I'm trying to say ( maybe I should have taken a picture ) that NOBODY knows about the Daybooks ( Geek Test ) and that Weston's value comes from another place.
Originally Posted by avandesande
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
I was watching the Brett Weston dvd just last night. I have had it for a while and have watched it several times. Brett said he was not great at marketing and was not a verbal person, even though he liked people. Is it really necessary for a person to write a long winded essay on each photograph? I think some background information, and not F.. @ ..Sec. using xxx film with a ...camera, like the place and maybe what the photographer liked about the subject or motivated him or her to "capture" the image might be nice.
AA on Moonrise; I forgot my meter and was in a hurry and well in my computer head I realized the position of the moon in the universe was at the exact distance and angle from the sun that the physics...
I love Ansel Adams and as a photographer find it interesting information but for the public at large I don't know. I think they would might be satisfied by a simple description like I saw an incredible scene, jumped out the the truck, assembled my camera equipment, made one exposure and got one of the best photographs of my life.
If a critic or buyer wants a more in depth and detailed description then I think the photographer would be flattered to have continued interest.
Ever go to a gallery and stand next to people looking at one of your photographs?
I am going to step away from the masses who think that a photograph has to tell a story or transmit information to the viewer.
I think that when one removes themselves from all of the lemmings going over the cliff of documentary or "pretty photography" that you are approaching what may be possible insofar as artistic expression through photography.
I think that a lot more viewers will engage an image that poses a question, reminds the viewer of a quandry, or something unresolved.
Since Brett Weston has been mentioned by others, what story is he telling with his abstract images? None. What was he doing through his photography? The first thing he did was pose a question about what it was that we were viewing. That engaged many of us to the point of resolving what it was that we were looking at. In that interval we involved ourselves with the image a lot longer then a dozen Monolith the Face of Halfdome or Moonrise Over Hernandez.
Now I am not knocking all of the those who want to make pretty images. I think that there is a place for more of the same. Although I am not sure how soon the saturation point on that type of work is approaching. It may be tomorrow or in the next milenium.
I happen to think the story IS Westons abstact and was telling the story when he took the image, the abstact nature of the image is the story.
Maybe I am out there..
In the best case, if you can explain your images with words, perhaps you should be a poet....
Originally Posted by FirePhoto
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
For me, this is heading right to where I want to go. It's about the process of creating the image, the story that can be told with the image, using your images to connect with other people. It's not about film, paper, developer or technique. It's about the imagery and the story it tells. In my portfolios I always include some introductory text along with the images. It is very difficult writing about the images, what they mean as opposed to the easy way out of writing about making the photographs. You should lead your viewers to the edge of the photograph so they know what to look for when they see your images. Sometimes I do it, sometimes I don't. But the lessons are learned along the way so the next group of photos is better.
The challenge for me is to think about what I want the photographs to portray before I go out to photograph and then "deliver the goods" with my camera.
Elliot Erwitt "explained" his photography this way:
"Good photography is not about Zone printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
If I could get to that point, it would be great!
I really think it is tough to capture then explain "A MOMENT" Every image starts with an idea or a plan but within the process takes on its own life. I can't tell you how many times I've missed a great shot because I wanted to tell a different story than what the opportunity in front of me was leading towards. Sometimes it is a new opportunity and sometimes a distraction. I really decided to stick with broad categories for storytelling, choose which image format I want to explore within, create a plan for it (as a direction) then let it happen. Be in the moment, solve, evaluate shoot film go back to the original idea then start again.
As to the original question? "NO" I can't tell you a story. There is only the idea. I can tell stories about: the people involved, the time of year, the weather, the light, the set, even dinner after but what the image says who Knows. I think that is up to the viewer. My opinion, we are way to close for the objectivity needed to tell people what to think. I've seen several shows where the shooter has written long dissertations about there work Both on top the images around the borders and along with. Personally I want to make up my own story. Really don't care about their message. Rarely read them till after I've spent time with their work. If my interest lasts that long. Being sucked into an image (paintings included) is the fun of it! creating your own understanding may or may not be important. If it becomes important to me then let me do the research looking for answers from the originator. Not neccesarilly from that individual but from objective viewpoints surrounding that person also.
I spent a week with Albert Watson some years ago. Loved his work before but what shocked me most when I returned home and had a chance to soak it all in was how much the work was him. had very little do do with what he talked about but everything to do with his autopilot while he was in the moment of creating.
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!
Back to the original statement, I'm not sure you can compare painters with photographers. Painters recreate images in there mind, were as photographers capture what they see. A photographer can recreate what they see in there minds (setting up a shot) but it is still an element of what we see.
Maybe I'm just tired of impressionist paintings ? ? ?
I think we interpret and translate through experiance. We are not copy machines.
Originally Posted by Ziggy
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!