Fighting for High Aesthetics in Digital Photography

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A great part of my decorative painting business is involved with getting rid of graffitti where these followers of bad aesthetics, "tag" a building to the detriment of the owners. How destructive is that? Sometimes I feel like the the only answer is cutting off their hand, like in the old testament days. Any thoughts on the proper way to deal with these aesthetic miscreants?

 

I wonder how many of these folks studied design? Here is what they do in Philadelphia:

 

PHILA.GOV | Welcome to the City of Philadelphia

 

Mural Arts Program: Philadelphia, PA

 

Some of the ideas presented here about formal design concepts and what constitutes a good picture kind of bother me as being a bit rigid. It is sometimes easy to fall into that trap but much harder to break away from it. For the past six months or so, I have been working on a photographic project that comprise panoramic photo collages that at times border on surrealism. It has taken me a while to drop some of my preconceived notions about photography in order to loosened up and create these images. I hope people like them and they sell, but the overall point for me was to liberate my vision and cut loose from my commercial work in order to express a personal vision.

 

I can remember some instruction I had in lighting at RIT. The professor assigned us to study a small book that Kodak gave to each of us which illustrated various lighting techniques for portraits, food, various products, etc. The next time we were in class, he said, "Now try to forget everything in that book and come up with your own approach."

[Guest Luis D]

I have to agree with Alan Goldstein. Photography is easier and better than back in the days of analog. I also have to agree with stuny and see the dumbing down of society as a result of the quick exploitation for cash by the media of losers who wear prison garb and strut, spout, anti-social profanities to young followers that are looking for leadership. What can I do as I stop for a red light and hear their rap blasting about what," ho dis this, pimp dis that, etc. etc.? Should I bite my tough and say they're just kids expressing themselves? I don't think so. I can't exactly turn their radio off and roll my windows up as it still gives me their agonizing negative vibrations, and it's not the, "good vibrations," as espoused by the Beach Boys.

 

A great part of my decorative painting business is involved with getting rid of graffitti where these followers of bad aesthetics, "tag" a building to the detriment of the owners. How destructive is that? Sometimes I feel like the the only answer is cutting off their hand, like in the old testament days. Any thoughts on the proper way to deal with these aesthetic miscreants?

You're exactly correct. The disregard for form and craft in modern photography is a direct result of the counter-culture revolution that took place last century. But Shhh...don't say that...because the enlightened generation is conditioned to slander any critics of their 60s rebellion as supporters of the holocaust, colored water fountains, domestic violence, slavery, colonialism etc. They believe that any notion of "artistic standards" will eventually lead to women wearing burkhas or gays hiding in the closet.

 

On one hand cry for loss of artistry and on the other hand cry for suppressing freedom of expression, and do not see the contradiction. It would be funny if not so pathetic.

[SJP]

I can remember some instruction I had in lighting at RIT. The professor assigned us to study a small book that Kodak gave to each of us which illustrated various lighting techniques for portraits, food, various products, etc. The next time we were in class, he said, "Now try to forget everything in that book and come up with your own approach."

That sounds like a good professor - maybe I should publish this in wider circle.

 

Edit: I expect you were carefully grilled on why 'your approach' would be better than accepted theory?

[AlanG]

That sounds like a good professor - maybe I should publish this in wider circle.

 

Edit: I expect you were carefully grilled on why 'your approach' would be better than accepted theory?

 

The professor's name is Wes Kemp. he is retired and lives in Florida. We're still friends and have been in touch for 38 years.

 

We had the most dynamic and challenging critiques in that class. So there always was something to "attack and defend." But the concept was to open our eyes to what was possible with lighting rather than to restrict us.

 

The following year I had classes that emphasized how to do tent lighting for shiny objects, white and black line techniques for glassware, beverage lighting, and other specific techniques that are employed commercially and form the "basic" way that light interacts with various surfaces and subjects. But understanding those techniques was no reason to rigidly employ them the same way over and over again. We didn't want all of our images to look like they came from the Sears catalog or from senior portrait sessions.

 

The goal to aim for was to be the kind of photographer who could break new ground in the advertising and illustration world - Pete Turner being one of the best examples at that time.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Your apparent worries only apply if you believe photographs need to be "composed." I don't think I need to do that. I too went to RIT and graduated in the professional photo curriculum. Then went to the University of Michigan where I studied graphic design and graduated with a second degree....it's taken years to learn how to forget all of that formal training and understand that, while you owe it to a client to formally compose a photograph that meets the design requirements of its intended use - personal work needs to conform to no rules.

 

When you are outside of commercial work and pursuing your own aesthetic, you are confronted with a complex visual environment that changes with your movement through it, while being continuously affected by uncontrollable natural forces such as light, wind, rain, etc.

