Thinking - a bit of a rant

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Are photographers and "artists" allowed to think?</p>

<p>On the pages of PN, I've seen again and again claims that photographers don't participate in this very human activity, as if it's possible not to.</p>

<p>Does it make the "artist" a special class of human (or maybe we should say "nonhuman") not to have to think? Is thinking somehow a spoiler of having a rich emotional life? Does thinking mean one can't have instincts as well?</p>

<p>So much art throughout history has required so much thinking. There are so many big ideas. Whether the idea preceded the instinct or vice versa is another interesting question. Impressionism has some big ideas behind it. Chicken or egg? Dada . . . full of ideas. Jackson Pollock . . . lots of planning and thoughts into his methodology.</p>

<p>When a photographer says he thinks about what he's doing, it's often assumed by other PN photographers that the thinking is done <em>instead of</em> being somewhat spontaneous and lucid at the time of shooting. (Please don't ask for specific cases of this as I wouldn't feel comfortable linking to examples for the sake of the anonymity of the writers in question.) Every time I talk about my thinking about my photography, someone on PN comes along, often more than one person, and says they're in a zone when they're shooting and they're not thinking. Why does the assumption get made that I'm talking about thinking <em>in the moment of shooting </em>and that even if it is in that moment that it's <em>instead of</em> something else. Can one not pat their head and rub their tummy at the same time?</p>

<p>Is this a kind of anti-intellectualism? I think so.</p>

<p>Is it to make one seem more of an "artist"? I often get that impression as well.</p>

<p>When you imagine, are you thinking? Do you imagine?</p>

<p>I'd say more often than not a lack of thought in general shows in one's photos, often to the detriment of those photos, though for some reason people assume it sounds pretty cool not to think.</p>

<p>Your opinions and tirades at me are welcome.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Are you not addressing "inspiration?"</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I can sit at home and think about taking a certain photograph, lets say a some red berries and golden leaves with blue sky behind. I can ponder the ideal focal length, the view I want, the feel I want and even the best time of day but as soon as I get set up I usually end up changing the preconceived ideas I had a little because I am dealing with reality not theory.<br>

So yes, it is possible to have an idea (even detailed ones) but you may see something better along the way and spend time on that or get to your location and find that you must modify your idea.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I think..... no wait, let me rephrase that one..... Somehow a miraculous opinion came upon me that happens to align with your thought.... no, no, uhm... expressed point of view on this subject.<br /> Not thinking is quite hard. Saying you do not think is probably the only moment you're indeed not thinking.</p>

<p>Seriously, I do not know if it's anti-intellectualism in an active, willing way; I think it's simply really just the assumption that thinking implies logic and reasoning, and creative activities imply a "go with the flow, follow my guts" kind of thing, and one excludes the other; no critical thinking applied, this is assumed true. Too bad it's a rather false dichotomy to think these are 2 distinct, unrelated things that happen in their respective vacuums - pat the head and rub the tummy - but it's much like the image of the young, starving artist that remains popular, or repeating whatever you saw on the news as being the 'true story'. A comforting simple idea that is easy to deal with.</p>

<p>Ranting on: the described is bad enough, and then there are those who claim one shouldn't write/talk about this at all. If you use words, you're not a real maker of images, otherwise you'd have used your camera to make your point (or something like that, I think I never quite got the point). If you want/need to grow your skill and vision, just make more images. <br />So it'll be better now to hop over to the No Words forum and post only pictures that I made while drunk, practically asleep or by complete accident. They're pretty dreary, but for some people, they're the only right way.</p>

<p>And don't get me started on "inspiration" :-)<br>

___<br>

[ Edit] Ian: sure what you describe happens. But thinking doesn't mean casting ideas in stone. The fact that you prepare a shot in your mind probably helps you being more aware "in the field" to recognise it doesn't work, why it doesn't and how to resolve that - the preparation surely isn't wasted time, and whatever happens next isn't "thoughtless" work.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Robert Doisneau is often quoted as saying <em>"If you take photographs, don't speak, don't write, don't analyse yourself, and don't answer any questions"</em>.</p>

<p>He didn't apply that rule to himself. Doisneau offered many thoughtful, articulate observations about photography over the years.</p>

