All Technique, no Philosophy?

[notturtle]

It strikes me that there is an awful lot of time spent on which kit, technique, critique, work flow etc but virtually none spent on the bit that takes place between your ears. Some years ago a I read a book called the Tao of Photography and it made an impact on me. I had spent a great deal of time up until that point thinking about why I was doing what I was doing and strangely the book helped me to realise that I was not over-reacting or thinking about things too much. I felt more confident that I was on the right path. In the years that followed my work has improved immeasurably. It has cohesion, both in itself and to me.

It seems to me that there is far too much empasis being placed on volume, repetition, limiting yourself, trying new things (or focusing on one), getting critique from others (and every variation thereof) but almost nothing on the very personal part: Why you do it and to what end? What are the constants in your work? What are you drawn to and why? What do you hope to achieve? Where can you, or parts of you, be unmistakably found in your work. The list goes on. I am not suggesting that one has to consciously think about these things constantly, but to have thought about them at some point almost leaves a wordless sense of direction and a greater sense of purpose beneath the surface.

I guess this does not matter if a person is just enjoying photography and does not want to push it forwards - thats fair enough! However, it amazes me how often one sees articles or comments on how to really apply yourself and improve your photography without the slightest mention of what I believe is the most important part. Does anyone else feel that the personal philosophy and the emotive/human aspects in general are ignored at the expense of an almost rhythmic, physical process or repetition and adjustment - almost like batting practice?

 

[robklurfield]

It is far easier to talk about technique and gear than philosophy. I know when I see something I want to capture, but I'm not sure I possess the vocabulary (not literally the words, but maybe the sense of the right words) to articulate what catches my eye and makes me want to click the shutter. Is this a left brain/right brain thing? notturtle, you make some interesting observations and pose some challenging queries.

My technique is poor and have a few pieces of equipment, all of them nice. I really don't obsess over any of that when I shoot. My goal is simply to attempt to capture things the way I imagine they will look when printed or on a screen. This is artifice, as we all know the world of our pictures is not the world itself. It's nothing but reflected light in three dimensions being captured on something flat in two dimensions. I like images with surprise or odd juxtapositions. I enjoy capturing things other people are perhaps oblivious to seeing. I enjoy looking at work of others that presents a challenging or unfamiliar perspective. I try to shoot things that would please myself or others in that way.

I try to to take lots of photos because who knows how many more clicks of the shutter any of us get. Many of my shoots are crummy, but that doesn't bother me, as there is always something else right around the corner that will be interesting if I'm lucky enough to be paying attention. I am trying in recent months to make my shooting very much something in the moment. Unpremeditated if you will. There is an urge to capture things that I know I could only really explain by showing rather than telling about them. There is a certain challenge to seeing what we normally overlook and I find that stimulating.

I don't do much to manipulate or clean up images. I try to capture what I can when I shoot. It doesn't always work out as planned.

While I enjoy reading and sharing on RFF, the act of doing is certainly more fulfilling than the act of talking or writing about it. Getting from the mind's eye to the frame is brief act of will (or skill if you have it) that can define one's existence for the moment it takes to transmogrify from light in the world to light on film or sensor. In the end, and mind you, I don't earn my livelihood at this, so it's a total luxury, I simply enjoy the process and seeing the results. Is that Zen or Tao-like? I have no clue.

I don't feel for myself that there is anything remotely like batting practice in my photography. I only speak for me.

This is my current path. It's kind of existentially focused. I can't say I'm speaking for anyone but myself.

 

[robklurfield]

Perhaps I should add that I'm somewhere between all philosophy - no technique and all reflex - no technique. So, maybe all my babbling above is a substitute for a better kit and better skills.

 

[JayC]

I bought that book a few months ago and just recently getting to it.

 

[notturtle]

Pixtu, hopefully those not interested won't post!

Personally, having worked almost entirely without projects in mind and only on individual pieces (that interested me), identifying projects which are in some way important to me has made the world of difference. The only problem is that each idea has spawned another one and so I will need to live for about 1000 years to make a dent.

