color A Treatise on Resurrection

Of course it was deliberate. I'm not so foolish as to think that Jeff just aims his camera at random and snaps the shutter. (although I have no arguement with those that wish to entertain that approach). If you are familiar with childhood art, you have to be impressed by the spontaneity of children and their direct way of seeing and expressing the world around them. Most of us lose that ability when we are expelled from the Eden of childhood. It is a struggle for us as adult artists to return to that state where the rational mind (which has now become like a tyrant, passing judgement over everything that comes its way) plays its proper subordinate role in the process of creation. In this picture It was the feeling of a spontaneous, unselfconscious moment that impressed me, whether he took an hour to set it up or just saw it and shot. That's how I felt about the picture and was what I was alluding to in my previous remarks.

I didn't mean to suggest that your thoughts weren't valid. Nothing you said was foolish. These were your heartfelt reactions and that's the way we should all react. They simply did not ring a bell for me and I wanted to let Jeff know that his photo had a very different effect on me. My different reaction was in no way meant to belittle or make light of yours. And I'm sorry if I came across that way.

 

I don't see either randomness or spontaneity here. While I agree with what you've said about children, and am impressed by their spontaneity, I just don't find anything like that in this photo. I'm not saying it's not there or can't be there for you or anyone else. It's not there for me. You said "it looks like a picture your daughter might take." That thought would not have occurred to me on this photo. It feels too mature. There are other photos by Jeff that I could easily see myself saying that about, but more naive and childlike photos. I like this photo and respect it. I think it's evocative and provocative, but I don't think it's terribly unself-conscious. It strikes me as one taken with Jeff's own consciousness about religious matters and irony pretty much in the forefront. I think there's a lot of rationality here, which doesn't take away from the artistry for me.

 

Two of Jeff's statements above lead me to believe he was being consciously rational. To Adan: "I'm not trying to be a provocateur as much as a thinker." To Pnina: "I was thinking about what represents reality and what Christ would prefer. Thoughts...thoughts...thoughts." I'm not sure his rationality was so subservient in this instance, though I think with other of his photos rationality is to a much greater extent subservient.

 

Jack, I'm glad you came back to this one and spoke up. Your critique opened a door that, because you reacted so genuinely, I felt like stepping through. I took your critique as a challenge, not as wrong. The longer I'm on PN, the more I think challenging each other is an important learning tool. Every challenge I offer makes two people a little more vulnerable, the person I challenge and me. Vulnerability is an important part of the growth of all of us.

Thanks for such a fun interchange. It reminds me of when I was a kid and used to hide under the couch while the folks would discuss "what to do with the boy."

 

 

Deb and I went to Newton Center, Boston suburbia extraordinaire, so she could get a haircut and I could take pictures. Deb grew up here, so we didn't use our GPS. Unfortunately, the landscape has changed a little since childhood, so we got horribly lost. And then we found Jesus and knew where we were. So we changed direction.

 

 

I eyeballed Jesus and immediately saw the light was good and composed my shot in my head. Although I took several others, much more planned out and carefully composed, my original idea was the keeper. It was a "Eureka" moment that was only later executed because I had to drop off the Mrs., park the car, and trudge fifteen minutes back to the spot where it happened. No matter, the light was better the second time around anyways.

 

 

Prior to picking up my camera, I had decided to break out of a rut by taking some street shots like Jack, Markku, and the Laurents. I can't compose as quickly as these gentlemen, so mine all have a stilted feel to them. This and the intersection shot, though, worked out okay.

 

 

By the same token, when I try wholly planned out and orchestrated shots like Fred, I lose all the life. It doesn't look dramatic and I can't capture that "hold your breath" quality. Instead of the sum being greater than the parts, I think the parts get in the way and it looks contrived, pieced together with visual scotch-tape. Ho-hum. Yawn. Another amateurish attempt to be important.

 

 

My best shots are typically those involving scenes I notice while out with the kids, the wife, or the dog. I see a scene, recognize it as important, and return with camera in hand and distractions safely nuzzled (or muzzled) back at the house. I'm always learning from my teachers. Gabi's lesson is to shoot indiscriminately and joyfully. Jack's lesson is to shoot spontaneously and to look for order, mystery, and magic as I go. Fred's lesson is to edit ruthlessly. Not every shot should see the light of day. My lesson to myself is to shoot first and ask questions later.

