Attached Link: http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column55/

I really enjoy this mans writings, even if I don't always agree with everything he says. I thought I post the link here with some of my own thoughts on it..... it may be an interesting discussion, if anyone cares to participate. The article linked above was one that really made me think about what my purpose is as a photographer and why I shoot the things I shoot. Then I began to think some more. Most of you who know me that I'm going to school for a fine arts degree and that my concentration is in photography. One of the things that I'm being taught, is that for every image or group of shots you take there must be a reason.... I can't say to my teacher, Oh I just thought it was pretty.... this can be rather frustrating, because sometimes that really is the reason.... but that is not what they want to hear, there has to be an intelligent thought behind the subject matter that you chose to shoot, and you have to be able to coherently explain all of this to a group of people. You *must* be able to talk about your work. Some of what he said I could really understand.... as much as I love flowers, sunsets, landscapes, sometimes I'm just all flowered out, sunsetted out, landscaped out.... I find myself saying "beautiful!" over and over again.... even though I wish I could say more, I just can't..... I spent the last few days really looking at the body of my work and some of the most recent things I've shot, and I really began to analyze it.... I felt annoyed with myself, because quite honestly alot of it was just pretty, not amazing, nothing to say, no thought behind it..... but I enjoyed having the camera in my hand and taking the shot when I did it.... Was that enough? Should I just forget about trying to become a photographic artist..... I swear it was enough to make me depressed.... and I'm still driving myself crazy, reading and re-reading this article... Sometimes I think, that maybe I think too much.... Enough of me blathering.... If you have any thoughts, leave them here....

I'm tired tonight. Long day and a bit too much Brandy while checking out the Gallery. I will of course read your link, I would like to babble a bit about your statement, "One of the things that I'm being taught, is that for every image or group of shots you take there must be a reason.... I can't say to my teacher, Oh I just thought it was pretty.... " Why the Hell not? Yes, I agree that photography is communication. I like to see or infer some story behind pictures -at least occasionally. But what happened to "Art for Art's sake?" I am sometimes upset by artistic accidents. See many of the Chicago public sculptures, or my entry last month in the Out of Focus Challenge. But visual art is mostly Right Brain stuff; no need for verbal explanations. IMO, anyway.

Well, Misha, I'm with you - I've had a few too many Mich Lights - the difference between Brandy and Beer - is that Beer gets you in a talkative mood (and you know everything to boot!) "Pretty" simply doesn't cut it - it's too objective. (Don't take offense - I have not seen any of your photos...they may be excellent, but what your teacher wants is for you to be able to explain WHY they're excellent) You may be walking or driving along and suddenly stop - you see a scene that you think is "pretty" - so you shoot it. What you're NOT doing is identifying WHY this scene is "pretty". This is from experience: I was driving along in the Smokey Mountains, and ran across a wet weather falls coming down the hillside - the scene was beautiful! I had to stop and shoot it. I thumbed through my first rule - "don't move, or you will change your perspective of the scene" - so I shot it from where I first saw it.....blah! I started walking up the stream - still gorgeous - shooting here and there trying to capture what was so "pretty" - and I was failing miserably. I actually got to the point where I sat down - ticked off - started talking to myself: "Why the heck did I even THINK that this was pretty...?" - and there it was. What made this whole scene "pretty" didn't have ANYTHING to do with the surroundings - NOTHING to do with the trees, the undergrowth, even the way the stream was cascading down the hillside - it was the moss on the rocks...and the water slithering its way through those rocks. i literally worked this out verbally - out loud (an advantage to working in the field!). Once I defined what it was that attracted me to the scene, it became much easier to compose and present that feeling photographically by eliminating what distracted from my new "definition", and including everything that contributed to that definition. Photos follow...

This is from where I saw the scene - thinking this was a "capture" of what I saw.......YAWN..

Once I defined what it was I was shooting (or wantong to shoot) - I was able to concentrate on what it was I found so attractive....

