly by relating the comparative size of the buildings' footprints compared with the usual hot-tub sized pond visually. If one focuses on the ponds the point gets lost . . ." <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This seems to me the logical (sorry, that's me!) next phase of the discussion. If we do it, how do we do it and how can we see it? It's not all just hot air. It is visual! It is coherent. That is, <em>if</em> it is. Which, in this case, it is. At least in part.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p>Someone reading the thread yesterday asked me to distill a statement I'm making into a sentence and then choose a photo that illustrates or makes it. I chose this sentence from above: <em>"I am making these men -- physically and emotionally viable even as we age -- visible."</em> We decided that loosely translates to older men being proud of themselves and their bodies (with some amount of resignation instead of or in addition to pride . . . not the sinful kind . . . well, maybe a little sinful). I chose <a href="../photo/6436819&size=lg">THIS</a> photo [partial nudity alert]. I see a combination of flirty yet demure attitude in Ron. His expression but also his body position conveys that to me. He's turned away, looking back over his shoulder pretty directly at us. The reflection helps enforce the over-the-shoulder glance. It's got a kind of male odalisque quality to it. Recognizing this (it was an early photo and I was obviously led there but certainly didn't have any of this in mind consciously), I can now build on it if I want, directly or indirectly. It's a tool of a different character and quality but not so different from knowing how to set an exposure. The more coherent a statement I want, the more I might repeat (with variations) these kinds of gestures. The trick would be also keeping some kind of mystery alive.</p>

<p>______________________________</p>

<p>A statement (visual statement) can be very much a beginning. It is neither a perfectly direct communication nor is it the end of the road. The photographer and the viewer will, of course, build and riff upon the statement, often in amazingly divergent ways. Significantly, the statement is not all there is.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p>[if anyone is up for sharing examples, including photos or just descriptions, I'd love to hear some more specifics like Luis's and mine to see how others realize their motivations or what they may want to say.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Disclaimer: <em>The above is not something I'd share with most viewers or say to people looking at my work in a gallery . . . should that ever come about! I'm talking to you guys about it as fellow (and lady) photographers. Part of learning.</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, <a href="../photo/10318452&size=lg">THIS ONE</a> seems to epitomize what you're talking about with your dog. It's a scale thing. And there's the iconic (recognizable) nature of the leading lines of the path. And he's on his own, moving away from you. And on the hunt. Free. The <a href="../photo/10913650&size=lg">BEE</a> becomes an explorer as you've shown him. Your relating the coyote story reminds me how photographic tangents can become focuses. We lead ourselves and are led. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Without explaining, I'll just suggest a link. Vintage stuff, may be nostalgic for people who had contact with Esalen Institute near Monterey. It seems pretty naive now, like lava lamps. But maybe there's something in it related to the desire to verbalize non-verbal phenomena. www.fritzperls.com</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, once one finds a "motif," does that facilitate further explorations or might it make one static? - John K.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, I've thought about that too. It would invite further explorations if the <em>motive</em> is for the motif to be such that it's kinda like the river thing,the same but always changing, or changing but always the same.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Provided one <em>listens</em> to the work, of course, and everyone has their own way of doing that. For me, reviewing unedited/un post-processed takes seems to do the trick. There seems to be a cascading/branching out thing in the development of a group of photographs, and to a different degree, in individual photographs as well, and one can look at it in a commutative, time-backwards kind of way, too - Luis</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And re-reviewing "deleted" images. And then suddenly seeing something in them that wasn't there before. It <em>was</em> there all the time of course, but the seeing wasn't.<br /> I can relate to the branching out thing, because I've rooted images together that - at the time of taking them - weren't conceptually related at all, apart that they were taken by me of course.<br /> I have a little series going on <a href="http://www.motionandstill.net/index.php?/projects/be-here-nowhere-be/">here</a> and I have no idea what the next image will be in that series. But when I see that next image, I know it is it. Perhaps the series will die and reincarnate into something else. <em>Be Here Now</em> refers to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Remember-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052">Ramdass</a>' book, and ( how to transcend ? ) the schizophrenia between present and past, past and present, much like your <em>"artistic schizophrenia, or multiple levels of creative existence" </em>perhaps.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I am making these men -- physically and emotionally viable even as we age -- visible."</em> - Fred</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this too has a lot about the past <> present in the context that I was talking about to Luis. Except that yours is maybe more from a physical point of view while mine is more from a metaphysical one.<br /> I like the Bee picture that you choose from Charles' gallery, and your description of it. The void'ness of the black hole really does give the bee a context of an explorer, of something that's <em>driven, </em>and whether instinctually, intuitively, consciously or unconsciously doesn't matter, it's the *driven* part that's the crux of it.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>If I'm undertanding the original post correctly (as photographic, not verbal, statements) then, yes, to a certain degree. When I first started uploading photos to PN (and other places) I put up images that I thought were "decent" (for lack of a better word), but a hodgepodge of mostly unrelated images. Now I try to organize my photographs in folders with some sort of thematic statement. Some of the groupings are more obvious than others.</p>

