In the other thread, someone mentioned a study of eggs. I may try that, too. I think learning to see how light falls on something is a big part of it all. Only problem with eggs here is that they're all brown.
No problem! Instead of using a scoop made of white paper, use brown Kraft paper. Don't rip up bags, though, the wrinkles will intrude.
I heard about a fellow who at first came across as a complete nutjob; he makes cameras that have all kinds of weird items attached. I honestly thought he was completey insane when I first read about it, see for yourself.... (warning, some of it is not for the faint of heart!)
But after my initial recoil, I think I started to understand what he is attempting to do... he is attempting to make cameras that will put him in a totally different frame of mind while shooting with them.
I build pinhole cameras that use an eccentric pinhole and produce a very wide angle. In the vertical dimension, they get from just below the horizon to near or sometimes even beyond the zenith (if using curved film). There is no possible means of seeing what the image is going to do. How I do it is draw what I believe the image will be, sometimes even adding a part that will be made later on the same film using a matte box. The I compare it with the result. Another way is to observe the scene, moving my arms and legs, essentially "dancing" the frame in space, projecting the hands out to the corners and edges.
Nutjob? You say? And I'm not boyofblue, either. I was doing this for awhile in downtown Manhattan. You should have seen how people were looking at me. Some of them even asked. I explained it straight. A lot of people seemed to understand it very well, including the Chief Ranger of the Manhattan National Park District (who was wearing the most incredible smoky the bear outfit you ever saw, an admiral in the park service for sure).
In my class of 12 year old boys, I practice drawing things quickly - 10 second sketches, that sort of thing. In the middle of a series of these I will place a tall stool on a table, with the seat way above their eye level. After the drawing is done, I ask how many drew the seat part of the stool - most do. Why? Because they "know the seat is there, or else it wouldn't be a stool." They aren't looking at the real stool at all, but at the stool image they have in their heads. Getting past the slide show in our heads that "knows" what things look like is the hardest part of learning to draw -- which, by the way, is the best way to learn to see there is. Until the last century (long after the advent of photography,) scientists were trained as artists - so that they could sharpen their observational skills and record what they saw.
Well said, Whitey! I like the "slide show in our heads" idea. It's hard to get past that.
I will say that the assignments I described in the OP were in an advanced class. I had a number of drawing classes under my belt at that point, and I have to agree... drawing is the best way to improve one's observational skills.
Once you learn to draw... look at what you are drawing, then the assignments or exercises I described at the start become that much more meaningful.
Getting past the slide show in our heads that "knows" what things look like is the hardest part of learning to draw -- which, by the way, is the best way to learn to see there is. Until the last century (long after the advent of photography,) scientists were trained as artists - so that they could sharpen their observational skills and record what they saw.
You are absolutely correct. The camera will see what's in front of it even if you haven't seen it, and you can claim credit for it later. In drawing, you cannot get away with that. There can be no better visual training than drawing.
I think we need to put Bethe on the therapist's couch and find out what he feels he isn't seeing
Umm, she, actually.
Whitey, I wish I could have had someone like you for art class as a kid instead of Mrs. Smith. I never really did do much drawing, except on my own or in the pre-digital days at the lab (we had to sketch the evidence to show where stains and such were). Maybe I should try some. Or find a class even.
We all carry a pre-conceived idea of what the world is like, and getting rid of our preconceptions is the difficult part. My way of doing this is to attempt to capture the light, and not really pay any attention to what is illuminated by that light.
Reminds me of what I learned in a basic drawing class back in college. The very first thing we learned was not to outline the object but identify the shapes of lights that create it...
Barriers to Seeing
"...the "Me cramp"; too much self-concern blocks direct experience of things outside yourself."
Excerpt from Photography and The Art of Seeing by Freeman Peterson. Thanks Rob I might have to pick up this book.
I can't remember where I read it, or heard it, or something, but someone once said shoot, and shoot a lot. Then evaluate and evaluate a lot. Evaluate means how could this have been better at acheiving what you want. The more you shoot the more loose you will become. The more you evaluate what you shoot the more focused you will become. They said the idea was to shoot loose and focused on what you wanted. You would train yourself.
I find that when I go out shooting, after a long spell of not shooting, I am "looking for the masterpiece", and I would always want to throw away what I shot. But if I take along a roll film camera and the LF camera I purposely blow through a roll or two just to loosen up. I then find I am more relaxed and can see better. I also get more keepers for me. Maybe not the master piece I was looking for but I am more comfortable with what I got.
Works for me. YMMV
__________________
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
In my class of 12 year old boys, I practice drawing things quickly - 10 second sketches, that sort of thing. In the middle of a series of these I will place a tall stool on a table, with the seat way above their eye level. After the drawing is done, I ask how many drew the seat part of the stool - most do. Why? Because they "know the seat is there, or else it wouldn't be a stool." They aren't looking at the real stool at all, but at the stool image they have in their heads. Getting past the slide show in our heads that "knows" what things look like is the hardest part of learning to draw -- which, by the way, is the best way to learn to see there is. Until the last century (long after the advent of photography,) scientists were trained as artists - so that they could sharpen their observational skills and record what they saw.
A recent article in The New Yorker magazine discusses new scientific evidence discrediting the naive theory of perception, which says that images (for example) come to us complete through our eyes. In fact, the brain comstructs images using often fragmentary visual input.
__________________
[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][/FONT]Chuck B
A recent article in The New Yorker magazine discusses new scientific evidence discrediting the naive theory of perception, which says that images (for example) come to us complete through our eyes. In fact, the brain comstructs images using often fragmentary visual input.
I've heard about this, and can well believe it. Are you familiar with the work of Uta Barth? She makes photographs which attempt the first look you get at something before you quite figure out what it is, before it is "conscious".
Linear Mode
