Spontaneity

[dan_south]

>> 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.

 

I wouldn't call that dishonest. Maybe inaccurate, but it's no big deal. In many cases, the reaction that a photo gets from

the viewer has nothing to do with the reality of the shooting moment, subject, or location. That's the nature of

photography as well as cinema, theater, painting, etc.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>But this is similar to one considering a meticulously composed Bresson which contains a random, spontaneous action (decisive moment) as looking spontaneous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, thanks, I was playing with these thoughts earlier, but they needed time to distill. They did, a bit at least.<br>

_______<br>

The famous "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare" kept creeping up. Basically, the jump is just action. It's not spontaneous, since the huge puddle makes the other choice very wet feet. I wasn't there, but just a hunch: Bresson probably also waited for this moment - not too spontaneous either. And yet, I feel most people will perceive it as spontaneous.<br />Same for the boy on a bicycle photo - it's very well, strong and precise composed with one surprising element of action - in the exact right place to complete the composition. Spontaneously, that cyclist exactly there.</p>

<p>Which brings me back to the discussion in an earlier state: what does this spontaneity look like? It would stretch it more than a bit to say decisive moments are spontaneous but to me, there are strong clues here. And each time I try to "dissect" such a photo, I end up thinking spontaneous is not the right word. It's action, timing, seemingly unposed and so on.Even so, an action photo of a sports photographer is not spontaneous. People who never pose (or always pose seemingly unposed) are not spontaneous, but people will comment "they are always like that". Maybe these are just my experiences in how people react, but still, it makes me consider that what people regard as spontaneous in a photo is perhaps something else.<br>

Maybe it's an element of surprise for the viewer? The spontaneity is wholly in the reaction of the viewer, and they project their surprise as an attribute of the photo?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>. . . when a model is involved. In such cases, the determining factor is often the <strong>believability</strong> 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 <strong>naturally</strong>--then the image can certainly be, and seem to the viewer, as a spontaneous photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I don't think the believability or spontaneity of a photographed expression is tied to the expression having happened naturally or even looking natural. First off, what part of an expression comes from the subject of the photo and what part from the photographer? Focus, blur, depth of field, perspective, angle, lighting, exposure, color work all are part of a photographed expression. Most photographed expressions aren't native to the subject and so they're not natural in an important sense. Photographic expressions are mostly <em>created</em> (made, artificial) by a combination of the subject and the vision, skills, and photographic impositions of the photographer. (A shadow craftily placed can turn an otherwise benign expression into a photographic mystery.)</p>

<p>This <a href="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/07/30/warhol460.jpg">WARHOL</a> photograph seems very believable and not particularly natural.</p>

<p>I'd question how "natural" this expression was for <a href="http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/files//home/wnetwp/webroot/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/4/files/2008/08/leibovitz_gallery_whoopie.jpg">WHOOPIE</a> (it actually seems rather contrived, by Liebovitz and Whoopie collaboratively), yet I find it honest and believable.</p>

<p>There is spontaneity in all of these. I doubt any of them were taken spontaneously.</p>

<p>Is <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SCrkz-Y0KX4/TLMHD0fFm1I/AAAAAAAAADQ/usjT-yM1j9g/s1600/artwork_images_184989_183625_rineke-dijkstra.jpg">THIS EXPRESSION</a> believable? Natural? (Rineke Dijkstra photo) Do I care? The <em>photo</em> is certainly believable. It doesn't take me to a place outside itself. The photo convinces me of its believability because it's a genuine photo and it draws me in and compels me. The expression is one element and doesn't, itself, make me question the naturalness or honesty of anything.</p>

[john_a5]

<blockquote>

<p>No. I don't think the believability or spontaneity of a photographed expression is tied to the expression having happened naturally or even looking natural.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I don't disagree with this.</p>

<p>The photographer's technical decisions have nothing to do with the model's expression although it can certainly create a sense of immediacy or formality--totally a different issue than I was talking in that last post you quoted. In fact, I should have mentioned earlier--maybe I did--that the photographer's choices can also create a sense of immediacy or spontaneity--even if they weren't.</p>

<p>I don't disagree with what you are saying here or your examples, but they have nothing to do with trying to decide if an image looks spontaneous or not. Looking believable is not only a property of a spontaneous looking photograph, it is just one thing that I believe most people are looking for if they describe an image as spontaneous--does it feel like a genuine (honest) and fleeting moment or doesn't it--it's spontaneous looking or it isn't.</p>

<p>What makes a photo believable or good may or may not yield one that looks spontaneous.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer's technical decisions have nothing to do with the model's expression . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. It's not just that we disagree. It feels like we're on different planets.</p>

<p>(Reducing the photographer's input into a subject's expression to "technical decisions" is a stretch. The expression is <em>photographed</em>. It's different from the subject's expression.)</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . if they describe an image as spontaneous--does it feel like a genuine (honest) and fleeting moment or doesn't it--it's spontaneous looking or it isn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Contrived and artificial expressions and elements can be every bit as genuine, honest, and fleeting as spontaneous ones. I work with contrivances all the time and know well just how fleeting they can be and I've seen just how fleeting they can appear.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Fred, these are the examples you offered, all technical:<br>

Focus, blur, depth of field, perspective, angle, lighting, exposure, color work all are part of a photographed expression.</p>

<p>None of these affect what the model is doing, they affect the way a photo looks--which was my point--you must be having a bad day as you don't seem very open to discussion today.</p>

<p>Your last paragraph just proves my point, although I can't think of an example, if "Contrived and artificial expressions and elements can be every bit as genuine, honest, and fleeting as spontaneous ones." then I would say they must look spontaneous because the look genuine and honest not contrived or artificial--as you have said!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Over and out. I am having a bad day. Not all of my own doing.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Unless you only take one picture, there's no one reaction you get from a subject. And it may not be a 'reaction', either. It could also be to the camera and/or to the photographer. I've seen kids burst automatically into their Kodak Smiles whenever a camera emerges in their field of view. A lot of clubbies, too.<br>

__________________________________________________</p>

<p>Wouter, thanks for replying to the spontaneity/early days question. For me (and I was a child), things seemed spontaneous in some ways, but I was so inexperienced that the world seemed to be on a different timescale than I was, there was so much I didn't understand technically, about people, light etc., and I didn't have the experience to anticipate things. My world was like hearing a foreign language you barely understand: Too fast. I was always playing catch-up.<br>

___________________________________________________</p>

<p>Both of the HCB pictures are a testament to HCB's abilities to predict/anticipate, pre- compose, expose, focus and basically trap-capture the subject and with his hard-earned, honed reflexes, he could elect the precise moment. Again, apparent spontaneity, in this case via the illusion of motion and ephemerality. </p>

<p>A lay viewer goes "Wow", an experienced photographer/viewer goes "I know how". Again, it is like magic seen from both sides of the (shutter) curtain.<br>

___________________________________________</p>

<p>I would like to add that expressions are also <em>chosen</em>. People are making micro-expressions all the time. They are brief, but there, and predictably so. Most photographers lasso that in via posing, but others do not. One needs SP reflexes, and some predictive abilities, but in a 30 minute session, particularly of the subject is doing something else, say, being interviewed, an adept photographer can walk out with a take that makes any subject (except maybe a few psychopaths and starlets) look beautiful, haggard, drunk, mentally ill, rabid, placid, brilliant, stupid, etc. And these expressions have very little to do with what the photographer does (save for his insight and speed). Those expressions are subconscious, leaking from one's not-for-display inner life, though they, too appear spontaneous. The model is doing things (when not lapsing into a pose) that have little if anything to do with the photographer. These things emerge more as the model gets tired, like the picture by Avedon of Marylin Monroe I linked earlier. Believable? Honest? Provoked by Avedon? Spontaneous? Natural?<br>

___________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

Does the D-Day kiss in Times Square exhibit spontaneity?

[luis_g]

<p>On the part of the subjects' behaviors it qualifies. OTOH, that scene was repeated many times and not only on that day, and we can clearly imagine the causal chain that led to that moment.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>My own experiences as photographer often lead me to question spontaneity. but as often i accept it along with labels like gut, magic, serendipity and many other terms that come up when discussing photography. I cannot imagine myself having the passion for photography that I have without the spontaneous experiences and individual photos along the way. It's an exciting part of photography for me. Sometimes more intuitive and sometimes as if by magic. Always with craft in mind.</p>

<p>I have discussed my belief that the curtain can most often be pulled back by one who wishes to and knows the way. Knowing the way is not an obstacle to the magic imo. On the contrary for me it has allowed me to be more consistently amazed by the magic and in turn use it.. In a similar vein, being prepared for spontaneity (something i have no problem reconciling) allows for further explorations than would otherwise be available.<br>

<br /> <a href="http://www.inoneeye.net/SD%20PUB/muggia%20in%204.html">spontaneity</a>. ? As photographer these were truly spontaneous photos. Fired before the moment was lost while in my street mode. Only the 1st exposure did I anticipate. All taken within a few steps and as fast as cocking the shutter allowed. I think that some appear more spontaneous than others. I think in part that is due to on the fly technical choices. ie framing, motion, focus I also think that it is possible to post process to enhance or to play down spontaneity. I think post is often underrated in context of significant emotional response adjustments at the photographers beckoning. As True for studio work as street work. <br /> .<br /> To answer your question Dan re the kiss. simple question simple answer, Yes. but a spontaneity that is ripe for questioning imo. As many here, i have read the account that Eisenstaedt, Jorgensen and others have given.<br /> <a href="http://www.inoneeye.net/SD%20PUB/locanda%20riva.html">like this one</a> i question just how spontaneous it appears and yet I know my part in it.</p>

<p>then there is that pesky <a href="http://www.inoneeye.net/SD%20PUB/voyeur.html">continu</a><a href="http://www.inoneeye.net/SD%20PUB/voyeur.html">um (Nude)</a> always at work. At first glance it is only an oddly framed tripodded formally controlled nude. But on that day... intuition, serendipity and a spontaneous event came in to play big time. The voyeur behind the rocks was not part of the plan. By the time I noticed him in the viewfinder & tilted the camera up and shot he was gone. A surge of spontaneity is what I felt.<br />but <br /> Not a very spontaneous looking photo to me. I could have focused on the voyeur (i might have if i had the time) If I had I think it would have appeared even less spontaneous.</p>

<p>I think there are many details that make one photo more or less spontaneous to my eye. I can use that for or contrary(?) to an appearance of spontaneity. I have found that this discussion format does not lend itself to breaking down the nuts and bolts at play. My hope for others for what it is worth- is that first they decide what looks spontaneous (for them) figure the how and then decide the pros and cons of putting it to use.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "As photographer these were truly spontaneous photos. Fired before the moment was lost while in my street mode. Only the 1st exposure did I anticipate. All taken within a few steps and as fast as cocking the shutter allowed"</p>

<p>Candid photographs.</p>

<p>They have a honesty of the moment not anticipated neither posed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Josh's photos are worth taking time with. They are visual and photographic. They do seem honest.</p>

<p>Honesty can also be overrated . . . and grossly misunderstood. Many great photographs lie.</p>

<p>Candidness can be honest. It can also masquerade as honesty for those who avoid or fear engagement.</p>

<p>The thought that engaging with a subject or posing a subject is less honest than the way some photographers hide behind a camera to shoot someone unawares is laughable.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>You gotta wonder why certain folks think their way of photographing is the more honest or genuine way. It must be ego or insecurity. It's certainly not art.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>I need to eat my word. <em>anticipate-d</em><br>

When I read my own words read back to me from Anders I saw that <em>Only the 1st exposure did I anticipate </em>was misleading. That line does not communicate what was in my head at the time I wrote it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luis<br />Subject: Spontaneity<br />Disclaimer: Using a standard definition from the dictionary...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The dichotomy for me here is that I acted impulsively, spontaneously to the moment but not without anticipation - an expectation and a tangible sense of probability that there was magic revealing itself. and preparation made the difference.<br>

This 'impulsive' scenario is not exclusive to street work for me. imo... It is as likely to happen in a studio like setting or with any posed or constructed setup. To consider honesty in a work I step back from methodology (aside from the potential for learning).<br />As has been <em>touched</em> in this thread re; does a photo show spontaneity? I ask does a photo show honesty? posed, constructed, found, etc. just doesn't seem to matter for me. The magician on stage is the true test. and it is often deception that keeps me entertained.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"You gotta wonder why certain folks think their way of photographing is the more honest or genuine way"</p>

<p>You gotta wonder why certain folks would make such a strange statement.</p>

<p>"spontaneous"</p>

<p>coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned.<br>

<br />Which to my minds lends itself to the candid type of photograph. Whether this is street,studio,or, whatever. Indeed, there is a degree of honesty to it from the photographer and the subject material..... it is without any pre-concieved thoughts or planning. In a sense following a natural rhythm perhaps like the music of jazz.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Newsflash . . . jazz musicians study, plan, practice and pre-conceive licks and rhythms. The spontaneity comes <em>along with</em> the planning, not instead of it. Spontaneity without study, practice, and forethought is hollow. Art is very often the conjunction of and tension between hard work, planning, and study on the one hand and inspiration and spontaneity on the other.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Hmm, the dictionary clearly states unplanned, Fred. It did not say anything about it coming along with planned. Are we doing the playing with words thing to fit them in with our own thoughts?</p>

<p>" jazz musicians study, plan, practice and pre-conceive licks and rhythms"</p>

<p>Of course they study and practice. That is a given.</p>

<p>They can also play in a completely unplanned spontaneous way...many think that is where the true magic of jazz comes from.</p>

<p>And that is what I'm talking about.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I should know better by now so, over and out.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Good night, Fred. Enjoyed the chat.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Are we doing the playing with words thing to fit them in with our own thoughts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I'm addressing ideas in context, not in the linear and generic way dictionaries define words.</p>

<p>The assumption that spontaneity in art doesn't come along with planning because the dictionary defines spontaneity as something unplanned is facile and simplistic. Art is rarely either/or, except for bad art, which usually <em>is</em> either/or.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>They can also play in a completely unplanned spontaneous way...many think that is where the true magic of jazz comes from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, at the moment it seems spontaneous, Allen, but the innovative and improvisational act only springs forth, flows forth, from the pre-existing repertoire of logical possibilities that one has created by one's past actions.</p>

<p>No spontaneity, no improvisation, springs forth from nothing. Where does that power to improvise come from? Where does any rational or creative power ultimately come from? Wherever it comes from, it builds on the past, and springs forth in some present--but we helped lay the foundation for that present. Nor did we do it in isolation from what others have been doing all along, and are doing in that present, such that they can play with us, along with us, as we create in the present, individually and collectively.</p>

<p>I remember having this conversation--almost to a "t"--with Dick Flathman and a few others at Hopkins in the summer of 1982. Improvisational thought and action, we concluded (as if we really understood it ourselves), spring forth from existing repertoires, some quite complex, but nothing springs forth from nothing. On top of existing repertoires would future seemingly spontaneous repertoires spring forth. The NEH had funded us to talk about political freedom, not artistic freedom, but there we were anyway, engaged in a discussion or activity that we can call "theorizing," a process that seemed to spring forth spontaneously but which reflected in fact every previous decision that we had ever made that had brought us to that point.</p>

<p>We are currently laying the foundations (or not) for further acts of spontaneity in the future, but we do not know how they will be manifested or realized. In that sense and in that sense only are they unplanned. On another level, we do have plans of a tactical and strategic nature that we continue to work through in the present, so that those moments of magic will come to pass in the future.</p>

<p>Creativity does indeed seem to have its quantum leaps, but it all seems to flow out of a paradoxically <em>continuous</em> stream whose source and destination cannot be known. We are caught up in it and we can only watch as the walls of the canyon rush by, or the trees on the riverbank glide slowly by--but we are witnesses to what is coming forth through our own actions--and this is what astounds us. We are caught up in a creative stream that is bigger than ourselves, and if we understood that creative stream, then we would understand everything.</p>

<p>Creativity and spontaneity in writing are similar to creative and seemingly spontaneous acts in other fields. I remember seeing a quote on an English department wall some years back, a quote that went something like this:</p>

<p>"We write in order to think, in order to be surprised by what appears on the written page." I used to marvel at the new (to me) insights that would pour forth from my pen, and then from my word processor, as I made linkages that I had never made before. I have felt it in class when I am at my best, when I am creating as I speak, but never from a vacuum. It is all both planned and unplanned, but one never really sees it coming in advance when it is truly spontaneous.</p>

<p>I do not believe that there are spontaneous creative acts that are not part of this creative stream. As the present instantly becomes the past, we witness this pouring forth from our own mouths, hands, or other instruments at our disposal. We often have the sense of being both agent and patient at once. We are both acting and being acted upon when we have those moments of spontaneous creativity. Those who can recognize it are caught up in the same stream, which allows us to appreciate each others' insights and innovations as we have them, and as we create them.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "improvisational act only springs forth, flows forth, from the pre-existing repertoire of logical possibilities that one has created by one's past actions."</p>

<p>Yes, and I understand we need to read before we can write, Lannie;) I cannot remember saying an act of unplanned spontaneity comes simply from a vacuum where nothing else pre existed. It would naive to think otherwise. However, some things you sit and plan and others come into about in a totally unexpected spontaneous way. For instance...<br>

Alexander Fleming.... his laboratory was often untidy. On 3 September 1928, Fleming returned to his laboratory having spent August on holiday with his family. Before leaving, he had stacked all his cultures of staphylococci on a bench in a corner of his laboratory. On returning, Fleming noticed that one culture was contaminated with a fungus.</p>

<p>Going back to photography often some of the better photos taken are unplanned for. It almost seems the camera has a mind of its own...they are often a very pleasant surprise.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Going back to photography, often some of the better photos taken are unplanned for. It almost seems the camera has a mind of its own...they are often a very pleasant surprise.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is so true, Allen. I really like the surprises that I bring home--well, some of them, anyway.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>