<p>Much of this has come about through postings I have read on the POP discussion board: being introduced to the work of others, the approaches of others, theories and approaches to photography links to other sites displaying "statement" work by other photographers. Examples of this? (not that you've asked for any...) --</p>

<p>John Kelly (and others) talk of "the print" has influenced me to concentrate on printing out more of my work. I do not yet do my own printing (I don't have a printer sufficient to the task), but concentrate on studying results I do get from the the likes of MPIX, Nations Photo Lab, etc., calibrating my monitor, attempting to improve results. I'm still not clear on what "doing my own printing" entails (buying a "good printer" and paper?), but I am more conscious of it and this has informed my post production and overall approach.</p>

<p>Some time back Luis G and I engaged in a "spirited" discussion of appropriation and though appropriation is not currently something I engage in, I think I came away with a better understanding, or an alternate understanding, of appropriation, and critical theory in general. Fred, Anders, & Julie have also contributed to this in various ways, as have other photographers on this site who do not contribute regularly to this board (Carlos, Jack, Josh, Bulent, Marjolein...)</p>

<p>John Kelly has posted numerous links to the work of other photographers that I may, or may not have been familiar with (Tanyth Berkely, Nan Goldin). I think Fred recently posted in the Casual forum that he is interested in viewing websites that touch more upon work, theory, aesthetics, than sites which concentrate on gear and technical reviews. I enjoy and gravitate toward such websites, and these too have an influence on how I approach "statement" in my own work. (Burn, American Suburb X, Fraction Mag, among many others). </p>

<p>I did not mean for this to turn into a recitation of names, but the influences of those I have come across here and elsewhere have direct and indirect impacts on any "statements" that my photography might make. Sometimes these statements are recognized after the fact, and organized accordingly (Interstices, Ri Hokkai), others are consciously intentional (Bensenville, Graphic Novel). I tend not to be very verbal about my photography, but I think John A makes a valid point in that developing a "statement" (whether one actually places it, as words, with a group of images or not) helps to make sense of one's work. Sometimes I group instinctually, without verbalizing, and only later come to see a "statement". Unless the work is for a specific project, however, I don't seek to make photographs for the purpose of a statement.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ross b. - </strong>I appreciate your humility regarding your work, but want you to know that I see one of the all-time primal statements of the graven image in your work: <em>This is who we are, or at least who we were, at a particular time and place. </em>In some ways, that's as good as it gets. Your secondary implicit statement about the pleasures of seeing is also perfectly good and viable.<br>

_________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - </strong>": <em>"I am making these men -- physically and emotionally viable even as we age -- visible."</em> We decided that loosely translates to older men being proud of themselves and their bodies (with some amount of resignation instead of or in addition to pride . . . not the sinful kind . . . well, maybe a little sinful). I chose <a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/6436819&size=lg">THIS</a> photo [partial nudity alert]. I see a combination of flirty yet demure attitude in Ron. His expression but also his body position conveys that to me. He's turned away, looking back over his shoulder pretty directly at us. The reflection helps enforce the over-the-shoulder glance. It's got a kind of male odalisque quality to it."</p>

<p>photo at:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6436819&size=lg</p>

