Evolution of a Photographer

[Donald]

The evolution of my photography has been a fascinating journey. By 'evolution of photography' I don't just mean the images that I produce, but the mindset that governs what I feel I want to produce.

In this journey I have been greatly influenced by the writing of Guy Tal ('More Than A Rock', RockyNook, 2015 and his blog at https://guytal.blog/).

On the question of style, Tal says the following, "In my work, style is not a goal but a byproduct of working according to my personal sensibilities, goals, intents, skills, and limitations. ..... Style is not a skill. It’s not a quality or an ability that, once learned, you may check the “found my style” box and move on to something else. A style, if it indeed reflects your own sensibilities, perceptions, outlook, goals, etc.—the person that you are—cannot be a fixed quantity since it is a product of things that are (hopefully) not fixed quantities. As you change and evolve—as a person and as an artist—your style should change and evolve with you."

And when discussing the psychological aspects of photography, he suggests that, "(a)llowing yourself the privilege of giving visual expression to your intimate and personal inspirations as part of experiencing something unexpected and emotionally moving, may open your eyes to great personal revelations, and to what I believe to be the most elevating rewards that photography has to offer."

For a long time I've seen myself as a landscape photographer. However, for some time I was asking 'Why'? What were the images that I produced saying? The answer I concluded was 'nothing'. The best of them could be seen as nice pieces of decoration, a bauble to look at on the wall. But beyond that, nothing.

I recently joined the Royal Photographic Society because in there I found a spark. That was a recognition of photography having a purpose that seemed to accord with my thinking. The RPS Contemporary Group adopts the following statement to describe its objective, "Photography that conveys ideas, stimulates thought and encourages interpretation; photographs "about" rather than "of"." This is something that Tal also has spoken about a lot. And in describing its categories for Distinctions, the RPS says of Conceptual and Contemporary photography, "Photography that communicates a visual realisation of a stated argument, idea or concept."

So, I am not a landscape photographer. But I do photograph the land. But my images of the land are not photographs to show off the land, but images that say something about the land - its ownership and the need for land reform; how it is used; something that speaks about climate change and the environment.

I don't see my photographs as, anymore, being pieces standing on their own. They will be part of a series or an exploration of some specific, articulated theme to be viewed as such. I will still post images on this forum from time-to-time and ask for comments from members. But more likely is that I will post an album, or partly completed or draft copy of an album, of my explorations and invite comment on that.

I feel that my photography now has a purpose.

As an example of the sort of images that I now produce in line with this thinking, I present a couple that form an idea about our use of land.








So there you have it. Now I know why people write blogs. It's good to get it out and into written form.

[Shadowman]

Nice examples of images with a specific statement, even if that statement only suggests "look".

[Donald]

Nice examples of images with a specific statement, even if that statement only suggests "look".

That what it is all about, hopefully. The viewer is invited to make his/her interpretation of the image. I know what I want to say, but the viewer will apply his/her own understanding. For some people (such as yourself, John) it will be just be case of 'look', for other it will speak of many different things.

Hopefully, though, viewing the whole exploration will show the viewer what I am trying to say.

[Shadowman]

That what it is all about, hopefully. The viewer is invited to make his/her interpretation of the image. I know what I want to say, but the viewer will apply his/her own understanding. For some people (such as yourself, John) it will be just be case of 'look', for other it will speak of many different things.

Hopefully, though, viewing the whole exploration will show the viewer what I am trying to say.

You're wrong that it would be just a case of 'look' for me, that is unless the image only contains so much to view.

[Manfred M]

Donald - I've enjoyed watching your evolution as a photographer ever since I joined CiC. I suspect it is because we have been evolving at more or less the same pace even though we have a different interests, philosophies and approaches.

Frankly, I have not found my niche yet; it is certainly not the commercial area of photography and while I like a lot of the work coming out of some of the fine art community, I find a lot of the people who work in the field rather out of touch, especially if you get into the academic and curatorial side of things.