 

In that type of dynamic situation, one really is trying to find an order within the visual chaos so that you are bringing clarity to disorder; and attempting to translate what you see in a three dimensional world through the monocular photographic process bounded by two dimensional framing.

 

With that type of process, it is more discovery and solving a visual riddle rather than composing a picture. To me, that is the downfall of 99% of the work I see...a slavish desire to generate an image that can be easily categorized within readily recognized, and easily accepted formal composition and aesthetics. Rather than expressing a unique vision, the image becomes a contrived representation of what the photographer thinks will fit within a "successful" aesthetic criteria rather than directly communicating the essence of the moment.

 

The problem with photography and formal aesthetic rules is that the rules (really design guidelines) were developed after-the-fact; and come from painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. where the artist starts with a blank canvas and can readily manipulate and build the relationships between any of the objects to achieve the desired compositional balance.

 

The photographer must be analytical - find, select, simplify, impose an order, and reveal the structure within the disorder of the world.

 

The world is not an ongoing formally composed diorama waiting for you to carve neat 2d chunks out of it. I like to use the camera to show what what I am seeing rather than trying to make the photograph along an acceptable rule of composition - I think that is a path to far more visually challenging and interesting images....

[Puplet]

I'm getting a little confused by this thread. If originality and sustained creative vision are one's goals as a photographer, what does it matter what other photographers are doing?

 

If throwing out the rulebook is a positive thing to do, why have photography classes at all?

 

And how come so many of the people who teach photography formally managed to get into that position without having ever done a photography course themselves? How did they become photographers?

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your apparent worries only apply if you believe photographs need to be "composed." I don't think I need to do that. I too went to RIT and graduated in the professional photo curriculum. Then went to the University of Michigan where I studied graphic design and graduated with a second degree....it's taken years to learn how to forget all of that formal training and understand that, while you owe it to a client to formally compose a photograph that meets the design requirements of its intended use - personal work needs to conform to no rules.

 

When you are outside of commercial work and pursuing your own aesthetic, you are confronted with a complex visual environment that changes with your movement through it, while being continuously affected by uncontrollable natural forces such as light, wind, rain, etc.

 

In that type of dynamic situation, one really is trying to find an order within the visual chaos so that you are bringing clarity to disorder; and attempting to translate what you see in a three dimensional world through the monocular photographic process bounded by two dimensional framing.

 

With that type of process, it is more discovery and solving a visual riddle rather than composing a picture. To me, that is the downfall of 99% of the work I see...a slavish desire to generate an image that can be easily categorized within readily recognized, and easily accepted formal composition and aesthetics. Rather than expressing a unique vision, the image becomes a contrived representation of what the photographer thinks will fit within a "successful" aesthetic criteria rather than directly communicating the essence of the moment.

 

The problem with photography and formal aesthetic rules is that the rules (really design guidelines) were developed after-the-fact; and come from painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. where the artist starts with a blank canvas and can readily manipulate and build the relationships between any of the objects to achieve the desired compositional balance.

 

The photographer must be analytical - find, select, simplify, impose an order, and reveal the structure within the disorder of the world.

 

The world is not an ongoing formally composed diorama waiting for you to carve neat 2d chunks out of it. I like to use the camera to show what what I am seeing rather than trying to make the photograph along an acceptable rule of composition - I think that is a path to far more visually challenging and interesting images....

 

"Pursuing your own aesthetic" - that's the key, even if you're not thinking of it in just those terms. It excludes on the one hand a whole lot of technical and catalog photography and on the other all the casual snapshots.

 

And with more and more people always carrying a camera (the one in their mobile phones) there are more and more photographs being taken - each one of which has the potential to trigger an aesthetic consciousness and start a snapper turning into a photographer.

[leicar7]

The point of mastering the formalities that are articulable in image making is not to inculcate restrictions on making and analyzing images. It is to provide a minimum background of knowledge, from which image makers grow. Knowledge, as opposed to "feel." There is nothing wrong with "feel," and that is the basis for choosing the instant to release the shutter. Any creation in the visual arts has to come from the gut. But "expression" is only one part of the creation process, and knowledge is another part - neglected especially since the 1970s, because a lot of people find it boring to learn and master - think long division, calculation by hand of square roots, memorizing the Gettysburg Address, English grammar, diagramming sentences, and all such mindless, useless wastes of school children's time.

