Still Life

A while back I wrote a post “Fine Art Photography” to convey my thoughts on this elusive subject. Since its publication in March 2007, it has become by far the most read post on this site and still gets 30-50 hits every day. It is probably due to not much being written or said about the subject, or articles in plain language. Whatever the reason, the subject remains popular and thanks to all those who have visited that page. (Look around, there is more at testbed.biz!)

Yesterday evening I got a chance to revisit the subject at a round table discussion at the Film Photographers Association. I get two invitations every year to facilitate conversation about various subjects, and yesterday’s topic was fine art photography. We started the conversation with the question: “what is art?” I would like to provide a summary of the evening as well as to wrap up some loose ends for the benefit of all of us. Also, please keep in mind that photographs do not necessarily fall into one exclusive category. Therefore, a journalistic photograph may only be that, a fashion photograph may remain in that domain, or they may cross into the art by conveying the intent of the photographer no matter how simple or complex it may be.

Art As Communication

Art being an effort to communicate through creative means is closely tied to the process of communication. If you have nothing to say, how can you communicate? That was the first observation following a brief discussion of art in general, one needs a message to convey. Just as one cannot write a story by saying “look, look, see, look, ….” the same applies to photography. The message need not be anything profound, it may simply be “the elegance of the lines formed by cracks on the road” or  more elaborate “human intrusion into nature.” This is the nature of art. Sometimes it is a complex message, at other time it may simply share a moment interrupted and grabbed from the stream of life. Photography as art delights, moves, connects with the elements the photographer keeps in the frame. Just as the message of a novel is in the scribbles on the surface of the paper, the message of a photograph is presented the same way, scribbled on the surface of a paper. Read the photograph to enjoy it even more.

Intent

The intent is a fundamental element of art and it applies to photography as well. By that, I do not mean to say “I intend to take photographs” but more like “I intend to talk about the destruction of nature.” As Mike Zeiss pointed out, this may not be a predetermined and clearly articulated project concept until after a long passage of time and many photographs having been taken. As I suggested to Mike last night, although he did not see or articulate a formal project intent, his mental process pushed him to photograph similar and complementary subjects; an implied intent perhaps.

Choice

The choice the photographer makes, from the selection of the lens, vantage point, exposure and the like, to the arrangement of photographs in a sequence to enhance their communication power, are all integral parts of art making. Photography is an analytical form of art where the photographer makes choices of the above and presents us with a frame, or frames picked from the world. As the frames are picked, the photographer, consciously or subconsciously, considers what is in the frame as well as what is left out. What we include in the frame ends up being some marks on printed photograph, scratches on paper. The relationship among the elements within the frame is the result of the choices the photographer has made. Just as you have arranged your living room with a couch, tables, chairs, rugs, etc., the photographer arranges the lines, textures, shapes, forms, color in the frame in a manner that facilitates saying what the photographer has in mind. Often times this is called composition, but I prefer the term “structure” for we are not generally at liberty to move objects to compose a scene except in some settings.

Technique or Craft

The excellence in technique facilitates the communication the photographer is trying to achieve and, in my opinion, it should remain subservient to the photographer’s vision, intent. Look at a Gregory Crewdson photograph and notice how his lighting, exposure, the detail, camera position, etc. are just right. No sooner than you notice that, it will quickly disappear, fall back to the background and push his vision forward. A well-executed photograph generally looks great yet effortlessly done.

The Print

And the final point I mentioned to close the loop on fine art photography was the importance of the print. Unencumbered enjoyment of art is important of course, but a print achieves something more than that, especially in the world of digital photography. On the screen, in digital format, the image can be changed based on the reaction it receives: “Too bright? I can darken it.” “Not saturated enough? How’s that now?” But a print shows the full commitment of the photographer to a particular version of the image at that point in time. Can it change in the future? Of course! Only to be locked in on another print.

As the conversation went on we touched upon other matters, such as art becoming art when it is seen. The viewer is an integral part of the communication process inherent in art. But, what if the viewer “doesn’t get it?” Well, the enjoyment of the art requires an active and informed participation of the viewers to decode the message encoded into the photograph or photographs. In order to be able to do that, the viewer needs to learn the language of photography as much as the photographer. Reading photographs, using its inherent language can indeed be learned and the rewards are well worth the effort.

I also brought up the “artistic” concept and how some think altering photographs by smudging or applying textures may elevate the photograph to the domain of art. If the applied texture adds to or emphasizes the message or intent, by all means, use it. I may appreciate the irony in adding water texture to a photographic series of Flint, MI. But, I have a difficult time decoding the wood, stone, sand, or other similar textures applied to flower photographs, baby pictures, female portraits; sorry! And, don’t even touch that “Craptalius” plugin button. These do not make the photograph “artistic” nor are they “creative.” Here is an imaginary conversation between Van Gogh and Gauguin; see if you agree how silly it sounds in painting.

