How does one capture an emotion?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>You're not my date, Fred.</p>

<p>And those two photos of yours above evoke. . . exactly what?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really care whether you see the emotion in either of my photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no emotion in your photos, Fred. You failed as a photographer. Anyone who wishes may scroll up the page to see your two photos and see for themselves. Your verbose analysis brought absolutely nothing to fruition.</p>

<p>Frankly, you haven't asked me anything worth responding to, beyond what I have already said. If I had more to say to such banal and aggressive badgering, I would say it. You are also juxtaposing my responses to Q.G out of context.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As for your two photos above, you say this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now I felt I wanted more optimism out of it, more lightheartedness, and perhaps more a sense of longing or even winsomeness/pleasantness than loneliness. So this is what I came up with. So, yes, of course I thought about what kind of emotion I wanted out of this photo and I proceeded accordingly. Am I always this deliberate? Of course not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you fiddled with levels, brightness, etc. Fred, you are a genius! Imagine, creating a more cheery mood by adding some light! You have got to publish your new insights.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>RESPONSE TO Q.G. (short version): </strong><br /> <br /> <strong><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 08, 2016; 10:07 a.m.</strong></p>

<p>So, Landrum, after a long thread, what would you say is the answer to your question?<br /> <a name="00djg1"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641">Landrum Kelly</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 08, 2016; 10:10 a.m.</p>

<p>I'll get back to you on that, Q.G. I am not sure at this point. Fred and I are perhaps talking past each other at this point.<br /> --Lannie</p>

<p><strong>MY RESPONSE TO MY OWN QUESTION? ("How does one capture an emotion?")<br /></strong></p>

<p>Shoot from the gut! If you want to show emotion, it helps to feel it in the first place.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><br /><strong>RESPONSE TO PHIL S.:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point is mainly that the collection as it is now has the potential to not only show and be a document of what you saw and photographed when driving around, but to also be a document of a feeling, not necessarily how you actually felt at that time when you were photographing, but how it <em>could have felt</em> when driving around these roads. --Phil S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why on earth would I want to do that, Phil? That's not what I do. <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1079539"><em><strong>The "collection"</strong></em></a> stands as it is and does not purport to be more than what it is.</p>

<p>I would prefer to move on, to shoot something else. I appreciate your own collections, or at least the one that I have seen (the one you linked to). You are a true artist. If I had your skills, I might try what you suggest. It is good to know one's artistic limitations. Mine are pretty obvious.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You know, I just got into bed, closed my eyes, and found myself so puzzled about where this thread wound up and it just struck me why, and this statement of yours kind of captures it. <em><strong>What you're saying is that the answer to what's evocative about a photo is to be found in psychology rather than in photography.</strong></em> --Fred G. (Emphasis supplied.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, indeed, if by "photography" you are giving primacy and emphasis to technique. What is evocative is indeed finally to be traced to psychological origins--back inside the artist. One looks inward, or at least that is a necessary condition (though not a sufficient one). The phony, the artistic poseur, looks outward, at externalities, superficialities. He thinks that soulless photographers are going to create photos with "soul."</p>

<p>No, they will not, except in their own minds. What they will tend to create with such a vacuous over-emphasis on external technique is over-worked photos contrived by would-be great photographers who try too hard to show how great they are. Nothing natural is going to show through, because there is no core there to show through in the first place. Nature will have been completely erased by artifice.</p>

<p>That kind of superficial work is always going to seem contrived because it is contrived. It is going to look over-worked because the images are indeed over-worked. It is going to look self-conscious because the egotistical self-conscious artist with no feeling (no "soul") is going to bring his or her own self-consciousness to the photo. He or she will do that because such persons have nothing else to bring--and absolutely nothing of value to share or communicate.</p>

<p>Their work will look. . . phony. Do you want to create an illusion of emotion starting from a certain emptiness of the psyche? Good luck!</p>

<p><br />Authenticity is to be found within oneself, not in the artificial and phony veneer of a preoccupation with technique. Oh, one can always find some kind of following for that kind of work. Even "Elvis on Velvet" is revered in certain quarters.</p>

<p>If a person's photos never manage to look natural (and naturally emotionally evocative), it is because they are <strong><em>not</em> </strong>genuinely evocative. They are totally artificial. He who wants may pursue that kind of empty quest. "Art" and "artificial" come from the same etymological root, but truly great art speaks to the universality of human <em><strong>nature</strong></em>. There is a paradox here, but it is a linguistic conundrum:<em><strong> in spite of the etymological similarities, great art is not going to look artificial.</strong></em> It is going to look natural.</p>

<p>Its message (and it will have one) will be universal. It will above all not be an exercise in narcissism. Its purpose will not be to shock or disgust, but to resonate, and resonate not with just any old human emotion, but with the more worthy ones.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Lest I be misunderstood, let me offer as a caveat this response that I gave to Julie H. on the parallel ongoing thread about psychology and photography:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If it enrages, moves, disturbs you, then I'd say it's more art than that which you find comfortable. --Julie H.</p>

<p>I agree with that, Julie. Not all art is pretty, nor should it strive to be. It may yet be "pleasing" to the artist who captures or creates it, since it achieved or produced the desired effect. The viewer, on the other hand, may be revolted. Not every portrayal of reality is going to produce an agreeable emotion. That which is revolting can, I believe, still be art. One may even be driven to expose that which is revolting, such as by showing the bitter fruits of exploitation and discrimination, or the pain and suffering of the Depression and the Dust Bowl. --Lannie Kelly</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When I spoke of great art in the post immediately above, I said this: "Its purpose will not be to shock or disgust. . ." I meant this in the sense of being pornographic or downright pathological (whatever on earth that might entail). Having said that, sometimes art of a certain sort has to be disagreeable, even shocking, to be evocative and to have any force. If, on the other hand, the point of shocking the viewer is to draw attention to oneself as a "great artist," then I think that one has shown only narcissism.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>So you're not in the slightest emotionally invested in these photographs you took.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Phil, I am very highly invested emotionally in those photos and in the countryside they show, but the investment is primarily about getting to know a previously unknown section of the North Carolina countryside--combined with some personal things that they are associated with in my mind, things I have no intention of sharing publicy. I really doubt that that would be of interest to many persons outside of this geographical area. As I said earlier, some of the photos might be reworked and conceivably printed. That's about it for me where these photos are concerned. The narrative they tell is personal, and the emotions they evoke are private. I am not averse to sharing them as they are presented here, but not many people would relate to any of that, and I am not going to change the narrative to make these particular photos be something that they are not.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And that shows in the way they indeed do not purport to be anything more than what they are. They lack intention.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>They are indeed little more than what<strong><em> I</em></strong> see in them. That is not what you see. You see a lack of intention, but that is a false perception and inference on your part. I really don't see the point in debating any of that.</p>

<p>I am not sure why persons would presume that their own photographic agenda should become someone else's. I photograph a lot of things, but I took, processed, and kept these for my own private reasons. What anyone else might learn from them would be mostly limited to the effects of various processing options, and possibly to the moods that various processing choices might evoke. THAT IS WHY I POSTED THEM ON THIS THREAD. </p>

<p>A project that I would like to share is something that I hope to do this spring and early summer--the higher and wilder North Carolina mountains in various moods, affected by lighting, time of year, the appearance of various flora and fauna, etc. It is project that I have been planning for some time, but one thing or another keeps getting in the way. Maybe this year will be the year that I finally bring it to fruition. I have lived in Ecuador and hiked in the Andes and the Rockies, but there is a side to the mountains (and high hiking trails) of North Carolina that is not commonly seen, but is worth seeing. I would like to capture that and share it with a broader audience.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It's a creative cop-out to say that it's only your own private emotions to yourself that are to be evoked in the photos. That way they can remain anything and everything forever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it is an affirmation of a right to privacy in this case. I am talking about a larger context that I choose not to share, or, as I thought I made abundantly clear, "some personal things that they [the photos] are associated with in my mind, things I have no intention of sharing publicly." There is no possible way that you could experience those emotions from looking at the pictures, unless you read minds. The images are associated with other things to which you have no possible access unless I were to choose to share them with you. They are only contingently linked to associations in my own mind. They are not linked to the photos by any logical necessity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The North Carolina mountains like you describe them sounds like a great subject for capturing emotions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, the point would be to capture images that evoke emotions in the viewer. There is no emotion in a mountain to capture. One might capture a mood, but that is not quite the same thing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Lannie wrote: "There is no emotion in a mountain to capture."</p>

