Spontaneity

[dan_south]

<p>Fred, I never claimed that spontaneously captured photos have a spontaneous look or a look that's at all unique. They can look like carefully planned photos. The difference is that they would not have existed without a spontaneous reaction.</p>

<p>If I plan to take a photo of the beach at sunrise, I get up early, drive a bit, pick my location, set up, meter, etc. Not a spontaneous photo. If while I'm there I see an interesting backlight on a fisherman and I grab a shot of him as he casts his line, that's spontaneous. I didn't know he was going to be there. If on the other hand, I know that fishermen frequent this beach and I plan to photograph one of them as the sun comes over the horizon, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference between the planned fishing photo and the spontaneous one. In one case I shot something that I expected to see; in the other I shot something that caught my eye unexpectedly. The results might be quite similar, or they might be quite different if I had rigged some special lighting for the pre-planned shot.</p>

<p>Spontaneous shots don't necessarily look spontaneous. They simply take advantage of unexpected situations.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Dan, and I never claimed that you claimed that spontaneously captured photos have a spontaneous look. I simply asked what a spontaneously-looking photo looks like, regardless of how spontaneously or not it was taken. Thanks. Others have given great answers that talk about photographs themselves and what they look like, about photographs that communicate spontaneity, not that are necessarily evidence of the photographer acting that way.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I think spontaneity has always been for me my prime directive in photography. I have been taking portraits for about 40 years and I have concentrated mostly on the type of portrait where I’m photographing the person spontaneously, in a situation that was not intentionally a portrait setting. I’ve always had trouble finding a name for this type of photography, usually settling on “documentary portraiture” or “naturalistic portraiture,” or something like that. If you look at any of my portraits in my folders here, even in my early 1970s folder, you’ll see many, many examples of what I’m talking about. The truth is that even though most of my portraits were captured spontaneously, many of them look like they were set up or posed at first glance. However, I think there is a certain look to one of these un-posed portraits that makes them different from something that was set up. Recently, when I presented some of my photos at a local photo club meeting for critique, which incidentally is presided over by Tom Arndt, a well-known documentary photographer, the portraits that I had done spontaneously were easily picked out by Tom and others. To me these type of portraits have a certain “energy” to them that I can’t describe any other way. Here is one such example: http://www.photo.net/photo/11254730&size=lg I get a certain thrill of capturing up portrait of someone in this spontaneous manner. You have no control over the lighting, their pose, or the situation. You do have control over your camera settings, and the moment that the shutter is pressed. These moments come and go in seconds, so that when you get a good capture, it’s thrilling to me.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p><strong>Luis,</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>...a form of indirect direction, the result of which was to reintroduce unforeseeable events, amongst them, spontaneity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I seek un-foreseeable events to photograph all the time! My camera is much quicker and more spontaneous than I am so I usually catch something. Spontaneity is practiced anticipation, acting on intuition, reflexive response. It is the core of creativity - spontaneous combustion!</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Alan, I think our minds are far quicker than our conciousness. Our ability to project into the future (to make useful statistical guesses) exceeds the speed of our inner narrative and self-awareness and makes it look/seem spontaneous. We're using the causal chain to make more or less accurate bets (anticipation/predictions) on the outcome. If we see it, it's already in the past and unphotographable. Of course, for many kinds of work, this is crucial. For others, much less so. But the part about pushing oneself (and taking chances that are backed up by knowledge and experience) is part and parcel of creativity. <br>

________________________________</p>

<p>Steve Murray, there's a remarkable consistency to the lighting in most of your portraits that speaks of some kind of control. I suspect your rapport with your subjects is a major factor in the way your subjects look spontaneous. BTW, I met Tom Arndt at Central Camera aeons ago.<br>

________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Luis, I did mention that many of my spontaneously done portraits do look like there was some kind of setting up or as you call it, control. However, this was typically not the case. I do notice people when they happen to be sitting or standing in a location where the lighting is good, and in the majority of cases I do not re-position the person but rather just approach them. Rapport is very important too, I agree. The "poses" of my subjects are natural and I do not direct them. Everything is essentially "found" and the most control I have is over my selection of the subject (which is usually spontaneous), the camera/settings, and of course the moment of shutter release. The "remarkable consistency" you refer to (thank you BTW) is I think due to the fact I am very conscious of lighting at all times and I am very aware of the effect of the ambient lighting on my potential subjects. There are certain times of the day I love to shoot in, such as early evening, open shade, and window lighting indoors. </p>

