Visual Literacy

SciAggie said:
This is exactly what I am curious about. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate where your question is coming from. I suspect you will get many varied opinions as you would if you asked people how they actually go about photographing something.

In my situation, I do not think when I am shooting. Nor do I think when I am looking at photographs. Others love to "de-construct" but it is not really necessary, nor is de-constructing necessary to appreciate music. But some people dearly love it and that is fine.

Not thinking is just the way I am and others have to approach it differently. Whatever works for someone is just the way it is meant to be.:angel:
 
RichC said:
...

Modernism was the attempt by artists to represent the modern, industrial world at the start of the 20th century (e.g. how to represent movement and ideas in art?). Its major characteristic was the rejection of the past and old ways of working and embracing innovation and the new - the "avant-garde". All well and good, and necessary, but it became very cerebral and po faced, and went up its own arse, becoming increasingly out of touch with mainstream society.

Postmodernism evolved midway through the second half of the 20th century. It is a rejection of the Modernistic ideals of the avant-garde and its fetish with the intellectual (especially politics) and "art for art's sake", and embraces the past and popular culture (though you can still be innovative - it's the rejection of boundaries that's the hallmark of Postmodernism). Artists and photographers can actually - shock! - enjoy themselves (e.g. Pop Art) - I'm hard pressed to think of a humorous example of Modernism!

Alexander Rodchenko is a Modernist photographer; Martin Parr is Postmodern. ]
Click to expand...

Educated photographers focus on this thing called "post modernism" to a large degree. As if it is a theme, a movement onto itself. It's also popular with literature critics, especially those who group writers and photographers into camps. Camps of the oppressed - feminist theory, queer theory, etc. theory ... Very tribal, which again is a theme of post modernists.

Yet, post modernism is always defined by it's opposition to Modernism - because it IS Modernism, expressed with the angst of the later day 20th century hopes and fears. Those fears, those hopes have caused an inward view that tries to express the outward world through a highly filtered means.

My definition of post modernism is much simpler: blurry irony.

Irony is self evident and self explanatory. It is easier to make a comment through irony than to make it directly. This is often mistaken for humor, so no wonder it appears that post modernists are funny.

Blurry can be interpreted as simply out of focus - this happens a lot in post modern photography, the subject moves, the camera moves or the lens was just not adjusted to bring one particular plane into focus. But it also has an ideological component, even when the subject is focussed upon crisply. By blurring the concept of the photograph, the concept becomes impossible to nail down. And as such it comes to represent the "universal concept". Namely that we are all the same, nothing is new and history is just a reflection of the now. So who cares about anything after that?


ps, I consider myself an educated post modern photographer. My soured outlook is just part of that. I wear all black to exhibition openings, and inside I am laughing at all of it. Oh, and some people say I am stuck in the 70's. Rock on!
 
dave lackey said:
Either I like the colors, or the texture, or the motif, or the bokeh, or the blurriness, or the details, or the lighting, or the rendering :eek: of a specific lens, or...the combination of many of the previous things.
Click to expand...

For the sake of conversation, this is what I am inquiring about. You may say that you don't think about things when you look at an image, but you just made a fine list that suggests otherwise. You just don't dwell on what you are thinking - and that's fine. The reason again for opening this discussion is for anyone interested to share their particular mental list of things they look at. I think we innocently assume that others share the same knowlege as us but that's often not the case. I honestly have had to learn what the heck bokeh was in the last year. I'm not one who makes a big deal out of it, but now I recognize it in an image an can express an opinion about it if necessary. Lens rendering is another example of image quality I am learning to appreciate.

I examine the dynamic range captured in my images now, but I would never have considered them before a few months ago. I have learned to distinguish between the DR captured by my M8 and what is captured on B&W film.

This just seemed like a good topic for all of us to share ideas about and "mull over" during the weekend. :)
 
Last edited:
SciAggie said:
I do make the assumption that there is a mental process that takes place as you simply look at a picture and judge it. I am asking you to verbalize the mental "conversation" in your mind as you look at pictures.
Click to expand...

Following this very well expressed sentence, with the participative help from forum members this thread can be one of the richest ones...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Looking at Pictures: Studium and Punctum

Looking at Pictures: Studium and Punctum

SciAggie said:
I do make the assumption that there is a mental process that takes place as you simply look at a picture and judge it. I am asking you to verbalize the mental "conversation" in your mind as you look at pictures. Or comment as to whether you have even thought about how you evaluate pictures - and I don't necessarily mean evaluate in some high brow sort of way.
Click to expand...

Why you "like" a photograph may not have anything to do with it's artistic merit in the classical sense. Why this is so, was the subject of Roland Barthe's Camera Lucida and the concept of the Studium and Punctum.

Camera Lucida

"Studium" has to do with the educated eye, knowledge, and the "interpretation" of the image.