Hard for me to describe in words, but I will try. I do not believe in organized religion, so when I go out to shoot a sunrise, this is like the closest I could possibly be to God. I guess the reason I capture images is because this lets me express my spiritual side. Sharing my work is very scary for me at times, it is like opening up my soul and saying look in here! I will have to read that article, will get back with you and maybe add more to this when I do. Don't over analyze, it will only make you crazy like me! ;) Brenda :)

OK - so now I've read this man's "opinion" - and (remember, I've had a bit to drink!), I think he's full of second-hand gaberwathy! (just a word I made up....just now!) Problem 1: "When you choose to take a sunset, you have to really engage with sunsetslearn how to look at them, learn how to distinguish among them. What are the best sunset pictures? How to they work? How does yours stack up? Instead of taking one sunset and being satisfied, you ought to take a hundred sunsets and choose one" How does yours stack up?!?!??? Does it really matter? Are you shooting everything as a comparison to what everybody else is shooting? Granted, there are plenty of sunset pictures out there - but every sunset is different, and every one has something different to offer. The trick is to capture the "speciality" of that particular sunset. You don't need to know "how to distinguish among them" - as if one is more qualified than another. You need to shoot the reason that sunset caught your eye - and it's more than the "pretty red color in the sky." For one person, it could amplify the anger of a steel mill silhouetted in the foreground, and for another, it could be the icing on the cake for a shot of a sailboat fading into the distance. Problem 2: The real cure is to find something other than scenics to take pictures of. But that's not really mine to suggest. People should take pictures of whatever they want to take pictures of. That's what I always say, at least. Yes, of course...if your passion is to take "scenic" photos, you really should try wedding photography, or shooting people's pets....because the world has enough "scenics" BULLCRAP!!!!! Here's what you NEED to be shooting: Whatever you heart TELLS you to shoot - shoot the reason you got into photography to begin with, and NEVER let anyone tell you what to shoot or what not to, else, you're not an artist - you become a puppet, and you will wind up losing your interest altogether! I dunno - I'll try to get off my soapbox before I fall off - but I would really have a problem with ANYONE who tried to tell me what to shoot and what not to (sounds like HE can't shoot it, so he doesn't want anyone ELSE to). I apologize if I'm stepping over my bounds here.... no...I take that back! Marc

Well - I'm not sure how that got in there twice - but it won't delete. Sorry.

It is strange to see this at this moment for I was about to write about the loss of joy in my photography. I guess I fall into the 'pretty' snapper category with my flowers,cats and scenics. I always try to improve in my composition, always look for the 'omph' to be there. Right now I am thinking of stopping all together, the joy has gone, why or where I just do not know. I do know I don't enjoy it anymore and that for me was the main factor of it all. The shareing of a moment of joy is no longer mine. Maybe I wasn't up there with the high flyers but I could dream

Michelle,

When I shoot i shoot for me. I shoot because I am looking to show something I see, something I see that I want others to see. Perhaps it is because I find it pretty, or perhaps it intrigues me somehow. I shoot things because I like them for some reason.

I think your professors want to know why you like them. They want to understand your motivation, or moreso, they want you to understand your own motivation. The question is do you need to question it? I don't think so. Know what it is perhaps but not question it.

Fine art is not defined by teachers, it is defined by viewers. I often feel that those who teach tell us that we must do this or compose like that or shoot in B&W, or in color, or high contrast or... The list goes on and on. What they know is nothing. They are translating their own desires to see the world in their view. I am not trying to show what I see in your or their views, I am showing my views, the way I see things. I want people to know what I see. I want the world to know that there are differnt views to everything. My view is but one.

Then there is the most important reason I shoot. because I get joy from it. Plain and simple, I feel good when I am working on my photography. Whether I am walking in the woods or trying to find that special something about a subject that makes them attractive, and the hard part, capturing it.

I didn't go to school. The reason is two fold.

1. I hate tests. Test are about me being able to see things the way the instructors do. I learned a long time ago I don't see the world as others do, and I don't want to! If I did, I wouldn't be true to my art. I may not be as "good" as some in this forum and I may be a bit better than others, but I am always true to myself.