<p>Going back to the jazz improvisation analogy, I know my instrument from years of practice, and thinking about lenses and settings and framing is quite automatic, so moving from idea to execution is a seamless process.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Control wouldn't be limited to physically moving someone. A controlled shooter may be conscious of the lighting he chooses to shoot in (may even do so unconsciously), the poses he chooses, the perspectives and expressions he chooses. One doesn't have to direct poses to control them. One can choose poses and thereby control what one captures and/or shows. One can also edit out shots that don't have poses that speak to them, thereby controlling poses by process of elimination. That's often how consistency and automation are achieved.</p>

<p>Awareness of lighting does not achieve consistency. Awareness of lighting could as well achieve diversity of mood, style, and expression.</p>

<p>Automatic is involuntary . . . without choice. Spontaneous is something different.</p>

<p>Spontaneity is a momentary (not necessarily repeated) impulse. Spontaneity is directed internally (which suggests to me choice and, therefore, responsibility), without apparent external influence.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[addition] <em>"without apparent external influence"</em></p>

<p>I like that Webster's included "apparent" here. Because there are always external influences, not always apparent to us, often ignored or even denied by us in favor of thinking we are more spontaneous than we might otherwise have to consider.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I simply asked what a spontaneously-looking photo looks like, regardless of how spontaneously or not it was taken."</p>

<p>A spontaneous taken photograph to my mind is a candid photograph which has a honesty to it. Of course a posed photograph can emulate and there are many fine examples. And you can easily argue it's about the photo and how you got there is largely irrelevant. But is is it? Posed is posed it's really that simple...a setup.<br /> <br />Candid/ natural behind the scenes has that natural honesty....we like to look, as a curious species, behind the staged scenes to see what is really going on...the honesty.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>IMO, natural and candid have little or nothing to do with "honesty."</p>

<p>Theater, eminently posed and rehearsed, is among the most "honest" of art forms.</p>

<p>Candid shots of anyone can be extremely misleading and dishonest, depending on the moment caught, the context presented, and the perspective utilized. Dick Cheney could be photographed candidly in an idyllic setting playing with a sweet child. I suppose that would be honest on one level and dishonest on another, especially if that were the only photo of Cheney shown. Anyone can be caught candidly not being themselves. That's because a photo captures a moment and an appearance, which can be as false as it can be true.</p>

<p>A woman with a handkerchief could be caught candidly blowing her nose and it could appear as if she were sad and crying. There can be a lot of honesty in such a transformation, just as in any staged or posed work, though some would consider it dishonest. The latter, I think, would be missing an important point about photographic honesty. They might be confusing an accurate account with being emotionally and humanly honest.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It occurs to me that we assess the honesty of a photograph based on whether it was candid or posed, spontaneous or planned, at our peril. Is it really more naturally honest to take a candid shot of an unknowing or unsuspecting subject on the street? Or is it more honest to engage someone, let them know they're being photographed, and even have them be a proactive participant in the photograph? I think many would answer that the second scenario has a degree of honesty that the first doesn't. Frankly, I wouldn't stand by that assessment any more than I would stand by an arbitrary assessment that a candid shot is more honest. I'm not in the business of judging honesty of process <em>sans</em> whatever honesty I see in the photo. The kind of honesty I look for is seen and felt in the photo itself and what the photo appears to be trying to accomplish, which may not be some sort of accuracy to a reality outside the photo. I don't think honesty is the purview of any one particular method or approach.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Fred said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Control wouldn't be limited to physically moving someone. A controlled shooter may be conscious of the lighting he chooses to shoot in (may even do so unconsciously), the poses he chooses, the perspectives and expressions he chooses. One doesn't have to direct poses to control them. One can choose poses and thereby control what one captures and/or shows. One can also edit out shots that don't have poses that speak to them, thereby controlling poses by process of elimination. That's often how consistency and automation are achieved.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure whether you are trying to refute my earlier statement or not, but I think we are basically saying the same thing. Control is the necessary use of your brain and tools, and not antithetical to spontaneity. I feel my control is in my choosing the subject, situation, editing, framing, etc., like you said. However, the impulse to take the shot in the first place is what I would call spontaneous, ie.: "seeing" the potential shot suddenly and getting to it before it "goes away" as the person moves or starts talking to someone, or if the lighting changes, for instance. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Spontaneity is a momentary (not necessarily repeated) impulse. Spontaneity is directed internally (which suggests to me choice and, therefore, responsibility), without apparent external influence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is what I am talking about. I agree. I also agree with your view of honesty in photographs. I don't believe you can assess honesty in a photograph. A yawn can look like a scream in a photo. For me the whole process of getting photos in a spontaneous or documentary fashion is exciting for me, and I enjoy it more than setting up studio shots. Its like catching a wild trout vs fishing in a commercially stocked pond. Its not particularly about honesty. Its about serendipity and finding and catching moments that are fleeting. You could say this about studio photography as well if you are really intent at capturing expressions that are so fleeting in the human face. I just enjoy the anticipation of not knowing exactly what I will see and then trying to capture something that is unfolding in the moment.</p>

