Second Thoughts

Clunie, Perthshire, 2018

I believe it was Auld Bert Einstein who once described intelligence as the willingness to change one's mind. By that metric, I'm a genius. Remember the post I wrote a month ago about how squeezing every last bit of detail from a shadow was, in some cases, a waste of time and that graphic pictures were the way ahead? Am I allowed to back-track somewhat from that position without appearing feeble-minded?

This about turn follows a recent printing session I had where I printed up a few of my more recent graphic-type shots - and wasn't particularly happy. The print quality was OK. The issue was more to do with how the prints left me feeling, which was a bit less than satisfied. The process of looking for these less representational images and trying to find interesting compositions is quite enjoyable. My problem is that, when I break them right down and hold the prints in my hand, they strike me as not having too much substance to them.

When I wrote the earlier post, I genuinely thought those arty images were more creative than more traditional subjects but now I'm not so sure. Could it, in fact, be more of an intellectual challenge than a creative one? A quest for an almost mathematical arrangement of shapes and tones that might have featured in The Krypton Factor, for those of you with long memories.

Standing in the darkroom trying to come to terms with a few less than satisfactory prints, my mind moved to those images that I do find satisfying. Wouldn't you know, but it's the more traditional landscape prints that hold most appeal for me. I looked at my glass of Talisker sitting next to the enlarger, back to the graphic prints, back to the Talisker and mused, "Well, that's a sobering thought".

In my defence, the landscape shots aren't the grand honey-pot vistas that I've moaned about too often in the past but more local scenes that I don't suppose very many photographers would bother pointing a camera at. The one at the top of the page is a case in point. It's a pleasant arrangement of a scene that holds a lot of childhood memories for me. By comparison, here's a more arty shot that I thought would be an interesting picture but which, I was disappointed to find out, just didn't do it for me. 


What's the reason for this cognitive dissonance? I have a wee theory but don't know if I'm right. I can honestly say that I never thought about or looked for graphic-type photos until I started studying Ralph Gibson's work. I'm beginning to wonder if I simply spend too much time looking at images taken by photographers I admire.

If there's someone who produces images I like then I tend to soak them up to the extent that I can see the photographs in my mind's eye. It must be almost inevitable that over-exposure to other photographers' work risks imprinting too vivid a picture in my subconscious so that when I'm out and about with a camera I'm drawn to photos of a similar style.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm influenced to the extent that I subconsciously seek out "photographs in the style of Ralph Gibson" rather than in my own style, whatever that might be. Contrast that with another favourite of mine, Raymond Moore. I dare say I've got a fair few pics that pay homage to Ray's unique eye but then I took photographs a little like that long before I saw any of Ray's work so it would probably be fair to say that Ray's style of photography is closer to my own heart than Mr Gibson's.

Another big danger when one starts down the pseudo-intellectual path is that too much thinking takes place. When it comes to photography, I reckon that thinking is over-rated. I enjoy watching the Youtube channel of English photographer Steve O'Nions (don't forget that apostrophe or it might be shallot) but I sense that he's started ruminating over his compositions too much.

Steve will sometimes walk around looking at a potential picture for half an hour trying to figure out the best angle, seemingly internalising every aspect of the composition. He's a very good photographer and there's no way I'd want to second guess his motives but, from my own point of view, if I don't see the composition very quickly then it's usually because the picture or the idea behind it isn't strong enough. Does engaging the analytical side of the brain along with the creative side help? I have my doubts. When words of intellect and reason are going through my mind when I'm looking through the viewfinder it's odds on that the result will be on the "meh" side.

Getting back to the meat and potatoes of this post, I think I'm going to have to stop fixating on some photographers' work and also make sure I'm applying the arty part of the brain when it comes to clicking the shutter instead of using an intellectual approach.

I also need to be truer to myself and see if I can get back to taking the type of pictures that I find visually and creatively satisfying right the way through the process. What might they be, I hear you ask. Well, I love being out in the countryside with a camera - not so much for the big view but more with the idea of capturing man's impact on the environment. Definitely not in the Fay Godwin/Robert Adams activist way, though, as I'm not keen on mixing photography and politics. Here are a few examples of the sort of thing that I not only enjoy taking but also find satisfying to print.





One last thing I'd say about all this is that it's harder for me to find the type of subject matter that features in these pictures. There are only so many isolated country churches and quaint little hamlets. On the other hand, there is an almost limitless supply of odd structures and angles that can be whipped up into a graphic composition. Is this also part of the reason for being drawn to the latter - they're easier to find?

Anyway, thanks for bearing with me through this stream of consciousness exercise. At the very least, I'm confident in saying that these are definitely this week's thoughts. The way I'm going, a stiff breeze might blow me onto another course altogether next week. If so, I'll keep you posted.

6 comments:

  1. The first of many photo safaris! Well, trips in the car anyway. Next up, that old derelict mansion I still can't remember the name of...

    Not sure where I'll end up with my photography. It could just be a general feeling of dissatisfaction because there's no defined goal or purpose. Maybe we should collaborate on a magazine-style Blurb thing, sort of like what Omar and his colleagues in Turkey have done?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hermansheephouse11 May 2023 at 20:17

      I actually forgot - Omar asked for a print from me, and sent me a print in return along with a couple of copies of his 'zine, so next time, get your corks on your hat and I'll hand them over!
      It is a thought though, but the thing is, does your photography have to go anywhere? If you enjoy it and it satisfies you I think that is the single most important thing. I learned that a long time ago about creative pursuits - forget trying to make a name or a living, just do them for the pleasure of doing them.
      I think it is probably harder these days (strangely) to make a small scale publication than it used to be years back - the big corps have it all sewn up.
      This being said, I'm sure we could try something - looking forward to the next trip, and thank you again - had a great time this week.

      Delete
    2. I’ll need to think about that. I’ve always tried to do things to the best of my ability and, in photography terms, that means trying to take the best pictures I can. Not sure if that’s compatible with concentrating mainly on enjoyment although maybe it is.

      The Blurb magazines (sorry, I don’t like the word “zine”. It’s like calling a Panasonic a “Panny”) seem good value for money.

      Delete
    3. Our zine was a LOT of effort. It required design know-how (and SW, e.g InDesign) and working with a printing press. But we didn't use Blurb. With Blurb all those obstacles might not be a major issue. Even with Blurb, there are many things you have to consider beforehand. Apart from the obvious size&cost, how will you distribute it for example. In any case, a collaborative publication can be a very rewarding experience. I highly recommend you go for it at least once.

      As for the photos in this post, I keep coming back to the "funny house". The mottling in the sky actually works for me. The layering and balance (thank you "lovely cloud") are immaculate.

      Delete
  2. I think there’s a mistaken assumption that the subject matter is at fault. Those chairs are fascinating, there’s a great image there, and it’s ok you missed it this time. I think the eye level point of view and close crop are at fault here. There’s a story in those chairs, yet to be told. These kinds of photos are inherently more difficult, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth working for. By contrast I find the first photo much less interesting, in terms of making the viewer think about what they are seeing. The mess to the left of the tree is distracting. Same with the group of chairs on the plaza, the lines in the background distract and pull your eye off the subject. Careful cropping would make these better photos.

    The last one, though? That’s nearly a masterpiece. Dreamy, thought provoking, evocative. With some serious work in the darkroom that would be one for a gallery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that thoughtful comment, Rusty. You could be right: it may be I elevate some pictures in my own mind because of their personal meaning to me rather than their actual value as photographs. I’ll think about the eye level POV in the chairs. I have got a wider view (on the iphone I think) but didn’t like it. Maybe a return to the scene is in order.

      Delete