Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I would be. you have some cool stuff on your Flickr pages. I don't like to see just pictures, I like to read about what's depicted, why it was photographed, etc.
All Technique, no Philosophy?
- Thread starter notturtle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 92
- Views 9K
I would be. you have some cool stuff on your Flickr pages. I don't like to see just pictures, I like to read about what's depicted, why it was photographed, etc.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
it seems to me that a "good" photograph does not have to be "perfect," in that it is "good" because it satisfies some emotional response or conceptual trigger in the mind of a viewer and/or may be a fortuitous grab of a fleeting moment rather than a studied pose. however it also seems to me that a photograph that is meticulously planned in the technical arena should in all cases be "good" and/or carry some virtuous and stimulating credibility in the eyes of the viewer.
this is not an argument about "taste" but more a paradox of gear vs intellect vs technical prowess.
it is hard to take a photograph without a photo machine of some sort and one might ask what constitutes a photograph. andy goldsworthy, the quite famous UK sculptor, was shown in a documentary of his work to leave a room when he heard the first fall of a light rain...he went to lie down on the road until the rain stopped and then got up, revealing a sillhouette of his form, dry on the bitumin. stretching the concept of image reproduction, was this in fact a kind of photogram? if it is and if photograms fall into the category of photography then a photogra(m)(ph) was made without a photo machine.
the discussion of photographic gear can be had by roadshow collectors all day and never have to bend towards the photographs the devices make and by people who are not photographers. and likewise, though less likely, discussions about photographs happen less often isolated from a discussion about the photo machine, methods and madness of the process leading up to the creation of the image.
hand and glove means there is a balance. but not all hands fit all gloves.
-dd
this is not an argument about "taste" but more a paradox of gear vs intellect vs technical prowess.
it is hard to take a photograph without a photo machine of some sort and one might ask what constitutes a photograph. andy goldsworthy, the quite famous UK sculptor, was shown in a documentary of his work to leave a room when he heard the first fall of a light rain...he went to lie down on the road until the rain stopped and then got up, revealing a sillhouette of his form, dry on the bitumin. stretching the concept of image reproduction, was this in fact a kind of photogram? if it is and if photograms fall into the category of photography then a photogra(m)(ph) was made without a photo machine.
the discussion of photographic gear can be had by roadshow collectors all day and never have to bend towards the photographs the devices make and by people who are not photographers. and likewise, though less likely, discussions about photographs happen less often isolated from a discussion about the photo machine, methods and madness of the process leading up to the creation of the image.
hand and glove means there is a balance. but not all hands fit all gloves.
-dd
RichC
Well-known
The problem with photography is that it straddles two worlds: art and craft (I'm ignoring collectors!).
Viewed as an art form, the camera is simply a different type of paintbrush or sculptor's chisel and of limited interest - I recall a talk in London when the photographer Ralph Gibson refused to answer when asked which camera he prefers, saying that it was of no consequence so long as it met his needs.
Generalising, artists are interested in the act of creation, and many are uninterested in their tools as long as they do their job. I recall finishing off an oil painting with a stick because I put my brush down and lost it!
Conceptual artists have taken this to the extreme and given up tools entirely, so only the idea behind their work remains!
Generalising again, craftsmen (and women) are more interested in technique, and that includes their tools.
As I said at the beginning, photographers fall into two camps: artists and craftsmen. If considered an art form, photography is a unique medium in that many practitioners are not artists - you can't teach yourself to be a competent illustrator of realism if you can't draw and have few visual skills, but you can teach yourself to be a competent photographer simply by learning technique and following "rules" of composition (many of which have solid grounding in physiology, psychology and sociology).
For most of its existence, photography was scorned as an artistic medium, as many of you doubtless know, and it has only been in recent decades that photographs have been seen in the same light as paintings or sculpture. Even great photographers considered themselves craftsmen ... Lee Miller was always irritated when she was called an artist.
So, owing to this dichotomy, photographers do tend to split into "artists" and "gearheads". That's not say that you can't, of course, be both, but if you are at one end of the spectrum, there's a fair chance you're going to be irritated by someone at the other!
As for me? I'm both - but I don't understand how anyone can take thousands of photographs. If you're an illustrator, you make a few sketches that represent the essence of what you're interested in - you don't draw everything in sight that vaguely catches your eye! I apply the same philosphy to my photography: less is more. Looking at my Leica M8 shots (my main camera), I see I've taken 1,622 shots since I got the camera 2 years ago (this includes everything - shots with lens cap on as well as "keepers").
Why do I take photographs? As I said, I paint. Or I used to: stopped a decade ago, but wanted to do something artistic again, so took up photography as I thought it'd be easier (it wasn't!).
I use photography to explore the world, to communicate my vision of it. I like working on projects.
This is what I'm working on at present:
Tempus Fugit
Later this year, it'll be submitted to the Royal Photographic Society for my Associateship, and will form the basis of a book and an exhibition.
The rationale behind Tempus Fugit is:
Incidentally, I used my Leica M8 for both of these shots - so I'm one of that strange breed who use a rangefinder stuck on a tripod for studio work!
Viewed as an art form, the camera is simply a different type of paintbrush or sculptor's chisel and of limited interest - I recall a talk in London when the photographer Ralph Gibson refused to answer when asked which camera he prefers, saying that it was of no consequence so long as it met his needs.
Generalising, artists are interested in the act of creation, and many are uninterested in their tools as long as they do their job. I recall finishing off an oil painting with a stick because I put my brush down and lost it!
Conceptual artists have taken this to the extreme and given up tools entirely, so only the idea behind their work remains!
Generalising again, craftsmen (and women) are more interested in technique, and that includes their tools.
As I said at the beginning, photographers fall into two camps: artists and craftsmen. If considered an art form, photography is a unique medium in that many practitioners are not artists - you can't teach yourself to be a competent illustrator of realism if you can't draw and have few visual skills, but you can teach yourself to be a competent photographer simply by learning technique and following "rules" of composition (many of which have solid grounding in physiology, psychology and sociology).
For most of its existence, photography was scorned as an artistic medium, as many of you doubtless know, and it has only been in recent decades that photographs have been seen in the same light as paintings or sculpture. Even great photographers considered themselves craftsmen ... Lee Miller was always irritated when she was called an artist.
So, owing to this dichotomy, photographers do tend to split into "artists" and "gearheads". That's not say that you can't, of course, be both, but if you are at one end of the spectrum, there's a fair chance you're going to be irritated by someone at the other!
As for me? I'm both - but I don't understand how anyone can take thousands of photographs. If you're an illustrator, you make a few sketches that represent the essence of what you're interested in - you don't draw everything in sight that vaguely catches your eye! I apply the same philosphy to my photography: less is more. Looking at my Leica M8 shots (my main camera), I see I've taken 1,622 shots since I got the camera 2 years ago (this includes everything - shots with lens cap on as well as "keepers").
Why do I take photographs? As I said, I paint. Or I used to: stopped a decade ago, but wanted to do something artistic again, so took up photography as I thought it'd be easier (it wasn't!).
I use photography to explore the world, to communicate my vision of it. I like working on projects.
This is what I'm working on at present:
Tempus Fugit
Later this year, it'll be submitted to the Royal Photographic Society for my Associateship, and will form the basis of a book and an exhibition.
The rationale behind Tempus Fugit is:
Art depicting death was not shunned until the 20th century: memento mori – "remember death" – was a common theme from the late Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution, reaching its zenith in the 17th-century vanitas ("vanity") still-life paintings of skulls, hourglasses and other symbols of brevity.
Death is treated in today's society much like sex was by the Victorians: the subject is taboo – avoided, and spoken of in euphemisms. And art that explores death and mortality now makes us uncomfortable – reflecting our lives, mirror-like, back at us: Who am I? Where am I going? What have I done?
This panel of photographs is about time passing, things discarded, and endings: my interpretation of memento mori. Superficially, the message seems negative, but it's not: the photographs remind us that nothing is forever, especially not us, so we should let go of the past, seize opportunities, and embrace life.
In earlier periods, memento mori had religious undertones: life is transient, and pleasure, futile, so be pious and prepare for Divine Judgement. My message is simpler and less sombre, echoing another Latin phrase, written by Horace 2000 years ago, carpe diem – "seize the day". Enjoy life before it's too late.
Time in Entropy
Crude Metaphor
Death is treated in today's society much like sex was by the Victorians: the subject is taboo – avoided, and spoken of in euphemisms. And art that explores death and mortality now makes us uncomfortable – reflecting our lives, mirror-like, back at us: Who am I? Where am I going? What have I done?
This panel of photographs is about time passing, things discarded, and endings: my interpretation of memento mori. Superficially, the message seems negative, but it's not: the photographs remind us that nothing is forever, especially not us, so we should let go of the past, seize opportunities, and embrace life.
In earlier periods, memento mori had religious undertones: life is transient, and pleasure, futile, so be pious and prepare for Divine Judgement. My message is simpler and less sombre, echoing another Latin phrase, written by Horace 2000 years ago, carpe diem – "seize the day". Enjoy life before it's too late.
Time in Entropy
Crude Metaphor
Incidentally, I used my Leica M8 for both of these shots - so I'm one of that strange breed who use a rangefinder stuck on a tripod for studio work!
back alley
IMAGES
couldn't resist?
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
well put, RichC. i very much enjoyed reading that and i very much am interested in your thesis behind this body of work for two reasons. one, i have a PhD in Visual Arts Anthropology with my subject being icons of death and the cyclic passage rights of the spirit soul (in Indonesia) from object to nutrition. my medium was sculpture in the form of large multi-chambered spirit urns, sort of vases for spirits rather than ashes. this is the reason behind my second reason of interest, that you use the photographic medium as a catalyst for ideas transferrance rather than (so it appears to me) a toolbox that leaves a trail of "how to." that your images are photographs appears to be a coincidence rather than a discipline, could well be paintings or drawings and have the same visual virtue. but because they are photographs they transcend the classical tradition (stereotype) and bring the objects into the surreal without compromising their literal objective strength.
apologies for sounding like i am putting words... i am only reacting as i would if i had viewed them in a gallery. are there more images to see?
-dd
apologies for sounding like i am putting words... i am only reacting as i would if i had viewed them in a gallery. are there more images to see?
-dd
back alley
IMAGES
back alley
IMAGES
i never think to add more than a quick caption to my photographs.
i need to think if there is more that i could add.
RichC
Well-known
Thanks for your kind words, Dan. Only these, so far: http://www.bhcc-online.org/gallery/v/RichC/ARPS/ I have various sketches on paper - I'm not a very fast photographer!
Exactly! As I mentioned, I used to paint but gave up: I enjoyed the painting but I was never happy with my drawing skills -I'd eventually achieve what I was aiming at, but it was always a struggle, and exhausting.
I thought taking up photography would allow me to bypass my problem with drawing, but far from being easier, I found photography very unforgiving - the medium is very unforgiving of mistakes, whether technical or of content! The physicality of traditional artistic media like clay or paint with their texture and pattern can overcome weaknesses like mediocre composition that stand out like a sore thumb in a photograph!
And, yes, you're right: I consider photography no different to any other visual art - for me, the camera is simply a means to an end: a tool. In essence, it's simply a paintbrush.
As an aside, I could use any camera to create my photographs, but I use a Leica M8 partly because it's well crafted. There's nothing wrong with liking your tools!
Lastly, I'm glad you mentioned Surrealism. That genre's always been a major influence, and one of my favourite photographers is Lee Miller, the muse of Man Ray. Even when depicting the horror of a concentration camp, Miller could not help but impose her Surreal vision of the world, through a glass darkly maybe, but Miller's war photographs are all the more powerful for it...
Dead SS guard in canal, Dachau, Germany (Lee Miller, 1945):
JohnTF
Veteran
- Local time
- 4:00 PM
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,083
"As I said at the beginning, photographers fall into two camps: artists and craftsmen. If considered an art form, photography is a unique medium in that many practitioners are not artists - you can't teach yourself to be a competent illustrator of realism if you can't draw and have few visual skills, but you can teach yourself to be a competent photographer simply by learning technique and following "rules" of composition (many of which have solid grounding in physiology, psychology and sociology)."