[john_a5]

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, natural and candid have little or nothing to do with "honesty."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This may or may not be true, however, the sense of honesty with respect to the emotions or expression or action within a photograph are often the hallmarks of what one would consider a spontaneous looking photograph. Absolute honesty, whether within the photograph or with how it is presented has absolutely nothing to do with the sense of honesty depicted within the frame.</p>

<p>In fact, I think words like honest, natural, and immediate/immediacy are probably some of the primary keywords one might use to describe photographs that look spontaneous. (Again, I think we agree that how photograph is made has nothing to do with how it looks.)</p>

<p>When Fred suggests something like Frank's photographs looking more spontaneous than Bresson's, I do wonder if it isn't due to a sense of immediacy that might be more keenly felt in Frank's work. For me, I would see a greater difference in the photographs of Winogrand with regards the sense of immediacy. Perceived formality in a shot's structure, regardless of how it was actually made, will certainly diminish the sense of “visual” spontaneity of the frame--whereas I do believe the subject's sense of spontaneity is not dependent on the framing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Emotion, creativity, questioning, imagination, deception, artificiality, opulence, design, light, shadow, texture, fancifulness, hope, intimidation, intimacy, hiding, obscurity, hesitation, longing, opinion, personal observation, social comment, fear are some of the other things besides honesty photos can aspire to and deal with. Not all photos and not all photographers aspire to honesty, nor should they. All of the above can be accomplished spontaneously or with considered thought, often with some combination of the two.</p>

<p>I don't agree with John's assessment that honesty of emotion, expression, or action are often the hallmarks of spontaneous-looking photos. Many spontaneous-looking photos (candids) reek of dishonesty and avoidance to me. Many spontaneous shots of homeless people are dishonest, pathos-laden fakeries and many shots of passing strangers are distanced, unengaged xerox-like renderings, just as are many planned and set-up landscapes and portraits. Spontaneous photographers fool themselves all the time and spontaneous-looking photos fool viewers, just as many other types of photographers and photographs do. That kind of trickery can be a good thing or a bad thing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In my own work, I'm often concerned with transformation. Someone I'm photographing may not be feeling particularly mysterious but a combination of their expression, their body, the lighting, their surroundings, and my mood may allow me to transform what I see into a mysterious photo. Is that an honest photo? Is it less honest if I pose the subject and ask them to look down to add to the mystery? I don't think so and "honestly" don't care that much. What I care about is that, if I am moved to express mystery or I see a hint of it in my subject and want to enhance that or at least be sure to convey it photographically, I am able to create a photograph that fulfills my vision and that may even suggest possibilities beyond my own vision.</p>

<p>I'm not always trying to connect the real world to my photographs as I would connect facts to truth. I am often transforming the real world into a photograph of a very different character and being. Other times, I may be very much after a relatively accurate portrayal of what I'm seeing and sensing in a person or scene, as much because it seems honest, or genuine (which I prefer, since dishonesty can be genuine) as because it would make a good photo.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm struggling with the honesty - how does it fit in? But maybe I am reading this all backwards, could well be since I am genuinely confused. Are we talking honesty in our intention to depict something 'like it was", versus trying to give a scene "an extra load"?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, some use "honest" to mean accurate. Obviously, some use honest to mean unposed or unscripted (wrongly, in my opinion). As you say, for them, honesty is depicting something "like it was." Of course, they often forget that their idea of "what it was" and their photograph which supposedly shows "what it was" could come with all kinds of biases, influences, and prejudices. So "what it was" to them may be very different from "what it was" to someone else. And they're thinking that the photo conveys "what it was" is often simply wrong . . . blind, in many instances. So many photos lack the depth of what was actually there, just like a xerox machine does.</p>