A case in point; apparently there is a great deal of discussion going on at some of the universities and large museums and galleries right now concerning the work of Vivian Maier.

http://www.vivianmaier.com/

Is her work art or not? There is a consensus developing is some of these circles that her work should not be considered art. Why? Because Maier did not photograph with an intention to exhibit her work. Strange as it sounds, but intent can be more important than results in these exalted circles...

I think I have decided is that my work is primarily to please me and it shows how I felt about what I was capturing that day and how I decided to process it. Occasionally my work may have a message, but that happens quite rarely. I tend to document things the way I want to remember seeing them; not necessarily the way the camera saw them. If people stop to look and comment, great. I will use visual techniques and tricks to get the viewer's attention and guide them through the image. If it works, great. If not, who cares?

Overall I find much of the fine art photographic world to self-engrossed and inward looking. On occasion we see something new and interesting coming out and that I like. More often than not, it does not work all that well.

[William W]

Post #1 and Post #5:
Absolutely sensational!
Primary steps examining one's Photographic Raison d'être.
Such does warrant a verbal expression at various points in time.
Verbal expression is intrinsic to growing; moreover, it is a record of that growth.
Bravo to each of you for so doing.

WW

[DanK]

Donald,

Congratulations on finding a new direction that gives you more satisfaction. I look forward to the seeing what this leads youto produce.

I only take issue with one thing: art that is simply aesthetically pleasing need not be mere baubles.

I don't have a style, and I doubt I ever will, although I do have a number of styles for specific genres. I returned to photography seriously some years ago in part because it provided a little balance for most of my life, which has been devoted to analytical work. It's nice to focus on aesthetics rather than analytical reasoning and statistics. That may be enough for me.

Recently I needed to write an artist's statement for an exhibit in which I participated, and that made it very clear that I don't have a style or a single direction. It ended up being a very brief artist's statement. The only unifying theme I could point to--other than simply finding it pleasurable to create attractive images, which doesn't cut it for an artist's statement--is that I enjoy portraying things in ways that people don't normally see them. That's one reason I enjoy macro and night photography. (I don't have the skill to do this well with landscapes, which is why I post so few of them.) This is a real handicap if one wants to exhibit, as many venues want a thematic or stylistic unity in the set of images they display.

Manfred, I couldn't agree more strongly with your comments about the art world, although in private, I would use much harsher adjectives. A lot of what I read and hear is simply garbage, an effort to show that the speaker or writer is a sophisticate in the in crowd, understanding the idea de jour that the rest of us don't understand. And this in turn leads to praising work that I think is simply ugly. Some social sciences suffer from a different variant of the same problem. it's common in those circles to use neologisms or just to misuse words in order to show that one is in the know. For example, in plain English--at least in the US--one interrogates people but investigates or examines phenomena. To show that one is in the know in some circles, one has to use "interrogate" in reference to things rather than people. E.g., "in this discussion, we interrogated the underlying meaning of art."

[mugge]

It is good that you have found a new direction. One should never remain the same but strife to evolve into something better or what gives purpose. I, for one would like to go into simple landscape photography which I have not tried and architectural photography as well.

Your two examples are different to what you would normally produce. I look forward to see more.
Cheers Ole

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I couldn't agree more strongly with your comments about the art world, although in private, I would use much harsher adjectives. A lot of what I read and hear is simply garbage, an effort to show that the speaker or writer is a sophisticate in the in crowd, understanding the idea de jour that the rest of us don't understand. And this in turn leads to praising work that I think is simply ugly. Some social sciences suffer from a different variant of the same problem. it's common in those circles to use neologisms or just to misuse words in order to show that one is in the know. For example, in plain English--at least in the US--one interrogates people but investigates or examines phenomena. To show that one is in the know in some circles, one has to use "interrogate" in reference to things rather than people. E.g., "in this discussion, we interrogated the underlying meaning of art."

Dan - I tried to couch my words carefully. My views, which are not all that different from yours, are not shared by everyone.

The arts disciplines are taught differently from the fields that I studied formally. Engineering, sciences and math are all based on developing hypotheses and then modeling / testing them to validate or disprove them. Knowledge is built up by using a systematic approach that is based on fact rather than opinion. The system is not perfect and experimental errors or issues in developing appropriate models can result in false or inaccurate answers. Over time with improved techniques and experimental techniques and modeling, these issues will be uncovered and corrected.

