Thanks for sharing that link airfrogusmc. My sister-in-law's Dad use to be a photog for National Geographic (he died in a Volcano incident when she was young). Anyway, he actually created several cool surreal in studio captures that my sister-in-law has framed around my brother's house. I keep telling her that she should have them published; they are that good. She won't do that though. Anyway, I like these surreal interpretations which is what I am getting at. Even though these are landscapes (and my sister-in-law's father's surreals are portraits), I'm a big fan of out of the box interpretations. That's art imo.
As one of the newbies/lurkers, I'll offer my view:
I photograph to freeze time and space. If there is art in the result, it is a happy accident. My primary interest is sports photography, where I try to capture moments of high intensity that would otherwise pass in a fraction of a second.
I do this for myself, but also very much to share with others. If for some reason I was not able to share my images, I think my interest in the field would fade quickly.
I have limited ability to construct or compose. I think of myself as a fisherman, not an artist. Naturally, I fish for images of my own kids, but also for others', to share so that they'll have a few keepers too. I place myself where I think the fish will be, and hope that I have enough enough skill not to lose the big one when it bites.
Theres all different ways to make photographs. Weston, white and Adams were what is referred to as west coast school (zone system pre-visualization or seeing the image in their minds eye) and Winogrand, Friedlander, were east coast school (post visualization) and there everything in-between. Its all valid.
Heres some words from Bresson and remember Bresson studied art for years (he was first a painter) so he also dod a form of pre-visualization when it come to design. He had done it so much it was second nature so he could see it all come together in a fraction of a second.
"To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event, as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression. I believe that through the act of living, the discovery of oneself is made concurrently with the discovery of the world around us which can mould us, but which can also be affected by us. A balance must be established between these two worlds- the one inside us and the one outside us. As the result of a constant reciprocal process, both these worlds come to form a single one. And it is this world that we must communicate. But this takes care only of the content of the picture. For me, content cannot be separated from form. By form, I mean the rigorous organisation of the interplay of surfaces, lines and values. It is in this organisation alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organisation can stem only from a developed instinct." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
"We must place ourselves and our camera in the right relationship with the subject, and it is in fitting the latter into the frame of the viewfinder that the problems of composition begin. This recognition, in real life, of a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values is for me the essence of photography; composition should be a constant preoccupation, being a simultaneous coalition – an organic coordination of visual elements. Composition does not just happen; there must be a need for expression, and substance cannot be divorced from form." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
At the risk of being perceived as blasphemous re: Bresson , this may seem like a bit of an oxymoronic concept ... yet, I understand, i.e. you must train (study, understanding, practice) yourself to the degree that it becomes virtually instinctive.
It is a romantic notion that the great ones "organically" produced such marvelous works, but failing to recognize the extreme diligence they applied, is restrictive to one's own growth potential. I think far too many people forget the amount of pre-effort (training/study/comprehension/practice/failure/etc.) that goes into developing skills so masterfully that it looks naturally instinctive, when it really is a matter of highly developed, masterfully diligent effort ... i.e. yet, the great ones, make it look easy.
Along with that, I'd suggest that anticipation IS construction ... just with advanced, pre-visualization that is somewhat ahead of reality.
Bresson actually talks a lot about developing your skills to a level where it becomes second nature so I don't see the conflict you see at all.
"For us the camera is a tool, the extension of our eye, not a pretty little mechanical toy. It is sufficient that we should feel at ease with the camera best adapted for our purpose. Adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car. The real problem is one of intelligence and sensitivity." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
I'm just pointing out the apparent oxymoronic aspect of the way he chose to state it. Too many (imo) give uber-credence to the instictive aspect and forget the necessity of the developed efforts required preliminarily to becoming instinct-like.
Much like people will say that a golfer has a great natural swing, but forget that he may have practiced for 10,000+ hours to studiously develop it into his "natural" swing. Greatness is rarely (if ever) organic, despite the romance that such 'ease' of great execution may suggest.
Kinda like how it is by your effort that you "make your own luck", it is by your own diligence that it becomes easy/instinctive-like ... i.e. it is never truly "instinctive", just so incredibly proficient (sub-conscious) that it appears to be "instinctive". But in order for it to become sub-consciously "instinctive" it must FIRST be developed consciously ... which is the opposite of instinct, i.e. the oxymoronic element, yet understood aspect of developed instinct.
He wasn't one of them. Like I stated earlier he studied painting for years so the basics for good design are all there. He totally mastered his camera.
But there is really only what works for each individual. Whether its from a more west coast approach or more east coat approach or anything in-between. Its all valid and whatever gets you to the point of the final image is all that matters. The work is all that matters, not the process in how you get it.
RustyBug wrote:
Along with that, I'd suggest that anticipation IS construction ... just with advanced, pre-visualization that is somewhat ahead of reality.
Allow me to suggest there is a vital difference. Construction includes manipulation of the environment. What they share is previsualization.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ developed vs. instinct.
Well, there's this pesky little thing called talent. Thousands of musicians were technically better and had arguably spent more time practicing, but John Lennon wrote "Strawberry Fields Forever" and they didn't. (Sorry, was just listening to it.)
Yes, talent needs to be developed, but we must guard against the idea that if I work a little harder and take 10,000 more photos I can be great like HCB.
One thing I learned while getting an art degree and teaching photography for years and years is that some people are visually oriented and some are not. I have seen those who are visually tone deaf put in years of study and practice and are still really bad photographers. I have seen some who had only picked up a camera six months before who were already producing stunning work.
Folks who don't have "the eye" are deluding themselves if they think they'll ever go further than merely competent.
Yet, even the prodigy @ six months has put forth effort to grow under your tutelage (and beyond) ... i.e. developed vs. instinct
I never said hard work was all it took ... just that effort & growth transcend into such proficiency that it appears "instinctive" and many people fail to acknowledge the magnitude of effort that prefaces and precipitates such greatness ... simply reducing it to "instinct" instead of a owing to years/lifetime of continuous diligent effort, growth and refinement.
Even John Lennon wasn't born writing great songs ... he progressed as he pursued, i.e. developed, not instinct.
Yep Bresson was taught (painting/art) though he had the talent. Adams had close friends like Stieglitz, Weston, Cunningham, Georgia O'Keeffe so he had nurturing. You can learn to see better but there has to be something there from start. All great artists have one thing in common. Something to say. And then the find the medium in which they can say it best.
Michael Jordon had talent but without the right coaching he might have never been one of the best.
dmacmillan wrote:
One thing I learned while getting an art degree and teaching photography for years and years is that some people are visually oriented and some are not. I have seen those who are visually tone deaf put in years of study and practice and are still really bad photographers. I have seen some who had only picked up a camera six months before who were already producing stunning work.
Folks who don't have "the eye" are deluding themselves if they think they'll ever go further than merely competent.
Darn. Well, I am still going to try.
What I want to do with photography is create "art" but so far it seems like I have only made some good snapshots IMHO.