<p>The skeptic in me is inclined to say that some artists deliberately cultivate opacity to retain some air of mystique. They think a lot about their process and might have a lot to say about it. But mystery is good marketing, so they say little other than to dangle teasers. Others struggle to communicate verbally or orally and, rather than simply admit they can't articulate their thoughts about their process, dismiss the entire value of discussing the process. Still others are only interested in what they have to say - whatever anyone else has to say is dismissed as garrulous babbling.</p>

<p>My own process varies. Some projects, concepts and themes are carefully thought out, planned and pursued. I have several ongoing projects and often look deliberately for subjects, scenes and lighting that fit those concepts. Others - usually candid photos of people - are more the product of spontaneity, having no plan and being open to possibilities. I can't say I prefer one over the other. There are occasions when I'd rather mute the inner dialogue and simply be.</p>

<p>At the moment I'm rereading Castaneda's "Journey to Ixtlan". I last read it in the early 1970s, when it was new. It's a bit amusing and disconcerting to find that my thoughts about the creative process sound like the dialogues between the mythical Don Juan Matus and the apprentice Castaneda - particularly the scenes where Don Juan mocks Castaneda for overthinking everything; while other scenes seem contradictory, with the teacher demanding impeccable behavior, perfection in rote repetition of maneuvers, while warning of the consequences for failure to quite literally follow in the teacher's footsteps.</p>

<p>And then there's the best Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, in which Calvin waxes eloquently about the perfect winter weapon he is crafting for an upcoming battle, made of snow, ice, slush and gravel. Meanwhile Hobbes smacks Calvin upside the head with a simple snowball, remarking <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ky0292J4HA1qzo7nso1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJP67HANH6OVWEMMQ&Expires=1416204824&Signature=LOi5QSiJ73aDjGF3vDhSaQsEc%2BI%3D#_=_">"Yet another casualty of the seduction of art."</a></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I have to say I am always thinking when taking a shot - what will it look like, is it an interesting subject/idea, how is the composition etc etc. I can't see really how you can consistently take any half-decent shots without thinking all the time, although, of course, some good ones will inevitably come about from dumb luck or by chance.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Like Robin, I don't know how one can take photos and not be thinking about composition at the very least. But I also understand the 'being in the zone' concept. I play some musical instruments from time to time, and there are episodes of simply playing without actually thinking about what I am doing, and when I'm done, I might think 'gosh, that sounded pretty good - wish I'd recorded it so I could play it again.' I was 'in the zone' so to speak, almost playing in a trance.</p>

<p>As far as Jackson Pollock, I think he must have been thinking 'I wonder what these fools will think I meant with this one...'</p>

[Palouse]

<p>I think, therefor I am.<br>

I think therefor I am not a photographer?<br>

Let me think about that one.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>E.J.</strong>, I don't think I was addressing inspiration, but it's certainly an interesting topic. How do you think it relates to this thread?</p>

<p><strong>Ian</strong>, very good point, as I take it, that thinking doesn't have to be rigid. It doesn't even have to be logical, narrative, or academic. Interestingly, Hitchcock, whose films come across as very gutsy, was known to work in a very structured manner and was a very strict planner. So I think there are times and certain people who can approach things with some degree of rigidity and create within those self-imposed confines. Even though many kinds of thinking allow for flexibility, change, spontaneity, etc. His films <em>Rope</em> and <em>Lifeboat</em> were experiments in different kinds of fairly restrictive boundaries but, maybe a bit ironically or counterintuitively, those boundaries seemed to open up universes for him to explore.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, good point about it not necessarily being active anti-intellectualism. Sometimes it's just an accepted assumption. Yes, I agree, a false dichotomy between thinking and being in the zone or going with the flow.</p>