The arts courses I have taken (I had to take several to get my engineering degree) were based on the principle that knowledge and views built up over time by experts in the field are how these subjects should be analyzed. As Dan as stated, this approach is also used in the social sciences. Unfortunately, this approach is ultimately based on opinion and fashion (a.k.a "group think"). Validating the approach or models can be difficult if not impossible to achieve as testing views and opinions are challenging and difficult to do in practice. Does using the rule of thirds or the Golden Mean really result in a stronger composition or is it really a self-fulfilling "prophecy" because we have been taught that it does.

While I don't feel art has to be beautiful, but I do feel that for it to be effective, it has to result in an emotional response from the viewer. The response does not have to be "universal" as cultural differences will impact on how we view things. A good example is the swastika; in Western Culture it is viewed very negatively as a symbol of Nazi aggression and evil. In many Eastern societies (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) it is a powerful and positive religious symbol.

So Dan, I agree. There is a lot of incomprehensible "drivel" spouted by so called "art experts". The only problem that you and I have is that they are viewed as "experts" and that gives them a certain legitimacy that people will listen to, whether it is deserved or not. The problem is that while we may disagree with what they say and write, we cannot prove that they are wrong any more than they can prove that they are right. Their academic or cultural credentials give them authority and legitimacy, even though the underlying assumptions are clearly suspect.

[Donald]

I only take issue with one thing: art that is simply aesthetically pleasing need not be mere baubles.

I should've said "for me and my work". There are many outstanding pieces of art that are simply aesthetically pleasing and I wouldn't wish to criticise them at all. Indeed, I celebrate them.

The arts courses I have taken (I had to take several to get my engineering degree) were based on the principle that knowledge and views built up over time by experts in the field are how these subjects should be analyzed. As Dan as stated, this approach is also used in the social sciences. Unfortunately, this approach is ultimately based on opinion and fashion (a.k.a "group think").

As someone whose professional life (child protection) was based on what you call 'group think', I would take issue with the dismissal of it as a valid approach and that it is based on opinion and fashion. The research is based on qualitative rather than quantitative factors, but is no less valid because of that. Engineers and scientists don't rule the world!!

[John 2]

.............................While I don't feel art has to be beautiful, but I do feel that for it to be effective, it has to result in an emotional response from the viewer. The response does not have to be "universal" as cultural differences will impact on how we view things. .......................................

So Dan, I agree. There is a lot of incomprehensible "drivel" spouted by so called "art experts". The only problem that you and I have is that they are viewed as "experts" and that gives them a certain legitimacy that people will listen to, whether it is deserved or not. The problem is that while we may disagree with what they say and write, we cannot prove that they are wrong any more than they can prove that they are right. Their academic or cultural credentials give them authority and legitimacy, even though the underlying assumptions are clearly suspect.

Donald's post has certainly given food for thought and Manfred's thoughts on some contemporary trends in art chime to a large extent with me. We have had our fair share of soiled sheets, sheep in formaldehyde and piles of bricks lauded at the Royal Academy's annual exhibition. The problem is that it is not just academia that seeks to give these works legitimacy as works of art. They sell, usually for significant sums. However they provide for an interesting comparison when you consider them along side the "Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red" art installation created by Paul Cummins in the moat of the Tower of London to commemorate the start of the First World War. The comparison brings me back to Donald's post which had me wondering until I read the phrase "I feel that my photography now has a purpose". The Tower of London installation, which comprised a red ceramic poppy for every soldier killed in that war, had visual impact and in Donald's words, had purpose - something I could never see in the other examples I cited.

At a more personal level, I'm as guilty as the next person of aimlessly pressing the shutter button, particularly if I'm out with the family or in company. However, when I'm taking my photography seriously and this tends to be a solitary exercise, I'm generally looking for something different either in terms of what I see in my mind's eye requiring PP for it's fulfilment or something others might walk by (maybe not have the opportunity to see) or perhaps a fleeting moment, never to be repeated. If that constitutes purpose, then I am in total tune with Donald's sentiments. Mainly for personal enjoyment but yes, I do like to share the images I make in the hope of comment. How else do I make progress and of course, that is why I have joined forums like C in C.

