I don't think music has any concious effect on me except when tree huggers are over banging those blasted drums and giving me a headache
For me it's get out there and smell the air, see the colours and symetry of people and backgrounds passing each other forming interesting forms, objects that I usually walk passed but on that day the light catches them and brings them to life.
For me inspiration comes from life and from life, inspiration.
Now all I have to do is to learn to capture them the way I see them so that others can experience what I did
For me inspiration is a swiftly moving epiphany. A moment of perfect clarity and emotion that will pass quickly if I am not listening. I have no idea what causes it nor how to harness it, but my best images and writings are created if I am allowed to stop and capture that moment of clarity.
I have discovered that I best hear these moments when I am someplace where life's noise does not drown it out: the car, walking in the mountains, etc...
I am not always the best listener though.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
you'll get there!
Originally Posted by stark raving
it takes years - been there..
I to am a trained musician (the flute) and I have trouble hearing flute music with ease..
But I love OPERA more than any other kind of music, and that inspires me a lot - and I often hear loud opera while being in the dark room - time flyes...
other than that, I mostly get inspired by the "normal" things: sound/silence (just heard the nightingale for the first time this year...) - light/darkness - mood and so on..
IMHO: That sucks! (No offense intended.) But it may be my viewpoint. I like Impressionist paintings, because you have to step back and view the whole thing...
Originally Posted by stark raving
But, I can relate...In my line of work I'm privy to conditions of the human specie, which many are not. I often see them at their worst and am constantly in danger of having this alter my perception of mankind in general. I constantly have to step back, figuratively, and "see" the whole...
This may sound silly but light, eyes, and action inspire me, pretty much in that order. If a nice light is striking a garbage can on the street I have to stop and photograph it. When all three come together I damn near pass out.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
My inspiration comes from images that are inside my head.
When I exhibit my work I get ask alot which is my favorite piece.
I tell them I havn't taken it YET, but I will keep trying.
It's an occupational hazard. To learn a classical piece thoroughly to be able to perform it effectively, I have to break it down and understand it in every way possible- harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, texture, rhetoric, symbology, tonal architecture, physical demands, historical & social context, relative position in the composer's oeuvre, etc, etc, etc. Once I do that, the "magic of the whole" is easily lost, and it can take a long while to get it back.
Originally Posted by joeyk49
There's probably a parallel to the visual arts here. But I'm not a serious student, just a casual photographic hobbyist who occasionally makes a shot I like, but doesn't know enough to break it down to understand why I like it!
This is an attempt to destroy one of my bete noire - black beasts.
I have been thinking - too much - far too much - about art, and inspiration, and the human condition and God ... to the point where my "action" has suffered. Hopefully "venting" can ignite thoughts from the company here ... and I'll check - participate from time to time, during necessary breaks from darkroom work.
I DO NOT PRESENT THESE IDEAS AS ULTIMATE TRUTHS !!!
I am sure that others have views of art that are equally as valid as mine - even MORE equally valid - and it will be a expanding and illuminating exercise to consider and study those .. just as it is to experience other's works in a Gallery.
Having established a shield of words ...
"Art is what I see/ say is Art!"
At first glance, this is inconceivably pretentious. WHO is the author to set himself over the intelligentsia, the established and "respected" Keepers of the Flame - the Art Critics, the Art Educators, the Galley Curators... BUT...
The most important person in this equation is .. ME! I am propounding a definition for ME - MY use, not as some sort of universal truth.
The works that I find myself labelling "Art" are the products of INSPIRATION. To me the connection between the inspiration, that stimulus from some mysterious internal well, is of absolute necessity. A work produced without that link to the mysterious well, does NOT speak... it is voiceless, inert, dead-- it has never lived.
A point to wonder, and marvel, about, is that nearly infallible sense that inspiration WAS involved ... and the level of intensity of that inspiration.
I've worked in that branch of photography that carries the label "Commercial".
That is essentially, producing images with great skill: images that are identifiable as the product, but biased to "make the product look good". The inspiration for that work usually comes from others... I will be able to inject some minor amount of mine -- but it will invariably, be very little. The result will ususally be a "pretty picture" but only rarely will I, or anyone else consider it to be "Art".
At the other pole, I think I -- actually, confidently believe, that I understand - FEEL the same amount of inspiration accompanying some of the Great Works of Great Artists ... I still remember the emotions I felt in viewing Renoir's Torse au Soliel - Nude in Sunlight for the first time -- and the same emotional reaction is echoed every time I see it now. It is easy, at least as far as I am concerned, to feel the rush of that inspiration ... the increased blood flow, the fervor ... Renoir must have "pre-visualized" that image, and reached, in a near frenzy, for his pallette and canvas...
Art, and the rare times I produce anything that *I* will call art, contains .. is born, from inspiration. That is not to say it is invariably deliberate .. the inspiration does not have to precede the image... sometimes, I'll only recognize its presence after the work has hung on my wall for months.
So, what about it, group? How whacko do you think I/ all this sounds?
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Ed: I like where you're going with this.
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Just to stir the pot a little...
I believe that art is, or should be, a very personal thing; especially for the artist. But I think that his/her art should also communicate something to others (on a personal level). Even if it is simply to communicate beauty or emotion. This, I believe is more that creating a pretty picture.
But the main point is that at some level, I think that what an artist produces, in whatever medium he/she chooses, has to be viewed by others and must say something to them. If the artwork is created to simply to be viewed by the artist, how do we that it was created at all. The self actualizing artist will say, "I know, and that's all that matters".
But is it really? I think not. I think that artwork is created for the benefit of humanity and must be shared in order for it to achieve its full potential as artwork.
Okay, I'll stop now...before I start to ramble...
Ed like I used to your thinking too much and it hurt my brain.
Choose one camera and fill your pockets with film, then go into the fresh air and just observe life. When something makes you feel different inside, maybe sad, happy, lustful, plain emotional or stories start to run through your head then don't ask where it comes from just set-up and capture it.
I'm still as mixed up as I used to be, but now I know why I shot something and it's connection to other shots I have.
The bad side is that everything I have before I adopted this method are now just archive stuff, the good side is that my work now has meaning to me.