Am not sure I am ready to grant you all of this, I had a friend who, along with his friends, shot Linhof, had color meters, exposure meters, densitometer, etc. He spent a year photographing gray cards and adjusting development techniques to the most demanding standards.
He finally concluded, with considerable collected data, that, in order to get perfect agitation in he processing of sheet film, you should brush the developer across the film. If you get in to the fluid dynamics of tank processing ---- OK, will stop there.
He sent a sample photograph of a friend to Ansel Adams, describing his techniques. Adams wrote a nice letter back, saying he had never seen such technical excellence, and that he knew nothing about photography.
He framed it.
I understood, I believe, my friend Bob, it was just the first step of perfecting his technique, so he could work out the rest later.
Today's technology allows almost anyone to make clear images, which allows people to begin at a different place, but I read, perhaps I suspect incorrectly from this paragraph, that the technology trivializes the art.
Or perhaps a "competent photographer" is meant to be merely someone who can make a technically competent image, in which case I intrepreted it differently than your intent?
One thing today, is that we have a large variety of affordable, readily available, tools to choose from, and discussions of those tools are interesting in their own right, and may yield solutions to problems that may block what we wish to portray.
The levels at which you respond to those discussions is entirely personal.
Regards, John
Am not sure I am ready to grant you all of this, I had a friend who, along with his friends, shot Linhof, had color meters, exposure meters, densitometer, etc. He spent a year photographing gray cards and adjusting development techniques to the most demanding standards.
He finally concluded, with considerable collected data, that, in order to get perfect agitation in he processing of sheet film, you should brush the developer across the film. If you get in to the fluid dynamics of tank processing ---- OK, will stop there.
He sent a sample photograph of a friend to Ansel Adams, describing his techniques. Adams wrote a nice letter back, saying he had never seen such technical excellence, and that he knew nothing about photography.
He framed it.
I understood, I believe, my friend Bob, it was just the first step of perfecting his technique, so he could work out the rest later.
Today's technology allows almost anyone to make clear images, which allows people to begin at a different place, but I read, perhaps I suspect incorrectly from this paragraph, that the technology trivializes the art.
Or perhaps a "competent photographer" is meant to be merely someone who can make a technically competent image, in which case I intrepreted it differently than your intent?
One thing today, is that we have a large variety of affordable, readily available, tools to choose from, and discussions of those tools are interesting in their own right, and may yield solutions to problems that may block what we wish to portray.
The levels at which you respond to those discussions is entirely personal.
Regards, John
Last edited:
RichC
Well-known
Correct - that's what I meant. Rarely is good art produced with poor technique (I'm ignoring conceptual art :bang🙂, so perhaps "competent photographer" was a poor choice of phrase by me. So a good photographer does have to learn certain skills and practice technique, even if they eventually decide to discard some - or all - at them.
Discussion of tools is fine, but there is a class of photographer to whom equipment seems to be all important and the image of less interest - you never hear of paintbrush collectors (though I expect they exist!) or paintbrush forums...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I wonder if the forums for piemakers get into such empty debates about the pointlessness of using the right tools and presentation vs. taste.
I think that as long as your pie is satisfying, it's all that matters. Whether you do it with gourmet butter or Sam's Club premade crusts would fall on deaf ears as you chew delightfully away.
I do, however, think that whipped cream from a can is a travesty.
I think that as long as your pie is satisfying, it's all that matters. Whether you do it with gourmet butter or Sam's Club premade crusts would fall on deaf ears as you chew delightfully away.
I do, however, think that whipped cream from a can is a travesty.
Chris101
summicronia
Unless you are just in it for the laughing gas.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I think RichC managed to shed some light on this debate, rather than heat. He characterized the difference between the 2 approaches as the difference between art and craft. I'm not sure that's accurate. Both approaches can be applied to result in art.
To me it's like comparing Method Acting to the Classical approach. Classical Acting relies on techniques (vocal intonation, facial expression, etc.) Method Acting relies on drawing from the personal reservoir of emotion, or even attempting to mentally inhabit the character's psyche.
These 2 approaches (practical, technique-based, reductionistic vs. the more gestalt based, or zen-like approach) are both effective for photographers. In fact, they are not mutually exclusive either, as RichC states.