<p><strong>Lex</strong>, thanks for the Doisneau quote and story. Poignant. THIS: <em>"</em><em>Others struggle to communicate verbally or orally and, rather than simply admit they can't articulate their thoughts about their process, dismiss the entire value of discussing the process."</em> Seems a really good insight. I hadn't thought of this aspect of the question and it makes sense. <br /> <br /> <strong>Robin</strong>, while I do find myself letting go of my thoughts at times (which doesn't mean not thinking but means not attending to my thinking or not necessarily having it be the primary mode of operation at all times), a very intentional way of photographing which you describe is certainly as valid as any other way of working. I do think you're onto something in that there are a lot of mindless or thoughtless photos taken that are not decent at all, and part of their problem is that it looks like no thought at all was given to them. And again, thought does not have to be logical, narrative, or academic. It just has to be some mental activity, including imagination.<br /> <br /> <strong>Bill</strong>, my next rant is going to be the prevalence on PN of art cynics, for instance, assuming that a Jackson Pollock considered his viewers fools and was disingenuously pulling one over on them. So thanks for giving me a sort of pre-introduction. :-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Why do we think that we can also not think?

[Rick Helmke]

<p>The newspaper business helped me develop into one who looks for images as opposed to creating them. I rarely go into a situation with preconceived ideas and though it does happen it is always modified along the way. Getting into the zone is, for me anyway, a much higher level of mental activity though when it is over it takes some time to go back and remember what happened.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""As far as Jackson Pollock, I think he must have been thinking 'I wonder what these fools will think I meant with this one...'""<br>

Bill, you don't have to bother thinking much about that one. Just read Jackson Pollock and he will tell you all about it. You can start with this one: </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jackson-Pollock-Works-Writings-Interviews/dp/8434312581"><strong>""Jackson Pollock: Works, Writings, Interviews""</strong></a></p>

[johne37179]

<p>Fred: Sometimes when I'm "thinking" about a shot -- I could think for hours and not come up with something that I really wanted to do. At other times "stuff" just happens and you "see" the shot or vision. I think we all think of great works as "inspired," and coupled with hard work. However, it is the grain of "inspiration" that seems to be the catalyst. I'm just classifying the successful thinking as "inspiration."</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>What Rick H. said. I have the same experience. </p>

<p>I go into a situation with a mental "shot list" but once there it is all about being in the zone and furious thought. </p>

<p>In my own it may sometimes be more about, that's pretty and lets see how this comes out. But even then, for me, photography is all about thinking it through. </p>

[Brad_]

Why is "artist" in quotation marks?

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00cx9W"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 14, 2014; 11:55 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why is "artist" in quotation marks?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a.) Because a straight use of the word, without quotation marks, invariably invites attacks, smarmy comments, and derision from some people on PN. The implication being that anyone who dares to use that term is pretentious, full of themselves, and assuming a position far above their actual station and actual level of talent.</p>

<p>b.) Because the quotation marks imply that the term is being qualified. (As in "whatever this term means to you", or "in a relative way if you can accept this term being used in regard to photography".) </p>

<p>But these are my reasons for putting artist in quotation marks, so I don't know if they apply to Fred or not.</p>

 

[jordan2240]

<p>Anders, thanks for the link. I found this quote from the summary particularly interesting and very appropriate for this discussion:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pollock's most famous statement on his method exemplifies this concern with a creativity arising from an unconscious: "When I am <em>in</em> my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apparently he painted 'in the zone.'</p>

<p>Fred, I haven't noticed a prevelance of cynics, but we don't run in the same circles out here, so perhaps I've just not been exposed to them. Nothing wrong with a bit of cynicism though. Without it, we'd fall for every scam imaginable. But I digress...sorry.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Rick H., </strong>can or do you ever think without having "preconceived ideas"?<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>E.J</strong>, thanks for your further substantive thoughts. I get what you mean. I agree that there is that spark of inspiration that often needs to happen for me. I actually also find deep thought inspiring.</p>

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, thanks for the link to something that Pollock actually says and writes. I was composing my own further response to Bill when I saw your own post. It's condensed, in that it's just a brief quotation of Pollock followed by some thoughts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>“I feel nearer, more a part of the painting, since this way I can walk round it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting. This is akin to the methods of the Indian sand painters of the West.”</em> —Jackson Pollock</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, I prefer to think of Pollock as being influenced by what he had been exposed to by another culture and by what he wanted from the painting experience and how he felt, from a place of authenticity (which can still result in commercial success and also not forestall depression and alcoholism) as opposed to projecting mocking motives onto him. </p>

