The Psychology of Photography: What Drives Us to Shoot?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The point of much of art is to change your mind.<br /> Change your mind.<br /> --Julie H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not every point of view is of equal validity. Not every perspective is enlightening. Skinheads painting swastikas will not make me into a fascist, nor should they. I am not going to be moved to change my mind by every message that comes along. I am not going to change my mind unless the message that I am getting is worthy of a change of mind.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>There is no mystery to what art is.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I thought there was. We keep talking about what art is as if there were indeed some great mystery here.</p>

<p>Enlighten us, Q.G.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That then is, Landrum, because you keep seeking something esoteric, something higher that transcends 'normal' life. "Mystery". You used the word "message" in your previous post, and that's all the mystery there is. Art is yet another way of conveying messages. No more.<br><br>Thinking that there is something mysterious is what leads to people changing their minds, such that (as seen here on PNet) people think that because they apply the word art to themselves, everything they do (a "fart" was the example used) by force would be art. If there is a mystery, it is why people think such nonsense. Luckily, there are people who don't change their mind just because of the suggestion that skin head painted swastikas might be art.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Art is yet another way of conveying messages. No more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alright, Q.G., now you have given us a definition of "art." Now, would you be so kind as to define "great art"?</p>

<p>Are you quite so sure that content is umimportant? I do not want to emphasize "something esoteric, something higher that transcends 'normal' life." There is no reason that "great art" has to be about great themes. It can be about the ordinary, the banal, as far as I am concerned. Surely, though, at some point, to judge it as "great art" we are forced to confront the question of the <em>value</em> of the message.</p>

<p>If the message is worthless, can it be great art?</p>

<p>The case of Leni Riefenstahl comes to mind. . . .</p>

<p>Then there was Joseph Goebbels, if one wants to speak about words and messages.</p>

<p>Albert Speer?</p>

<p>Great? I have trouble with both, although I can see something of value in Reifenstahl. But is art neutral, to be evaluated solely by its technique, apart from its message?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

For what art is, yes.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Q.G., I am not sure which question that was a response to.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Are you still sure that the content is irrelevant to evaluating something as "great art," Q.G.?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Are we driven to create skillful tattoos showing swastikas and other symbols of oppression, genocide, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia? If so, are we great "tattoo artists," or just skillful ones?</p>

<p>Surely great art is about more than technique. Surely content does matter if we are to call something "great art."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

No, to decide the quality of an artistic expression, content of course matters. (But be aware that your choices are your choices. You name a few things that you probably dislike. Your dislikes or likes do not determine whether something is art nor whether it is great art or not).<br><br>"Words and messages". Noone said that anything expressed using words, any message, qualifies as art.<br><br>Why are you talking about technique?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Why are you talking about technique?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., I am talking about technique as a counterpoint to content.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>No one said that anything expressed using words, any message, qualifies as art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe not, Q.G, but you did say this: "It would help, i think, if you regard art as you would language (and it would be right to do so too). Form. Not content."</p>

<p>I am not sure which precise parallel(s) you are making between art and language.</p>

<p>If I said that every work of art has a message (Did I say that?), then I was wrong. Art can be purely expressive, too, like singing in the shower.</p>

<p>Howling at the moon might qualify. (Ask Julie.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The counterpoint to content is form, Landrum.<br>Technique is that practical thing that comes into play when we're struggling to do something (anything).<br><br>"but"?<br>"Noone said that anything expressed using words, any message, qualifies as art." Let me put it this way: "these words are not a work of art".<br>Art is a form of communication. That doesn't mean that every expression would or could be art.<br><br>You distinguish expressions from messages. Why?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>It would follow from what I just said that art need not be about communication. If I shoot or paint or sing only for my own ears, it could still be art, I suppose--but who is going to hear it or see it in order to give it the valuation of "art"?</p>

<p>My point is that private expression can still be art. If someone shoots it, prints it, frame it, and hangs it, why wold anyone object to calling it art?</p>