What fascinates me and my photography have become the same thing, but instead of bumping into it, I am putting myself in the right place to do so. Its not a case of preconceiving images or the shape of a project, but more in line with AA's 'chance favours the prepared mind'. Its funny how my photography, which had always been consciously only tangentially related to my other interests have become the same thing. It was like two lakes connecting lol.

 

[Chris101]

Actually from the way I read it, bmattock's quoted post is saying something similar to what notturtle's op said. Spending too much energy on technique, trying to improve one's photography, distracts from using photography to express one's self.

That's the philosophy of what some call my 'grunge' style of shooting: feel it, see it, shoot it.

 

[Chris101]

... Personally, having worked almost entirely without projects in mind and only on individual pieces (that interested me), identifying projects which are in some way important to me has made the world of difference. ...

Tell me if I am interpreting this right: what you shoot is more important than how you shoot.

 

[notturtle]

Tell me if I am interpreting this right: what you shoot is more important than how you shoot.

No, that's not what I am saying. There are so many ways to interpret that sentence - some good and some bad - that I have no idea where I would start other to say that the 'how and what parts' can both be preceded by something and should perhaps not be split apart in a black and white fashion.

Are you a lawyer? 😀

 

[bmattock]

Actually from the way I read it, bmattock's quoted post is saying something similar to what notturtle's op said. Spending too much energy on technique, trying to improve one's photography, distracts from using photography to express one's self.

That's the philosophy of what some call my 'grunge' style of shooting: feel it, see it, shoot it.

Funny how I got involved in the conversation in a negative way without posting a word...ah well, thanks Richard. And here I thought we were doing a good job ignoring each other.

Chris, you're right, my point was that the agony people seem to put themselves through, trying to 'find a style' or 'concentrate on technique' or (in this case) 'find a philosophy' all interfere with the basic concept of going out and shooting. We have on RFF many people who are hardly masters of the equipment they use, who don't truly understand basic concepts of photography like what a certain type of filter is for, and yet they're trying to 'define their art' in some frankly airy-fairy way that makes no sense at all.

Some recent books have been based on studies that show the route to mastery is practice - and 10,000 hours is about what is required, on average, to completely master a subject. This is for musicians, artists of all kinds, etc. In other words, we improve when we practice. Not think about practice, not engage in endless debates about practice, just practice.

There are always virtuosos who manage to break free of the mold, in every field. Basic explanation of the tool or instrument is all they need, and they seem to transcend the need to practice. But those are few and far between. Most of us get good by practice, if we're ever going to get good at all. And nobody ever got good on a guitar, for example, by studying the philosophy of guitar and then talking about it. They got good by playing.

Artist or hobbyist (thanks, Richard, I'm happy enough to be categorized as a 'hobbyist'), the key to improvement is practice.

As I have pointed out before, I am out most every weekend, taking photos of everything I can imagine or find to do. I can shoot 50,000 or more photographs every year - most of them probably pretty bad. I don't care a whit - first I do it because I enjoy it (we are photographers, right?) and second, I do it because if I don't keep practicing, I won't learn anything.

And I have read a few books on the philosophy of photography. I came to the conclusion that they are fine to read, enjoyable, but they are not about the philosophy of photography. They are about the philosophy of photographers. While not a bad thing, it doesn't make me a better photographer.

As to being a gear-head, I'm afraid poor Richard has it all wrong. I'm the guy who nearly got tossed overboard for suggesting that people who are into straps and camera bags ought to duct tape their cameras to their foreheads. I have lots of ancient cameras, which I laughingly refer to as a collection, and not one of them a Leica. I tend to go forth armed with a Pentax DSLR and an old Kodak p-n-s in my pocket; sometimes a film camera if I'm shooting B&W. Today I am doing a ren fair, I believe.

The rest of you go ahead and chat about being better photographers. I'm going out to take photos.

 

[Bassism]

bmattock, I like your metaphor with music. I have been a musician for ten years now with many hours of practice and am now starting to gain some recognition as a good musician, although there is certainly much more practice in my future.