<p><strong>Rick M.</strong>, I love the sound of "furious thought"! Thanks for that. There's passion in it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Cynicism:</strong> <em>an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others' motives believing that humans are selfish by nature</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I'd say some degree of skepticism is healthy and cynicism basically is not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"When I am </em>in<em> my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about."</em><br /> —Jackson Pollock</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True this. I'm familiar with this quote. And I believe it and have experienced similar things. I'm talking about thinking at many different times during the creative process. As I tried to emphasize in my OP, when I talk about thinking so many people assume I'm talking about the moment of shooting or, in Pollock's case, during the act of painting, and the responses usually dwell on being in the zone at the time of action instead of whether, what, how, and why we might think when we're <em>not</em> in the zone.<br /> <br /> Maybe a good question to consider is <em>"What do you think about, related to your photos and making of photos, when you're not in the zone?"</em></p>

[charleswood]

<p>Temple Grandin <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin</a> reports in a Ted talk that she is a visual thinker <a href="

<p>So if you're visualizing, you're 'thinking'? I believe it's synesthetics who also 'think' in shape and color. The word 'imagine' has 'image' (imago) as its Latin root, or so I gather from here: "Middle English, from Anglo-French <em>imaginer,</em> from Latin <em>imaginari,</em> from <em>imagin-, imago</em> image"</p>

<p>Do you with your will produce an idea? Or do you get an idea and then interpret and express the idea with language? Do all ideas first form in the brain as an image and then surface only at the point where, for most of us, they become expressible in language, where the image ordinarily gets lost in the translation? So are verbal, oral expressions of ideas a sort of dis-articulation of an original image; where the image is the thought that only later gets articulated in language? Also, writing words in a large part of our planet consists of the drawing of pictures, which again speaks to thought as tightly linked to imagery.</p>

<p>Most of what we regard as thinking is after the fact story writing about our negotiations with objects. On the most fundamental level our negotiations with objects are strictly physical negotiations involving body placement. I know my dog has had an idea, for example, when his head movements orient his eyes and nose toward an object. In three or four seconds he combines information and self-assessment to resolve a next act, a further negotiation with an object. My dog's conscious processing is the processing of images, smells, sounds, and the tactile feel of the ground and associations of taste, taste also being smell and tactile to an extent. If he had language my dog could form a history of himself. Instead his history is in his muscles, bones, and in memory that amounts to a storage area for the associations he has formed between all the images and other sense associations. His life is images, impressions, and associations. His memory, his story writing is in raw images not words. His memory consists of both truth and of falsehoods <em>agreed upon</em>, that is to say, he has a lot of 'working' rules that don't always stand to reason. Rudimentary Logos, very little ability to self-reflect, Eros, Mythos (he has culture) and together with all else he has an 'instinct' for justice, a sense of fairness as has been confirmed by scientific studies, as has been confirmed empirically his ability to love.</p>

<p>So Fred, I offer that 'thought verbalization' is a very thin layer recently added to the human species, offer that thinking is an older layer that only later gets augmented by verbal expression. Developmentally speaking "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", and our ancient cave paintings are perhaps the raw thought of the ancients memorialized, evocative even today of sights, sounds, smells, taste, and tactile impressions and a human child is more like an animal in that regard.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Are photographers and "artists" allowed to think? On the pages of PN, I've seen again and again

claims that photographers don't participate in this very human activity, as if it's possible not to.

 

I haven't seen this personally, either in real life or on photonet. Are you really suggesting serious

photographers (meaning people that have adopted photography at least as a regular hobby or

endeavor - as opposed to, say, perhaps a relative taking yearly family holiday snaps) put no thought into the photos they make?

 

Also, not sure what you meant by "artists" (in quotes), but the artists I know personally and am aware of put an incredible amount of thinking into their work.

 

>>> I'd say more often than not a lack of thought in general shows in one's photos, often to the detriment of those photos, though for some reason people assume it sounds pretty cool not to think.

 

Again, I don't know who these people are, but if that's their choice (whether thinking or not is cool in their eyes), why does it worry you so? I'm fine letting anyone do what they want their camera.