<p>Then how does natural selection work?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It's a creative cop-out to say that it's only your own private emotions to yourself that are to be evoked in the photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a second reading, I presume that you meant "evoked by the photos." It is certainly the case that I have no control over what the viewer brings to the viewing of my or anyone else's photo--nor what he or she takes away. The evocation involved is probably quite often less about what is in the photo to begin with than with what is in the viewer's mind.</p>

<p>On either reading, I see no creative cop-out. I simply think that it is totally beyond my control what others "read into" or "are moved by" upon viewing my photo(s). I think that the same is true of any creative work. Ten people will come away with ten different interpretations of just about anything, much like ten witnesses to an accident will come away with ten different accounts.</p>

<p>Such internal psychological phenomena are largely if not totally beyond my control, and I don't worry about them. Should I? Perhaps.</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, what I felt when I took the photo is also what is felt by the viewer, then I think that communication and not merely an evocation has actually occurred. I wonder how frequently that actually happens. I frankly have no idea. I think that it can happen if both artist and viewer/listener have had similar experiences.</p>

<p>The analogous idea comes to my mind of writing a novel about a guy who walks in on his woman with another lover--caught in the very act,<em> in flagrante delicto</em>. I am not sure that I could get the full impact of that work unless I had suffered the same fate, that of being cuckolded, and in the most obvious and painful kind of way imaginable. Yet, yet, there are parallels even without the identical experience, since we have all felt jealous and threatened at times, and so perhaps a virgin could write such a novel--and succeed in evoking that which he or she could not possibly be communicating, at least not in the literal sense.</p>

<p>Art does have power. So does imagination. Perhaps I am under-estimating that power--and perhaps that was at least partially implied by what you called a "creative cop-out." I am not sure that I read you correctly the first time.</p>

<p>As for whether I want to evoke emotions in viewers of my photos. . . ? Well, yes, that is the point of this thread, at least in part. I am just not sure that I want to try it with those photos in that folder. I had a much more limited goal when I posted those. Maybe the mountain shots, if I ever get them done. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie wrote: "There is no emotion in a mountain to capture."<br /> Then how does natural selection work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, is your tongue firmly in cheek? Or am I just missing something here, as I did when I first read Phil's comments?<br>

<br /> --Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You could make your photos more evocative ( if that's what you wanted, but it seems not ) though by consciously drawing and tapping into those personal emotions that you don't want to explicitly share ( photographs don't work like that ) but that could nevertheless affect the photos ( and the photos as an experience ) when approached ( technically and conceptually ) on such a more deeper level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read you now, Phil. Thanks for trying again to get through my tired old thick skull.</p>

<p>I guess we are all bringing pretty much our entire emotional history to the making (or viewing) of a photo. It is also likewise obvious that I was being entirely too dismissive to sum up earlier by saying that "we should from the gut," etc. Yes, we can and do, but there is room for rational analysis.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/Pageifc.html"><em><strong>Here is Fred's portrait folder</strong></em></a> from his own site. There is power here, and he got the power by much more than simply "shooting from the gut."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredgoldsmithphotography.com/Page01.html"><em><strong>THIS ONE</strong></em></a> remains my favorite--his PoW shot from Photo.net.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I simply think that it is totally beyond my control what others "read into" or "are moved by" upon viewing my photo(s).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is obviously over-stated. Sorry.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Phil. I shall have to reconsider.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Phil:</p>