"My lesson to myself is to shoot first and ask questions later."

 

...I'll take that lesson for me as well...very interesting...

 

...not the only approach but an important one once in the street...if you think too much: too late....ideal would be to reach a kind of intuitive state where you respond and shoot spontaneously to the scene and let the composition background that you have come into play without thinking....well easier to say than to do...to improve I think one need to improve composition skills on the field (also on more static subject)... the speed and intuition by taking a lot, including a lot of failled opportunities....where the portrait photographer spend time composing, arranging, choosing lightning...the street must spend time taking failled shots to get some good....at the end I am quite sure the same quality requires the same volume of efforts...just not the same....(I do not think I have something specially representative to say about street shooting it is just how I feel about this subject and why I like it)...Jack can speak volume about it I guess...

 

I have to give credit to Fred (in addition to his images) for lauching very interesting discussion and helping people to get out of the convenient and surface answers...so many thanks....

I really like the shot, Jeff, and the fact that you leave it open to different interpretations. I've read everybody's comments with interest, and it is always a pleasure to see how Fred's reflection and open-mindedness trigger off great discussion.

 

Jeff, thanks for mentioning me, I'm honored and although I hate it when I feel vulnerable, I'll have my own amateurish attempt to be important by leaving a few thoughts which I hope do not sound ridiculous or vain (I wish I were a native English speaker to articulate my thoughts in a much better way). It's much more comfortable to let the pictures do the talking and let other viewers say if in their opinion a shot is interesting or not.

 

To second everybody's comments about different approaches to taking a shot, I think all are good, and I think I use them all depending on the situation and what the picture I want commands. Sometimes you're in a hurry, sometimes you'll have plenty of time, sometimes you want to give it a spontaneous feel, sometimes a more sophisticated one. You can even make a grabshot look sophisticated and posed or vice-versa, I don't see any problem to using any approach or technique that allows you to achieve what you want to do and I like to try all of them from "carefully compose" to "aim at random and snap the trigger". For me the most important thing in the end would be to get the result I want and above all, as you all said, get a picture that, according to our own tastes and specifications, has life, soul (or whatever we call it) , and matches our own aesthetic visions.

 

I think Fred and Jack pretty much say the same thing about the quest and goals of the artist who tries to think his own vision. Personally, I don't see any contradiction between at the same time thinking one's vision of their own work and unleashing one's creativity, emotions and spontaneity to try and express a particular feeling when taking a shot (What jack refers to as the spontaneity and truth of a child's vision). In any case, whatever the tools and the means, the artist will be conscious of his goals and of the directions he would like to take or experiment.

 

Eventually, what Laurent said about what we put in our pictures is very apt I think. To me, whatever approach we try, our photographs are always the sum of our personality, emotions, knowledge, experience, all of which can be seen in even in the most spontaneous grabshots. I often say to myself when discovering my pictures after shooting that the eye is sometimes a much faster thinker than the mind.

"...if you think too much: too late....ideal would be to reach a kind of intuitive state where you respond and shoot spontaneously to the scene and let the composition background that you have come into play without thinking"

 

Laurent (J), that's exactly what you do. Remember what Jeff said "I eyeballed Jesus and immediately saw the light was good and composed my shot in my head" You do that too, like we all do. You have to think and to think fast, very fast sometimes, it becomes almost a subconscious act. Do you think for a minute that Fred's walking Jesus has been carefully set-up? Well, he can answer that himself but I wouldn't believe that for a minute. And I think that's really what Jack implied. While at the beginning technique becomes more of a rationale and consequently a hindrance it's only when we've mastered that to some degree that we can operate more instinctively. That's when good photo's start to emerge.

 

"Vulnerability is an important part of the growth of all of us" I agree wholeheartedly and it's something that more people should take to heart. Life begins with a blank canvas every day

 

Laurent (L) "I'll have my own amateurish attempt to be important by leaving a few thoughts which I hope do not sound ridiculous or vain (I wish I were a native English speaker to articulate my thoughts in a better way). It's much more comfortable to let the pictures do the talking and let other viewers say if in their opinion a shot is interesting or not"

 

Laurent, there is nothing amateurish, ridiculous or vain about being honest. Just like you I'm not a native English speaker but I don't let that keep me from commenting. Sure, sometimes I'm misunderstood because I make stupid mistakes while formulating a sentence. On the other hand it has lead to great discussions with some of the people above. That I've found to be very valuable.