In any case, I don't think Bill's focus on practice and technique can be dismissed, or categorized as pursuit of craft rather than art.
To me it's like comparing Method Acting to the Classical approach. Classical Acting relies on techniques (vocal intonation, facial expression, etc.) Method Acting relies on drawing from the personal reservoir of emotion, or even attempting to mentally inhabit the character's psyche.
These 2 approaches (practical, technique-based, reductionistic vs. the more gestalt based, or zen-like approach) are both effective for photographers. In fact, they are not mutually exclusive either, as RichC states.
In any case, I don't think Bill's focus on practice and technique can be dismissed, or categorized as pursuit of craft rather than art.
horosu
Well-known
I would just like to quote Steve McCurry:
"When people ask me what they should do to become a photographer . I seldom mention cameras or technique. I say, " If you want to be a photographer , first leave home." And as Paul Theroux further advises, "Go as far as you can. Become a stranger in a strange land. Acquire humility."
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3RTTQOCJ
"When people ask me what they should do to become a photographer . I seldom mention cameras or technique. I say, " If you want to be a photographer , first leave home." And as Paul Theroux further advises, "Go as far as you can. Become a stranger in a strange land. Acquire humility."
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3RTTQOCJ
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Mmmm...curry.
JohnTF
Veteran
- Local time
- 4:00 PM
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,083
OK, I read you correctly.
What happened to all those paint programs on computers? ;-)
Regards, John
JohnTF
Veteran
- Local time
- 4:00 PM
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,083
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
RichC, it is obvious you understand light and are rightly a painter. today is the first day of wnter where i live and we are going through the seasonal change which creates the amazing golden light at dusk each day. that with the heavy sea mist in the valleys makes for some very serene imagery. there is a serenity in your image that depict the calmness of "passing." it is the season for taking the dog for a walk as well as the camera.
in my research death was a time of raucus celebration and rarely an emotive time of calmness. although, there was a kind of instant flickering exchange of acceptance, resolution and remorse, the last rarely shown publicly. rarely was death depicted as loss.
i have often judged a photograph, on one level only, by whether i would "hang it over the sofa." a metaphor rather than a literalism. i find the pictures on your link quite live-withable in a way that draws me back to view them again and i wonder what they are like to experience in a larger format than my monitor. they are very tactile and emotive.
at 63 i feel i now have more time for seeing and need less time to look and often test my tolerances by going out on a perfect f8 day (as determined by my grandfather as 'round light') without a camera. pennance. that is also part of the craft.
cheers.
-dd
in my research death was a time of raucus celebration and rarely an emotive time of calmness. although, there was a kind of instant flickering exchange of acceptance, resolution and remorse, the last rarely shown publicly. rarely was death depicted as loss.
i have often judged a photograph, on one level only, by whether i would "hang it over the sofa." a metaphor rather than a literalism. i find the pictures on your link quite live-withable in a way that draws me back to view them again and i wonder what they are like to experience in a larger format than my monitor. they are very tactile and emotive.
at 63 i feel i now have more time for seeing and need less time to look and often test my tolerances by going out on a perfect f8 day (as determined by my grandfather as 'round light') without a camera. pennance. that is also part of the craft.
cheers.
-dd
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My best work has been made close to home. My best SELLING work has been made very far from home.
robklurfield
eclipse
RichC, very stong image, your Time in Entropy. Very painterly indeed. It made me think of a favorite painting by Gustav Caillebotte because of how you rendered the floor and the leaves, not because of your content, context or anything else. Your image speaks for itself in my mind.
Visual art can speak with words or without. I think we each have a unique story for every shot we take (including the ones with the lens cap on). Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I graduated college with a degree in philosophy, making a me an educated fool in some ways. I view philosophy as discipline that requires its practioners to get at underlying assumptions. Even unconscious underlying assumptions.
Visual art can speak with words or without. I think we each have a unique story for every shot we take (including the ones with the lens cap on). Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I graduated college with a degree in philosophy, making a me an educated fool in some ways. I view philosophy as discipline that requires its practioners to get at underlying assumptions. Even unconscious underlying assumptions.
Last edited:
