Thinking about photographs
Between John, Bradley, and me there has been a discussion about thinking about photographs that is actually going somewhere, I think.
And so, I’m moving a part of the discussion here.
All this talk about thinking can get confusing. At least. And at worst, can get useless - kind of masturbatory and weird… just the idea of three amatuer psychologists all talking about what they know makes me a little queasy.
However, I think that there is also useful information to be had.
Bradley refines the idea of “not thinking” into actually “not trying so hard to think” - which is a useful distinction; his soap analogy is apt:
This might quite possibly be the worst analogy you have every heard but it is like trying to hold wet soap. If you have a kung fu grip you just end up looking at your feet being pissed at yourself.
But you’re still trying to hold the soap - it’s not that you’ve given up entirely - it’s kind of like looking at dim stars through the corners of your eyes instead of directly.
So, I kind of understand that. And then John takes us a little further:
Since we can’t “not think”, how about Feel more?
And there it is! It’s the thing I’m actually worried about, the thing that’s harder for me to do than any other thing when I make art: feel about it! It means actual emotional and personal investment instead of simple intellectual “knowing” (which is probably impossible anyway).
I’ve been working on some video work lately, and it’s very personal. That is, the subject matter is obviously me (because I’m in front of the camera as much as behind it) and it’s narrative, because I’m reading aloud (narrating) something that has to do in some way with the visual content of the video. And I think it’s more successful than any photographs I’ve ever made in that it exposes me and makes me vulnerable in ways I do not otherwise allow.
I’m not really sure why this seems easy to do with video and hard to do with photographs - when speaking with Bradley the other night, he said that the “solution” (my word, not his) was to try and make my photographs more like the videos.
And I want to - I want to make personal photographic work - but it just seems so difficult - so much thinking to do what I do without thinking when I make videos.
It might have something to do with my still general incompetence about all things video versus my general familiarity with all things photo.
So… how do you learn to feel more? To see more? And how do you allow yourself to be educated emotionally as well as intellectually by your own work so that you’re making progress?
(And how can you write sentences with more italicized words for emphasis?)
Also: how important are semantics when we talk about the subjective? Is that counter-productive? Or is it a necessary part of using one language to talk about another? Are photographs about semantics? Are photographs semantic?
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I said some stuff . But this was the better part:
“Using the Soap analogy, the Amateurs are probably not thinking about how to take amazing, moving pictures any more than the rest of us try to get more than clean enough in the shower. Yet there are amazing, moving pictures taken by people who lack “tenique” and I have yet to be told by anyone that I stink from lack of knowing how to wash myself.”
What I meant was that I said some stuff here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IqRc&tag=
“So… how do you learn to feel more? To see more? And how do you allow yourself to be educated emotionally as well as intellectually by your own work so that you’re making progress?”
As with everything else, there isn’t going to be an obvious easy answer (or any answer) to this but I think that letting up on one’s idea of contol is key. The less control you think you have, the more vulnerable you are, which makes more room for personal growth/progress.
As far as semantics go I think they are a necessary evil. I believe that something does not have meaning themselves but rather meaning is given to them through experience. It is like my apple analogy that everyone is getting sick of but I will keep bringing up until I have effectively brainwashed everyone. The apple doesn’t have a taste…it has the potential for taste and it is the experience of tasting that makes the apple achieve its potential (this is the first time I have worded it this way so I may have to tweak it). All experience is relative to one’s sensory perception which means that the same thing has the potenial for multiple meanings by different people. The idea of trying to translate experience into any form of communication/lanugage seems to me to be dependent on semantics. Since I can never know what anyone else knows, I end up using words that I have faith in, but I have accpeted that fact their expressiveness ends up being desaturated, but is all I’ve got.
On a side note I think that to many people are affraid to state what they believe. I wish more people would just put their beliefs out there. I think nothing is greater than two opposing forces being rammed togther, the energy that is created is fantastic.
P.S. John I liked your remark about feeling more.
Why can’t I catch my spelling and grammar mistakes before I post. I need an editing monkey.
Justin, do you think that your video’s seem more personal because they might read like a confession? I am just going off my memory of a couple I saw in the summer and your of description your current work. I could be way off.
For what my opinion counts, there would be now way of you making photographs that have the same sentiment (or should I say feeling - or should I say emotion - now you got me thinking too much - you semantic fucker!) as your video work. It would be impossible to combine that ammount of content and narrative without making what I start to think of as chick photo’s - Mayeb you could write little captions under each image and then sign the matt. Anyway, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the Pepsi challenge and try to make photo’s that somehow do the same thing your video work does. You, however, are probably a) too new to video and too haggered in photo and b) the video is too freshly made that maybe you can’t turn them into a still idea yet (ie. you need to live with the video’s for longer)
And whenever those editing monkeys come up for grabs, make sure you reserve me one! Maybe that’s how wireimage make me feel sometimes. If the monkey could double task and maybe tell me when to stop drinking in the evening, I would pay more!
Good night and good luck
Apples and soap, Bradley. Now I know what to get you for Christmas. Apples and soap.
My videos are a confession - that’s a great call on something you haven’t even seen before - and as dramatic as it sounds (and it sounds very dramatic!) I think that that’s what’s missing from my photo work right now (or maybe it has been forever).
I have this aversion to drama, but somehow I manage to be at times dramatic.
I believe this is true. So is all good work a statement of belief? Does that give work “worth?”
The energy of work is an interesting idea. I think my work needs some of that.
I’m going to post some video work soon. I’m editing stuff tonight.
My comment wasn’t directed at works but at people’s believes specifically. But as far a worth of the work, that is a completely impossible subjective question. I just wish more people believed in something to the point where they are compelled to express it. I think alot of artists are just going through the motions.
P.S.
Justin you could kill two birds and get me apple scented soap. I think I am going to make of list of inanimate objects in which I can draw conclusions of the world from and then transform into analogies. Next up is Pop Tarts. I also have really enjoyed this thread, it has been a nice change of pace from the never ending discussions of sequencing
in class
“It would be impossible to combine that ammount of content and narrative without making what I start to think of as chick photo’s”
What amount of content and narrative equates to “chick photos” and why aren’t his videos considered “chick” if they contain a good amount of content/narrative. Why in photo but not in video?