2. The other reason I haven't gone to school is because I don't want to lose my unique view of the world. I don't want to put a Mapplethorpe angle to my work, nor do I want to shoot scenes like Adams. I want my work to be my own. I retreat into my photography. It is my space in the world where I can hide. I can be "me" right in front of everyone and not have to apologize for it. Other shooters understand what I mean. Being lost in a crowd so to speak.

Pat may stop shooting. If she does I will miss her work. I enjoy it. I occasionally see shots of glass paperwieghts and think, "yeah thats a good shot but, Pat already did that. And I think she did it better." She and I met on another forum (that has died a quiet death), and I love her work.

So Pat, do what you must, but I for one miss your work.

Michelle, Don't think of what others think of your work. Don't think about how to explain it either. Just think of how to get the shot YOU want, and those Angel wings of our moody moderator will never fail.

We are true Photographers. We don't need to speak well of our work. It explains itself. That is why;

A picture is worth a ....

Magick Michael

Message edited on: 07/13/2004 05:44

I do not know if what I am going to tell adds anything "new" or not. As I am an engineer I am too pragmatic. I have no education in art or photography (a discipline of art as I call it). I am not allways in the mood to photograph although I see what surrounds me and I say to myself: ... if I had the necessary concentration I would love to capture what my (eyes) soul see. It is a clichbut photography that is not the eyes of our own mind is not photography (nor even a postcard). There are technical rules to follow when photographing but some are to be broken and the best photographers did what they thought it was right for what they felt and tried to express. I started here in Renderosity very recently and allowed "people" to rank my photos at first; then I gave it a second thought and all I want now is to have the feedback because ranking is too subjective and I do not want my photographs to be ranked by a "large audience". For me photography is not a hobby nor even a way to make money (or to have a "large club of fans"). IT IS PASSION !

Some other random thoughts that come to mind as I'm reading your replies....

The joy of going for an arts degree Michael is that there are no tests! Well, sure I still have to take exams for non-art classes, but with the exception of the technical test I had to take in Photo I (A+ of course), there are only projects, most of the images I posted from last September to this May were school projects.... which you will use to pad your portfolio with.... And other than that it's learning different darkroom techniques, and expanding your vision to express what you want to say.... My professor, a woman, is talented, fantastically supportive, open to ideas, and blunt as hell, if it sucks she'll tell you so .... she does not give an easy A... and expects a lot from her students.... I respect her more than anything, and would seek out her opinion on a regular basis...

But what she said to me one day, really stuck with me and sort of correlates to what this man wrote, and what I said above.... I had showed her my portfolio, seeking advice about which images I should submit into for a show..... she had good things to say about my work, all which had been done prior to taking any of her classes

.... but then she said... "Find something that really has meaning for you, and shoot that....." It sort of made me feel as if all that I had done, did not have meaning....

Nilla, I know what you mean.... nature is as close to God (no organized religion for me either) as it comes.... I think the Native Americans had it right when they said that everything has a spirit and a soul....

Pat I do hope you find your joy again .... :~(

Wolf.... I enjoy your beer induced soap box speeches.... feel free to stay up there as long as you can maintain your balance... :~)

Now I need to think a bit more....