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G: Are photographers and "artists" allowed to think?<br>

Is this a kind of anti-intellectualism? I think so<br>

I'd say more often than not a lack of thought in general shows in one's photos, often to the detriment of those photos, though for some reason people assume it sounds pretty cool not to think.<br>

Your opinions and tirades at me are welcome.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are artists allowed to think? Absolutely not! </p>

<p>Being serious -- I think there is always some level of thought before, during, and after taking a photograph. How much, how little, and what form it takes is dependent upon the individual photographer, the photographic genre, and the stage at which the thinking occurs. Mario Testino and Gregory Crewdson probably put a lot of time into thinking about a shot beforehand (even if some of that thinking is conducted by assistants). On a different point of the thinking spectrum, a combat or street photographer most likely puts a lot less time into previsualization. And I don’t think that thinking precludes the ability of being “in the zone”. If I recall correctly, Fred, I think you have said in the past that even though you might set up a portrait in a particular way beforehand, there is still a lot of room for inspiration and improvisation during the shoot. When I am taking photographs in the street, things may happen very quickly but I may still be thinking in that moment that I want to try an isolate one person, or group of people -- or place them in a certain place in the frame, or perhaps even put them at an extreme edge or corner, or even cut part of them off. Even when I shoot from the hip I sometimes try to accomplish this. So thought, even in a rapidly developing moment, is neither out of the question nor harmful to improvisation or being in the zone. </p>

<p>I would even go so far as to say that “being in the zone” sometimes means being able to think about what one is doing during a rapidly developing situation.</p>

<p>And, regardless of what genre one is working in, I think it is always important to put a lot of thought into the editing and post-processing.</p>

<p>"Not thinking" does not make one an artist, although I can conceive of someone who is a good photographer and spends a lot less time thinking about things than other photographers who are not as talented. So I don't believe that thought -- a lack of it or a preponderance of it -- has anything to do with whether one is an artist or not. </p>

<p>Does a lack of thought show in someone's work? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it is another one of those things that is relative and contingent upon what is meant by "thought". I can look at someone's PN portfolio and know how it strikes me, but I don't always know how much thought they give to their work. </p>

<p>Anti-intellectualism? I think sometimes it is intentional, and as Wouter indicated, sometimes it is not. I am prone to being a bit anti-intellectual myself at times. At other times I can write on and on about something that no one apparently cares enough about to even comment on! It depends on the topic and my frame of mind at any given point in time. I suspect that most people are the same way. It’s the multiplicity and inconsistency of human nature. But the notion (which I, too, have sometimes seen expressed on PN) that “you should be out taking photographs, not analyzing and talking about it!” is too dogmatic, too “black and white” for me to buy into. To everything there is a season, right?</p>

<p> </p>

[Vlado]

<p>For me it's very simple - if you don't think you'll eventually fail to produce good photographs, if you don't think, you'll eventually fail to produce good results in any field. The core problem with this discussion is a definition of thinking - many understand it differently, but it has nothing to do with photography.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred - "Maybe a good question to consider is <em>"What do you think about, related to your photos and making of photos, when you're not in the zone?"</em>"</p>

<p>I don't know Fred. If being in the zone is a form of fundamental thinking, then verbalizing about it later is either 1., constructing a narrative, a personal story about a negotiation process with an object, or, 2., planning a subsequent negotiation with an object.</p>

<p>Putting a photo in a frame involves body and object placement as does taping the photo on the wall, or putting it in the trash.</p>

<p>But <em>thinking</em> after the photo is made is also to put a photograph within a frame, a narrative frame, a word framed, a narrative about the event that's stored as narrative memory. In that verbal framing we can introduce a disconnect between the event and the language memory created for the event, between the event and the story we tell ourselves about the event. Yet the image memory is still there, and we always have the photograph. A lot of times, to think after the fact is to recall image memory and compare that image memory to narrative memory. At worst, narrative memory can become a series of lies agreed upon, I know from my own thusly created narratives, lots of them.</p>

<p>So the question to me is involved with the question of how are we to be objective about our self when we are the self we want to be objective about? Thankfully everyone else isn't wrong about me <em>all</em> the time.</p>