Although there were a few brief points when “meaning” and “narrative” were used in relation to photography, I believe we all came to the conclusion that these were assigned to photographs mainly by the viewer. When the photographer’s intent coincides with the understanding of it by the viewer, at that juncture there is commonness of our minds, there is communication. By all means, ask “what is this photograph about?” But also put the necessary effort to decipher the code and develop an understanding of it for it is as much about your enjoyment of what you see as it is of the photographer to put the things in the photograph.

What Exactly is “Fine”

The word “fine” is probably a contributor to the confusion about “fine art photography.” It does not refer to a “higher quality” or “refinement” in the execution but it is a way to put a distinction between “art created for aesthetic purposes” and “art created for practical purposes;” or fine arts and decorative, or applied arts. This distinction now seems to be confined to the museums and academe where it may serve some purpose. But in daily use, the distinction between “art” and “fine art” is probably refined semantics. If a work is created to convey the emotions of the artist, then we call it art; adding “fine” prefix does not make it better.

Is there photography after art? Of course, there is! But all photographers, at least on occasion, should try communicating their emotions, their intent rather than sticking with high-quality descriptive photography generally remaining on the craft side. As I mentioned earlier, learning the language of photography to apply it to your work is as rewarding as it is for the viewer to understand and enjoy it. After all, how many stories have you read that simply go “look, see, look, look, wow, look, ….?”

Here are some that may be fun to read. Note the structural similarities between André Kertesz’s Chez Mondrian and Walker Evans’ Alabama Farmers Kitchen. The Three Fish-Gourds by Weston is “composed,” and also structured in the print. Look how Chaplin casts a larger than life image on the screen behind him. Do you really need to know who the cellist is to imagine his music in the environment presented? Don’t you think the “adult in the room” is the monkey in Robert Doisneau’s photograph? Does he not try to convey a sense of life in Paris in his humorous way? Pay attention to the Un Regard Oblique, and the man “walking” his dog! All The Girls In The Window in Ormond Gigli’s photograph are contributing to immortalize a building a day before its razing, including a Rolls Royce! And more to read in this collection.

Enjoy! And let me know what you think and how you read some of these photographs.

We often get too set in our ways and our conversation remains in the same context which can blind us to see the pitfalls we create for ourselves. In general, using other photographers’ aesthetics, judgments, and sensibilities should make us think twice, thrice, … Yet, in the rush of creating the next “noticeable” image on the Web, we use presets, filters, brushes, and a whole lot of them without thinking twice. In fact, there are sites designed specifically to allow the photographers to apply a collection of filters to have that “different yet very familiar” look, and people go there in droves to mutilate their photographs in an effort to get their 15 seconds of fame and a countless “likes”. Different is not creative, remember that. Instead of trying to make the same point in the same context which will be quickly dismissed, below is an imaginary conversation in a different context, two painters talking about the newfangled tools.

Let’s listen, Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin are chatting …

• Vincent, do you feel you are not creative at times, frustrated that others can produce very creative work and you spin your wheel?
• Well, who doesn’t? But, we keep trying.
• Wait, there are ways to create highly creative work with little effort, you won’t believe how easy these new add-ons and brush tools are and how creative the results look.
• Oh, well, go on …
• Take a look at the creative still life I painted. I started with what you see above, very dull and not creative enough, don’t you think? I even considered adding more texture, like wood, or dried leaves. I think I painted that orange too close to the top edge, but …
• Get to the point Paul!
• Then, I remembered reading an ad on the bar wall that promised “Amazingly creative results in two easy steps“
• And you believed that?
• Sure, look, I got a creative brush tool made by a Frank Talius, it creates amazingly creative wispy things on your painting; you could have used it in your Starry Night, much faster and more creative. It would have taken you days to produce the same effect.
• Are you serious?
• But wait, there’s more! I also found out about an add-on canvas that gives you a Monet-like reflection on the water of your own painting with ripples no less; no extra work needed and very creative I must add. Look at the result after two easy steps, amazing or what?
  
• Are you serious Paul? What do you call this?
• “Amazingly creative results in two easy steps.” What do you think?
• And, people think I am crazy?

I published this post originally on PetaPixel.com on 3/29/2015, I am posting it here for my record.

A while back, in mid-September, I posted a collection of 14 photographs from the old masters and asked anyone to offer their comments on any of them. Two readers offered their comments, thank you, Sal and Jude. There is another point worth speculating here. I say speculating because  I don’t want to generalize too much based on a lack of comments. However, the idea of reading photographs, spending the time to review them and then offer considered comments seem to go against the current common online photographic culture where “congrats,” or “great shot” are deemed enough and appropriate. I was talking to a friend about the photo competitions in camera clubs and told him that taking photographs for 5-second appreciation did not make much sense to me. I suppose that would be the equivalent of “congrats.” That said, I would like to offer my comments some of which will follow what Sal and Jude offered.