Message edited on: 07/13/2004 08:07

As any accomplished photographer can tell, my images are borderline at best. Some are pretty good and some show the raw edge of inexperience to hasty posting. Yet, despite all that, I can philosophize with the rest of you. What is an image? A visit to the local museum of art held several rooms of glass work by Dale Chahuly. Sure, most of the actual work was done by studio staff blowing, forming and coloring the glass. Still, the work of a master permeated the event in presentation and what was presented. There was a guiding force and a talented one behind it all. In a side room was another exhibit, wood sculptures. These crudely wrought and splatter painted assemblies were to me a place to laugh! Still, someone must have found worth in that stuff to have it in the museum. Perhaps the author of that work finally made enough noise to get some cheese with the whine. Where even interesting and whimsical did not fit the wood stuff in my opinion, the words total experience and moving well fit the Chahuly event. So, with a photo image: If it does not capture the natural scene then there is less or perhaps more. The image can leave the natural and enter a world of dreams where emotion, heart and soul may each be touched and joyed, perplexed, dismayed or even taught something of beauty and ugliness. These last qualities are much based on the individual who is viewing the image. So, some universal accepted rules determine a great photographer? Perhaps. A really great image is difficult to dismiss and seems to convey on its own that very greatness. I try not to analyze the reasons for or themes and sub-themes very deeply. Such analysis is often the fodder of the critic. The photographer may then have to wonder, who did shoot this image? I shoot what I like, what I dont like, what in essence is a capture I just might miss if not taken. Sometimes there is substance to it. Sometimes, it is simply a move into a nice dreamy world.

ps. Then again, shots are just plain fun when we don't take it too seriously. I like fun shots...like the Fremont Faeries by DHolman( in a previous thread). He does great photography but these are simply fun and do tell a little something. I had to go and look! Didn't you?

Yeah! this is a forum, fantastic thread. Unfortunately now I do not have time to read it thoroughly and to think, but undoubtedly it is a thread to read and think.

hummmm... definitely a good read & ponder...
i've been doing a lot of thinking recently on what it is i am doing in my photography... all i have come up with is...
being me! using instinct & trying not to overanalyze, i shoot everything, hopefully with each shot it becomes 2nd nature, to pay more attention to the background, crop & lighting...
as one person told me, save yourself some time & be creative within the lens of the camera... but it's when i view them afterwards the creative process starts... what can i do to make this unique or standout, how do i make it come alive & become an extension of myself... my photography is not pure & i don't care, it's just another art form open to manipulation i like to use... give me an ideal to start with & not a blank canvas & i can proceed from there... or i get an ideal i want to do, go out & get the shots i need & then throw it together within the editing darkroom of the computer program
i have much respect for the truly unique, perfect, as is shot & yes there should be a joy one feels in capturing the moment... there are those shots when viewed that seem like it's been done a thousand times, & those that gets an ah, so pretty!... then there's those that smack me between the eyes with that WOW factor, you can see/feel the thought behind it
really haven't added anything new here but more ramblings... both the article & the above thoughts all have good points... seems one needs to be aware but not so much as to squelch the "artist" inside with all the technical mumbojumbo of taking the perfect shot & you can't get too hung-up on comparing your work with others

Message edited on: 07/14/2004 11:08

What is thinking?. Right brain, left brain? I like what Cynlee says... you must not threaten yourself with your art. Take a spirit of criticism to heart and you'll find it will sustain frustration nicely. You may, for technical reasons, as Wolfsnap said, - need to tell yourself WHY the photo you took was good (or bad!). Also...'good' is not the same as 'pleasing to others'. Just recently I got an amazing amount of feedback from a 'pretty' water reflection series that I just came across (1-2-3-4-5-6 bang - all in a bag). Happy!? not really....overwhelmed and frankly a bit bored by the same kind of response (No offence meant). My recent peeling paint stuff is not pleasing to others for some reason (BUT I LIKE IT... LOL!). I'm learning more from this however (both series incidentally are as clear and colorful as each other). I'm learning..(1)people like an expression of space when viewing a photo also (2)There are professional intentions & artistic expressive intentions (which can overlap) (3) Photography and writing for me is part of who I am (squeezing out answers when life gives tight spots and personal challenges makes me learn). (4)Some people have great scenery to shoot, others not. Is the best photographer always going to be the most pleasing! Or is it going to be good?

It took me a while to find the time to read the article and this thread.