[DanK]

I apologize; my aside about social sciences hijacked this thread. This post is along those lines, so ignore it if the digression isn't of interest to you.

Neither the problem I described nor group think (which is somewhat different) is limited to social sciences. The physical sciences have a long history of group think as well. And it is not a matter of quantitative vs. qualitative approaches, although the problem seems far more common in the latter camp, at least in the US. And in addition, while this is far less true in the UK, it is the case in many countries, including the US, that social sciences are heavily quantitative. So all of those issues, I think, are red herrings. (Is that idiom used outside of the US? It means an issue that isn't germane to the main debate.)

The issue I didn't competently flag is simply the use of arcane things to flag that one is in the in-group. The social scientists I referred to are a minority (albeit a noisy one) in the social sciences. And in any case, I think the problem is far, far worse in the art world. In sciences, including the social sciences, there is a body of empirical evidence, and there are standards about its use and interpretation. For example, there is a large amount of bitter argument about whether college-admissions tests predict performance in college and whether they are biased, but when push comes to shove, there is at least 40 years of accumulated hard evidence about these questions. Art, on the other hand, has no such anchor. If people in the in-crowd deem that a pile of construction debris glued to a piece of plywood is real art worthy of exhibiting in a high-status museum (that's a real example) but that Vivian Meier's photographs aren't are "art," then it seems to me pretty clear that their standards have more to do with showing their "sophistication" and--more important--their superiority to us than about any reasonable standards of artistic merit. It's a real pity, because many people who study art are able point out important aspects of work that people like me won't understand or even notice on their own. It's a matter of finding the wheat among the chaff.

Just my two cents.

[Donald]

Unfortunately, so many times the art world and the world of academia don't help themselves.

I have been reading quite a bit of late. One book I started is 'Photography: A Critical Introduction, Fifth Edition', Edited by Liz Wells, Routledge, Oxford, 2015. It is more about photography than about art, but nonetheless.........! The Editor makes the introduction so dense and full of words that I had to look up in a dictionary (and I am not stupid) to even begin to try and understand what she was saying. It was as if she was trying to write in a way that made her sound so clever that no simple mortal would be able to comprehend this oh-so-complicated subject. As a result, I never got past the introduction and don't know what the other authors might have been like.

On the other hand, Charlotte Cotton in 'The Photograph as Contemporary Art, Third Edition' (Thames and Hudson World of Art, London, 2014) and Ian Jeffrey in "How to Read a Photograph: Lessons from Master Photographers", (Abrams, New York, 2008), both write in a way that a simple lad like myself can easily read and understand.

[xpatUSA]

Unfortunately, so many times the art world and the world of academia doesn't help itself.

I have been reading quite a bit of late. One book I started is 'Photography: A Critical Introduction, Fifth Edition', Edited by Liz Wells, Routledge, Oxford, 2015. It is more about photography than about art, but nonetheless.........! The Editor makes the introduction so dense and full of words that I had to look up in a dictionary (and I am not stupid) to even begin to try and understand what she was saying. It was as if she was trying to write in a way that made her sound so clever that no simple mortal would be able to comprehend this oh-so-complicated subject. As a result, I never got past the introduction and don't know what the other authors might have been like.

On the other hand, Charlotte Cotton in 'The Photograph as Contemporary Art, Third Edition' (Thames and Hudson World of Art, London, 2014) and Ian Jeffrey in "How to Read a Photograph: Lessons from Master Photographers", (Abrams, New York, 2008), both write in a way that a simple lad like myself can easily read and understand.

When I was a kid, a Professor (Eric Laithwaite) used to appear on the Beeb and explain things like the Linear Induction Motor to would-be Techs like me. Two things stood out:

1) He didn't talk posh.

2) He rarely used bigger than three-dollar words.

A joy to behold.

