The esthetic failure of most photographs

[johnastovall]

As I started back in to serious photography after a thirty-year hiatus, I’ve noted on the various forums on the net an over whelming concern with technique and technology and a lack of any concern with the esthetic or artistic aspect of our craft.
There comes a point when one will have mastered the technical skills required from the medium and should start focusing on the emotional response one will invoke in the viewer rather than simply a technically perfect image.
Is this because must photographers, do not see their work as an art and therefore don’t look to the other visual arts for inspiration or are even familiar with the major works and artists or even other photographers?
How many of us here will go specifically to see major exhibitions of photography or collect the works of other photographers with the idea of trying understand why that image works on an emotional and esthetic level rather than just a technical one?
How many of us have tried to follow Picasso’s injunction, “To bloom forth, a work of art must ignore or rather forget all the rules.”
What are your thoughts on these ideas?

[LoungeLizard]

Tough question to answer. I started with photography about 28 years ago but I think that computer technology has made it what you are describing. 28 years ago, a photo was sharp if you printed at 8x10 and it looked "sharp" - today, even before printing, people are enlarging it to 200% to see the detail. Why - because they can.

There's a minimum set of technical quality that must exist before a photography is 'acceptable" - in my mind. This minimum will vary depending on the type of photography you're doing. Sports photography will require (most of the time) much better technical quality than an artistic portrait than a "Picasso-like" abstract.

As for me, I look through books and magazines looking at what people capture - not so much how they capture it (hence my still low skill level in Photoshop). I try to look at the emotions captured in the photograph and how those in it are shown.

I was recently at a seminar where someone next to me was looking at a sample wedding album. Their first response to one photo was "it's not in focus" - my response was "so what, it's capturing emotion".

I'm not sure if my take is better/worse or what a customer will want. Time will tell.

[xseption]

I took an art class to better interpret photos and to better emotionalize the photos as well. For example, I call this one "the process of dying ...":



and this one "Down to Earth:

[Gordon]

From a few years of arguing this topic with people, there seems to be two very broad brush camps:
Those that see photography as a craft - about recording what's in front of them

and those that see photography as an art, about expressing feelings and emotions

For some reason those in one camp or the other get quite indignant when someone in the other camp suggests that their way is how it should be.

So for some, photography isn't an art form at all - its just about taking pictures. For others, it is a form of expression and communication. There's probably a bit of both in everyone, but in very different degrees.

[Jezebel]

I actually think I'm the opposite - I do photography more for the artistic aspect of it than the technical. My technical knowledge is very limited and I haven't put forth much effort to improve it either. I'm more likely to spend time improving composition or color.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

From a few years of arguing this topic with people, there seems to be two very broad brush camps:
Those that see photography as a craft - about recording what's in front of them

and those that see photography as an art, about expressing feelings and emotions

For some reason those in one camp or the other get quite indignant when someone in the other camp suggests that their way is how it should be.

So for some, photography isn't an art form at all - its just about taking pictures. For others, it is a form of expression and communication. There's probably a bit of both in everyone, but in very different degrees.

Interesting, you see art as "about expressing feelings and emotions" while I see the role of the artist is the invocation of a emotion or feeling in another. in the case of photography, the image becomes the medium for the invocation of an emotion. The emotion may not even be the same in all who see it.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

My own opinion is that forums work well for discussing the technical aspect of photography, at least it always has for me.

As for artistic expression, that is something I tend to explore either on my own or through workshops where I can work with professionals and instructors face to face.

That said, I'd be up for some discussion about it from an artistic view.

_/oe

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Interesting, you see art as "about expressing feelings and emotions" while I see the role of the artist is the invocation of a emotion or feeling in another. in the case of photography, the image becomes the medium for the invocation of an emotion. The emotion may not even be the same in all who see it.

I think personally, I see photography about communication and connecting with the people who view my pictures. I'd like to be expressing how I see the world and hoping that the viewer can understand some of that.

Of course, it is also interesting to use a camera to evoke entirely different emotions than those that you were feeling - it doesn't (and rarely is) have to be honest or literal communication. Distilled to its essence, fact or fiction - just like an author who can either
conjure up new emotions or simply state the truth. Both are equally valid. I find the more ambiguous my images are, potentially the more they actually involve the viewer or maybe even make them think, stop, enjoy or just feel.

I've spent most of this year trying to convey more emotion or, at least, less literalism with my photography. Not entirely certain I've been succeeding but it has been interesting to attempt it, rather than just recording pretty views of places I've been or things I've seen.

[Gordon]

Actually though, to answer your underlying question. Why don't you see much discussion about art and esthetics in photography on line ? Why is it all/mostly about technical aspects and cameras, rather than about photography ?

Well, the same is true if you go to a book store - very few writers about photography talk about the artistic, emotional or communicative power of photographs - particularly not from the perspective of taking those sorts of images - there is maybe a lot of critque written about existing photographers in that vein, but very little on the artistic creation.

I think the answer is easy - it's because it is hard to write about that, and relatively easy to write about the technical aspects. Cameras just aren't that complex from a control perspect. Exposure, camera set up, basic technical composition etc - easy to write about, easy to debate, easy to fill technical forums on the subject. Navel gazing debates about pixel pitch, sensor noise etc are easy to meander on for ever.