<p>But all this talk of art threatens to take us far afield. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The counterpoint to content is form, Landrum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Must content be counterpoised to only thing, Q.G.? What is wrong with counterpoising content to technique? On the evaluative side, one may certainly adjudge something as having worthless content while yet demonstrating considerable skill with technique. Again, the work of Leni Riefenstahl comes to mind.</p>

<p>Or am I confusing and conflating some things here? I would yet like to know why Riefenstahl was so enamored of Hitler and his "vision," or whatever it was that made her give herself to the service of the Reich.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>" If I shoot or paint or sing only for my own ears, it could still be art, I suppose--but who is going to hear it or see it in order to give it the valuation of "art"?"</i><br>I see. The first fault (because i'm sure it is a fault) is to think that any utterance not aimed at someone else is not a form of communication. The second one is to think that there is noone to value it.<br><br><i>Must content be counterpoised to only thing, Q.G.?</i><br>In general? In this instance: how many candidates there may be, it certainly is not the thing you suggest as counterpoint. You're confusing (incdeed) something that is not relevant for something that is.<br><br>You are asking why Riefenstahl was drawn and moved by the ideas and person of Hitler. That is not about art.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Must content be counterpoised to only thing, Q.G.?</em><br>

<br />In general? In this instance: how many candidates there may be, it certainly is not the thing you suggest as counterpoint. You're confusing something that is not relevant for something that is. --Q.G.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that your statement is obscure, Q.G., not to say that you are trying to be obscure.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The first fault (because i'm sure it is a fault) is to think that any utterance not aimed at someone else is not a form of communication</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So, I can just communicate to the universe, or the trees across the pasture? If I am singing in the shower, and no one hears but me, with whom am I communicating?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A true politician, you are. ;-)<br><br>So you think you don't like technical aspects of how i communicate?<br>Nothing obscure about what i say. But if you find it confusing, ask simple questions and i'll give simple answers.<br><br>Re the post directly above: i know i should start ignoring the bait, but will still reply with that age old "the answer is in the question".

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You are asking why Riefenstahl was drawn and moved by the ideas and person of Hitler. That is not about art.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It might be if it helps to explain why people create the things that they so.</p>

<p>Art for art's sake? "Sieg Heil, mein Herr." (Certainly not directed at you, Q.G.)</p>

<p>If not art for art's sake, why did she do it? The same may be asked for Speer. (Goebbels is another whole problem.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Re the post directly above: i know i should start ignoring the bait, but will still reply with that age old "the answer is in the question".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not baiting you, Q.G. (In fact, I am sitting here wondering if all this is not avoidance behavior while all of my papers sit ungraded.) I simply did not get your point.</p>

<p>All of these "one liners" do not promote much understanding. In fact, they (mine included) promote misunderstanding.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, understanding why Riefenstahl was drawn and moved by the ideas and person of Hitler might help explain why she let that move her to do whatever she did. A bit of a tautology. And not relevant.<br><br>You bring up that art for art's sake thingy. Do you think there is any value/truth/relevance (whatever you want to call it) in or to that? If so, it's high time you say what you think art is so we can untangle the confusion.<br><br>It is avoidance behaviour on both sides, Landrum. These last hours i should have spent rewriting an article someone made a bit of a mess of, but i rather... ;-)<br>Assuming your sincerity (but making short work of it by putting it as a question, so you can spend time answering): why do you think we utter things, even when alone?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, understanding why Riefenstahl was drawn and moved by the ideas and person of Hitler might help explain why she let that move her to do whatever she did. A bit of a tautology. And not relevant. --Q.G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As recast by you, it does indeed sound tautological, but I was merely trying to direct us back to the original questions: "What drives us to take photos? Why do we like what we like?"</p>

<p>I was seriously wondering out loud about what drove Riefenstahl. A comparison with Speer might show some similarities, but some differences as well. There's nothing tautological in asking those questions if it helps us to understand the urge to create, even in service to a dubious (to say the least) cause.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />You bring up that art for art's sake thingy. Do you think there is any value/truth/relevance (whatever you want to call it) in or to that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I was asking if that might have motivated Riefenstahl. Please remember the context, Q.G.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If so, it's high time you say what you think art is so we can untangle the confusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., let us simply define art for now as "the product of the creative impulse." That might be too broad, but it's the best that I can do right now.</p>