"Puntum" has to do with what in the image subjectively HITS YOU - pricks you, punctures you, and is why you LOVE the image.

On Studium and Punctum


Joe
 
SciAggie said:
For the sake of conversation, this is what I am inquiring about. You may say that you don't think about things when you look at an image, but you just made a fine list that suggests otherwise. You just don't dwell on what you are thinking - and that's fine. The reason again for opening this discussion is for anyone interested to share their particular mental list of things they look at. I think we innocently assume that others share the same knowlege as us but that's often not the case. I honestly have had to learn what the heck bokeh was in the last year. I'm not one who makes a big deal out of it, but now I recognize it in an image an can express an opinion about it if necessary. Lens rendering is another example of image quality I am learning to appreciate.

I examine the dynamic range captured in my images now, but I would never have considered them before a few months ago. I have learned to distinguish between the DR captured by my M8 and what is captured on B&W film.

This just seemed like a good topic for all of us to share ideas about and "mull over" during the weekend. :)
Click to expand...


Dwell? Quite an understatement. When shooting, I see, I shoot. Less than a second in many situations. When I look at an image, same thing, I can tell if I like it in a moment and if I like it, then I explore it further. Yes, I do understand the terms used in composition and the exceptions to the rules, etc.

No, I do not think about it. It is more ingrained in who I am. When I see a beautiful automobile, say a pre-war Mercedes, I don't even think about it, I know immediately I like it. I can't even even tell you what I like about it over, say a similar year Chevrolet without really struggling for the words. I accept it and it has worked fine for me for over 40 years.

Some people really do spend a lot of time composing, thinking, re-composing and that is great. It works for them.:) Others may even find communication or artistic somethings in a photograph that works for them. Great.

As far as teaching...well, my students at Georgia Tech are/were as teachable as any students around. And education is never a waste IMO. But, to expect all students to develop an "eye", whatever that term is, by thinking through the process is just not reasonable and I think we can agree on that. One is born with certain abilities or they are not. Wired differently I suppose.:p Charlie Rose asked HCB in an interview if he could teach his famous "decisive moment" style of photography and he shook his head and said no, that he was born with the ability but could not teach it.

I would like to hear more from people who really do spend a lot of time thinking about such things. Great idea for a thread.:angel:
 
SciAggie said:
For the sake of conversation, this is what I am inquiring about. You may say that you don't think about things when you look at an image, but you just made a fine list that suggests otherwise. You just don't dwell on what you are thinking - and that's fine. The reason again for opening this discussion is for anyone interested to share their particular mental list of things they look at. I think we innocently assume that others share the same knowlege as us but that's often not the case. I honestly have had to learn what the heck bokeh was in the last year. I'm not one who makes a big deal out of it, but now I recognize it in an image an can express an opinion about it if necessary. Lens rendering is another example of image quality I am learning to appreciate.

I examine the dynamic range captured in my images now, but I would never have considered them before a few months ago. I have learned to distinguish between the DR captured by my M8 and what is captured on B&W film.

This just seemed like a good topic for all of us to share ideas about and "mull over" during the weekend. :)
Click to expand...

Here is a great link of interesting photos that I like. Why? Because I do.

I just finished reading the last 3 LFI magazines in which are some articles about this very thing. Just found out some of the things they speak of, I already use but never thought about them before. Such as reduction. Great learning this sort of thing and it does reinforce my thinking ahead of time and may affect my actions later. We'll see.


http://www.flickriver.com/groups/summiluxr80/pool/interesting/

Image 7143 is one of those that fascinate me as I recognize something in the DOF and OOF areas that is striking. Do I look for these? No. Have I ever thought of an image like this before seeing it? No. But, I like it. As I explore the image and think about it, yes, I can get more out of it but it is no necessary for me to de-construct it to appreciate it. Face value was enough.:)
 
Last edited:
visual literacy

visual literacy

Great topic! I've been digesting an undergrad and graduate education in Photography for decades and I'm sure it's one of the two most influential voices ringing in my head. Although it is luxurious to have had those opportunities they come demanding an extra commitment to finding a balance between what you've been taught is "important" and "valuable" and what is driving simply what you see.

I feel there's a magic point that can be accessed by un-learning from the top of the MFA pile because it comes at a time that might very well be the most mature and concentrated path of reverse exploration many of us will make.
 
Like or dislike type here. Decidedly anti literate, why junk it up? I generally try to attune to the headspace a picture casts. Is the experience interesting to me, or am I being asked to participate in some type of pretentious shtick?
 
Last edited:
Ranchu said:
Like or dislike type here. Decidedly anti literate, why junk it up? I generally try to attune to the headspace a picture casts. Is the experience interesting to me, or am I being asked to participate in some type of pretentious shtick?
Click to expand...

People are different in their way to approach things. Learning languages is a good example, maybe. Some just have a very good intuitive observation of finest details and don't need grammar books really to communicate properly and correctly. Others need rules to understand at least some of the basic mechanics behind it.