I approach photography in much the same as I do music, really. I am philosophically agnostic. I have no ideals, goals, or anything of that sort with respect to photography, though I am fascinated by those that do. Much like bmattock, I just go out and shoot things that interest me. Maybe at some point I'll be able to look at my body of work and find some unifying thread that will give me a clue into something. If that happens, maybe I'll be able to confidently discuss my philosophy.

It's an interesting question, but one that I really have no answer for, at least for the time being.

 

[antiquark]

Why you do it and to what end?

Because I want to become the Thomas Kinkade of photography! 😛 (Joking.)

Maybe you are asking "what is art" and "what is the purpose of art?"

IMHO, the purpose of art is enlightenment. (That's my current theory, I have a new theory every few weeks. 🙂)

I got into photography simply because I wanted to do something creative that didn't involve mathematics or computers. I'm in in the software industry, and for the longest time my hobby was also software.

 

[FrankS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'analysing the Tao of photography' oxymoronic?

 

[raid]

Philosophy of photography, yes, I'd love to discuss it but it doesn't go down too well here. The gearheads don't like it, example:



Then it turns into confrontation between the Artists and the Hobbyists.

Polls are pretty popular, neck and wrist straps too.

Richard,

A discussion of the philosophy behind having polls may be interesting. Why do we care to know what other people chose to vote for? Then there is the philosophy of why we should be thinking about an image before taking the photo.

 

[raid]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'analysing the Tao of photography' oxymoronic?

OXYMORONIC .... Is this a blend of words? Ox and Moron? Let's discuss the philosophy behind the merger of these two words and its link to photography. 😀

By the way, I have this book. It is OK.

 

[Rob-F]

I leafed through "The Tao of Photography" in the bookstore. Not too much about it caught my eye. For the most part it seemed like just another book on how to improve your photography. One thing that did catch my eye was the statement that chance--the element of uncertainty--is a desirable part of photography. I thought about how there was a time when people would eagerly open the Kodak bag when it came back from the drugstore, to see if their photos "came out."

Today, with an LCD panel on the back of the camera, everyone knows immediately how the shot came out. If it didn't, you just hit delete and try again. Unless, of course, the event being photographed is fleeting--evanescent--and the opportunity has passed. So maybe the digital application of chance in photography is to shoot quickly and instinctively, without too much fussing over composition. Looking for the decisive moment, perhaps?

But a little bit of that would go a long way, in my opinion. I don't think my photography would improve by ignoring the things I think make a good photo. On the other hand, I do think it worth while to experiment by being willing to try shots that break rules. I especially think it is worth trying shots that have a low probability of success, for whatever reason: bad light, too much contrast, subject motion, etc. By not playing it safe, there could be a chance of coming up with a shot that avoids being boringly predictable.

I tend to try to compose "pretty postcard" pictures, with good composition, etc. Maybe this is my "style." I'm thinking that one way to explore "chance" is to deliberately do "something else" other than one's predictable style when shooting: take some risks, see what happens.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Photography is a big tent. It accomodates both philosophers and gearheads, amateurs and professionals, people who consider photography as a spectator sport and those who hoard their images as private, personal experiences, shared only with reluctance or not at all. I forgot rich and poor, extroverts and introverts, f64 realist types and non-objective abstractionists.

Choose your poison, I say. There's room for all!

 

[Bassism]

And don't forget the stoics and sophists!

 

[telemetre]

Speaking of books on photography, you might want to take a look at "Camera Lucida" by Barthes, I've found it a joy to read.

 

[Chris101]

Speaking of books on photography, you might want to take a look at "Camera Lucida" by Barthes, I've found it a joy to read.

I just "finished" reading that!

Well, I put "finished" in quotes because I couldn't. Roland Barthes put all his philosophy (including making up some new definitions) in the first 50 pages then whines about having let life pass him by for the rest of the book.

But I get, and dig, what I believe is his main point. A photograph is a frozen slice which becomes separate, yet eternal, from the thing that was photographed. His use of cinema as counterpoint is brilliant.

He just should have made the book half as thick, I suspect his editor pressed him to fatten it.

 

[35mmdelux]

Susan Sontag talked about philosophy in her book Photography. Why do you do it, or if a tree fell and nobdy heard it did it make noise?

My intellectual pursuit is more about forging a vision.