 

One of my favorite books that I found in over four years of searching for writing on composition/design in the photographic and plastic 2-D arts is Charles Bouleau's magnificent "The Painter's Secret Geometry." I reviewed this regrettably out-of-print masterpiece on amazon.com. More clearly than anywhere else in print, it shows that formal image architecture can be constrictive for the uninspired artist or a basis for new ways of making art. Back when, one couldn't be a painter without having mastered geometry. If that were a requirement now, how many "artists" could qualify?

 

For myself, having studied this material has changed how I react behind the viewfinder, but, at least in my own case, the more immediate result relatesto how I look at and analyze an image.

 

There is a countably infinite reservoir of talent available in this world. My assertion is that knowing the formalities increases one's productive possibilities and one's sophistication and enjoyment of seeing art. Understanding how the image plane can be organized into harmonious areas is not a restriction, it is a tool. The knowing artist will break with the "guidelines" from a basis of knowledge, instead of just "expression."

 

There is much objective to say about expressiveness in image making. But, as one with degrees in quantitative subjects instead of artistic ones, when I look back at what it took for me to teach myself how to get reliably satisfying images, it was a very inefficient, long-term process. I submit that my personal learning curve could have been much different if I had had access to good writing on the objective stuff. The three books I mentioned in the first part of this thread are the best writing currently in print.

[buckhorn_cortez]

I'm getting a little confused by this thread. If originality and sustained creative vision are one's goals as a photographer, what does it matter what other photographers are doing?

 

For personal work - it doesn't. For commercial work you're always in competition with other photographers and you need to understand what's current in the areas within which you work.

 

If throwing out the rulebook is a positive thing to do, why have photography classes at all?

 

It's a quick way to learn a lot about a single subject in a directed manner.

 

And how come so many of the people who teach photography formally managed to get into that position without having ever done a photography course themselves? How did they become photographers?

 

I'm not sure that's true. Every photography instructor I've had has had a degree in photography.

[buckhorn_cortez]

My assertion is that knowing the formalities increases one's productive possibilities and one's sophistication and enjoyment of seeing art.

 

Possibly - but nearly impossible to prove.

 

Understanding how the image plane can be organized into harmonious areas is not a restriction, it is a tool.

 

If the photograph is interesting - I'm not sure it matters how one arrives at the final result. Also, I'm not sure that organizing photographs into "harmonious areas" is a necessary goal. Perhaps you could explain this a bit further? I'm not sure what is meant by harmonious areas. The photograph is either interesting or not. Could you relate this statement to say...David Hockney's "Pearblossom Highway"? Pearblossom Hwy., 11 - 18th April 1986, #1 (Getty Museum)

 

The knowing artist will break with the "guidelines" from a basis of knowledge, instead of just "expression."

 

If the photograph works - who cares how it was done? Are there extra style points for doing it one way rather than another?

[leicar7]

For Mr. Goldstein and other RIT graduates,

 

I looked into the Foundations Department courses and found that none of the 2-D design courses, 2013-231 thru 233 has a listed textbook. Part of my concern is just this situation: that where there is instruction in the objective aspects of images, so much of the time the information resides within the minds of a priesthood, i.e., the instructors, who use lectures, assignments, and critiques to convey the knowledge.

 

What I would like to see happen is for many more of these instructors to put their information into writing and publish it, so that the plebians among us who come to imaging through other routes can have access to this knowledge.

 

One unscientific indicator that there be a market for such information is the amazon.com page for Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye." There are now 50 reviews, and over 170 responses as the the usefulness of my review, which is the first one posted after the book was published. Mr. Freeman acknowledges me for having encouraged him to write this book, to update his excellent "Image" from the 1980s. I translated from German Mr. Mante's book so that the English readership could once again benefit from his approach. Mr. Hoffmann should be familiar to Leicaphiles as a contributor to LFI on compositional matters. There is plenty of room for more books at the intermediate level. There are currently no books available in English at the advanced level devoted to 2-D compositional/design issues. The only one of which I am aware is Mr Lapin's books in Russian.

[bill]

I have followed this thread for some time, with great interest. It is certainly the most thought-provoking for some time. It has veered from something worthy of "Pseud's Corner", via commonsense, to gibberish and back again.

 

I have a great deal of time for the argument that states the need for grammar and syntax to provide a framework for clear and cogent language and an understanding of the same to aid consistent and accessible expression. However, I shudder at the thought that the imposition of a "framework" is the optimum means by which "talent" can be "channeled". Rules are made to be interpreted, not followed blindly. "Talent" and "creativity" are subjective concepts, not objective absolutes. Mores, standards and tastes evolve, and long may they continue to do so. I may not particularly enjoy the music that my 15 year old son listens to, but that does not mean it is without merit; the fact that, to my ears, it is discordant and jarring does not mean that my view is that which should prevail. The "Establishment" view - whenever the pulse is taken - is often regarded by those with a contrary view as arrogant, outmoded and out of touch. And yet in later years the same revolutionaries who raged against the then normal standards of behavior, performance or expression become part of the establishment themselves. Who would have thought that Johnny Rotten would be advertising butter thirty-one years down the line? Certainly not Bill Grundy, I'll wager.