<p>To me, there's a deeper sense of honesty, in which I can be honest, if I want, in a photo, about my own feelings or the feelings of others, or whatever I want to express in a photo. There's honesty in putting oneself on the line, putting oneself out there, committing to one's vision.</p>

<p>But a lot of great photography and great art is fakery and really leaves the question of honesty aside. A lot of art is about vision, which can be as dishonest as honest in order to be captivating. I don't know how honest Hitchcock or his films are. He was a great manipulator. He mistreated his actresses badly. He referred to actors as cattle. If I find honesty in his films, it's not about accuracy for sure. He was not a photojournalist or documentarian. It's about the emotional depths he plunges into. He knew when to exaggerate, when to hang back, when to prolong, how to create <em>illusions</em>. Why bother with honesty in all this? Why not experience his visions and tales for all the multi-faceted richness they have to offer?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Honestly, honesty is a sideboard in this discussion. Relevant only insofar as it relates to spontaneity, and so far, the relationship has been posited by one person, and is at best, tenuous.<br>

____________________________________________</p>

<p>I am interested to hear from those here about when they began in photography, if spontaneity was the same as it is now. Was it more or less frequent? Did it beget better results as you developed?<br>

____________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Fred, I was describing an answer to your question: "what makes a photograph look spontaneous" not discussion moral or ethical issues or even the intent of the photographer. I am talking about the QUALITIES we see in a photograph that might exist if one were to term as looking "spontaneous".</p>

<p>Regardless of what is depicted within an image, if it looks contrived or artificial, it isn't going to look like a spontaneous photograph. It might be set up to look like it was spontaneous or it can be totally spontaneous, however, if the viewer doesn't sense the expressions are natural expressions, that the actions are natural or that the emotions displayed are natural, then they aren't going to consider an image as spontaneous. I am--and was above-- using the word honest in the sense of natural here, that a person's expression--regardless of that expression or what it is supposed to depict--even dishonesty--looks like an honest/true/natural expression and not artifice or contrived.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Luis, I mentioned earlier the idea of continuum because I see how spontaneity affects one's photography as being something that can happen in many different ways--and all or only a few may apply at any one time or to any person.</p>

<p>I can be doing something else and without provocation, decide to grab the camera and go shoot somewhere--around my home or drive off somewhere. When I am out somewhere, I am always turning down roads (after making a U-turn to get back to them) that just seemed to call out to me or I decide to stop for no apparent reason grabbing the camera only to find something unseen or run into someone who wasn't there when I stopped. When I am working in the studio, I may inexplicably grab something to use in a shot that makes no sense and yet finishes it perfectly. And certainly there are times when I see something unexpected and bring the camera up to my face and shoot.</p>

<p>But mostly for me, it is all about following instincts and the manifestation of that is as I suggested above and in so many other ways as well. My ability to respond and how I respond photographically has certainly changed and grown as I gained more experience. Those things that affect my photography and rely on using the camera have become more automatic as I achieved proficiency with technical issues, something rarely thought about anymore. Interactions with models or on a set, personally or commercially, are much more fluid and responsive/spontaneous with the comfort and experience with those activities. My responses to the things around me are also more fluid as my visual recognition has expanded and grown--my mental model. if you will. and my own recognition of how that might limit what I see or respond to allows for more options and greater recognition of possibilities.</p>

