At 06:43 1/22/02, Andrew pondered:
>John's Three Photographic Axioms:
>
>1. The "Science" is about light.
[snip]
Which is useful in a functional way but does little to explain what the
hell it is really all about in any deep sense.
No, it doesn't as it dwells primarily in the "physical" realm. One could
extend it from pure science (light physics) to include the psychological
disciplines that encompass how humans react to graphic images. IOW, the
visual cues that evoke a sense of perspective, depth or the general
reaction to specific colors. I call this a "discipline" as it is
correlated without the formal and rigid cause->effect of the pure
sciences. "The Science" comprises the "toolbox" used by the photographer
to achieve "The Art." With it alone the photographer is a technician;
without it the photographer cannot reliably create an image to match that
which is envisioned.
>2. The "Art"
[snip]
But can you actually train someone to 'see' a photograph and is there a
relationship between photography as art and photography as record. Thinking
here of the differences between a social and an aesthetic response - are
they equally valid and do they overlap?
I believe a person *can* be trained to "see" [by self or by others] and I
cite myself as anecdotal evidence. It required consciously *looking* and
carefully working with light and compositional elements to create and
develop skill at visualizing the desired photograph. After a while,
aspects of it become automatic and may seem "automagic" but they are
not. It's still occurring, but not as much or as often at a conscious level.
If you can articulate *why* you are making a photograph, then the question
of "social" versus "aesthetic" repsonse is answered. The "why" includes:
(a) Intended audience and presumptions about their experiential context
into which the image will be integrated. This determines the cognitive
response of the viewer.
(b) Intended cognitive response by the intended audience.
I digress to a more contemporary view of Aristotle's aitiai:
John's Cognition Taxonomy:
1. Data: a seemingly organized and purposefully created set of
objects. Example: Egyptian heiroglyphics prior to discovery of the
Rosetta stone and ability to decipher them.
2. Information: Facts. If I give you my street address and you
comprehend what it is, I have communicated information.
3. Knowledge: Process and procedure. If I give you sequential
instructions for traveling from your current location to my street address,
I have communicated knowledge.
4. Understanding: The Big Why! If I explain the reasons for living at
that street address and my rationale for choosing it, I have communicated
understanding. This is the *one* element that requires interaction (past
or present) with an environment.
Just bought a nice copy of Avedon's 'In the American West' - 10"x8"
portraits of working people in West Texas - because it moved me. Rips the
heart but is it art? Friend and family can't work out why I'd spend that
much (US$70ish) on a book of pictures of mostly ugly people. Nice scene in
the otherwise ordinary film 'The Truth about Cats and Dogs' where the
blonde can't see the point of the male lead's art photos while the dowdy
smart girl understands immediately - can you visualise that which you are
culturally or intellectually blocked from seeing?
All photography is documentary. It's a matter of what element(s) of my
"Cognitive Taxonomy" the photograph contains and conveys to its intended
audience; to wit:
(a) Abstracts in their extreme convey only "data," albeit in a visually
pleasing manner. To successfully create abstracts requires knowing and
understanding how the [majority of] the intended audience will react to
very basic color, shape and relationships between them. IMHO, the most
significant effect of an abstract is the release of hormones within the
brain which result in a very, very basic response; one which is very, very
difficult for most people to articulate; they "like" [are attracted to] or
"dislike" [are repulsed by] the abstract. [An abstract's purpose need not
be attraction; it *can* be repulsion.]
(b) Formal Portraiture conveys, at the least, information; it is
documentary and centers on capturing a living thing's "likeness." If the
viewer recognizes the person portrayed, it can carry more than information
and evoke all manner of memory and emotion. The visual stimulus triggers
the firing of patterns among synapses within the brain, some of which may
not have fired for a very long time. Documentary photography of
architecture is similar.
(c) Photojournalism and Editorial photographs most often convey knowledge
by documenting what is happening and how it happened; it may [but not
always] require a series of related photographs. It "tells a
story." Other images can convey this in an abstract sense by carrying with
them, by analogy, expression of a pure concept. Not everyone makes "the
connection" with these.
(d) Environmental portraiture in its most successful form conveys
understanding by going beyond information about likeness and including why
that likeness is the way it is. Perhaps this is why you find Avedon's book
appealing. Envision an image of an aged, wrinkled, weatherbeaten male face
against a pure black background. It is only information and the viewer
must guess at "why." Now put the person in a "pea coat" and a "captains
cap" and place him with an ocean view as the background, with perhaps some
"tall ships." The viewer, if there is any experience with the ocean and
sailing ships, immediately concludes "why" the face is weatherbeaten. As
with conveying knowledge, other images can convey understanding by by
analogy in an expression of a pure concept. Likewise, not everyone
"connects" with them.
Some examples:
1. http://johnlind.tripod.com/zi/gallery/contax18.html and
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om52.html
To some this might be purely a picutre of a large barn with a tractor and
wagon. I have a better color photograph made at about the same time from
nearly the same perspective. To be more than that requires having stayed
at Hobson's Bluffdale, a "Vacation Farm." This very large old barn is the
"icon" of that farm. It's the first thing people see when arriving and the
last they see when departing. To those viewers it evokes more than the
likeness of a large barn, it triggers memories and emotions about having
been there.
2. http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om103.html
The title for it should be a cue that it means more to me than a photograph
made from within a cave of two people leaving it. However, to some who
have viewed it, that's *all* they saw, and to a percentage of them that's
all they will ever see. [Why? Graphic art is pure prima facie information
and nothing more because it's not supposed to be anything more; it's not
proper for it to be something more; they are imprisoned by their *own*
preconceptions and self-imposed constraints; indeed, a few are outright
angered if it is intended to be more.] I connected with an analogous
"concept" when I visualized the image from within the cavern.
3. http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om73.html
Again, the title should be a cue that it carries more for me than
documenting a hanging fuschia plant. One person asked me why I included
the "ugly dying blossoms," and to this day cannot see more than that, even
with the title cue.
4. http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om151.html
If the viewer had never before experienced a flower, the reaction might be
guessing the child is preparing to eat it. [Someone who has experienced
small children might still reach that conclusion.] Since nearly all humans
have encountered both flowers and the curiosity of small children, it
conveys nearly universal knowledge and tells a story. Contrast it with
this image:
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om152.html
which is visually appealing to me, but conveys only information.
[If you sense a frustration with those who can only "see" information in an
image, there is, but in addition there's even more pity they are not
experiencing more about the universe around them; perhaps ignorance is bliss.]
IMHO the most successful photographs:
(a) Work at different levels with a variety of audiences and do not require
a complete experiential base to be present within the viewer(s); or
(b) Work with an experiential base so universal it "connects" with nearly
every human who has lived for more than a decade.
IMHO the most successful photographers:
(a) Knows The Science of light and how to apply it (cause->"visual effect").
(b) Is able to articulate "why" a photograph is made (intended viewers and
its "message" for those viewers).
(c) Has knowledge about the intended viewers' common experiential base,
either through personal experience or knowledge and ability to effectively
empathize with them. Having a common experiential base helps, but is not
required. Knowing by one method or the other *is* required, just as
knowing English or having some translation tool is required to read this
treatise.
Nature, form, process and purpose. Context and telos are what I'm
struggling with. Art always has trouble with a teleology, I think.
[snip]
I agree. I have and continue to struggle with it! If it were simple,
anyone could do it.
-- John
P.S.
I didn't deliberately engineer "Weltansicht" and "Euclid" into the same
sentence, but did try desperately to work in something from or about C.G.
Jung. In that I was unsuccessful; then again I may have just succeeded!
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|