Spontaneity

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2011

Wouter, Luis wouldn't be the first to "think as if" or "act as if" even with knowledge that, on a different level (a different stance) he was "acting without."

This may be a bit dense, but read this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy account of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/">Compatibilism</a>, which has been around for a long time, and maintains the efficacy of the existence of both Free Will and Determinism. The "stance" argument is an important contemporary conception, and is explained if you scroll quite a ways down to Section 5.2, which concentrates on Daniel Dennett, a respected and prolific Philosopher of Mind.

I think what Luis is bringing up that's important and that I agree with is that there are many causal chains impacting what we do. Speaking for myself here, so-called spontaneity is often a myth. Luis's description of working with his goddaughter is just one simple example of how his posture and actions "caused" a situation that provided him with the means and setting to get the kind of photo he wanted (realize the vision he had). Importantly, Luis recognizes that, and that obviously helps guide his work . . . intentionally and intuitively.

Again, I think we use a lot of hundred-dollar words because we hesitate to say "It's the PHOTO, stupid." What is special about a photo of a person is often mistakenly thought of as capturing an essence (which really tells us nothing), when it is the fact that it is a well-crafted and creative PHOTO that we are impressed by. In searching for a more significant reason to be moved than that we are looking at a photo, we come up with "essence." What may be special about the photo of Luis's goddaughter may be mistakenly thought of as spontaneity (because it's one of those artistically magical words the world has come up with and bought into) when in fact we should simply describe it as an effective and compelling PHOTO, and that is more than enough to give it its specialness.

Like Luis, I'm not putting down "spontaneity" per se, any more than any other single quality a photo may have. I am, however, putting down the magical, mythical, and necessary quality it seems to take on. Spontaneity is no more a magic bullet than anything else we can think of. It's not a solution to the question of art.

Wouter Willemse · September 3, 2011

Luis, thanks for clarifying; I did not mean to attack what you said there, but more I was baffled by what to me seemed to be mutual exclusives. In saying there was plenty food for other discussions, I did not mean that tongue in cheek nor snarky; but determinism and being able to find that exact right moment for a photo do set my mind working.

Fred, thanks for the link. Not having read it yet entirely, I may double up in this response. At no point did I mean to defend spontaneity as something big. If anything, I'm closer to determinism as well (too frequently told people "things don't just happen" to deny that).

The point I tried to raise was more one of the possibile disconnect between the act of making the photo, and the act of experiencing the photo. Like most, I know enough people who will "pose" for a photo. Capturing a nice unposed portrait of them, it's much like Luis' example. It's knowing or creating the right moment, and being ready. The result is what Fred mentions: the photo. People think they see an essence and spontaneity, because it is not posed. But indeed, there is no essence and little spontaneous; it's unposed. And that's all. No magic, but being a more experienced photographer you are more likely to get these right.

And there are photos which are taken spontaneously, in an instant reflex. The results of that can be either type of photo, and this spontaneity may well not show in the resulting photo. Even in these cases, the "being ready" plays a big role, so one could argue how spontaneous a well-trained photographer ever can be. While I'm certainly not the most experienced around, I think I spent enough time behind a viewfinder (and learnt just enough about waiting) to be realistic that truely spontaneous photos only happen when I clumsily squeeze the shutter when I did not mean to.

dhbebb · September 3, 2011

For me, the appearance of spontaneity is not required, and contrivance does not equal staleness.

I agree with you totally, Luis! Studio photography is by its very nature contrived, we see nothing natural but only what the photographer has put there. At the same time, I am sure you will agree that there is a vast difference between a studio shot of a model which has real energy and life (aka spontaneity, which of course it isn't) and one where the photographer and model are not connecting and the model look bored stiff (shots like this will of course never be published but will go straight into the trash!).

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2011

Thanks for the clarification and expansion, Wouter.

One thing I'd like to add is that poses can read spontaneously and posed portraits often elicit the "essence" response as well.

Poses, interestingly, can also arise spontaneously. When I get someone moving around, even thinking about and paying ATTENTION to the gestures and mannerisms, a pose will not necessarily "be posed" but will simply arise.

When I do street photography, I often look for what will appear to be poses by people not posing. People also strike poses, almost out of habit or homage to Hollywood, often unwittingly. Watch a smoker on a street corner sometime or a couple kissing. There's a little Bogart and Bacall in every smoker and every public kiss.

And the simplest of real-life gestures, even completely "unposed" can read as a very determined "pose" when stilled in a photograph. We've talked about exaggeration before in this forum. A stilled photo will often (sometimes intentionally, sometimes just by being a photo) exaggerate a sense of pose.

Much of photographing and theater centers around "the pose." I love working with pose. I sometimes find that a very obvious pose is perfectly in order. It's multi-dimensional and a good working knowledge of pose and balance in using poses, masking them, and not using them is very helpful.

john_a5 · September 3, 2011

As I read through the responses here, I often get a sense that people are trying to make spontaneity into one thing or one kind of event--I find that troubling.

Dan said "You say you photograph spontaneously but if would seem only after overtly conscious decisions as to what location to visit and when, what equipment to take. etc. or in the case of studio work, what models to work with. etc. Whatever works for you is fine, I might just question how spontaneous it really is."

</blockquote>

I have worked commercially for 20 years and find that allowing oneself to respond in spontaneous ways can make a contrived table top shot come to life. Being spontaneous can be just to respond to a "stupid" thought that turns out to bring everything together. It isn't planned, you never did it before, but you thought it and acted on it without hesitation. This doesn't mean its genesis wasn't because you have great facility with creating such images but it does mean you were open to something outside of the PLAN.

And like Fred indicated, sometimes one wants the artifice of a shot to be visible, but does that mean there was nothing spontaneously done in the creation of the shot? Again, to me that is to limiting as to what spontaneity is about, IMO. Why can't spontaneity be so minor we don't recognize it--I believe it happens continuously. Even when making an image where it is supposed to look set up and contrived, it can be one's recognition of an unexpected moment, a transition as the model moves their expression or their body into position, where the magic happens--where the photographer responds by clicking the shutter at that moment to create the perfect planned and contrived looking image!

I once stood for almost an hour waiting for a cloud to cover the sun to make one of my spontaneous shots. I was leaving a wash in the desert, I was hot and tired and I was retracing the same steps I had used to enter. As I started to climb out, I looked back and saw something and although I WAS DONE, I went back immediately. By the time the view camera was out and set up, the light changed as did the shot. I waited for the one cloud left to "hopefully" recreate the light. The photograph certainly wasn't made spontaneously--in that moment of recognition-- but was the result of a spontaneous reaction to something totally unexpected while pursuing a different goal.

As I said in an earlier entry, I think we have to recognize that being spontaneous is a continuum-- not only as to how it manifests or as to its magnitude but also as to how it looks.

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2011

And like Fred indicated, sometimes one wants the artifice of a shot to be visible, but does that mean there was nothing spontaneously done in the creation of the shot?

</blockquote>

No. There may have been spontaneity in the creation of the shot or not. There just doesn't have to have been and it's not automatically better photography if there was.

dhbebb · September 3, 2011

Why can't spontaneity be so minor we don't recognize it--I believe it happens continuously.

I think I agree with you, but I would tend to call what you are describing "serendipity" or happy chance - every artistic work could use some of this, in fact it may be vital for success. At the same time, I believe this is linked to the principle I mentioned earlier of "Chance favors the prepared mind."

PS: Minor correction - the words you quote are in fact mine. not Dan's!

john_a5 · September 3, 2011

"No. There may have been spontaneity in the creation of the shot or not. There just doesn't have to have been and it's not automatically better photography if there was."

I don't have any argument with that, but I would suggest that most, if not all, respond to things that present themselves along the way that are unexpected and that reaction is "spontaneous"--again, just part of the continuum. It happens even when one is narrowly focused on a task.

Sorry David for the misquote. I think serendipity is different than spontaneity, serendipity to us may be someone else's spontaneity if they are our subject but our reaction is spontaneous to that unexpected event. It is serendipity to have decided to hike a trail and find something unexpected--that is not spontaneity, finding the thing, while deciding to walk the trail may have been a spontaneous decision.

