antoniobassiphotography

<p>I believe any type of emotion can enhance photography, even depression or lack of emotion. That means that suffering does not necessarily enhance photography.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong><br>

I agree, I just wanted to bring this subject into the conversation because it has always been a dilemma in some cases, but I don't want to wander off the point.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong><br>

This is actually a very interesting subject of conversation for me. Here is an example of a picture I decided to title: in this case, the title points out to the concept that made me take the picture in the first place</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12978493-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The original idea that triggered the photo might go unobserved if not pointed out by a title. In this case, even with a title, the viewer is still free to interpret the scene differently and personally. Or do you think that the title can spoil the photograph?</p>

<p><strong>m</strong><br>

Language serves us to point out certain aspects that might not be immediate to everyone, for various reasons. Each one of us has a different perception of things, due to our different background and experiences. I don't like to give titles to my photos because I prefer the observer to be free in his interpretation but sometimes it is necessary and it can actually complete the photograph.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong><br>

Your photo of the dead bar immediately reminded me of a photo I believe by W. Evans in which he shows an empty house. The power here is in the actual non-presence and the past-presence: there was something and now isn't there anymore, the lack of past life that left something tangible. Actually, this is something that Geoff Dyer talks about in his book "The Ongoing Moment". So, you are right about the non-presence being even more "present" than the presence.</p>

<p>How about Weston's toilet bowl? That is a great transformation of non-romantic matter into something very artistically attractive.</p>

<p>Interesting thread the Indecisive moment but most of the pics posted are actually very romantic to me, intending romanticism as a inner "motion of emotion" of any sort. Yes, Fred is right, in order to produce a non-romantic photo it must be very banal or one of those that happen by accidental release of the shutter (even those sometimes can produce something..). Capturing the lack of emotion and content takes practice, it's not something that can be done easily and actually I think it could be an interesting project (some have done it already, I'm sure).</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, I like that quote, will buy the book.</p>

<p>OK, let's see some of your non-romanticized photos, bring them on! :D So we give this thread a little boost! This one I took tonight, thinking about our conversations; this one had a specific intention behind but the location, the subject and the shooting moment and conditions were completely not planned (I was driving my car).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12976032-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>John A</strong><br>

<em>The Ongoing Moment</em>, I read that and loved it. The writer isn't a photographer and that's what makes the essay even more interesting. As a musician, I am always more interested in hearing non-musicians' comments than those from my fellow colleagues.<br>

I realize that it is very difficult to give definitions to processes that are continuously changing and evolving such as music or photography; we evolve and they inevitably evolve with us but it's nice talking about them and using semantics to engage into tight arguments and maybe end up in the same place. I learn a lot from it.<br>

I have been using a camera for no time in comparison to you and I do it with no intention of making money off of it; I realized how my approach has changed so many times over these few years that I don't even know where I am going with it anymore, and I love it. The camera is for me like a notebook where I write about moments, people or things I encounter in my life and I don't really worry about where my trip is going: Bruce Lee said "it's not about the destination, it's about the journey".<br>

Ok, I had a few glasses of wine with friends so tomorrow I could regret having wrote this stuff... :D</p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

Yeah, that attitude is the one photography newcomers use because they think taking pictures is easy and they need no training, technical knowledge, cultural background... just be yourself, right? Many people fall in that trap, me included up to a certain period of time; they think they are very talented artists with a lot to say and they are better than anybody else the minute they take a camera in their hands for the first time... I know that attitude and I don't like it at all.</p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

Well, of course there was an intention, at least a few seconds before shooting, and it was created by my cultural influences and more. However, this photo is not part of a project, I didn't plan to go out and hunt for these kind of images. I didn't shoot with my eyes closed after a couple of spins but also I did not plan this at all and all the thoughts and cultural influences came to my head all at once in the split of a second. There is nothing wrong about shooting with intention, did I say that there is something wrong? I do shoot with a pre-visualized concept or project in my head very often but not in this case. My cultural background definitely had a major role here but I think you are playing around with words when you say <em>Something to consider is that intentions don't just get formed in the few seconds before an act like pushing the shutter</em>. We are talking about shooting following a conscious line in your head or just your instincts and thoughts <em>at the moment</em>.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong><br>

The second one you said :D<br>

More specifically: it was definitely done with a relaxed and receptive approach, no intentions of any kind. I am European and we have always been attracted to certain aspects of America, especially those that were brought to us by the economic boom, the music, Jack Kerouac and Ferlinghetti, the pop culture and the Beat Generation and so on. We see this great culture - that was suffocated perhaps by the thirst of money, power and domination of the other face of the American coin - we see it, I was saying, everywhere: on the streets, the architecture, the food, the faces of people and the way they dress...<br>

This being said, the obsession with washing cars of average American people has always blown my mind, especially in California, where water is not really coming out of trees. In Europe, most people don't wash their car ever (I don't). Car washes are also very focused in delivering a great and fast performance and for that, they have a full team of people that take care of different tasks, delivering a super-fast and great performance for the client. Car washing: definitely an important and distinctive aspect in the American life. This is probably why my photograph came so naturally, no premeditated or post-meditated intentions involved: i saw it, turned the camera on, set it on 80 ISO on A and shot, trying to get a decent overall composition with the surrounding buildings, the road and the sky. Thanks for asking, by the way.<br>

<strong>Phylo</strong><br>

Thanks for your comment!</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong><br>

Hello to you too, long time no see :D I absolutely love your foundry image, and congrats for the print, that is excellent as well. I don't think it can be brought as an example in opposition to my car wash photo because your image it is in fact a beautiful photograph that can be appreciated as such, while mine is not a beautiful photograph but could be appreciated for other reasons, that are the same that drove me to take it in the first place.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong><br>

Thanks. You spoke my mind</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't quite get to that closer tableau of *photographic'ness* but neither does it have to</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, 'cause for me it isn't even a photo per se but the projection of thinking.<br>

But let me add a few things. The photo I brought as an example helps me to point out how I don't think about what I like or dislike or try to follow this or the other bias and IMPO I don't think photography should follow specific biases. I didn't feel excited to have found such revealing beauty or truth in that car wash and I don't even think is a good photo, photographically speaking. It's actually a bad one, since it's taken from too far and it's crooked. But it very well expresses my thoughts at the moment when I walked by and looked at that car wash, that's all. And this is what photography is for me. Now it's in the past but every time I look at it it brings back those thoughts; it is a photo that gets no comments but I hope there are some people out there besides you that will feel the same way as me when they look at it.</p>

 

<p>Please allow me to introduce a recent photo of mine that holds a couple of comments that could be interesting for the conversation (IMHO). It's also an opportunity to (maybe) get a few more comments on that photo, since it is one of those images that usually pass totally unobserved here on Photo.net ;D And if you all think it's crap, never mind and forgive me for wasting your time :D<br>

<a href="../photo/12944933">click here</a></p>

<p>I did not read the whole body of comments so I will answer directly to the OP.<br>

I have never been biased towards natural things nor I have been biased necessarily to find beauty in ordinary things at all costs. What I am attracted to are situations or subjects in general that trigger my attention and interest; that could be a landscape as well as a shadow on a wall.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>ralph oshiro, there is definitely a variation to an infinite degree, like you said, between sight reading and playing music but the concept is clear: you can be a good player but will never be a musician if you aren't a musician first. Now, I think in music this concept might apply better than with photography, because in photography the artistic-emotional-creative process happens before releasing the shutter (IMO), while in music it happens before and after (since it is an eternally evolving and mutating process). Wow!</p>

<p>Sure we can learn how to <em>photograph</em>, just like most of us can learn how to play the piano but we will not learn how to be <em>musicians</em>. There is a difference between <em>playing an instrument</em> and <em>playing music</em> and I can assure that today, even at the highest levels of fame, there are only few music makers that are real musicians and understand this language-art. Same for everything else.</p>

<p>I have already said it and posted the picture in some other forum thread but here it is. The camera was a family friend's Pentax and the film I have no idea; my friend noticed I was interested in the camera and he explained to me how to use and read the meter. I remember very well composing this picture in the viewfinder. Nice thread.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12152331-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>OOPS! Sorry, wrong link.<br>

http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00OEY4</p>

<p>Didn't read the comments here but I did read the articles offered bu John and Jeff. It pisses me off that when I say those things, everybody attacks me like I am some dumb idiot with a big ego and when someone "more distinguished" says the same things, he is some sort of a guru... That's all I have to say, bye bye.</p>