<p>This, as many of Fred's other portraits do, also speaks to me of "<em>This is who we are".</em></p>

<p><em>[Personal Note: </em>Sometimes in this forum, I feel like one of those frogs who lie patiently buried in the desert, encased in mud, waiting for the rain, and then a thread like this one comes along, and and it rains and rains, and then I feel like when I was a kid chasing dandelions in a light breeze.]</p>

<p>The statement in "Ron" has obviously functioned as a strange atractant for many other things. Yes, there's an odalisque feel to the image. I love its mirrored duality, how simultaneously he looks at us and looks away, and it works both ways, and how it is at right angles, the light, how Ron is leaning into the molding along the wall, and how it leads to his other image/side. Love that light "C" - shaped section of the background by his head, it is a kind of halo, and the arc also connects with the secondary image. Lots there.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Phylo: "And re-reviewing "deleted" images. And then suddenly seeing something in them that wasn't there before. It <em>was</em> there all the time of course, but <strong>the seeing wasn't</strong>."</p>

<p>Yes, Phylo, amen to that.</p>

<p>(Sometimes it pays to read all of a thread before you post...meaning me.)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>And then suddenly seeing something in them that wasn't there before. It <em>was</em> there all the time of course, but the seeing wasn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phylo, this is how it works for me half the time. The other half, the seeing was there, but the something in them wasn't there yet. It took my getting here, my doing the photos I'm currently doing, for those older photos now to have what they have . . . the earlier photos kind of needed the context of my present work to make them what they now can be. Maybe they couldn't have been this before, no matter how I saw. It's like the new photos become the allies of the older ones.</p>

<p>I like this looking at past <> present. I tend to think of possibility as future oriented. But maybe it's only from here, the present, that we can see the possibility in our photos of the past and do something with them. It's less about the future and more like a reopening of the past. </p>

<p>Your <em>Be Here Now</em> series is much about what's not here, maybe something just out of reach. <em>Picture of a Dream</em>, for example: you might think it's the void (as you called it relative to the bee photo) of the mirror, but it's more the void in the ghostly draped absence that seems to be not looking in the mirror, just grazing its edge. It's like there's an "almost" in each of these photos. The next frame modernizes the mirror and solidifies its grounds while offering us a window . . . a way out and a way in. The window beckons the counterpart of Be Here Now: <em>Be Now Here. </em>If you don't watch it, it becomes <em>Be Nowhere.</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>This is who we are".</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, that's a really solid and helpful insight! Worth the price of admission.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, a couple of years ago I saw a great exhibition of Man Ray at the Whitney in NY. Among the photos and other work were a bunch of letters between Man Ray and Duchamp and others among the Dadaists and Surrealists. They were thinking about what they were doing, talking about it, sharing it. I think that might be what you're getting at and it is a wonderful use of these forums and the Internet. Influence / cooperation / collaboration/ networking (to bring it up to date) / <em>creative activism</em>. Many other groups of folks (Algonquin Round Table, French New Wave) fed off each other as well. The Internet allows for some wide-ranging groups of influence.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Thank you Fred and Luis, I appreciate your comments. </p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I have never consciously set out to make a statement about my subject matter. I wait until something 'proposes itself' to me as a subject and then begin what I can only call an exploration. Much of my early work was purely documentary: I photographed the final years of my former home town, a classic 19th century industrial town of coal mines, brickyards, foundries, railways etc. My prime aim was purely to document, but from the pictures emerges a statement about me. I discover something about myself and say something about myself, but the statement is epiphenomenal - it emerges from the totality of the work but I did not set out to make any specific statement other than to show people what the town looked like years ago. It seems to be a circular process which begins with trying to be receptive to whatever might impinge upon one's mind and then to distill down and refine what it is that lies at the root of the attraction.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I very much agree that such exchanges have got new and powerful means by internet and that maybe also PN can be a place for genuine and respectful exchanges too. The discussion above is an example that gives hope. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Among the photos and other work were a bunch of letters between Man Ray and Duchamp and others among the Dadaists and Surrealists</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should add Picabia to Man Ray and Duchamps and maybe also Stella, they were together in New York between 1915 and 1923 although they disagreed a lot. The start of the Dada movement on the American soil where it was purely artistic, while in Europe it stayed a widespread ideological movement.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Chris, thanks for talking about discovery. Photographs are a lot of things. "Statement" was just an aspect to explore for the moment. Discovery is another significant aspect. And I like the idea of a statement being epiphenomenal, emerging from the photos you take. The sum is greater than the parts. Do you have a sense that that sum, that emergence you discover in your photos after the fact, then gets put back into your future work, whether deliberately or more casually (not so consciously)? So is there any kind of back and forth motion to the process?</p>

