Form, content and emotion: Sean Reid's interview with Ben Lifson

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good one, Imants; but I'm staying away from pre-fixed geometry.

 

—Mitch/Huahin

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ewanchr]

Not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but since I promised Mitch I'll post some thoughts on form and content, I'll do so anyway by posting some questions that I have been trying to answer myself.

 

1. Can form = content?

Consider a very simple picture if you will, of just a circle and nothing else. Would you say that for this picture, the form is equal to the content?

 

2. Are form and content the most basic elements of a picture? Mitch thinks that emotion has to be "carried through from the form", which seems to imply that form is a basic building block for emotion and perhaps for other secondary elements as well.

 

Also, can someone recommend any good book on form and content re: visual arts?

 

Personally I would also like to explore how different cultures judge art. I wonder if there are people from a certain culture who don't judge art by looking at form and content and are inspired by something else altogether.

 

I apologize for raising more questions than answering them.

[Guest malland]

Ewan:

 

On your first question, whether form can equal content: this question doesn't do much for me in terms of the discussion here, but there are the famous "suprematist" paintings of a square and a circle by Malevich:

 

Suprematism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

On the second question, whether form is the "basic building block for emotion and perhaps for other secondary elements as well": my point in starting the thread was that you have to "feel" the form to make a good picture — starting with a concept or with the "meaning" is likely to lead to less good pictures unless you can "grasp" and feel the form: I feel a good photographers passion has to be for the form. An example: I remember a friend in Bangkok saying he wanted to photograph a scene in Patpong (a street notorious for sex-tourism) where there was a sign for a bar called "Super Pussy" next to a sign for "VD Clinic": unless you can create an interesting or compelling compostion — that is, feel the form — of these two signs, you'd end up with a dull picture.

 

A book on form? Yes, "Form, Space and Vision" by Graham Collier, which is subtitled "Understanfing Art: A Discourse on Drawing and which can be proftitably read by anyone without doing the drawing exercises. And I would also recommend, for anyone, "The Story of Art" by EH Gombrich, which is a classic.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[sean_reid]

Also, can someone recommend any good book on form and content re: visual arts?

 

Yes, the best may well be Suzanne Langer's "Feeling and Form". It's an important book.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

An example: I remember a friend in Bangkok talking wanting to photograph a scene in Patpong (a street notorious for sex-tourism) where there was a sign for a bar called "Super Pussy" next to a sign for "VD Clinic"]

 

Indeed, what one might get there is the visual equivalent of a bad one-line joke that isn't funny the first time and isn't worth hearing the second time. There's a lot of photography that seems interested in this kind sophomoric irony.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest malland]

Yes, the best may well be Suzanne Langer's "Feeling and Form". It's an important book..

Thanks Sean. I recently came across a reference to Langer's "Philosophy in a New Key" and made a mental note — forgotten but remembered after reading your reference — to look at it. Doing a google search for the book you recommended I came across the following Encyclopedia Britannica aricle on aesthetics, which may interest Ewan, particualrly as it has some discussion of non-Westerbn cultures:

 

All about Oscar

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[hofrench]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitch, you can find the book Sean recommended at Amazon.

I've just ordered one myself. (Thanks, Sean.)

[sean_reid]

My pleasure.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

When I first started working with Ben, he would talk about my street pictures as though all the elements were intentional.

 

That's a very perceptive thing to point out. Ben does this with all photographers who bring him work. Though many aspects may not be intentional early on, they start to get a lot more intentional because Ben, and eventually the photographer him or herself, takes them seriously.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Tsukiji Fish Market in Tokyo – Form and Content

 

I’ve been thinking about this picture, trying to find a way of analyzing and commenting on it. Then the practice copying old master paintings came up in the thread, so I decided to copy this photo and see what came up.

 

 

Steve,

 

My hat is off to you for doing this. If more photographers gave pictures the kind of attention that you just gave Mitch's picture (rather than obsessing over things technical), they'd likely see a strong improvement in their work.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Unless you are Gregory Crewdson or Annie Liebovitz and can place everything exactly where and how you want it, you almost have to depend on intinct and luck. Gary Winogrand's pictures are a fantastic example of how far instinct and luck can take you. He obviously shot quickly, but his subjects were perfectly placed, perfectly lighted, etc. Luck entered the picture (literally) in the way the wind blew a woman's hair, or someone's facial expression, or people turning their heads at exactly the right time. Still, he was ready and pushed the shutter exactly when it all happened.

 

That wasn't luck at all for Winogrand. He started life as a painter and his pictures are not accidental. Szarkowski, and here I think he was right, once wrote that a photographer is in a unique position to collaborate with luck. Luck, and lack of intentionality, of course, are two different things. Luck, in my mind, is when certain elements come together, in space and time, such that I can see them and use them for a picture.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[gesper]

That wasn't luck at all for Winogrand. He started life as a painter and his pictures are not accidental. Szarkowski, and here I think he was right, once wrote that a photographer is in a unique position to collaborate with luck. Luck, and lack of intentionality, of course, are two different things. Luck, in my mind, is when certain elements come together, in space and time, such that I can see them and use them for a picture.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I think we are saying the same thing, really. Winogrand's talent was in putting himself in exactly the right place and time for luck to happen.

[gesper]

That's a very perceptive thing to point out. Ben does this with all photographers who bring him work. Though many aspects may not be intentional early on, they start to get a lot more intentional because Ben, and eventually the photographer him or herself, takes them seriously.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

It had exactly that effect on me, for both the good and the bad. I not only paid more attention to framing, form, lines, etc., but also to taking responsibility for not having extraneous crap in the background, blurring, suboptimal lighting, etc. One of his early emails said "You're already making pictures that are too good in concept and feeling to admit of the small flaws that sink the large concept." This had a huge impact, both in giving me the confidence that I was on the right track conceptually and in making me understand that I was my own worst enemy by not paying attention to the full execution of the concept.