Great and lively discussion with so many good thoughts. This is the best part about PN. See, we don't really need the administrators to make many changes. We just need to really start talking to each other!

 

Just a response on spontaneity. Jeff, When I spoke of spontaneity, I wasn't necessarily thinking of your process as much as what I see in the photo. Certainly our process and what comes into play in the photo itself will have a relationship, but I think sometimes they can be much at odds with each other. I think we can be very spontaneous in our shooting, yet the photo may not feel so and vice versa. That's why I've been talking lately about being into photos and situations that are contrived. Such contrived shots can also have that spark of spontaneity and, to me, that's really a special combination.

 

So, these two shots you talk about . . . neither gives me that much a feeling of spontaneity, though clearly you felt spontaneous in your taking of them. The street shot with the hanging lights, because of the geometry, the stillness, it feels much more about positioning and ambiance than spontaneity to me. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that some shots that you took with a lot of planning and setup actually have a great feel of spontaneity to me.

 

I was just reading in a forum how Bresson often would sit in a spot for hours waiting for the decisive moment. Hardly spontaneous, yet he captured spontaneity amazingly well.

 

Three of my portraits, both ones of Will and the one of Mark P. with the oranges were quite setup and have a very staged feel. Yet I, at least, feel a sense of spontaneity in each despite the process that created them. The three latest of Ian are staged and don't particularly feel spontaneous to me. I think even the most setup portrait under the most guided of conditions can come across as spontaneous. Mona Lisa comes to mind. Her eyes are the epitome of spontaneity and no one was probably more deliberate in his approach to art than Leonardo. An interesting thought: a very spontaneous touch to the photo of Ian sitting cross-legged among the columns is that he just naturally and quite spontaneously put his hands on his knees as he did. Spontaneous though it may have been, I think it adds to the intentional and staged feel and does not read at all spontaneously. Nevertheless, I love how it works in the photo.

 

As I say this, I realize I am discovering for myself just what spontaneity is. It is hard to *try* to be spontaneous, of course. It just seems to come at times. As Ton says, the more we are comfortable with our technical aspects, the more spontaneous we can be. But I also think there's something to be said about being in touch with our visions. And the more those visions develop and deepen, the more we may simply allow spontaneity to occur (be open to it) and translate through to the images. Sometimes spontaneity reaches our souls and sometimes it's merely haphazard. Not all spontaneous shots are worth a damn and not all setup shots lack importance and emotion. Spontaneity in photography seems a matter of letting go. Letting go, as many meditators will tell you, has an element of consciousness (or at least a route through consciousness) to it.

 

This photo's perspective, to me, feels like an intentionally meaningful gesture. The juxtaposition also feels that way as does the obvious drama of the sky. This may have been a very spontaneous push of the shutter but it doesn't read "spontaneity" to me despite that fact.

 

It remains, to me, a great photo and one that fits in with the context of Jeff's other work and moves his body of work along. There are many elements for our photos to have and not all of them will be present all of the time and we will obviously not always see them the same way.

 

I will add, finally, that this description has elements that are quite deliberative as well as elements that are very spontaneous:

 

"I eyeballed Jesus and immediately saw the light was good and composed my shot in my head. Although I took several others, much more planned out and carefully composed, my original idea was the keeper. It was a "Eureka" moment that was only later executed because I had to drop off the Mrs., park the car, and trudge fifteen minutes back to the spot where it happened. No matter, the light was better the second time around anyways."

my first thought when i saw this was the Bible verse from the book of John: "I am the way and the light." those may not be the exact words, but i know it is something like that, and then i find it ironic in your story of coming across this that you say "we got horribly lost. And then we found Jesus and knew where we were. So we changed direction. I eyeballed Jesus and immediately saw the light... " i know i am taking your words out of context, but they echo the Biblical.

 

as to your question of which view would Jesus prefer, from what i have read of the historical Jesus (not the Jesus of John), i think he would prefer the view directly in front of him looking at the street, and the people in it.

I see great photographers as comedians or Jazz musicians. They are able to conjure up and use their own emotions, knowledge, experience, to improvise and express themselves in their own way.

Dennis: Thanks so much. The heavens cooperated on this one, giving me a sudden burst of drama. When are you going abroad?

 

 

David: Don't kill anyone, even for the sake of art. This is an ugly backdrop, isn't it? I fancied it to be complicated or meaningful or something. Jesus can calm the storm, but to transform suburbia would be a miracle.

 

 

Alex: I like your interpretation of this photo as a geometrical and electrified composition.

 

 

Adela: I thought the meeting of two worlds was an interesting one. Well, that's the basis for the story of the incarnation. Divine meets humanity.

 

 

Koushik: Thanks so much.

 

 

Margaret: Hmmmm. The spirit moved me.

 

 

Cynthia: Exactly.

 

 

Laurent J: The miracle of photography is to find the beauty in the banal. So glad you liked this one. Intuition comes with practice, as contradictory as this seems.

 

 

Ton: What amazes me often is that "provocative" often means a variation of "offensive." Whether one believes or doesn't, religion still holds incredible sway and power over the world and is a topic worth thinking about and coming to terms with. This photo represented some personal grappling. I always find your comments to be interesting.

 

 

Jack: Although a still shot, I found this scene composed itself quite spontaneously. I'm a thinker, not a doer. Waiting for the perfect shot or sometimes setting up the perfect shot acts as a creative stutter. The term "point and shoot" is good advice. And I agree with Margaret that your comment was an affirming one.

 

 

Fred: As childlike as I try to be (my wife would use the word childish), I'm still an adult with adult baggage. I can't recreate the spontaneity of children's art anymore than I could stuff a tree back in an acorn. The spontaneity here isn't so much an end product, but a psychologic experience involving the joy of discovery. It doesn't happen often. I instantly thought this was an incredibly cool scene with potential. The post-processing, cropping, color management, and interpretation came secondarily and quite deliberately. But for a moment, I had a flash go off. It's hard to define what constitutes spontaneity. For me, it feels very right-brained, non-linear, and immediate, even though the resulting photo may seem staid and static. I'm glad when you show up because things get interesting.

 

 

Laurent L: I think there's a whole host issues that collide into a good photo. Whether a photo is spontaneous, the photographer represents an amalgam of experiences that combine into personality and personhood. So what resonates with me may have never registered with someone else. Anyhow, I could spin into psychobabble, but I'll spare you. Thanks always for such well-reasoned comments.

 

 

Linda: I grew up in the church. I often approach these matters not as an analytic outsider, but as an estranged family member. My word choice was tongue-in-cheek, but not intended to be offensive (and I hope you didn't read my comments or the photo as such). It mirrors the testimonies I heard time and time again during Wednesday prayer meetings. This photo and more importantly the ideas that accompany it are part of a "casting off of the grave-clothes," if you know what I mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff, what a comments. I didn't read them, perhaps later. I don't want any influence in my reaction on this. And the first reaction was: giggle: holy shit, ;-)

I like this one! The point of view is great.

with regards.

It seems that it's always the damn Semantics that lead us astray. I believe they are the descendants of the engineers that planned the Tower of Babel and they are still with us today. Words boggle us with their many shades of meaning that cut this way and that. In the arts, poetry or allegory can sometimes illuminate a path to the truth better than exposition or arguement. Unfortunately, most of us are not particularly accomplished in those fields so we have to pick our way carefully through the minefield of meaning. The case in point today is the word "spontaneous" and what it implies in the photographic process. As Fred correctly states it can be a hit or miss proposition. But what do we really mean when we talk about "spontaneous"? After reading Fred's last remarks, I think he and I are more in agreement than disagreement on the concept. He states " Spontaneity in photography seems a matter of letting go. Letting go, as many meditators will tell you, has an element of consciousness (or at least a route through consciousness) to it." This is a statement I can agree with wholeheartedly. The million dollar question, grasshoppers, is letting go of what?

 

Joke: Thanks. A giggle is just what this photo needed.

 

 

Jack: I agree that a fellow could wade in a semantic mud-hole and never achieve any clarity of thought. The word of the day is "spontaneous." Now, what does this mean? Accidental. Happenstance? Thoughtless? Unplanned? Impulsive? Random? Each sort-of, kind-of applies. I think spontaneous has an agreed-upon meaning and a idiosyncratic one. at least for me. About letting go. What a scary proposition. Usually, I'm holding on for dear life. What's on the other side of letting go? I need guarantees.

Another thought provoking image from you Jeff. This could be a profound statement about the condition of Christianity in contemporary North America, or Jesus directing traffic in front of some cheap wedding chapel. An interesting combination of the ancient and the everyday.Those clouds are fantastic, they seem rather prophetic with those leaning poles/crusifixes silhouetted against them. Brilliant!

 

 

 

Interesting discussion again

 

Jeff's "It's hard to define what constitutes spontaneity. For me, it feels very right-brained, non-linear, and immediate, even though the resulting photo may seem staid and static. "

 

Reading all the arguments about spontaneity, can you explain to me the different between this and a snapshot. we all work fast, as our experience developes, we seize situatins and turn them to a composition with a gut feeling. I seat in a dance show or theatre, with my camera ready, what will you call it spontaneity or snapshots?. Of course we all post process photos later on, but the the first impression is fast, is it a snapshot, ? when will you call a photo a snap and when it is spontaneously taken ?

In an email, you asked me to take a look at your comments here. Jeff and I have done the "snapshot" thing, but I'll give it a quick stab, related to the current topic. I don't think snap and spontaneous go hand in hand. I've taken many family snapshots that are far from spontaneous. The aunts and uncles and cousins stand outside on the patio smiling for the camera, the kids being reminded to hold their shoulders back. To me a snapshot is more about memory, not about spontaneity. A snapshot also doesn't try to and usually does not transcend itself in any way. It is what it is. A family picture. A picture of the kids playing soccer. The son in his tux going off to the prom. The beautiful ocean on our trip to the islands. Any of these may be very intentional, very planned, very set up. All are likely snapshots. All important in their own way. Few should be hanging on the walls of galleries or museums, except in special instances.

 

Spontaneity, we seem to have talked around and about above quite a bit and I think in all of what we've said, the idea is there to be found. It's intangible and happens when you let it.

 

Jack, what a great question. Letting go of what? I've got my answer but at this point it would just be more words. None needed.

agree with Enyinwa. its a superb shot by any standard! regards!

It's been an interesting discussion. Whatever the approach, it's a very enriching experience to have the opportunity to share our views on a given matter. Some are more thinkers, others are more feelers, and we're all searching and doing our best and we're glad to share our pics here on Pnet. Jeff, thanks, it's great coming to your site.

Thanks for your explanation. I still am not very convinced about the total separation of spotaneous and snapshots. Maybe it is my English, I still think it can be as Jack said some "Semantics" in it. ., As in spontaneity there are components of a snap and in snap there is something of spontaneous. Both can be meaningful or not, more thought provoking, transcending to art or not, evok feeling or not..... Maybe I'm wrong, but thats how I feel. There is less spontaneity in staging ( I created a series of staged photography ," Follow the light" took me a year) and more snapping component in (as an example) street shots, documentary shots . The successful ones that are touching in transfering feelings, technical accuracy, composition etc, definition is secondary and not so significant and important.

 

Jeff, thanks for your always evoking our gray cells to work harder.......;-))

"The successful ones that are touching in transfering feelings, technical accuracy, composition etc, definition is secondary and not so significant and important"

 

that's an interesting observation and one with which I completely disagree. A lot of people use that just as an excuse for poorly lit, composed, printed/processed and presented photo's. There are some of the best and most succesfull photographers who will readily tell you that technique isn't all that important. Yet, it's very striking that they always exhibit photo's with excellent near perfect technique which are equally perfect printed and presented. I do agree that a technically perfect photo doesn't necessarily have to be a good one. But on the other hand good technique does a lot for a good photo. I have visited a lot of major exhibitions and know there are some notable exceptions. I've seen vintage prints of Robert Frank that from a purely technical point of view most would have binned. I've seen prints from Hurrel, Corbijn, Serrano, Salgado, Jean-Loup Sieff, Cindy Sherman and a lot of others that where so damned good it kept me awake. Another thing they have in common is a superb composition. I think it's something to study and learn from rather than dismiss.

 

To be honest I don't think that it was excactly what you implied. But I still felt the need to react because a lot of work to be found on sites like this is mediocre at best while the people who produce it use such arguments to dismiss any constructive feedback and promote their own flaws as being artistic.

Think about Cartier Bresson and Nan Goldin.

 

Bresson is known as a street photographer.

 

Goldin has done many setup shots and portraits.

 

I'd make the claim that Goldin's photos (and I love them) more resemble what I consider to be snapshots than Bresson's work. I think it's more about the quality and intent than spontaneity vs. planning.

 

I think many street photographers refer to themselves as snappers but don't view their photos as snapshots and might be offended by such a reference.

 

On the other hand, many portrait photographers are trying to achieve the look of a snapshot. Especially contemporary photographers find something very natural about the snapshot quality.

 

Rather than pinning snapshot to spontaneity, I'd pin it to lack of intention, or at least lack of intention to do anything but preserve a memory.

 

I'm not sure but I think the term came into vogue with the Kodak Brownie camera at the turn of the last century. Kodak was encouraging family photos to be shot without concern for the production of perfect images, just quick memories. The "Kodak moment" kind of epitomizes the idea of the snapshot.

 

I think the idea of snapshot assumes lack of artistic or journalistic intent. Street shooting is tricky, because I think most street shooters are not just preserving a "Kodak moment" but are trying to say something with their street shots, perhaps comment on the human condition, irony, etc. A snapshot would be "I want to take a picture of City Hall to put in my scrapbook as a memento." A non-snap would be, "I want to capture that kid skateboarding by City Hall in a blur."

 

I think of most snaps as having a deep depth of field and as looking like they were taken on automatic settings. Sort of generic looking. No attention to the more intricate or creative aspects of taking a picture.

 

I think a lot of those early Kodak moments, all the snaps we've seen of our parents' generation, were not necessarily spontaneous. As a matter of fact, they clearly thought about how they would dress for those photos and there was often more thought given to background and composition than in our family photos today. Amateurs were, in my mind, much more influenced by the movies they were seeing in terms of taking pictures than our generation is. Lots of snaps still had a deco look and a sense of space, including elements that today would often be neglected. But they were taken with minimal knowledge of how a camera works and they depended solely on the camera to make their lighting and focusing decisions.

 

I think the reason many photographers would be offended if their work were compared to a snapshot is not because they resent being called spontaneous (most photographers consider that a plus), it's because it says something about the quality, care, and intent of their photo.

I totally agree with what you've both just said. As I wrote above, I've often noticed that the eye can be a much faster thinker than the mind. By saying so, I mean that whatever creativity, sensitivity, knowledge and experience of his craft a photographer may possess can often be seen in even his most spontaneous, quickest snapshots.

I agree with much of what Ton says. Much as I love modern art, I also think in the 20th Century, art became somewhat synonymous with "excuse." The notions that art is anything you want it to be, open to any individual interpretation, completely subjective, etc. are hard notions to quarrel with because there is quite a bit of truth in them, but these notions also miss something important and wind up being used as excuses to get away with a lot of nonsense and a lot of poor work. Art is not separable from craft. (You can be an artist and still have room to hone your technical skills, of course. But the two must stand side by side.) One is not an artist until your craft is communicating your vision. It also helps to have an art historical perspective gotten by studying other artists and learning about the process over generations. Art is magic but it is also a study. It does not usually take place in a vacuum except perhaps for prodigies like Mozart who wasn't old enough to study much music history. Nevertheless his father was a musician and he grew up surrounded by it. Prodigy though he was, he studied hard at harmony and practiced his scales diligently. Communicating a vision doesn't mean just strongly feeling it, it means using the tools of the craft to convey it.

It seems we were writing our comments exactly at the same time, so I'll resume and finish mine here. Again, I couldn't agree more. Hard work and practice are as important as that more intangible notion called talent, which is a much more difficult one to define. Why some have it or not? Who decides who has it or not? What are the requirements for that? This reminds me of Picasso's famous sentence: "...certains cherchent, moi je trouve..." ( please excuse my approximative quotation).

I appreciate what you've been saying and have a feeling I will like this last Picasso quote, but alas I studied only Spanish in High School, not French, to my great dismay as I get older. Can you please translate the quote? Thanks.