I just remember when I started to lean French as an adult, the teachers method was to completely talk in French with me. That worked very well for the most part, but there where constructions or side notes, where the underlying rule helped me to get the hang of it.

In German, which is my mother tongue, I always hated the comma rules. I was particularly bad when it came to underlining part phrases with different colors to identify proper types of subordinate clauses. But guess what - I made almost never mistakes with commas.

Same person, different situation. Different environment.

Cheers
Ivo
 
Even technical observations may not be irrelevant. I recently saw some Paolo Pellegrin pictures next to some Salgados (Arles, of course). Pellegrin's were full of energy, but so were Salgado's, and next to them, Pellegrin's stuff looked weak and self-indulgent. It felt to me as if Pellegrin was working at the limits of his abilities, while Salgado still had immense power in reserve. It's like seeing a baby Fiat going flat out at 80 mph, or a Bristol that still has 60 mph in reserve at the same speed.

Sure, it's personal taste, and if I were as good as Pellegrin, I'd be happy, but equally, it's not always a bad thing to analyze how and why your personal taste is the way it is. You may even decide you want to change it. But you need to see a lot of pictures, and think about why you like some, and not others, if you want to get beyond "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

And you have to get beyond it if you are to become a better photographer: you have to know what you like among your own stuff, and be able to recognize/ concentrate upon your strengths, and know how to skate over or (better still) get over your weaknesses.

This doesn't necessarily have to be verbal, but it probably does no harm to try to put it into words. In particular, it may be useful to put into words what you don't like, even if you can't as easily express what you do like.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Even technical observations may not be irrelevant. I recently saw some Paolo Pellegrin pictures next to some Salgados (Arles, of course). Pellegrin's were full of energy, but so were Salgado's, and next to them, Pellegrin's stuff looked weak and self-indulgent. It felt to me as if Pellegrin was working at the limits of his abilities, while Salgado still had immense power in reserve. It's like seeing a baby Fiat going flat out at 80 mph, or a Bristol that still has 60 mph in reserve at the same speed.

Sure, it's personal taste, and if I were as good as Pellegrin, I'd be happy, but equally, it's not always a bad thing to analyze how and why your personal taste is the way it is. You may even decide you want to change it. But you need to see a lot of pictures, and think about why you like some, and not others, if you want to get beyond "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

And you have to get beyond it if you are to become a better photographer: you have to know what you like among your own stuff, and be able to recognize/ concentrate upon your strengths, and know how to skate over or (better still) get over your weaknesses.

This doesn't necessarily have to be verbal, but it probably does no harm to try to put it into words. In particular, it may be useful to put into words what you don't like, even if you can't as easily express what you do like.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yep, it is called education. Highly recommended even for us old...older...uh...more mature folks.:p
 
Roger Hicks said:
...if you are to become a better photographer: you have to know what you like among your own stuff, and be able to recognize/ concentrate upon your strengths, and know how to skate over or (better still) get over your weaknesses.

This doesn't necessarily have to be verbal, but it probably does no harm to try to put it into words. In particular, it may be useful to put into words what you don't like, even if you can't as easily express what you do like.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

However poorly I may have articulated my intent in my above posts, you have stated it well.
 
First and foremost, does it move me on some emotional level. If so, great. If it does contain some technical deficiancy, they can be overlooked. If it's also technically strong, all the better.

4550216902_84ac949974.jpg


2571205745_f8ea8803ca.jpg


5752630612_3619004241.jpg


4160695818_9b686abe8c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Disagree as you like. One thing I can say for sure is that there are many experiences for which words are an insult. Perhaps most experiences worthy of the description. Just trying to keep my eye on the ball.

;)
 
Ranchu said:
Disagree as you like. One thing I can say for sure is that there are many experiences for which words are an insult. Perhaps most experiences worthy of the description. Just trying to keep my eye on the ball.

;)
Click to expand...

Only if you're no good at words. F'rinstance, that's what poetry is for.

Cheers,

R.
 
Further thoughts on rapid evaluation. Walk into an exhibition of a single photographer's work. Look at the first picture that catches your eye. Either it says something or it doesn't. Move on to another. The same. After three or four pictures, either there's 'something there' or there isn't. Then either look harder, or walk out.

I don't believe in 'working on' appreciating someone's work. If it's any good (in my eyes, I can speak for no-one else), it'll sink in eventually. If not, not. I quite often need a bit of a run up to appreciate novelty: Martin Parr, Jackson Pollock, Gyorgy Ligeti. And sometimes, impact triumphs temporarily over staying power: Bridget Riley, for example, or possibly even Ansel Adams.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Only if you're no good at words. F'rinstance, that's what poetry is for.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

No. That's a dodge. Do you really want to pretend that words are a satisfactory simulacra of experience, or a perfect vehicle of communication, Roger? That's a bit niave, I think.

;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom