armin_seeholzer Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Hi Hogarth You could do it like a chinese writer some 1000 or more years ago. He wrote prosa and other staff. And as first he showed it to the kiosk woman. If she liked it and understoud it then he got it. If she did not understand it nor like it he pushed it into the garbage.His prosa is still in use in china! But don't go to the psychologists, they just make you sick!Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_jiri_loun Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 A kiosk woman? Why not better - load it here on the photo.net. People criticize it? Must be great art! People like it? Sure it is great art! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domenico_foschi Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Scott, in part i agree with you. In part it is true that people ar being stuffed with cheap images and are not being educated in what real art is in photography , but i also am a firm believer that the majority of people have bad taste . I think people deserve the low quality news broadcast, the freeway chasing , the demeaning reality shows, the insulting commercials, newspapers who tell them lies, cookie cutters aircuts and houses , Thomas Kinkade'slike paintings and pictures of sunsets hanging from their walls because ...that is what they want ! Art , true art , challenges, shake the institutionalized believes sistems, do you think that people want to be remainded of how fake reality is ? No, it has always been like that , the continuous tension beetween good and evil , bad taste and knowledge of what beauty is , and maybe there is a reason for it .. There will always be low quality, and now even more since low quality comes with a low price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 poor hogarth, he's obviously cornfused... what idea? that might help. steve's on to something here. maybe the question is 'found' vs. contrived comps? something i've never had much luck with is contriving my comps. some of us, like ellis, are so good at creating comps, they can actually make a living from it. me, well, i can get lucky once in a while and put a workable one together(not without a polaroid back though), but most times, my strength is noticing a comp in the randomness of nature. i find it crucial to hunt for these with no preconceptions of comp in my mind. subject, sure... i'll say, to myself, i say...'today, i'm looking for trains to shoot' but going out with a preconception of how the end result will be arranged within the frame is just too much because, the two never seem to coincide. i also see dangers in studying words when photos are the language. i think words always fail to accurately describe something visual and never precisely enough fer me(see also, the rule of thurds). what can we talk about then? being a practical person, i'm all fer discussing subjective things(comp) subjectively. because to my mind, seeking objectivity in the psychology of any subject is well, knitting tie-downs out of belly-button lint. fun, sure, but always fruitless. it's not comparing apples to oranges... more like comparing apples to a coyote with gingivitis. what can we discuss? those frustrating oversimplifications we all hate, like the rule of thurds, leading lines, triangularities and scouting... i believe in those... i believe it's about as close as we'll come to elucidate composition in words. i believe in pre-visualization too, in so far as scouting a location. as in; you know the pic is there... you've taken yer viewfinder and have seen it... now you need an overcast day and a BNSF Dash-9 to Wichita to pull through, which boils down to patience more than pre-vis and all too practical fer me to be considered an 'arteest'. or impatiently-speaking, fer instance, say the calla in it's natural environ isn't working fer ya. it's a bit too windy. pre-vis won't help when mother nature won't cooperate and all the artspeak you've memorized from all those book suggestions above won't keep that lily still. so, what will work? practically speaking...a nice machete and some seamless paper you've got back at the studio. comp is comp is comp... is there something to it? no... not really. you either find it or you don't. i'm with ya though... it's not in a book, you'll never uncover it with words. it's out there, yonder... me p.s. see it? nope, left a little...but the sun came up too fast today... better try again tomorrow. i gotta remember to set my alarm clock for 4 am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_fleming1 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Bravo. (though it would have been easier to read with a couple line breaks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce watson Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Thanks to all who took the time to try to answer my question. Looks like I'm heading to the library: David, I'll search around on PsycINFO and see what I can find. Good information, should result in some finds. Andy, I'll look up "Elements of Architectural Form." I've always loved architecture. Just wish I could draw! Tim, I'm not going to look up anything on Anne Geddes. You probably know why. Donald, Jung is probably deeper than I wanted to go. Really though, it's too general - I need something that more directly addresses artistic composition. I'll probably get to Jung in a couple of years. He's on my list anyway. Scott, what can I say? Four posts without addressing the question! You should start you own thread. Donald - you hit the nail on the head - I've already ordered a copy of "Perception and Imaging" by Richard Zakia. This is exactly what I was looking for when I started this thread! Sandy, I think I mislead you - I'm not trying to find out why the public buys certain images, I'm trying to find out why I like and buy certain images. No one is going to do a study on me (we should all hope this is true), but I am part of the buying public, so I thought finding out why people like what they like would help me better understand why I compose the way I do. I might be wrong about that, but I'm going to try it anyway. Bill, I killed my TV. Just couldn't take it anymore, and I can spend the $40/month that TimeWarner wanted on film and paper! Andrew, I've got most of those books. I'll check out Freeman Patterson's book though. I've heard of it before, just haven't found a copy locally - I'll add it to the library list. David, I have a copy of "The Art of Looking Sideways" by Fletcher! Fantastic and interesting, if a bit weird. Steve, that's just what I've been doing. Now I want to know why - do that introspective thing. Armin, George, Dominico ? And finally Triblett. I am confused. It's a fairly normal thing with me. It was good of you to remind me that there are people out there who are much more confused than I. Now, off the the library! Thanks to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_pluta3 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Hogarth, I'd like to suggest "The art of light + space" by Jan Butterfield. I read it back in '93 when it first came out and am now on a second read thru it. It is not specific to photography, however the concepts addressed go to the heart of your question, why do certain shapes, forms, spaces and combinations of those elements move people. I find it a very strange read, yet I always end-up looking at the gg differently after I read from it. Ellis, I have used the rule of thirds for decades, but never thought in triangles before. I will have to try looking for triangular patterns on my next outing. Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_fleming1 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Sorry you didn't care for my perspective hogarth. But studdying art pshychology is no way to make art. Either you have the talent or you don't. Those who can ... do. Those who can't ... teach. You can read a thousand books and what you will end up with is a thousand author's perspectives and concepts. If you want to make images to please yourself then do it. If you want to be commercially successful then give the public what they want when they want it. I don't think intellectualizing it to death will get you anywhere except with ivory tower academicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan brewer Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I remember reading years ago, where someone was supposed to have asked one of the worlds greatest scuptors ever, how he knew where to chip away, and what was the thought process while he was doing it. The sculptor was said to have replied that there was nothing to think about, that the shapes and figures were already there, and he just removed the excess stone. I watched an interview with a favorite actor of mine, and somebody asked him what it took to be a great actor, he said it was impossible to explain that, and that would be like trying to write a book on how to be tall, 'you either were or you weren't. It seems to me that W. Eugene Smith, Andre Kertez, Edward Weston, Van Gogh, Picasso, Raymond Chandler, et al, made, used, changed the rules, broke 'em in ways nobody else could imagine until after they saw their work, they could see things nobody else could see, imagine things nobody else could imagine. HOW do they do it, I think it's impossible to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Searching for �objectivity� in psychology or artistic composition is futile. Not to mention the psychology of artistic composition (whatever that means). No two categories of knowledge focus more on the �absolute subject� of experience than these two. Further, you seem to be trying to force a visual medium into logocentric linguistic constructs, which is another dubious and hopelessly futile effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Scott f- that was GB Shaw. Johnathon... yer lumping of chandler reminds me of a lilian hellman quote. "Never listen to writers talk about themselves or their work." and now fer some Mencken. "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." triblett's familiar quotations, me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 "Johnathon... yer lumping of chandler reminds me of a lilian hellman quote" Which reminds me of what Mary McCarthy said of Hellman: That every word she said was a lie, including "and" and "the." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_galli4 Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 In the end you'll wind up with a Nikon 35 looking for a small wet cat hanging from a string and having "caught" the moment you'll market your picture with a catchy phrase.......like "Hang in there Baby" and take a million dollars to the bank. That has already been proven to be what the masses want. Don't go to the library, go to the mall and head for the poster shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Ok, now I know you want to know "why" certain things are visually stimulating. Psychologists have been studying visual perception for years in the lab. Various animals (cats, rats and monkeys usually)have been implanted with electrodes in their visual cortex and different forms of stimuli flashed into their retinas. We seem to have a certain hard wiring (neurons) to respond to things in the environment, such as contours, edges, movement, etc. Its all for survival. I think what appeals to us visually has something to do with this hard wiring. I would even guess that as we evolved the fixed shapes of the environment such as the horizon and its placement visually from the height of the average person gives us a certain hard wired expectation that the lower portion (third perhaps?) of the visual field will be divided from the upper, sky portion. See where I'm going with this? Then you can add cultural/emotional overlays of meaning on top of that. I'm sure our basic feeling for certain forms, shapes and proportions are a result of the underlying neuronal structures that evolved for our species to survive. Now I'm going to field test some 4x5 HP5 and D-23. I trust my neurons are working just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_c._miller Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Jim, I think that Hogarth and the rest of us KNOWS what the public wants. Hogarth wants to know WHY they want it. Why do people like Elvis on black velvet? Why do people like babies in flower pots? Why do people like half a dozen brown dogs? Why do people like self-portraits of some chick? Why do people pay huge sums for posters of paintings? Why? Why? Why? What's the inner workings of an ignorant peasant with cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick roadnight cotswolds Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Be original - see what the competition do, and then do something different! For Kittens on LF, invest in a beam trigger system and an electronic shutter... and a digital back. A subject on which you could research the psychology of of purchasers (and legislators) is glamour artforms... Take and unnacceptably indecent photograph of a young lady on a pedestal, and use Photoshop to turn her into a bronse statue! Then give the local Women's institute a slide show, showing the "bronse statue" first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 hey bailey... if that IS yer real name. who's mary mccarthy? me p.s. any relation to tailgunner joe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22mary+mccarthy%22&num=50&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=lillian+hellman&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee_seegers Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Take some classes in merchandising. It will open your eyes to the mind set of the general public. Dee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 bailey, i was kidding. me p.s. 'A man is happiest when he's tight'- Mencken p.p.s. 'We are motorcycle people; we walk tall and we laugh at whatever's funny. We shit on the chests of the Weird...' -HST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.w. Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Gotta kick in my 2 cents. Just finished rereading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". In the post-script materials at the end, the author talks about our cultural memory as being like sitting on the passenger seat of a motorcycle while facing backwards. We're always looking into the past, watching it recede away from us. We never see the future (which is at our backs). Social evolution, of which art is a part, is always redefining itself in the context of the past. I suspect what Hogarth may find in his continued research is that, although there are physiological rules which help explain why some compositions are more "right" than others, often rules of art-making are social dictates, defined by their context within the larger body of art and culture. Remember the early photogs were very much stylistically informed by the romanticist painters of their era. And Moholy-Nagy and others who did "photograms" were very much informed by Cubism and Bauhaus. However, the problem with wanting to know only what the PUBLIC likes is difficult to seperate out from what the "cultural elitists" like. After all, those who define cultural values of image-making are the image-makers themselves. If the "public" are defined as those who consume commercial images through TV, video, film, print and internet sources, then they are by default "tainted" sources of opinion, having been propogandized by the image makers. Hence the unending parade of visual fads (note MTV for reference). Just pick up a women's fashion magazine, and thumb through the full-page advertising. A veritable who's who in fashion photography. One can even note the latest visual trends and styles in photography using this method. Your goal of understanding composition objectively is admirable, but I'm not so sure if the entirety of the subject has been exhausted in print. If so, then photography is a dead subject, a completed, closed work. However, if photography (and image making in general) is still a living, creative field, then you will find no complete answer to your question, because new rules are being constantly created. And that's how it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 wonderful joe... and a perfect prompt fer my next quote. 'It is middle-class people who, quite mistakenly, imagine that a lively pursuit of the latest in reading and painting will advance their status in the world.'- Mary McCarthy me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now