Can a photograph NOT be based on an idea or a concept?

[Julie H]

<p>[<em>*applause! applause!*</em>]</p>

<p>A near perfect regurgitation of the Standard Dogma of Popular Photography, Mr. s in Seattle!</p>

<p>Hmmm ... but does regurgitation constitute "an idea or a concept"?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>[<em>*applause! applause!*</em>]<br>

A Post from Julie without a quote from somebody else to make a point for her!<br>

Hmmm... but you can only use your own words to downplay what others wrote?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>My apology for that side-step, but I think Jock's reply merits reading for many here. You do not have to agree, many will not. It does not solve the question whether the examples given, Salgado, Arbus, Adams, worked from an idea or not "straight out of the box", whether their "approach" (by lack of better word) is a holy grail or not..... the view on conceptual art Jock displays might be controversial, but that's only good. Controverse should make one think and reconsider (rather than grab the arms and start shouting rebellious cries).<br /> For crying out loud, this is a philosophy forum, not a "your dogma against mine" playground. I tried to minimise my presence in this forum because of this silliness; but it's just pathetic to see how many frequent posters here are completely fixed in their ideas and not open to widen their view. Only here to find more pillars to their pre-existing theories, rather than considering to take a completly different point of view. That is *not* philosophy. It's not even close to being an intellectual activity.<br /> And here we are, finally somebody new contributes, in coherent thoughts, and it gets ridiculed. This is sad. It's what renders this forum (neat idea, and pretty unique among photography sites) an irrelevant place ready to dry up. I know, my hands aren't clean either. But come on, think before you hit confirm.<br /> ____ <br /> Back on topic. <br /> Jock introduced something that goes beyond the idea or concept, which indeed in my view makes a vital point in this discussion. Interest, passion - beyond empathy, an urge to communicate. That's not necessarily about big ideas, large concepts. It's about being really, totally involved and immersed in what you're doing. Or, in more philosophical correct terminology, feeling something in your gut, and going with it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Jock, you raise an important point which I might speak of in terms of passion as well as interest level. I might not say the sort of passion for an idea or for what you're shooting is necessarily on a higher level than simply a passion for making photographs, but I do find for myself that it helps not only motivate me but get me in sync with what I'm doing, showing, and expressing.</p>

<p>Very often, what we see is a desire (different from a passion) to make good photos. That, in the absence, of a passion for something more than a "good photo" often leads to hollow results. I think of Man Ray, for instance, as having a passion for the craft of making photos, which led him to explore so many different avenues of photographic-related expression. For him, I don't suspect it was a hollow desire to be good, but rather a passion to express things about and even, dare I say it, deconstruct, the medium.</p>

<p>For me, and I suspect for many others, having a passion for what you want to express (if we want to term that an "idea" that's fine) or even a passion for a particular subject matter or way of viewing a certain subject matter goes a long way toward involving the photographer in a personal, intimate way that often reads in the result, the photo.</p>

<p>Welcome (back) to the forum and thanks for your coherent thoughts. Yours was a refreshing post.</p>

[jocksturges1]

<p>Julie, Julie. You disappoint. You clearly have a brain because I've visited your blog and see from it that you read all manner of abstruse literature and so admire it that quote from it constantly. I on the other hand have quoted no-one and nothing. All that I wrote came direct out of my own sorry noggin. If there are parallels in what I've written to trends in the thinking of others, as you seem to perceive, then there is some chance that in my geriatric batting about of ideas I have hit on a more universally acknowledged truth or two. Imagine that. My intent with all that I wrote was to entice, to lure people to a higher plane. By virtue of their presence in this forum the photographers here clearly love the medium already. I was like that when I was younger in my work and regret now that it took me as long as it did to understand that "in photography, subject is all". Oops, now there is a quote. Peter Beard said that as his closing statement in an interview he did for Paris Match years ago.<br>

When I lecture I often liken photographic art to a signal on an oscilloscope. There is a limited amount of energy that can be graphed by the device just as there is a limited amount of time and effort we can lend to the making of our work. If an artist photographs five different types of subjects then his signal divides into five low peaks on the oscilloscope. The more numerous the division of focus, the lower the peaks. Yes, we know that all that activity is evidence of a love for the medium but the result is unavoidably divided by the number of differing subject matters. The goal then is to achieve a focus in your art and life and heart on just a single class of subject and then the signal becomes one pure, high peak. Those are what get us looking up! The hard part is in choosing of course. It's the disease of the age that the aggregate desirability of all the choices we have outweighs just one. So one must not only choose, one must give up all that was not chosen. </p>

<p>People on Photonet are constantly applauding each other for the diversity of their portfolios. That very diversity is a sure sign of defeat. Choose. <br>

I am not shy about having opinions and in fact know for a fact that some or even much of what I write will be considered heresy by some - perhaps even many. But I take the time to write all this for you out of one single motivation: I wish someone had said these things to me when I was younger - when I thought I knew what I was doing but didn't. Simple as that.</p>

[j_sevigny]

<p>Any expression of any kind is based on a thought, or concept. But not all photography is Conceptual (note the capital C) Art, which puts the ideas behind the art ahead of "what it looks like." See Joseph Kosuth, or maybe John Divola. I frequently find myself disappointed with photography that "tries" to be Conceptual but has no real concept behind it. Some photographic artists believe that the more obtuse they can make their work, the more intelligent it will appear, the more brains it will intimidate, and the more smart they will appear. And it works. Unfortunately. Because in the age of the Youtube-length attention span, nobody can be bothered to think about an image or idea for more than eight minutes. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>J. S.<br>

Last gasp from an old topic!<br>

Most don't look for concept in photos unless it is so screamingly obvious and perhaps even witty ( i.e. Elliot Erwitt, Wm. Wegman). Most pictures are OF something. In other words illustrations. Put them in a book or exhibition and viewers still look for what they, obviously to them, illustrate -- not the viewer's fault they missed out on the concept cleverness part. Not a little like poetry! There is also space between the viewer's empathy for the photographer and the subject. Chose one or chose the other to determine what the photograph is about. To what extent is our look into the photographer's psyche <em>or</em> into the essence of the subject? That is a big point here, I believe. <br>

The overly conceptual pictures that gain all the attention maintain the insider/outsider, <em>snobbery</em> if you will, but a few stand out over time. Another, one of many, burdens for the medium is that so much other graphic art employs or references the photograph, it throws the viewer off as to what to expect from <em>purer</em> forms of it.<br>

It is interesting to note that there is a fairly small "Usual Subjects" list of pictures and photographers. These emblematic and venerable "icons" inform what photographs are supposed to be like -- like forever!</p>

[Julie H]

<p>J Sevigny wrote: "Any expression of any kind is based on a thought, or concept." Ohhhhh .... no, I guess I'll just leave that one alone. We don't want to do the which-came-first-the-egg-or-the-rooster thing. Again.</p>

<p>But, to add to Alan's post, I think, there's often a too linear attitude toward conceptual art. As if some arrow is being driven into your head (or eye) and that's that. Some of you don't appreciate being poked in the eye.</p>

<p>But I think that's not, or it shouldn't be, the way conceptual works. They (whoever the artist may be) fully realize the chasm between concept and realization and that chasm, in some sense, IS the focus of the work. To me, the intent of a conceptual work is a long flutter or back-and-forth play between from the concept and the image. First from the concept to the picture/embodiment -- the perception of which visual picture/embodiment changes or develops my understanding of the concept -- and then returns the "ball" back to the concept. Which newly developed concept then returns me to the image and back and forth I go, over and over again, for as long as the work can hold me and/or I have the time to let it bloom.</p>

<p>The result of this back-and-forth-and back-and-forth-etc is a "tasting" of the nature or content or feel or whatever you call consciousness of the so-far unknown chasm-between. What the concept does to or with the image AND what the image does, in return, to or with the concept.</p>