Stands Out

Well, to me vision is sort of our personal framework. A more seasoned worker has a more specific idea of what they do globally and a more specific vision for a specific image--and that is generally within the framework of their overall vision. The problem is sometimes semantics, but a mature worker will generally be able to produce "their" work where ever they are and not be overcome by an unfamiliar or "exotic" location.

I think if we look at Emanuel's work, one would have to assume he has a vision for what he wants to produce. The work is fairly consistent in its nature. How deep that vision is is hard to really tell without digging a bit deeper than maybe what we have here to inform us. But rarely does one see as consistent a body of work as Emanuel shows here.

Vision = goal? I think that is difficult as, again, semantics can get in the way. I see vision maybe as more someone's overall framework as to how they see the world--their world view-- whereas a goal may be more episodic to a current body of work or even a specific image. Sort of a macro versus micro comparison.

<<<. . . do you think "vision" is synonymous with "goal" in this context?>>>

I'd say it's more of a guide than a goal, a constant companion. What John A said is important. So vision is not just setting a goal and getting there, because it can and often also includes working with the unexpected or unplanned, surprises or accidents, or spontaneously readjusting even when one has a goal in mind, or even working with no particular goal in mind.

IMO, it requires some sort of intimacy with one's medium and how one connects that medium to what one is doing/saying/showing.

In a sense, artistic or photographic vision is different from regular old vision in that it's a kind of connection between what is seen and shown (or heard, in music) and what's in the mind's eye (or ear).

Many photos and paintings are decorative. Many of those, IMO, are not art. When I sense vision, it's because I'm in the presence of something akin to a reason for the work, a mental/emotional/visual/imaginative foundation, one that can't always be verbalized or analyzed. But it's there. It can be elusive, too, and like a lark.

Thanks for those three responses -- they help me considerably. I was just talking with my adult son (casual photographer, works mainly creating and editing videos) about this, and he thinks my definition of "vision" is too narrow (or too lofty); he generally supported the responses you folks provided. It does have a lot to do with semantics, and I need to keep that in mind. Still, I sometimes feel that people use the term in a pompous manner (using Arthur's word) and as a shield, much like the term "art" is sometimes used. "Vision" becomes more understandable to me when thinking of it as personal framework (John's thought) or as having something akin to a reason for the work or having a foundation that comes from inside a person (Fred's thought). Frankly, I much prefer these more descriptive phrases than the single term "vision." There's still room for discussion, however; I suspect some would say Emanuel has a vision for his photographic work while others are likely to disagree or would at least like to hear Emanuel articulate that vision.

I think "vision" is a very elusive concept. Achieving it is even more so. Sometimes it is easy to look at a piece of art, or a photograph, and realize that there probably was no vision behind it; it was all a function of being in a particular spot at a particular time and accident played more of a role than did vision. On the other side of the coin, there are examples that clearly reflect the vision of the artist. One can look at a woman as seen by Giacometti, or Brancusi, or Moore and we all recognize the subject, but what strikes us is the vision of the artist.
I have no idea what was in Emanuel's imagination when he created this image, but what struck me was the thought of how much children are like china dolls at times. In my mind I could easily exchange the child behind the lace curtain for a china doll behind the lace curtain -- and I thought that it was a nice visual analogy.
But that is my bringing my vision to the image. I can only wonder if the photographer and I shared the vision -- but the wonder and exploring of a potentially shared vision is what makes the image so enjoyable for me.
So many photographs are technically very well executed, but do not stimulate any thought about What was going through the mind of the photographer when they shot this? Would any competent camera operator taken exactly or nearly exactly the same image if they had been there?
When I look at any piece of art -- and I put photographs in this category -- I want to gain some insight into the creator of the image and their thinking. If there is nothing of the vision of the photographer present, regardless of subject or style, the photograph quickly passes from my mind as uninteresting.
One can tell when a photographer has achieved the level of being able to project there vision when we can look at the image and know instantly who the photographer is without having to read their name in the caption.

My "vision" when shooting landscapes is to try to capture aesthetic beauty and that sense of awe one sees in the real world. That's very difficult to do with a two dimensional print. Pictures like that when I view them take me out of the present into a world of escape and wonder. There's no particular subject in mind as lighting and content varies all over the field. I don't plan the shot which may mean why I don't find that many. So I walk around and when my eyes tell me that's the one, that's what I shoot. If my eyes see nothing, I usually don't take any shots. I try not to over-complicate this "vision" thing.

<<<. . . when we can look at the image and know instantly who the photographer is without having to read their name in the caption.>>>

While I agree with some of what you say before this, IMO, what you're talking about here is a matter of consistency and often a matter of style, but not necessarily vision. Actually, I think sometimes style is substituted for vision and it fools both photographer and viewer.

I'll be as short & simple as possible. I wish the face was not so "Perfect" and more natural.

Fred: I think you are absolutely right that style is sometimes confused with vision. However, style certainly supports vision. David duChemin discusses this at length in his "Within the Frame: The Journey of Photographic Vision.

Too much post-processing to me. Too plasticky is probably right. A nice portrait nevertheless and many of the portraits in the portfolio is like that, so it's probably his style.

Am I too late ? extraordinay-fumufaboulus !

I hadn't considered that way of interpreting the image. If I had, I probably would have had a very different opinion, and I'd probably be thinking that Emanuel was quite successful in transforming the child into a representation of a child in the form of a doll. The skin and lips work, and even the eye works in this interpretation, IMO. As others have noted, there are a number of attributes that one can say were done well. If Emanuel wanted to impart doll-like characteristics in his subject, perhaps he was quite successful. Many have stated it looks too plastic, but if the intention was to create a plastic doll (a positive quality in the mind of Emanuel), then wouldn't they also have to agree that his intention has been realized? Doesn't then the evaluation become one centered on the extent to which this does look like a plastic doll, rather than whether this photograph of a child should be processed to an extent that it looks like a plastic doll?

If Emanuel had stated something to this effect in an introductory paragraph, my view of the image would have been affected. For those who want an image to stand on its own, without knowledge of the photographer's intention and without reference to the photographer's other work, I doubt their opinion, whether positive or negative, would have been affected. It makes me wonder if those who had such strongly positive reactions when the image was first posted back in 2008 also saw this possibility in the image. Frankly, I doubt this was the case; it just seems too far-fetched to imagine that so many individuals could independently be making the same interpretation. I still go back to my original thought about an element of beauty combined with a decided departure from reality as the root of the positive responses, but there goes my bias sounding off again.

All of this once again makes me wonder how we critique a photograph. It seems like a giant clash of many different underlying preferences and prejudices combined with differences in initial perceptions and interpretations. Maybe that's the only possibility, and maybe that's exactly how it should be.

Stephen, I like to hear what a photographer thinks and what their intentions are though I don't find knowing such things necessary in order to critique their work. It does broaden discussions and puts me in touch with the photographer's mind or heart or way of working and it can give us insight into how to offer critiques that may help achieve a goal that wasn't obvious in the work itself.

That being said, just because someone has achieved his goals doesn't mean I can't question the goals themselves as a viewer and as a critic and, additionally, I might still like or not like the finished product.

So, here, I'd say two things. I don't like the finished product regardless of the goal. And if the goal was child as china doll, could child as china doll be better done? I think so. And could child as china doll be less literally interpreted visually? I think so.

Often, literal photographic interpretations of an idea seem less compelling, inspire less curiosity, and have less staying power than metaphoric or at least subtle interpretations of an idea. As a caveat, there is some very blatant work that moves me, but there's a difference been blatant and over-the-top.

If child as china doll was the intention of the photographer, I'd say it's been done a lot, it's overdone here, and this one is on the unsightly side.