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2011

Whether or not we work in a more or less spontaneous way, and whether or not we delude ourselves or simply "act as if" we can be spontaneous in a more determined world, photos look more or less spontaneous, sometimes in opposition to the way we work. What makes a photo APPEAR spontaneous? (The question is not: What makes a photo suggest that the photographer worked spontaneously. It's: What makes THE PHOTO look like it pictures spontaneity?)

Frank's photos look more spontaneous to me than Cartier Bresson's. Bresson's seem to have a more organized and rhythmic or repetitive kind of geometry. There is structure which seems to appear in opposition to how spontaneously he may have triggered the shutter.

There are a lot of other visual cues that offer spontaneity in a photo, aren't there?

john_a5 · September 3, 2011

Fred, were you the one that above suggested that the photo is the proof of success or not (idea, not quote)? My own feeling is that the way a photograph looks is all that matters in the final analysis and if we think it exudes spontaneity, then so be it, if it doesn't, so be it. It works or it doesn't--at least for us.

To me the idea of spontaneity just has to do with an ability to respond to what is presented. In fact, nothing is done during anyone's day that doesn't have some sense of the spontaneous--unless your world is totally scripted and everything and everyone could perfectly stay with that script and deliver it as written. Most everything we do, even opening our door to go out, can present something different than expected--a momentary sticking because of heat or moisture and the like. We spontaneously react to it as a matter of course and complete our task.

In creative tasks, these same sorts of things face us as we are either creating a shot or looking for one. Things rarely work just as we thought--we accommodate these anomalies. When we are shooting a model, they never do exactly what we want and we look to get things as close as possible or may discover something new as we work--we choose or not to respond in the moment. Rigidly holding to a specific result may work but it also may, and probably does, result in opportunities lost.

I don't think how a photo looks--or a painting for that matter--necessarily reflects the level of spontaneity with which an artist works--or maybe more to the point, how willing they are to accept and respond to variants to what they were looking for. We only see the result and that result has much to do with style, facility of craft and one's predilection towards how an image should look (style or even mental model?). Frank's images may look more spontaneous but he may have also missed many things because he was looking for "something" specific. Bresson might have found a scene, determined a desired framing but then been much more open to what happened within it, we just don't know. What we do know is that each created wonderful photos of things that they did not control even though they controlled some of the parameters, each was responsive-spontaneous, at some level, to what happened-spontaneously- before their camera.

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2011

John, I tried to emphasize that I wasn't getting at how Frank or Bresson worked (wasn't talking about their spontaneity of process) but at what spontaneity looks like in a photo. What makes a photo LOOK spontaneous or LOOK LIKE it is about spontaneity (regardless of how the photographer accomplished that). What, in the photo?

.

Frank's images may look more spontaneous

</blockquote>

The question I asked is what, specifically, makes them look more spontaneous . . . not how Frank works. I think answering that question would be discussing photography instead of words.

I mentioned the visible differences in their compositions. There are many other visual cues for spontaneity.

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2011

As for success, there are different assessments for that, IMO.

A photo is a success based on what the photo shows, not really based on my process.

At the same time, sometimes I am merely looking for success in process, for the time being. I may consider my day of photographing a successful day even if I don't get a decent photo out of it. If I learn something, if I find myself experimenting in a new way, if I sense myself moving in a new direction that seems to have possibilities rather than immediately successful results, etc. If I go out with the intention of shooting more spontaneously and feel myself doing that, I've been a success whether a photo shows it from that day or not. I assume that these kinds of successes will eventually add up to photos that I will consider more and more successful. Sometimes, I measure success in how I've communicated with a subject and the photographic results on that day are less important.

dan_south · September 4, 2011

Thanks Dan, the "Pedant of the Week" award is yours!

</blockquote>

Now, now, David! Let's not get all ad hominem on each other. :-)

I said that jazz musicians practice for hours, believing that everyone would understand I meant "each day" and not "during their lifetime". I don't know if you are a musician or have in any other way been in a position to hear a certain jazzer's performance repeatedly either in the course of several takes in a recording studio or live performances on successive nights of a tour. If you had (as I have), you might understand better what I mean - sometimes one version will be very different, just for the hell of it, most times different versions are similar but not identical as ideas evolve. If you have not had this experience, you can verify this with almost any boxed set of CDs by a well-known player (such as Charlie Parker) which includes alternate takes.

</blockquote>

I'm sure that it varies greatly from musician to musician, song to song, even how well the performer is feeling on a particular evening. Once a jazz artist has played the same song a few hundred times, the performances can become repetitive. Yes, I am a musician and composer, but I don't believe that that is critical to my point.

You say you photograph spontaneously but if would seem only after overtly conscious decisions as to what location to visit and when, what equipment to take. etc.

</blockquote>

Well, I only own so much equipment, so that's what I use. I have one small backpack that I carry with me 98 percent of the time, and its configuration (one body and 4 lenses) doesn't change very often. I don't have the luxury to fly off to exciting, photogenic locations all that often, so the VAST majority of my photography takes place where I happen to be as I go about my life and business. One exercise that I've been doing recently is to go for a walk in the city (no pre-planned route) and take one shot per block. Some blocks aren't all that interesting, but the exercise forces me to look for something, and the opportunities that present themselves can be quite enlightening.

There is the saying "Chance favors the prepared mind" - what I think is beyond dispute is that artistic expression should look (i.e. apparently be) spontaneous - if not, it will seem contrived and stale.

</blockquote>

I think that we are saying the very same thing. The jazz player is preparing his mind and hands for the chances that the live performance will present. The disciplined photographer trains himself to he can react to events as they play out.

From much experience in photography (and music, the theater and other fields), however, I would say that the vast majority of what seems spontaneous - isn't! Extreme (and you might think frivolous) example - the late British comic Frankie Howerd, famed for his "off the cuff" style and phrases such as "Oo er!", "Please yourselves!", etc. - all scripted down to the last comma!

</blockquote>

Again, you make a very good point, but it's all up to the taste of the producers and performers involved. 'Saturday Night Live' is famous for being meticulously scripted. Producer Lorne Michaels gets very upset with anyone who strays from their cue cards. And yet it seems like a very spontaneous show. But just because some productions (and your personal theatrical experiences) have been rigidly structured doesn't mean that that's how it always works. Toward the other side of the spectrum were The Grateful Dead and other lesser known "jam bands" whose set lists varied widely from night to night.

Famous unscripted movie lines: "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli." (The Godfather) "You're gonna need a bigger boat." (Jaws) "Here's looking at you, kid." (Casablanca)

Norma Desmond · September 4, 2011

Dan, what does spontaneity in a photo look like?

dan_south · September 4, 2011

I think serendipity is different than spontaneity, serendipity to us may be someone else's spontaneity if they are our subject but our reaction is spontaneous to that unexpected event. It is serendipity to have decided to hike a trail and find something unexpected--that is not spontaneity, finding the thing, while deciding to walk the trail may have been a spontaneous decision.

</blockquote>

John, this is a very important distinction, and I agree with your perspective 100 percent. Spontaneity enables us to react positively to unexpected conditions and events, whether serendipitous or unfortunate.

Fred, I don't believe that there is a direct connection between photos that are taken spontaneously and that look spontaneous. If I walk down the street and notice a pink fire hydrant, I might spontaneously decide to photograph it, but the fire hydrant is inanimate, so it can't "look spontaneous."

If on the other hand I know that the pink hydrant is there and I set up and wait for someone to walk by and give it an inquisitive look, that photo will exude an air of spontaneity even though it was a planned shot from my perspective. Taking photos spontaneously is one thing; spontaneous-looking photos ('Candid Camera'-style) are another.

Norma Desmond · September 4, 2011

Taking photos spontaneously is one thing; spontaneous-looking photos ('Candid Camera'-style) are another.

</blockquote>

I know. I've been saying that all day, as have others.

What no one seems to want to answer, for some reason, is what photographic or visual qualities a spontaneous-looking photo has. We seem to keep going over and over the spontaneous method of photographers but can't seem to address spontaneous-looking photos. Reducing them to "candid camera," I don't think so.

I can tell, and I suspect you can, the audible difference between the Grateful Dead and the Beatles. I can hear the difference between improvised (a much more appropriate word than spontaneous) music and music that is not improvised. A composer, like a photographer, can make his music sound more improvised even when it's not. How would he do that? I'm simply asking for visual descriptions of spontaneous-looking photos.

"Spontaneous," according to Websters, by the way, has the element of a natural impulse. Improvisation does not. Improvisation is simply unrehearsed or planned. Jazz and classical music can be equally spontaneous, or stemming from the musician's natural impulses. They are generally not equally improvised.

What, in a photo, might look more like a natural impulse rather than simply unplanned? I mentioned compositional differences. I was hoping we could explore more.

dhbebb · September 4, 2011

Further thought which may be of interest:

Case 1: You are in the pub with some friends. One makes a joke you don't quite get, so you ask him/her to repeat it. He/she does so but involuntarily his/her style of delivery changes, the energy level is lower and the whole emphasis pattern makes the joke sound far less funny. If you still don't get it and ask for another repetition, your friend will probably demur, saying "It's not worth it, the spontaneity has gone, forget it!"

Case 2: Professional actors are filming a comedy show. For some reason or another (technical problem, other actor missing cue, etc.). they are obliged to repeat one gag four or five times. The audience notes that, even though the delivery might vary slightly, the energy level remains high and even the fifth take sounds as funny as the first one.

This is an important but perhaps under-recognized difference between professionals and amateurs (in my view, the difference is NOT that one or the other is "better" per se). To put it another way, amateurs (in many fields, not just acting) are allowed to stop if they get fed up, pros have to find a way to seem spontaneous and fresh even if they feel ready to drop!

luis_g · September 4, 2011

John A - "The photograph certainly wasn't made spontaneously--in that moment of recognition-- but was the result of a spontaneous reaction to something totally unexpected while pursuing a different goal."

If it was truly spontaneous, that would be the moment of cognition, not recognition, no?

I wish John A. would expand on his idea of the continuum.

________________________________________________________

Photographers learn to look backwards from experience, either their own or that of others. But I won't argue that a lot of behaviors appear to be spontaneous, both on the subject's and photographer's part. I have a question for Dan: Were you always smooth and spontaneous, or was it a little (or lot) less so when you began phootgraphing?

________________________________________________________

Wouter and Fred, thanks for clarifying.

_________________________________________________________

Spontaneity looks magical, and there's a real good reason for that: There a magician behind the camera making it happen (us). The better the magician, the better the magic. Do unanticipated apparently spontaneous events happen? Of course. No human can make predictions with absolute certainty involving huge numbers of variables. The ability to seize upon them quickly, comes from recognizing their potential, sometimes incrediby fast, wordlessly, and thoughtlessly. That point comes from thousands of hours of focused practice, and the syntheses of a wide variety of experiences. I would suggest that when those events synergize with our visual energies in photography, we think of them as serendipitous.

______________________________________________

Fred reels us back with the everpresent question, what are we talking about in visual terms? What is it that looks "spontaneous" in a photograph? If we don't know that, how can we make it happen? "I know it when I see it" but to make a photograph you have to anticipate it, or rely on luck. Life and the subject's patience is too short for that.

_______________________________________________

Disclaimer: What this is not is a handy shopping list or recipe for the inept to incorporate in one's photography to hamfistedly generate spontaeous-looking photographs. Magic requires one become a Magician. I am answering Fred's question, and purposely leaving out lots of other things that appear spontaneous

Speaking strictly for what is visible in the photograph (as opposed to theory of the photographer's mind), I think one thing that passes for spontaneity the most is transition. Above I linked the obviously contrived deadpan portraits of Thomas Ruf:

http://www.johnmiddleham.co.uk/critical_studies/page4/files/Pasted%20Graphic%204.jpg

Not a lot of visible transitions there.

Now, let's look at a Sylvia Plachy portrait of Bambi, a Coney Island Mermaid...

http://www.aperture.org/exposures/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/asksilvia.jpg

The sense of immediacy, the momentary, transitional look of her pose, the other figures in the background, and the flying gulls, the shifting energies, all add to the illusion of spontaneity.

Another example of this is Ansel Adams' portrait of Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox.

http://0.tqn.com/d/cleveland/1/0/9/H/-/-/ansel3.jpg

Taken with a 35mm Contax, it has a sense of motion (I mentioned earlier most photographs being too "still"), it's an ephemeral, transitional moment. The truth is they had all been walking together and AA had been watching the rapport between them carefully. People have a limited repertoire of behaviors and tend to repeat themselves. Although AA is mostly known for his landscapes, he wasn't a half bad portraitist.

One other way to visually imply spontaneity is to do what many photographers have made into a signature style, lighting-wise: Work the edges.

David Alan Harvey...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CM1pqhodMRQ/R2aksmcireI/AAAAAAAAA70/LTiyKijl0jM/s400/hiphop_10.jpg

Alex Webb...

http://www.studioa7.no/images/invitasjoner/webb_boy.jpg

Avedon knew perfectly well how to create this. He simplified lighting, though he made sure it could freeze action, and background to put all emphasis on the subject. There is nothing to distract us. Then he manipulated the subject, but the result looks deftly spontaneous...

Here, by tiring out the subject he showed us MM out of character...

http://genevaanderson.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/sfmoma_avedon_10_marilynmonroe.jpg

This one looks quite spontaneous, but between photographer and subject rarely has there been more knowledge about the medium between two people in one place. Maria H. knew how she would look, and RA knew she would. Rapport and complicity end up looking spontaneous here.

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100617400/richard-avedon-portraits-maria-morris-hamburg-hardcover-cover-art.jpg

______________________________________________________

Wouter Willemse · September 4, 2011

David, your examples to me still are talking about the act of taking a photo. And frankly, they're not the most useful examples since they talk about live performances. Photography is not a live performance, it has a 'disconnect' between the act of taking/making the photo, and the public experiencing the photo. As both Fred and Dan concluded (and I agree as well), the spontaneity that happens while taking a photo may or may not show up in the resulting photo. There is no hard link between those two 'spontaneities'. Whether you are a pro or not does not make the big difference here either. A professional is paid to do a job; an amateur does it because he loves it. The resulting image may or may not have attributes that people tend to call "spontaneous", but how one got there and whether one invoices for that image does not really relate to one another.

What no one seems to want to answer, for some reason, is what photographic or visual qualities a spontaneous-looking photo has.

</blockquote>

Fred, I started trying to respond 2 times, and deleted the answer two times. I'm going to stick with this one, but it's not really answering anything. In short: "Uhm, yes, uhm, right....." All examples I can think of, cases where people told me a photo had something spontaneous, were cases of photos that in my view carry other characteristics:

<ul>

<li>Unposed, or seemingly unposed,</li>

<li>Action shots,</li>

<li>Candid or somewhat candid shots,</li>

<li>A composition that does not show that it was actually composed very deliberately,</li>

<li>Gentle, natural lightning,</li>

</ul>

or combinations of some or all of the above. So, all it continues to leave me with is that 'spontaneous' is being used as an umbrella for qualities that make a photo seem to be the result of 'a moment, shot at the right time'. More harshly put: it's a lack of analysis of the photo and a disregard for the skill the photographer brings in to detect/create that moment and to make it look as natural as it does (the earlier Sinatra quote does fit here well). But spontaneous to me seems to be a misconception, a compliment that clouds other qualities.

What, in a photo, might look more like a natural impulse rather than simply unplanned?

</blockquote>

Well, speaking for myself, nothing. Natural impulse makes me stop, change plan and go and take that photo first. From the moment I detect that photographic possibility, to when I actually make the photo, I am working on that photo. It is previsualised, because that's how I got that natural impulse in the first place. In my view, there is a wrong assumption (in general) that these shots have to be made in a split second. Thus, I strongly doubt you can see any difference between those 'natural impulse' photos versus normal planned shots. <a href="../photo/11065566">Example</a>; I see the object, recognise a photo in it (it resonates with my mood at the moment, many other days I would not have seen it), and that's that. I still took some time to make it (and should have taken a bit more). This was surely made on an impulse, but if I never told, would you know? As for the unplanned shots, there I seem to reach a dead-end street. What is an unplanned shot if I have my camera with me, powered on and ready to go? The more I train myself in seeing, framing, understanding how to meter and so on, the more I always seem planned to make a shot. Like I tried to say before, as an experienced photographer, can you still really call yourself unprepared at any moment?

______ Edit: Luis, we were posting at the same time and I think we're pretty much on the same page; just to be sure: I did not see your response before I posted this one.

dhbebb · September 4, 2011

David, your examples to me still are talking about the act of taking a photo. And frankly, they're not the most useful examples since they talk about live performances. Photography is not a live performance, it has a 'disconnect' between the act of taking/making the photo, and the public experiencing the photo.

I have to say, I don't understand what you're saying. Of course I am concerned with the act of taking a photo - that's photography (or more accurately the first of two steps, the second being presenting the resulting images to an audience of some kind). And the examples I am quoting are not actually live performance - they involve recording, with playback at a later time. Please ignore my remarks if you do not find them helpful - they are essentially an expression of a dialogue I have with myself, having taken pictures in some form or another for around 55 years, and help me to figure out to myself what exactly I am aiming for. I am naturally concerned with a look of spontaneity in finished images - if a photographer felt in some way spontaneous when taking a picture but there is no sign of this mood in the finished picture, I or any other viewer is very unlikely to ever know this!

john_a5 · September 4, 2011

If it was truly spontaneous, that would be the moment of cognition, not recognition, no?

</blockquote>

The point I was trying to make here was that the photograph itself wasn't a spontaneous reaction but how I got to where I was able to make the photograph was the result of a spontaneous response. Which leads nicely into my idea:

I wish John A. would expand on his idea of the continuum.

</blockquote>

Early in the thread, when I made this statement initially, it was in response to what I sensed was a sort of codification of what it meant to be spontaneous in the creative process--the making of images. Not that everyone was in agreement but I felt there was some sense that it can only manifest in this way or that. Just a sense I had that things were going in that direction.

From my perspective, I believe being spontaneous in the creative process is pervasive just as it is in life. There are certainly "SPONTANEOUS" people, but except for maybe some rare instances people make many spontaneous responses to get through a normal day.

Even if we see ourselves as planning our shots, where do the ideas come from? They could be those spontaneous brainstorms or maybe something more considered but as we develop the idea, there are many opportunities for small, spontaneous ideas to work themselves into the process--and that can be out of our awareness as such. The magnitude of such spontaneous thoughts and ideas can vary widely--a very long continuum--but will, and do, have an effect on what we produce.

When we are actually shooting, we can just be reacting to what is before us in some spontaneous form--just pulling up the camera and shooting without thought to a last minute minor, unexplained change to a studied shot that we may or may not even realize.

And of course, some spontaneous decision to just step outside, to turn left instead of right etc can be the basis of the creation of an image that otherwise would have never been made.

Spontaneity can affect our creative output in so many ways and it can be something of great magnitude that directly affects the act of creating the image or it can be small and hidden on the path to get there. Maybe like continuums of magnitude, effect and proximity, for instance.

I think sometimes there can be a tendency to discount spontaneity if we want to consider ourselves as in control of our work, but the nature of spontaneity is that it comes from within us completely and is the manifestation of who/what we are. The ultimate control in a sense.

Wouter Willemse · September 4, 2011

David,

if a photographer felt in some way spontaneous when taking a picture but there is no sign of this mood in the finished picture, I or any other viewer is very unlikely to ever know this!

</blockquote>

That is the point exactly: whether or not you felt spontaneous while taking a photo, does not mean whether or not the spontaneity will be visible in the photo. So, as feeling spontaneous while shooting the photo has no effect on the photo, then how does it really matter to the photo? The resulting image will be perceived the same.

Norma Desmond · September 4, 2011

That is the point exactly: whether or not you felt spontaneous while taking a photo, does not mean whether or not the spontaneity will be visible in the photo. So, as feeling spontaneous while shooting the photo has no effect on the photo, then how does it really matter to the photo?

</blockquote>

Wouter, I don't draw the same conclusion as you from the premise. Being spontaneous in the taking of the photo doesn't mean spontaneity will appear in the photo . . . on that we agree. But that doesn't mean being spontaneous has NO effect on the photo. It can have a variety of effects. It can result in unusual angles, photographing something others might not have or you, yourself, might otherwise not have, it can also result in the following, which a friend pointed out to me yesterday and which follows nicely Luis's observations about transitions and photographic spontaneity as it appears in pictures.

(I like Luis's transition idea. Neither here nor there (in-between) does suggest spontaneity to me as well . . . transitional situations, expressions, glances, physical or emotional transformations of people, things, and scenes.)

When I talked about the difference between Frank and Bresson in terms of composition, my friend pointed me in another direction as well: blur, movement, and technique. Lack of sharpness and focus often looks spontaneous in photos. Movement does as well (which relates to transition). He brought up editing. Bresson seems to edit his work to usually very clarified images, in focus. Frank allows more blur (as in <a href="http://www.atgetphotography.com/Images/Photos/RobertFrank/frank15.jpg">THE PHOTO</a> we were recently addressing).

My friend pointed me to "imperfections"* in technique, in which I now realize I see more visual spontaneity (regardless of whether it was taken spontaneously or planned to look that way). Rough edges, blown or severe highlights, a little evidence of camera shake, skews, all tend to look and feel spontaneous to me, within the context of course, they don't HAVE to.

*I use "imperfections" hesitatingly, because I don't see these as flaws or negatives. As a matter of fact, lack of that look of technical perfection can often be used quite purposefully and expressively. Luis mentioned above how dull rigid craft, in itself, can be.

john_a5 · September 4, 2011

As to how a photograph can look spontaneous, I think there is also a continuum here as well. (bottom line, I don't think of photos in this way, as I don't think the characteristic itself determines the success of an image)

A shot of a model can be very formal and stilted as to the scene, but the model can exude what appears to be a spontaneous emotion or movement. Someone might have made a shot with the horizon tilted, creating a seemingly spontaneous shot of a runner passing a crowd (with their 8x10 camera on a tripod and it being the 50th take). Depending on one's own predilections, both could be called spontaneous images without reservation while some might consider the first less so because of the nature of the framing. Others would consider the latter, with knowledge of the process, not only not spontaneous but a sham.

There are a lot of things that can give the impression of spontaneity and those same qualities in two different photos may give us a different sense of this quality. One might consider a unique moment captured as being a spontaneous photograph, but as I am typing this, I am looking at a lightning shot thumbnail by Wouter at the bottom of the page. It is a nice shot, the moment is fleeting and unique, but it isn't an image I would describe as feeling spontaneous.

I guess my point is that there are many things that go into what might look spontaneous and it can create an image that looks entirely spontaneous or one that contains something spontaneous. The latter can then be described as spontaneous, like a model's demeanor while something indisputably spontaneous, like the lightening shot not give a sense of spontaneity at all.

Bottom line, the shot works or it doesn't and being spontaneous or not or looking spontaneous or not is rarely the determining factor, although it certainly can be a critical factor when it is relevant to an image.

Wouter Willemse · September 4, 2011

Fred, indeed to say it has "no effect" was a bit too black and white; I should have rephrased to "no sure spontaneity as effect". So, I can find myself perfectly well in the conclusion you draw.

I understand the 'technical imperfections' and the link with perceived spontaneity; I'm still a bit struggling with transitions in this same context, though. More in terms to visualise it for myself and see whether I'd perceive it as spontaneous. And while doing this, and with the name Bresson already on the table.... decisive moment(s) and spontaneity - how those could work together, it somehow keeps crossing my mind. But the mind needs a bit more time to work on that.

John, I think all of these things are a continuum of sorts, a gradient scale. Nothing is 100% one nor 100% the other. And like with most of these concepts, they are a tool in the image-creation toolkit, so it also never stands entirely alone. I think we're agreeing on that. To me, the more tricky thing (and that's I think where Fred's questions are valuable) is recognising what makes us perceive something as spontaneous. From there on, can one deliberately use it?

(and I fully agree that the lightning bolt is anything but spontaneous - it took over 5 years of trying and quite some rain on my head to finally get this one!)

Sign In

Spontaneity

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in