<p>_____________________________<br>

.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have never consciously set out to make a statement about my subject matter. --Chris</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This idea struck me in terms of Phylo's series and work overall. If there is a statement which either emerges out of Phylo's work or gets poured into it on some level, his work, more than most, is NOT about his subject matter. That's where the metaphysical nature of it comes in. It's about juxtapositions and relationships, about what's not there, about simplicity bathed in atmosphere. It's like his subjects don't matter that much. They are casual bystanders or a springboard to the ether in which his photos (and his mind) wander. In the case of <em>Be Here Now</em>, the series is the subject, if I'd even call it that. There is a dependency of vision, each photo to the others, that isn't clouded by compositional or particularly thematic concerns. It's more about the watched going right through the watcher. Phylo seems to complete a circle in his work, one that includes him conceptually if not gravitationally.</p>

<p>_____________________________<br>

.</p>

<p>Anders, thanks for including more references. As Steve was saying, a great thing about these forums is the exposure to additional names to become familiar with. The linking to more and more historical and current figures adds texture to these threads.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Do you make statements and have a purpose with regard to your photographs"</p>

<p>By observing the world as it is.</p>

<p>The great Tapestry.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred, that's a pretty good analyses.<br /> I think I depart from the metaphysical of it all while you depart from the physicalness from and of your particular <em>photographed</em> subject*. I don't know though where either one of us ( as a kind of photographer ) arrives or aims to arrive at, because as a subject<em>,</em> you can't get any more metaphysical than metaphysical or any more physical than physical and when both are taken to their most possible edge they reflect back to their "opposite".<br /> It is perhaps this turning point - this ball frozen in the air at its highest point - which is what I would mostly like the/my subject to be about, to make a statement through-true, enantiodromia.</p>

<p>* The subject - <em>your subject</em> - is of course also the motivation or statement that you were talking about :<em>I am making these men -- physically and emotionally viable even as we age -- visible</em><br /> Which as a subject of motivation and awareness, in and of itself, isn't visible either of course, or is about <em>what's not there </em>too.</p>

<p>There's this thread in the casual conversations forum about <em>subjects</em>. But I wonder, how can one have any other subject than perceived reality itself, or like Allan says, than "the world as it is".</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>But I wonder, how can one have any other subject than perceived reality itself, or like Allan says, than "the world as it is"."</p>

<p>Yes, one is subject (pun intended) to one's perceived reality but "the world as it is" is a different thing. It is different for all of us. Our personal delusions are bespoke. The eye is also not as simple as a camera. The world is many things.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>There's this thread in the casual conversations forum about <em>subjects</em>. But I wonder, how can one have any other subject than perceived reality itself, or like Allan says, than "the world as it is".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's the river thing again. It's both. Looked at one way, there is no other subject than perceived reality itself. Looked at another way, and in simple terms, there are many different subjects, as evidence by the answers in that thread. And looked at some ways, the both becomes one or, as we said above, the sum of its parts. It's just as true to say, "I mostly photograph flowers or naked girls" as it is to say "I photograph perceived reality." And I think transcendence occurs in more or less degree. With your work, I am usually transported immediately beyond the "real world" subject. So, in your photo, I'm not terribly concerned with what that shroud-like figure is, where it came from, who it belongs to, etc. With a picture of Grandma (and that's the easiest example I can think of, but this would not be limited to family photos), there may be a transcendent aspect (there is one) to looking at a photo of Grandma, but I am often more concerned with the real Grandma than the photographed Grandma. I think referents can be more or less important in varieties of photos.</p>