But talking about creativity, artistic photography, emotional communication - it's difficult. It's particularly difficult in an online context, where every second word you write gets misunderstood or taken out of context - and argued about from then on :)

Also - many of the people in on-line forums are trying to learn - I'm sure most of the people reading this (including myself) are trying to learn, at one stage or another. We all tend to focus on the things we've most recently grasped or are currently struggling with - talking about composition, or camera controls. Obsessing about technical flaws as we try to improve our craft. As a result, those things are frunt and center when we look at other people's images - not the emotional content, not how it talks to us or makes us feel, but what about the hot pixel in the corner, or the over sharpening halos etc.

We are tuned in to those features and tuned out on the things that 99% of the public see in an image - if they like it or not.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Interesting, you see art as "about expressing feelings and emotions" while I see the role of the artist is the invocation of a emotion or feeling in another. in the case of photography, the image becomes the medium for the invocation of an emotion. The emotion may not even be the same in all who see it.

Actually (and to be clear - I'm really not picking on you) but this is a good example of why discussions like this often don't work well on line - you've misunderstood what I said in the paragraph above, read some things in to it about me that weren't said, then answered based on your misunderstanding of my original thought. This is pretty often the case of online discussions - and increasingly so as you move further from 'obvious' technical truths towards more esoteric topics of discussion.

It is the sort of thing that is a whole lot more effective to discuss face to face.

[brad]

I agree ... what I try to bring to photography is feeling.. especially the portrait work. I want to give that "what is he or she thinking?" feeling or for you to instantly empathize with the subject (the little girl shot through all the adults above is GREAT example of what I'm talking about)....

I try to do this in my PJ work when I can, but so much of PJ work is about recording the moment, rather than recording the emotion...

I've even gone as far as when I give critiques, I rarely mention the techs unless its to suggest something to try... I try to focus on the subject and what the photo conveys.. techs can be mastered, conveying that impression... that's the Holy Grail, so to speak.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by brad

I agree ... what I try to bring to photography is feeling.. especially the portrait work. I want to give that "what is he or she thinking?" feeling or for you to instantly empathize with the subject (the little girl shot through all the adults above is GREAT example of what I'm talking about)....

I try to do this in my PJ work when I can, but so much of PJ work is about recording the moment, rather than recording the emotion...

I've even gone as far as when I give critiques, I rarely mention the techs unless its to suggest something to try... I try to focus on the subject and what the photo conveys.. techs can be mastered, conveying that impression... that's the Holy Grail, so to speak.

But doesn't truly great PJ work go beyond the moment an invoke emotion in the viewer which is independent of the time, place and event? Examples such as these:

http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/...98/RCapa1.html

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibition...y/war/336.html

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9711/req22.htm

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/slides/g31.html

[Jezebel]

Actually I think you'll find that forums that focus on art as well as photography provide a lot of artistic imput as opposed to technical. Just depends on the type of people that visit the forum and where most of their knowledge lies :)

[Rick Waldroup]

I attend four or five photography shows a year and I also collect photographs of other photographers. My collection is small but growing. There are people who will always be gearheads no matter how long they have been in photography. I think all photographers have this mentality to a certain degree. And then there are those that have been around the medium for a long time, have mastered the fundamental principles of photography, and this enables them to move beyond the technical aspect to a more personal and artistic vision.

[Gordon]

And a lot of people mainly like collecting cameras and talking about the technology. Nowt wrong with that - just a bit of a different hobby than photography - though there is a lot of overlap.



Certainly the best photography (not just PJ work) informs you about what happened but also stops you, makes you think, wonder what is going on, feel, maybe even grow as a person, start you down a new path, inspire, invoke dispair.

I think that in a lot of cases, the amount of emotional involvement an image can evoke is in part to do with how many unanswered questions are in an image. So for a picture to make you stop, spend some time with it, start to think, begin to engage with it emotionally beyond a superficial level, that there have to be questions there. If you answer everything or give the whole story in the image, then I think the pictures can be dismissed quite quickly.

Now this isn't the only way to add emotion to a picture by any means, but it is a path that I think is helping me improve my pictures. I think if you can look at it, tell everything that is going on quickly, then it is easy to dismiss an image - even if you are missing what is actually there. Maybe to test this thesis, we should show images that really evoke emotional feelings in us. What images stand out for you, that really last ?

For a while I shot my pictures from too far away - the subject was lost in the frame. Then I got closer and started showing the whole thing - neatly framed within the rectangular box. Now I'm trying often to get even closer again - showing parts of the subject that communicate, that are the essence of the thing in many ways. I know that's an old Robert Cappa saw, 'that if your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough', but it seems to be right. (Although he lived to show the lie in that truth, getting so close to a war to photograph it that he stood on a landmine)

Like the picture of the three old men above that I took in Italy. Every small town in Italy has groups of old men sitting on corners, shooting the breeze. I could have easily shown their faces - but then it would have become that specific group of 3 men. With this crop, I feel that it becomes more essential - about the men in Italy that do this, rather than these particular 3 men. In many ways you can tell everything you need without seeing their faces - least I think so. The hands are expressive, the clothes tell a lot about their age. I then start wondering about the lack of wedding bands and my mind is off... did they ever marry, what happened, why are they here together