 

There are some good concepts being discussed here, but we need to avoid disappearing up our own arses.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[buckhorn_cortez]

For Mr. Goldstein and other RIT graduates,

 

I looked into the Foundations Department courses and found that none of the 2-D design courses, 2013-231 thru 233 has a listed textbook. Part of my concern is just this situation: that where there is instruction in the objective aspects of images, so much of the time the information resides within the minds of a priesthood, i.e., the instructors, who use lectures, assignments, and critiques to convey the knowledge.

 

What I would like to see happen is for many more of these instructors to put their information into writing and publish it, so that the plebians among us who come to imaging through other routes can have access to this knowledge.

 

One unscientific indicator that there be a market for such information is the amazon.com page for Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye." There are now 50 reviews, and over 170 responses as the the usefulness of my review, which is the first one posted after the book was published. Mr. Freeman acknowledges me for having encouraged him to write this book, to update his excellent "Image" from the 1980s. I translated from German Mr. Mante's book so that the English readership could once again benefit from his approach. Mr. Hoffmann should be familiar to Leicaphiles as a contributor to LFI on compositional matters. There is plenty of room for more books at the intermediate level. There are currently no books available in English at the advanced level devoted to 2-D compositional/design issues. The only one of which I am aware is Mr Lapin's books in Russian.

 

You might want to look at "Perception and Imaging" by Richard D. Zakia to find out what was covered when I was a student at RIT. Zakia thoroughly covers design issues and concepts as related to photography. Also, we used "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Stroebel (my freshman photography instructor). We were also required to have "Langford's Basic Manual of Photography," and the "Ilford Manual of Photography."

 

But, beyond that, at the University of Michigan, I took an art history course in renaissance to modern art (the textbook was "History of Art" by H.W. Janson). I also took a history of print making taught by the curator of prints for the Detroit Insitute of Arts (no textbook as none existed but lots of real prints by artists from Durer to Warhol brought in to be discussed). I also took Chinese art history - no textbook as none existed.

 

I also had a photography course at the University of Michigan taught by Phil Davis. The text for that course was, "Photography," by Phil Davis.

 

Lastly, at the University of New Mexico I had two photographic art history courses. The first was 19th century history of photography; and the second course was 20th century history of photography. These were taught by Beaumont Newhall, and the course book was, "The History of Photography," by Beaumont Newhall.

 

The point being - if you're interested in learning you will...if not, then you are either a genius or proceed along at whatever level is comfortable for you...but in the end, the only thing that really counts is the images you make.

[andybarton]

I'd like to see more creative photographs in the Photo section...

[stunsworth]

I agree with Bill in that rigid adherence to any pre-determined aesthetic framework will, at worst, lead to the death of art. If that had been the case in the past we'd all still be painting bison in caves in Southern France - yes I realise that there was art before that, I'm just choosing that period as a means of making my point.

 

Anyhow, even if the thread disappears up it's own anal sphicnter, it makes a change from the 'what lens should I take to Benidorm?', or ''Should I buy a brown or a black case?' types of threads.

[giordano]

I'd like to see more creative photographs in the Photo section...

 

Agreed - but what distinguishes a creative photograph?

[stunsworth]

Agreed - but what distinguishes a creative photograph?

 

What Louis Armstrong said when asked "What's Jazz".

 

Armstrong, Louis quote - Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know....

[giordano]

What Louis Armstrong said when asked "What's Jazz".

 

Armstrong, Louis quote - Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know....

 

I'll go along with that:)

 

Actually, I think the main problem in the photo forums is that people are much too ready to use words like "stunning", "wonderful", "great" (I hate "capture" too but that's another story), and not nearly ready enough to give even constructive criticism.

[AlanG]

Agreed - but what distinguishes a creative photograph?

 

I think creativity is often linked with originality. And it is very hard to come up with original ideas and original images at this stage in the development of photography. If anything, I feel that those whose only involvement in photography has been with digital technology, may somehow be more likely to come up with "original" work. But it isn't a given.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

Actually, I think the main problem in the photo forums is that people are much too ready to use words like "stunning", "wonderful", "great" (I hate "capture" too but that's another story), and not nearly ready enough to give even constructive criticism.

 

I agree, but the moment you criticise something you'll likely to be labelled a miserable sod.

 

To be honest I tend not to comment on photographs I don't like.