One of the photographers on the list, Ray Metzker passed away about 10 days ago and in the New York Times, they happened to use the same photograph of the kayaker in Frankfurt. So, I will start with that. The formal symmetry and the stark graphic nature of the photograph are gently disturbed by the slightly curving rope and the slightly asymmetric positioning of the rower’s hands. The cut off of the kayak touches it to the frame thus assigning it even greater importance. The formal symmetrical structure of this photograph is repeated in the Mappelthorpe’s Irises. The formal and symmetrical structure is giving the photograph somewhat of a monumental presence and lower camera position gives greater emphasis and dignity to the flowers.

Another similar pair is the Kertesz’s Melancholic Tulip and Sudek’s Still Life. Both feature a drooping flower from a container. But where Kertesz presents the tulip with elegance, Sudek seems to prefer a more down to earth, ordinary look in his photograph. They are similar in their tonal structure as well, with rich blacks and well-defined highlights. Their containers may look different but they both contain the essential element in the photograph. (More on the Melancholic Tulip in a dedicated post.)

Eisenstaedt shows the joy and exuberance of the children at the puppet theater, this is the “puppet’s view” if you think about it. The photographer and the puppeteer almost becomes one as nobody seems to pay any attention to the photographer although he was directly looking at them. This is one of several he took at the same place, the small thumbnail on the right will show you a color version with some of the same characters with no change in the intensity of their attention. Looks can tell a lot about what is being looked at, the kids at the puppet theater exemplifies that very well.

Alma Lavenson – Carquines Bridge is a study in lines, straight, curved, crossing, and celebrating the industrial age. It is also a sharp (pun intended) move from the earlier pictorialism to modernist photography with sharp focus, strong lines, and unadorned reality whether she photographed landscapes or industrial structures. She was one of the f/64 school photographers. It is hard, for me, not to appreciate the crowded but orderly structure she captured in this photograph.

Taken under strong sunlight at what appears to be a mid-day, Ansel Adams’ Church Santa Cruz defies several current photographic advice. “Don’t shoot at mid-day,” they say, “harsh light does not make good photographs.” Apparently, Adams, the master of control of the negative and the print, liked the strong shadows. Another current wisdom teaches to “avoid edge mergers.” Adams ignores this rule as the peak point of the archway touches the top edge almost at mid-point. Not only this emphasizes the strong angular structure of the archway, but also creates a cascade of archways towards the back. These become the main motif for the main church building which remains as a background object with partial visibility. I am sure he was not thinking to break the rules, but he was simply beyond the rules in his thinking.

I included two photographs by Berenice Abbot because of the contrast they provide. She is best known for her gorgeous photographs of New York City. Yet, the George Washington Bridge provides a strong contrast between nature and man-made and maintains the similarities in both. The second photograph is more in keeping with her better-known style and gives us a nice comparative view of her work. She was also instrumental in saving almost all the negatives of the French photographer Eugene Atget who has become one of the great names in photographic history thanks to Abbot’s efforts.

The sheer elegance of Lisa Fonssagrives-Penn in Irving Penn’s photographs is undeniable and makes for great fashion photography. That said, the strong graphic nature of the dresses she is wearing and poses Penn captured add more complex layers in these photographs. Look, for instance, at the black dress and try to focus mainly on the dress. You will likely see the knot and the bow the black areas create. I don’t think for a moment that it was accidental! A similarly strong graphic adorns the second photograph as well. This kind of multilayered photographic structure is the hallmark of a master.

Josef Sudek mainly photographed in his hometown Prague and was known as the Poet of Prague. His photograph of Saint Vitus is one of many he took of the cathedral and is certainly a very strong architectural photograph in his lyric style. I also wanted to include this photograph because of the strongly visible shafts of light which owe their strong presence to the ongoing construction and accompanying dust in the environment. His control of the highlight and shadow detail is quite remarkable.

Lee Friedlander is one of the great names of street photography and he delights in juxtaposing elements to give the viewer a double-take. In photographing this rather elaborate house, he hides the main structure behind a spring-flowering tree and then hides its trunk behind a lamppost as if the lamppost were blooming. Also, note that the lamppost is exactly in the middle of the frame. Oh-no! In one of his photographs not shown here, you will see the photographer’s shadow cast on the woman in front of him, as if he was autographing the photograph. You will find his cityscape photographs highly complex, divided into sections, and each section almost able to stand on its own.

Last, but not the least Margaret Bourke-White’s A DC-4 Flying Over New York City is remarkable in technical and photographic excellence. On commission to photograph the DC-4 for an airline, Bourke-White was on a smaller plane at a higher altitude to capture this scene. The strong verticals created by skyscrapers are balanced by the diagonal streets. The buildings that would normally be considered tall, with 10-20 stories look simply dwarfed by the likes of the Chrysler Building and the perspective. The inclusion of the Chrysler Building is probably not accidental as Margaret Bourke-White had her studio on the 61^st floor, above the gargoyles. You can find her photographs of the gargoyles as well as photographs showing her on top of them. Brave woman!

This post too welcomes comments on the photographs as well as the comments themselves. At the risk of repetition but for the sake of convenience, I am including the same photographs here as well.