furiousennui

<p>Photography, it can be argued, is the most scientific of the Arts. I've watched Steve Colbert's interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson (astrophysicist) and it struck me that scientists are often every bit as creative, and discoverers & creators of the most profound beauties of all. As an artist I believe that it is my role to be a discoverer, an explorer and a creator who makes people think, see the world differently, make the ordinary extraordinary and communicate that to the best of my ability. <br>

Am I alone in this, or do others feel as I do? How do you see your role as an artist, if you think you have a role at all?<br>

The interview can be found at

. It had a profound affect on me. I hope others are touched by it as I was.</p>

<p>Don, I enjoy your responses, by the way.<br>

I can show you numerous examples in my work where the identity of the subject, whether a person or something else, is not at all obvious. It may be recognisable, in some instances, as being a person, but there is no way of telling who it is. I have had parents not recognise their own daughters because the image isn't of a person (a portrait), but of a thing, an emotion (dance).<br>

But a lot of my work is minimalist, and thrives on the tension ambiguity produces. See, for example, <a href=" href=" or <a href=" Another example is <a href=" or <a href=" .<br>

For me, a lot of my imagery involves messing with the viewers' minds, hopefully in a good way that makes them stop taking their visual environments, and by extension, maybe their emotional environments, for granted. I often try to photograph what isn't there, make the ordinary extraordinary or reveal the minutiae ignored by most. :)<br>

Thanks for the discussion. I'm really enjoying it. <br>

<img src=" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Don said, "Based on what we have been presented, I feel perfectly in tune with it by<br />claiming all art photographs are fake paintings and drawings."<br>

Not all photographs attempt to emulate paintings. There are many reasons why emulating some elements of some techniques are impossible, for example the texture and 3 dimensionality of using a palette knife, or pointilism. <br>

I would say that painting, drawing and photography are all siblings in the same family of, essentially, 2 dimensional visual communication. To claim that photographs are some how "fake" representations of their older siblings is to demean photography as art.</p>

<p>I can't draw or paint. I can't play a musical instrument or sing. I can write. I have composed one piece of music. Photography is the medium I have chosen to communicate with. My intention with every image I take is to communicate, engage the viewer and hopefully make them think or see the world differently whether the image is of a 6 year old jazz dancer or an abstract. I'll use every technique and piece of equipment in my arsenal to achieve the final image that I have pre-visualised, sometimes decades before I actually take the shot. I want each of my images to be a truth as I see it, to reveal something about the world, and perhaps the viewer, that they were unaware of and to make the ordinary extraordinary.. There are no "cheats". There are only the tools at my disposal. The end product is an artefact. It may be a document of record in the classic sense, or a manifesto couched in visual language terms.<br>

My intent is honest. At every step of the process of attaining that final image I am thinking of how best to communicate my message, even if that message be relating to ambiguity. Maybe it is starting to work, as many friends of late have told me that my imagery is revealing parts of me they had not previously been consciously aware of. I guess that qualifies as honest photography, no matter how accurately it reflects a given scene.</p>

<p>The answer may well depend on what sort of photographs you want to create. The skill set to use a

pinhole camera is different from that need to use a full swing/tilt/shift large format camera or a top of the

line DSLR. Having said that, using a fully functioned DSLR on settings other than P will improve your

abilities in areas like dof, selective focus and exposure compensation, for example. But a good

photographer can attain good results with a disposable or toy camera, especially if they have learned

how to extract the maximum from these consumer products.</p><p>I think any camera can influence

the abilities of a photographer if they are willing to learn and experiment. I know that I have learned a lot

about photography trying to overcome, and facilitate, the limitations of my toy cameras, just as I do

with my DSLRs with their lenses costing more than the body, my home-made pinhole camera,

and as I do when I drag out my Mamiya C330 TLR. </p><p>It's up to the individual to allow their

abilities to be affected by their gear, whether positively or negatively. In fact, one of my tools to be

creative I use often is limiting myself. That may mean only shooting at a given lens length, one aperture,

only from a prone position or with funky equipment like a toy camera with its limitations.</p><p>So,

yes, cameras can affect your abilities as a photographer, and they should. It's up to you to make them

positive, learning experiences. The only reason boxes exist is to give us something to think

outside.</p>

<p>My 11 year old son is a photographer. He has a crappy 5mp P&S camera with a 5x zoom. He thinks about every shot he takes. He considers what the final image will look like before he presses the button. He frets about composition. He wouldn't know a f.stop from a slurpee machine.<br>

On the other hand, I know pros who pretty much use their photography to get laid. They have studio lighting, tens of thousands of dollars of equipment and can mentally calculate the exposure & fill flash needed in nearly any situation. They don't create. They produce a product.<br>

I know who the serious photographer is. It's a headspace, not equipment, having your own darkroom or clients.</p>

<p>I know I'm late answering the question, but I only just got here. :)<br>

For me, life experience makes the best art. That includes suffering, elation, pain, tranquillity and ennui. If the role of art is to be a form of commentary on the human condition, than the more of that condition, up to and including death (I know that, having died three times at least this year, and profoundly changes how you see the world and think) that you experience the richer and broader the palette on which to draw.<br>

On the subject of artists and where they fall on the bell curve of "normal" psychology, whilst I see that a great many artists may be categorized as bi-polar, ocd, scizophrenic, or suffering some other neuroses, I don't see it as an essential part of their make up. I can think of, and know, many who would be considered normal (whatever that is).<br>

For mine, the mark of a great artist is passion, dedication and discipline. Muses cannot be relied on to act on whim, on demand. The great artist is so practised at their craft that they are creative on demand. More of my thoughts on muses, and their personal effect on me, can be found at <a href="http://furiousennui.com/2011/10/29/musings-on-muses/">http://furiousennui.com/2011/10/29/musings-on-muses/</a> . I will not, at this juncture, that my relationship with my uses is a two way street. I know that most of them would not be my muses if they hadn't been affected by my passion, drive and discipline as an artist, and I fervently hope, and suspect, that they also see me as an influence, maybe even a muse.</p>

<p>Matt and Jeff, I don't think that dismissing this sort of conversation is a good thing. I take the ethics of photography seriously. I know, from personal experience, that not all togs do. At least one of them served time for failing to pay heed to ethics/morality. Take the famously cropped image of the young, naked girl fleeing a burning Vietnamese village as an example. The uncropped version told a completely different story, showing the twin columns of indifferent US troops filing into the village they had just napalmed. For many it's the difference between Sally Mann's iconic images and exploitative imagery.<br>

For decades I have said that, while the camera itself may not lie, the same cannot be said of the photographer.</p>

<p>Don, rest assured that it is not just the young who dabble in toy cameras etc, I've shot everything from 35mm up to 8"x10" film over 25+years and I have toy cameras and am still experimenting with my work. The end, pre-visualized, image is all I care about. Does the image communicate what I want it to? Will it initiate a form of dialogue with the viewer? Will it make people think, or see the world differently? Digitally, or in the wet darkroom I'm happy to use whatever technology, techniques or trickery to get the image I had originally envisaged.</p>

<p>Well, don't we have a lovely collection of jaded cynics. I talked about a football match 35 years ago, so we don't need to talk about football any more, and the shadows on the cave walls are all I need, really. You know, someone just might say something that your, obviously vast, intellects had not previously cogitated on. Some people might enjoy talking about the topic, whether because it helps their creative process or just for knowledge's sake with no expectation of a definitive answer. Someone might be a new, keen photographer who would like to discuss these issues to clarify their own creative positions. If you've had the conversation before, and don't care to again I think it is blatantly obvious what you need to do. Just ignore it, rather than leap down the throat of someone committing their first posts on their first day on what, they have been told, is one of the best photography communities on the 'net. <br>

To get back on the topic someone obviously felt was worth asking, and accepting his rewording from "honest" to "accurate", my point is why does an image have to be accurate? Accurate according to whom? I would regard some of my most minimalistic and abstract pieces as being entirely accurate, just not of the scene that most people see. This delusion that photographs must look real baffles me. We don't expect that of painting, sculpture, dance or the others arts.</p>

<p>Matt and Jeff, I don't think that dismissing this sort of conversation is a good thing. I take the ethics of photography seriously. I know, from personal experience, that not all togs do. At least one of them served time for failing to pay heed to ethics/morality. Take the famously cropped image of the young, naked girl fleeing a burning Vietnamese village as an example. The uncropped version told a completely different story, showing the twin columns of indifferent US troops filing into the village they had just napalmed. For many it's the difference between Sally Mann's iconic images and exploitative imagery.<br>

For decades I have said that, while the camera itself may not lie, the same cannot be said of the photographer.</p>

<p>Don, as an objective document of record it is probably as "honest" as the physical limitations of the technology allow, but, of course a photograph isn't actually capable of honesty. Accuracy, perhaps, but honesty is a trait only a self-aware being can exhibit. It is the photographer's intention that really matters. If the intention of the photographer was to take a completely random image, then he is probably being honest. If the intention of the photographer was to take a photo of a pretty woman without his wife's knowledge, knowing she would disapprove or be hurt by it, then maybe the image isn't as innocent as it may seem, or rather the photographer, having already established that a photograph, lacking sentience, cannot be innocent, guilty, honest, happy or manic.</p>

<p>Bob, not really. There is shutter lag, and the fact that the "present" is an infinitely small point of time, to the point where it doesn't really exist, whereas the camera records a period of time, or a succession of presents, even at 1/8000s. It is only in the future in the sense that when you throw a ball you set off a sequence of future events. At the moments of recording the initial light imprints are in the past compared to the last instant of exposure, and by the time you see the image it is well and truly past.</p>

<p>You make the assumption that all photography has to be a document of record, and some how has to accurately portray the "reality" (whatever that is, because it differs for every one of us) in front of the lens.<br>

I reject this notion of photography utterly. I can make an honest image photographing what isn't there, or what you think is there in one manifestation, but may be something else. The honesty in these cases lies in my desire to make my image a catalyst and a conduit for a relationship between the image and the viewer, and through the image, me as its creator. I can honestly say that much of my imagery honestly does not portray the reality the vast majority of people see. Examples can be seen on my site, www.furiousennui.com .<br>

Frankly, I see little point in attempting to capture reality, because it is a Quixotic undertaking. Realities, and there are an infinite number of them as every sentient being in the universe views their environments from their own physical, social, cultural, motional and psychological viewpoints, only exist in the past because of the processing time lag. In essence, humans all live, on average 0.3 seconds in the past, because that is the average reaction time, plus the time take for the stimuli to reach our sense organs. We can only photograph what has been - never the present.</p>