[sean_reid]

I think we are saying the same thing, really. Winogrand's talent was in putting himself in exactly the right place and time for luck to happen.

 

No, I think Winogrand's primary talent was that he knew how to make strong pictures, or at least how to attempt them (even if some failed). It's much more than luck or being in the right place. He understood what sort of transformations he was making from the raw material of this subjects and their settings. In short, the man really knew how to make a *picture*.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

It had exactly that effect on me, for both the good and the bad. I not only paid more attention to framing, form, lines, etc., but also to taking responsibility for not having extraneous crap in the background, blurring, suboptimal lighting, etc. One of his early emails said "You're already making pictures that are too good in concept and feeling to admit of the small flaws that sink the large concept." This had a huge impact, both in giving me the confidence that I was on the right track conceptually and in making me understand that I was my own worst enemy by not paying attention to the full execution of the concept.

 

Great, I'm really glad that the process is working out well already. It's not easy but getting good at something almost never is.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[DavidStone]

No, I think Winogrand's primary talent was that he knew how to make strong pictures, or at least how to attempt them (even if some failed). It's much more than luck or being in the right place. He understood what sort of transformations he was making from the raw material of this subjects and their settings. In short, the man really knew how to make a *picture*.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

An old saying, but worth repeating: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."

 

David

[gesper]

No, I think Winogrand's primary talent was that he knew how to make strong pictures, or at least how to attempt them (even if some failed). It's much more than luck or being in the right place. He understood what sort of transformations he was making from the raw material of this subjects and their settings. In short, the man really knew how to make a *picture*.

 

 

Sean, normally at this point I would let this drop, but I fear I have left the impression that I am so obtuse that I think Winogrand's genius is somehow attributable to luck, which is by no means the case by any stretch. My only point was that, in the overall context of taking strong pictures, things over which he had no control happened at the exact instance that made an incremental difference. They would have been outstanding pictures anyway, but luck was if anything icing on the cake. A normal mortal in the same time and place would not have seen that the possiblity was even there, no matter how lucky they were. Some examples might help:

 

- The World's Fair picture of the people sitting on the bench. A strong picture no matter what, but the fact that he simultaneously had the one girl holding the other's head while another girl whispers in her ear, another girl touching her hair, another taking off her glasses, etc. makes the picture. He didn't control this, but he saw it coming, he had it framed, he pressed the shutter at exactly the right time. Als, there is a good chance it was not his first shot of this scene. Who knows how may frames he shot in the same setting before it all fell into place?

 

- The famous picture of (I think) Hollywood Blvd where the three women walk in the cross beams of light with the guy in the wheelcahir on the left and the woman on the right waiting for the bus. Clearly genius in seeing the possibility and waiting to capture exactly the right moment when the women enter the cross beams. Still, the guy in the wheelchair might not have had his head hanging down, the girls might not have looked at him, the woman might not have worn that hat, etc.

 

Winogrand is one of my favorite photographers of all time. He took tens of thousands of rolls of film of which many were truly works of genius and many were probably close but not quite there. All I am saying is some infinitesimal nuance was attributable to luck. And David Stone said it much more succintly as "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."

[DavidStone]

Winogrand is one of my favorite photographers of all time. He took tens of thousands of rolls of film of which many were truly works of genius and many were probably close but not quite there. All I am saying is some infinitesimal nuance was attributable to luck.

 

And Lee Friedlander summed it up when he said: "Photography is a very generous medium."

 

David

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

Sean, normally at this point I would let this drop, but I fear I have left the impression that I am so obtuse that I think Winogrand's genius is somehow attributable to luck, which is by no means the case by any stretch. My only point was that, in the overall context of taking strong pictures, things over which he had no control happened at the exact instance that made an incremental difference. They would have been outstanding pictures anyway, but luck was if anything icing on the cake. A normal mortal in the same time and place would not have seen that the possiblity was even there, no matter how lucky they were. Some examples might help:

 

- The World's Fair picture of the people sitting on the bench. A strong picture no matter what, but the fact that he simultaneously had the one girl holding the other's head while another girl whispers in her ear, another girl touching her hair, another taking off her glasses, etc. makes the picture. He didn't control this, but he saw it coming, he had it framed, he pressed the shutter at exactly the right time. Als, there is a good chance it was not his first shot of this scene. Who knows how may frames he shot in the same setting before it all fell into place?

 

- The famous picture of (I think) Hollywood Blvd where the three women walk in the cross beams of light with the guy in the wheelcahir on the left and the woman on the right waiting for the bus. Clearly genius in seeing the possibility and waiting to capture exactly the right moment when the women enter the cross beams. Still, the guy in the wheelchair might not have had his head hanging down, the girls might not have looked at him, the woman might not have worn that hat, etc.

 

Winogrand is one of my favorite photographers of all time. He took tens of thousands of rolls of film of which many were truly works of genius and many were probably close but not quite there. All I am saying is some infinitesimal nuance was attributable to luck. And David Stone said it much more succintly as "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."

 

Yes, I agree. And the fact that he always carried his camera with him meant that his Leica was at hand when these things happened. Again, I think (as I posted above) that Szarkowski was right when he wrote "The photographer is in a unique position to collaborate with luck."

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[vanhulsenbeek]

Having luck is an integral - and very important - part of talent!