<p>If so, then we might reformulate the original question as, "What drives us to want or need to create?" I would also ask, in response to Michael Linder's comment about Abraham Maslow, "Is the need or urge to create something that only kicks in when basic needs (such as security) have been fulfilled?" I would venture to say, "No. The starving artist has no security, but he paints or photographs anyway."</p>

<p>There are also those wondrous souls who forsake security to advance an idea or a cause, risking their very lives in the process. Where are they on Maslow's hierarchy? Maslow was aware of these anomalies, of course. He never said that his hierarchy of needs covered all cases.</p>

<p>Whew! One never knows when one hops on this merry-go-round how or when one is going to get off! It is perhaps good that we have to visit the bathroom once in a while, lest we sit too long here staring at these screens.</p>

<p>After that, I think that I will go howl at the moon for awhile, if it is up. I need to express myself to the Universe.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>why do you think we utter things, even when alone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., maybe the expressive function is a primary need. Actually, I haven't the faintest idea. I will say this, though, to all of the authoritarian managers and rulers out there: If you try to shut us up, we will shout the louder.</p>

<p>They seem to have trouble grasping that obvious fact, so then they escalate the conflict by using even more draconian (and even violent) efforts to shut us up. Is that relevant to this thread, or even this site? Perhaps not, but I just felt like expressing myself about the right to express oneself, simply for the sake of expressing myself. So, I just expressed myself, on topic or not.</p>

<p>It's primal. It's an urge. It's a primal urge. Maybe the urge to take pictures is a subset of the more general need to express oneself.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The context was that of the question what art is, Landrum. Not the (after a long thread undecided) issue of why you pick up a camera.<br><br>(Those "authoritarian managers and rulers" of course know and understand well enough what the nature of power is, Landrum. They also know that they have it. They have other ways of expressing that than shouting, that speak loud enough. The thing there is not a matter of understanding and expression, but more practical, one of taking away.)<br><br>The impulse response answer is indeed much too broad. Expressing your feelings about the Super Bowl's outcome is also that, but not art. Unless you make it so.<br>It should be clear that it is not in "the urge to create". We do almost nothing else, all day long: change something (a situation) into something else because we feel an urge (or are made to act on someone else's urge) to do so.<br>So what is the specific difference? That it is unnecessary? Serves no basic need? I agree that that would be incorrect. It's also incorrect to seek it in the pathos of 'doing it' despite it leading to personal doom and death.<br>It's also not your need to express yourself to the universe (farting, or whatever other way you like to do so).<br><br>So what is it?<br>(For now, i have a secondary urge to make work of work. So my musings about your mention elsewhere of the etymology of the word and how relevant that indeed is later.)

[rossb]

<p>Well back to the OP question is I take photos because Its fun and I want pictures of the family. Art has nothing to do with it for me. My photos are not going to be at the MOMA or anything. They are just around the house and if they are pretty good they land in the photo album where they will stay until someday they get tossed or whatever happens to old photo albums.. The hard drives do what they do and cease to exist eventually. Negatives should last longer a fair amount of time but you know you just do not see a lot of old negatives in a thrift shop. Pictures yes but not the negatives. I figure it's because they get tossed out. </p>

<p>I agree that photography is art and pretty much everything made is art. My bicycle is art as the guy that made it spent many years honing his skills and spent many hours crating the bicycle into a form of beauty and function. It's the only one in the world as it is precisely formed to fit my body and my wallet took serious damage to acquire it. It's 3 years old and awesome. A work of Art. However my pictures are just adjust, focus and fire. Develop and Print and not a big deal. Just photos and not much more involved then washing the dishes. </p>

<p>I am not driven to take a photo but I do take them because I want some. If my Granddaughter comes over for pancakes later (National Pancake day) then I surely will take a few pictures to finish up my roll of Tri-X. That little girl loves pancakes like nobodies business. Bony little thing and she can pack em in. </p>