I almost always find articles and opinions like the one expressed in that article to be, if you'll excuse the expression, intellectual masturbation. Who is he, or anyone else, to tell the artist what is or is not inspired? If Joyce Tennesson, Howard Schatz or Lois Greenfield [when we talked about world class photography, these are the people I think of and hold my work up to ... and fail to reach the level of still] walked up and said they didn't think a certain shot was inspired or had any thought behind it I'd look them in the eye and tell them to kiss my shiny black butt. If they told me that technically I had a problem with it, I would listen and absorb every single word they had to say and beg for more.

We are all learning here, 'chelle (and I hope to be learning for the rest of my life). Part of that is learning to see and understand what we are photographing, why we are photographing it and how we are going to photograph it. Wolf's posting above is a perfect example. He took the shot because something drew him. Eventually, he understood what that something was. That's part of the learning experience.

I once had a professor who said something that I found to be true. "You didn't come here to create great work. You came here to learn how to create great work." He was talking about electronics, but it has held true for everything else.

You now have the nice shiny tools, but you are still learning how to use and understand them. That self doubt is part of that. Use it to your advantage. Unless you're walking around randomly shooting things without looking through the lens or even in the direction of where the camera was focused you had a reason for shooting what you did. I'd look again at the shots you are disappointed in and try to focus in on what drew you. What made you hit that shutter button. Not through the eyes of your teacher or this guy or anyone else. Throw the intellectual crap out the window and simply look at it. And in the end, if something was just pretty I ask, "What is wrong with that?" Does everything need some deep meaning? Can nothing be pretty for prettiness' sake?

When you go to watch a sunset, what is the meaning behind it? Do you not simply go and marvel at the colors and the majesty of nature? Why should a photograph of a landscape have more meaning than the act of actually watching that same sunset?

If I were to sum it up in one phrase, it would probably be something like: "It is not that our work at times is not inspired or does not have meaning ... it is that sometimes our vision is not clear or our skillset not yet fully developed." And that is why I think we all come together here and continue to work on and expand our photography every single day.

steps off the soapbox :)

-=>Donald

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 11:49

gosh Donald, you're so eloquent... i can see why Tedz admires your "shiney black butt" so much :D

Ahhh... a shiney hiney.... so insults is what it takes to get an invitation....? This has been a very interesting thread.... everyone thoughts have been great... Donald, thank you, that made so much sense..... I've been beating myself up the last week or so... I really need to stop thinking.... yes.....

Mwwwwwwah! One on Donald's Shiney Black Butt! Ooooh...it is too early for this....and, I haven't been Drinking Brandy or Beer....though I am hung over from a massive dose of Happy Pills. The Art School, where I take Photographs, has the Students in a similar quandry....as their "Art Assessment" comes round.....the "Qualifications Authority"....wants to know....why? Why did You Paint like this? Why did You place that Figure Head on the Pottery? Why do You Walk this way? It seems one just doesn't "do pretty things"....for "Pretty things sake"....their is a reason...."Cause & Reason".."Action & Deed".....like the.....term VOTE....their is a reason, for such a Peacock Display....it is to let EVERYONE know....You VOTED....for them.....probably hoping they will VOTE for You.....this display of VOTE....how else can it be explained.....their is a reason...however.....back to Photography .....and Reasons.... well, I found it best summed up by an Artist in His third Year of Studying for His Qualifications......Quote: "Well, I have almost perfected My Art....now, all I need to do , is perfect the Politically Correct Bullshit that is required for the Intellectuals that buy it!" Muuuuuuuuuuah!....another Mwwah for Donald :]

"Well, I have almost perfected My Art....now, all I need to do , is perfect the Politically Correct Bullshit that is required for the Intellectuals that buy it!" Thank you Tedz.... I was trying to figure out a way to verbalize this that didn't sound idiotic..... this third year art student you know said it perfectly.... It's one of the things that has always bothered me about art... the intellectual snobbery that is part of the art world, and to think I'm trying to become a part of it shudder... And this is something I'm trying to deal with right now, in my own head... and I can't stand it... Open up any art photography book you own and read the introduction.... the artist always talks about the concept, the reason behind the photos, what they hoped to accomplish by photographing a particular subject. I understand taking pictures because they are pretty, I have a hard-drive, stacks of cds and a gallery full of them. I guess my initial post touched on a few things... my own self-doubt (which unfortunately flairs up from time to time) even though I know how to take a reasonably good picture, this guy saying landscapes, flowers, etc. are boring (kind of got me perturbed, because flowers are one thing I really love photographing), and the issue of how one deals with the intellectual process that goes behind creating serious art... (meaning the kind people buy, hang in galleries, and put into books).... I feel a bit less annoyed with myself for the moment, but come September when classes start, I'll be right back to where I was before......

I really have to start paying attention to the phrases I use here. :) @Michelle - "Art snobs" remind me so much of the people who use to flock to Dennis Miller. For the most part, self-important chuckle-heads who laughed and nodded knowingly at his arcane references as if they could really tell the difference between Kung Fu Tse and a kung-fu movie. Most of them couldn't figure out how to set a VCR clock, but they have no trouble following his diatribe on 1st century Burmese monks? Yea, right. But I digress ... anyway, every time I see some pretentious, blurry, grainy, out of focus and badly exposed photograph stuffed into my face as an example of skillfully crafted master photography and cutting edge art, it just re-emphasizes my thought that in the end the only thing that really matters to me is what I think of my photography. I guess I'm just conceited that way. :D

Bravo everyone. All well said. 'chelle, Flowers are boring? has he every really looked at one? And one of my favorite artists took photos of nudes and guess what else, orchids. last time I checked, Robert Maplethorpe was called many things but never boring. MM

John Szarkowski said in his book "Looking at Photographs":

"Most photograhs deal with meanings that seem intrinsic to their subject matter, or that are at least firmly attached to it by association or tradition. Many meanings are attached to mountains, for example, having to do not only with geography but with innocence, aspiration, regret, gods and prophets, independance, and loneliness. Most pictures of mountains touch on such generic inherited meanings, but if they are good pictures they also have a specific and unique meaning, which has to do with the particular experience of an individual artist at a particular place and time.

Other pictures do not concern themselves with known meanings, but begin with the substance of specific experience: existential fact. Those who made such pictures may hope that generic meanings will accrue to them in time, but this is not a prior condition for making them. The pictues are made to clarify an experience that was for unknown reasons compelling in itself."

*This book has been very important to me, I might add. It can teach your eye much. I highly recommend it.

I guess that I myself stay away from making pictures of sunsets as subjects - but in fact would tend to turn away from a sunset, because of the beautiful light that it can illuminate a scene with. I might suggest that next time you're standing with a camera in your hand, and looking at a beautiful sunset, that you don't forget to turn around - there is where your picture may be!  
 
One photographic subject that will make me turn away in repulsion, is kittens in baskets of yarn balls. Egads.  
 
Joe

John Szarkowski said in his book "Looking at Photographs": "Most photograhs deal with meanings that seem intrinsic to their subject matter, or that are at least firmly attached to it by association or tradition. Many meanings are attached to mountains, for example, having to do not only with geography but with innocence, aspiration, regret, gods and prophets, independance, and loneliness. Most pictures of mountains touch on such generic inherited meanings, but if they are good pictures they also have a specific and unique meaning, which has to do with the particular experience of an individual artist at a particular place and time. Other pictures do not concern themselves with known meanings, but begin with the substance of specific experience: existential fact. Those who made such pictures may hope that generic meanings will accrue to them in time, but this is not a prior condition for making them. The pictues are made to clarify an experience that was for unknown reasons compelling in itself." *This book has been very important to me, I might add. It can teach your eye much. I highly recommend it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I guess that I myself stay away from making pictures of sunsets as subjects - but in fact would tend to turn away from a sunset, because of the beautiful light that it can illuminate a scene with. I might suggest that next time you're standing with a camera in your hand, and looking at a beautiful sunset, that you don't forget to turn around - there is where your picture may be! One photographic subject that will make me turn away in repulsion, is kittens in baskets of yarn balls. Egads. Joe