[xpatUSA]

Art, on the other hand, has no such anchor. If people in the in-crowd deem that a pile of construction debris glued to a piece of plywood is real art worthy of exhibiting in a high-status museum (that's a real example)

I still remember "The Bricks" purchased by the Tate Gallery for about 20x my annual earnings:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/20/a...is-it-art.html



My opinion hasn't changed much since then ...

[DanK]

I’ll let any competitor have an equivalent pile of bricks for 1/2 the price.

While we’re at it, I have a pile of scrap lumber in the garage...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

The Tate got off cheap. The National Gallery of Canada bought Barnett Newmann's "Voice of Fire" for $1.8 million


https://ottawacitizen.com/entertainm...-scorching-hot

http://www.barnettnewman.com/voice-of-fire/

[Rufus]

The Tate got off cheap. The National Gallery of Canada bought Barnett Newmann's "Voice of Fire" for $1.8 million

http://www.barnettnewman.com/voice-of-fire/

I love the fact that it was discovered to have been hung upside down

[Manfred M]

I tend to be just as harsh on "group think" in engineering and physical sciences as in the arts. It is a problem there as anywhere else. The main reason I mention it is that these fields very much rely on developing mathematical models that can be confirmed through experimental means. Bridges still (rarely) collapse and airplanes still (rarely) crash. The issue with these fields is often related to ensuring that the model is built correctly and the appropriate data and parameters are used. In complex systems like bridges and airplanes the failures can often be attributed to events that were either not foreseen (operation outside of the design parameters), manufacturing or materials defects, etc.

There is a second level of design / analysis that is used in fields or areas where the forward looking models either do not exist or are not reliable enough to use. Here the practitioners are reliant on developing a hypothesis and validating or disproving the hypothesis through the collection of experimental data. Life sciences and social sciences often rely on these types of approaches where step-wise experiments and analysis is used to validate the hypothesis. The problem with this approach is often trying to get "clean" accurate data. As an example, for the longest time it was thought that coffee was bad for a person's health. So far as I recall this work was done in the 1950s and 1960s where researchers found that heavy coffee drinkers did not have good long-term health outcomes. When the data was re-examined at a later time, it was found that heavy coffee drinkers were often heavy smokers and the real culprit of the poor health outcomes was due to the smoking, not drinking coffee.

If the person doing this work is held in high regard, then criticism of the work from others is challenging and people may not say what they think. Group think can be dangerous too. There is currently a common police practice referred to as "carding" where people are who have not committed a crime are stopped and questioned by a police officer. The people who are randomly stopped appear not to be random at all but often appear to be males of visible minorities. Police continue to suggest that this is a valid crime reduction approach, but my understanding is that statistical analysis does not support the hypothesis. If a technique does not work, it should not be used, regardless of our personal feelings.

This is the area that falls into the subjects that both Donald and Dan have mentioned. My view is that the outcomes need to be accurately measured, otherwise the approaches that are used can lead to unintended consequences, whether this be in child welfare or in teaching. I'm a bit sensitive here as I was a "victim" of a "New Math" pilot project in my public school in grades 5 and 6 (mid 1960s). The program appear to have been shut down after those two years as being unsuccessful, but no remedial help was offered to us and I remember struggling when reverting to the "standard curriculum".

Finally, getting to the whole view of creativity and defining how to measure and teach this. Does following the Rule of Thirds or the Golden Mean result in a stronger composition because these techniques really work or is it because we have been told they do and assume that anything using them must be better aesthetically? Were the Nazis and Soviets right in banning "degenerate arts", whether this covered photography, painting, writing, poetry etc. any different than art critics, academics and PhD curators making similar judgements? Should we photographers look down at selfies and elevate the work of well known photographers past and present? What is good art anyhow?

Frankly I have little faith in how creative arts are taught and marked. These subjects are highly dependent on the personal views and tastes of the person leading the class as opposed to anything approaching "universal truths". Fashion, trends and opinion are what seems to drive these areas of endeavor. Thoughts?

[Manfred M]

I love the fact that it was discovered to have been hung upside down

And I always thought it looked better that way.