<p>So what?</p>

<p>Why does all of that complexity and subtlety matter to me <em>at all</em>?</p>

<p>You and I love this stuff because ... we love this stuff. But if <em>The Americans</em> hadn't been titled <em>The Americans</em>, do you think it would have gotten any attention outside of hardcore photography/art lovers? It's like doing math just because you love dong math. Show somebody who doesn't love math why doing/seeing this is important to that somebody.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>STEPPING INTO A MOOD:</strong><br /> <br /> Sometimes the size of a presentation can affect the evocation of a mood, I believe--especially with outdoor or nature shots. I think that this is one reason (though not the most important one) that I like nature photos more than portraits--and why my next planned project involves mountain photography. I like the idea of trying to make prints that one can "step into" with at least some hope of experiencing the actual feeling of "being there." That is why I bought the D800E with 36 mp back in 2012. Sad to say, I have not yet had a huge print made of any of my shots made with it--but doing so is still big on my agenda.</p>

<p>I have tried to show this here with a <a href="/photo/14282615&size=lg"><em><strong>COMPARISON of the puny inline photo and the LINK</strong></em></a> to the same file viewed large. The comparison will not quite succeed, but this is a step in the direction of trying to see what I can get with larger prints--prints that might even go down to floor level. This comparison does not begin to show what I want to show, but it might give some hint of the idea behind the impulse to print large. My own printer carriage goes only to seventeen inches wide. I will have to have someone else make it. Which file to use would be critical. I wouldn't waste the money on this particular image. I have been agonizing over the failure of mountain photos since 1968, when as a young man I was so appalled that my wide-angle Instamatic drugstore prints just didn't seem to give me the same <em>feeling</em> that I had had upon climbing a two-thousand-foot cliff. I know now that no photo can ever do that, but one wants to try to see what one can get.</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>For what it's worth, the cliff that originally inspired the idea is Caesar's Head in South Carolina. This time I plan to try the Linville Gorge in North Carolina. It does not have the biggest mountains in North Carolina, much less in the country or in the world, but some of its views could benefit from large presentations, I believe.</p>

<p>I expect to lose money on the project. I still want to try it, even if it winds up as a floor to ceiling print located in one of the bedrooms. I am into some uncharted territory here where logistics (and costs!) are concerned; that is, the how and wherefore of getting it all pasted together and moved to where it needs to go--with proper lighting. A strong fan and a blast of cold air might help. (I am being only slightly facetious here. If I could get the smell of rhododendrons and mountain laurel, too, then I would try that as well.)</p>

<p>Surely it's been done. I wonder with what success. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>"PHOTOGRAPHIC SEQUENCES"</strong></p>

<p>Phil, that is a great post. I can begin to see what you have been talking about over the last day or two. I can also begin to better understand your own work and what drives it, I think.</p>

<p>In fact, I wish that you would link more to your own work.</p>

<p>Right now I just want to go get a better look at some of Frank's work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong> "Tranquility (Emotions)" </strong>(a thread on the "No Words" forum)</p>

<p><a href="/no-words-forum/00dk2b">http://www.photo.net/no-words-forum/00dk2b</a></p>

<p>Letting photos speak for themselves. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The "Uwharrie Mountains" are no longer mountains (after eons of being weathered down), but they are peaceful.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Another shot of one of the low ridges that are all that is left of the "Uwharrie Mountains". . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Do we need to emphasize techniques for evoking emotions? No, we need to shoot what we feel--and hope that what we show in the photos resonates with those who have seen similar scenes in reality and felt comparable emotions. That is not only photography. That is "communication."</p>

<p>It comes from the soul, and, yes, it is, if not "magic," something that feels like magic. Let those feel it who can.</p>

<p>Let nature be the guide, not over-worked, over-processed images. Let Nature evoke Nature.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Small mountains have stories to tell, too.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Mountain valleys have their charms, too.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>