<p>Whether any of this is really spontaneity or not could be debated, but I think most of us consider these things as being spontaneous actions even though most are really reactions.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>if it looks contrived or artificial, it isn't going to look like a spontaneous photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, the reason Hitchcock's famous shower scene gets gasps is precisely because the audience feels it as spontaneous, as a completely unexpected and horrific attack on Janet Leigh. And yet, music and all, it is one of the most contrived and unnatural scenes I can think of. I can feel the deliberateness of the set up, the camera movement, the blood circling the drain, even as it all seems to have come out of nowhere, impulsively. It's a perfect cinematic and filmic combination of two things you are asserting are mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>I am developing my own work with this combination in mind. It's a challenge I'm slowly growing into. Combining obviously "theatrical" and contrived or artificial poses with an air of spontaneity of expression. A narrow view that suggests the two can't be combined convinces me even more that I'm onto something. But I kind of already knew it, since so many of the greats have already achieved it. (Michelangelo's <em>Creation</em>, for example, a very contrived meeting of Man and God, absolutely deliberate hand gestures, and yet the feeling as if sparks are about to spontaneously erupt. Lucille Ball, exaggerated, artificial, contrived laughs and tears, and yet one of the most simultaneously spontaneous physical comics ever to have graced a stage.)</p>

<p>Photographs are made of elements . . . a variety of them. One can combine a spontaneous facial expression with an unnatural body pose and get a photo richer than being limited to either spontaneity or artificiality. One can adopt a very contrived and iconic perspective, exaggerated, unnatural, with an event spontaneously occurring in a very fleeting moment and the photo will have that awesome combination of contrivance and spontaneity.</p>

<p>Combinations of the so-called unnatural or contrived and the spontaneous abound.</p>

<p><a href="http://goodnewsaday.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/citizen-kane-newspaper2.jpg">Orson Welles</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.cartermuseum.org/Inspiring_Visions/Lange/P1965-172-8_LANGE_big.jpg">Dorothea Lang</a></p>

<p><a href="http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmi5oxcol91ql55apo1_400.jpg">Milton Green</a></p>

<p> </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Sorry Fred, but I don't agree with you. We are talking about a photograph looking spontaneous, if it looks contrived, then I doubt anyone would term it looking as if it were spontaneous. A contrived situation doesn't preclude something happening spontaneously or looking spontaneous but the viewer's belief that it was a true response will determine how it is viewed in terms of being spontaneous or not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I suspected we did disagree. It's good to acknowledge that. I appreciate it. These "either-or" categorizations and formulations rarely work for me.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Fred, I think maybe the disconnect in what we are saying might be when a model is involved. In such cases, the determining factor is often the believability of the person's expression. They can be contorted or in some contrived position or setting, but if their expression carries a sense of honesty--it really happened naturally--then the image can certainly be, and seem to the viewer, as a spontaneous photograph. But this is similar to one considering a meticulously composed Bresson which contains a random, spontaneous action (decisive moment) as looking spontaneous.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred, thanks, so the honesty meant what I thought it could be; agree with the whole of your post in reply to me, so no I'll let the subject go. Maybe some other time.<br>

Luis, you are right the honesty was a side step, it just had me confused a little. I did not mean to disrupt the thread with it, apologies if it seemed that way.<br />Your second question, I think is very interesting:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am interested to hear from those here about when they began in photography, if spontaneity was the same as it is now. Was it more or less frequent? Did it beget better results as you developed?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My starting days are not that long ago, arguably I am still in them... Yes, there was more spontaneity in it, at least I experienced it as such. It's more like a child: everything is new, lots of new things to uncover; learning to see the colour of light, the effects it can draw - and just try everything at (near) random. Anything that caught the eye and seemed remotely interesting - click. <br />As a result, also spontaneity in seeing the results back (it was already digital, though) :-)<br>

At some point, as knowledge developed, I lost that spontaneity. With that, I think for quite a while, my results were quite a lot worse. This might be self-scrutiny, though, but I missed the sense of exploration, while my composition skills, technical skills and so on were not that much further advanced. A sense of accomplishment, and wearing off the initial wave of "oh wow, let's try this/that, like this, like that". Like reaching puberty, in a way.<br>

And with time, skills grow, knowledge and insights get internalised and the reactions to sudden situations are different (much quicker to consider the composition, the exposure etc.). I like my results better nowadays; but that original spontaneity is gone. With that, possibly, also some really nice photos which I now won't take, because I think upfront they will not work. Previsualisation seems to oppose the spontaneity for me.<br>

And perhaps, this spontaneity should be read as 'overjoyous enthusiasm'.... and I don't think you can see it back in the photos of those days. I can, though, but that might more be how memories play with us.</p>