On Found Beauty and Unintended Consequences
My recent post, Art and Rebellion, drew some impassioned responses from several readers, both on and off the blog. Several responders took offense to my thoughts on found beauty and its artistic merit. The theme for the post, however, was not the value of found beauty but the idea that producing beautiful images is considered by some to be all there is to the photography of natural things. Lesson learned: pay more attention to potential unintended consequences. This is the first in a series of posts aimed at addressing some of the points raised.
At the core of the “found” discussion is the simple question: where does objectivity end? In other words, where is the point at which objective/found reality stops and personal interpretation, intent, aesthetic sensibilities — the artist’s own contribution — begin. Summing up my position, I contend that images pertaining to be completely objective, whether through omission of personal intent, or a deliberate attempt to duplicate the creative efforts of someone else, are of lesser artistic merit than original work representing the artist’s own creative choices.
~~~
Found subject matter is not a simple concept for creative photographers of any genre. As astutely stated by David Leland Hyde in his comment on the previous post, practically all forms of un-staged photography rely on found elements. The distinction I had in mind was not that found beauty is necessarily indicative of creative laziness, but that images relying solely on happy coincidences or already well-known compositions — where the photographer is but a passive bystander recording what is in front of them and without contributing anything other than skill — are of lesser artistic significance.
“When the artist is confronted with some awesome vista of the world, or with some fragile reminder of the infinite variety of life, or with some significant aspect of society; he must respond according to his training, experience, and intuition. (Perhaps intuition comes first!) He can see only through his eyes, and his vision can only be as effective as his spirit. “Postcard” vision results in postcards. What I call the “in-syndrome” influences many to see the world on a temporal bias (and is accepted likewise by many spectators). But sooner or later the individual will emerge, for better or for worse, influential or ineffective. (…) All the artist can do – in any medium – is what he feels he must do to make his statement and offer it to the world.” – Ansel Adams
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of writing about art is that no widely-accepted definition of the term exists. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are supposed to offer such absolute definitions, yet in the case of art, they consistently fail to do so. The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides no less than six definitions for the term (as a noun), the most relevant to this discussion is perhaps: “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced.”
Creativity and imagination are qualities of humans, not of found visual elements. Without them, an image may still be aesthetically pleasing, valuable, and useful in numerous ways. Still, it does not meet even the broad dictionary definition of art.
Not being art is not a value judgment and does not imply that a work is of lesser beauty or utility; simply, that it is something other than art. Just like a novel or a short story is something other than a poem. It is not inherently better or worse, just different. For the photographer of such images to take offense at the fact that their work does not meet the definition of art is as silly as for a journalist to be offended if their investigative report does not meet the definition of poetry.
What are such works to be referred to, then? I suggest that they should be called “representational;” literally, re-presenting the scene as anyone else would likely have perceived it, independent of the photographer’s interpretation.
This distinction is all the more important as many representational photographers believe that their work is indeed elevated by the fact that it is as close to “objective reality” as a photograph can be. Some even go as far as to demand that all images that do not represent such objectivity should be explicitly labeled. I would argue that they already are labeled when the photographer refers to them as art. Simply speaking, by mere formal definition, a work can’t be both artistic and objective.
It’s enough that the photographer deliberately considered and made choices based on the aesthetics of their perspective, composition, or the visual effect of a given lens; that the resulting work is no longer documentary in the strictest sense. The test, in my opinion, is one of objectivity — whether the resulting image accurately represents an obvious impression that a random observer would have had under the same conditions. Anything other than that, I suggest, fits squarely into “conscious use of skill and creative imagination,” hence art.
Infinite Autumn (part of the Rainbow Mosaics portfolio)
Category: Featured, Thoughts and Musings
[...] up better than I can in his blog post here.Update 18/01/12 – Guy Tal discusses creativity in his blog post.After a frosty start, I moved a mere 100 metres to the Barbrook Stone Row, quite literally a row [...]
I may be beginning to understand your depth of explanation. The comparison of representational vs art seemed to clarify things for me. I strive to produce “art” but your statements make too much sense to me to be able to say that I do so it must be representational that is being produced at this time.
There are no steps 1, 2, 3 that one can follow to produce art, so the process must always be considered a journey of ever growing knowledge and changes. I believe if I am ever satisfied with what I produce the journey would be over, thus the creative mindset as well. So I can only gather that the journey along the way will leave representational as well as art creations strewn along the pathway.
Guy,
I can see this point of view when discussing “nature photography”, but what about candid street photography. Where would you put the work of Cartier Bresson, Brassai, Kertesz, McCurry, and others. I don’t know about all of them, but most of them just make straight prints of their negatives and didn’t labor over them like many of us do.
Dan, I just had a similar conversation with a fellow photographer yesterday. In my mind, these artists produced some incredibly well composed and deliberate images. The fact that they were able to make such considerations in split seconds doesn’t change the fact that the results reflect their personal way of seeing and aesthetic sensibilities. Their work consistently stands out from random street snapshots, not because they got lucky and found something interesting but because they were able to DO something interesting with what they found.
Brad, I agree with you on several levels. In fact, as I progress in my own journey I often look at my work and wonder if it lives up to my own convictions. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. When it doesn’t, I know I need to make a change.
Without such evolution and new-found revelations, anyone’s work will ultimately become stagnant and fail to provide the same sense of reward and achievement that make a creative life worth the risks and sacrifices.
I don’t know how many times I have gone out photographing and had the gods smile on me. Whether it is being there when the light is right, the flower is in perfect bloom, the waterfall has more water flowing over it than usual, The snow squall was perfectly situated over a mountain pass… I can’t claim credit for those things but I can claim credit for creating the best image possible when the scene presented itself.
I find I get my best images when I go out open to what the universe and light present to me. When I have an appreciative attitude toward what I encounter. If I go out wrapped in my own expectations and ego I look at the world but don’t clearly see what is being given, a glimpse at the infinite, creative power behind all that is. Each of us is gifted with a piece of that creative power but we have to exercise our internal power in concert with the power that surrounds us like a white water kayaker going through a rapid.
Many years ago I spent some time making Raku pottery. Part of that process involves “smoking”, taking the red hot pot from the kiln and placing it in a container of combustible material to create surface color and effect. You don’t control it, you collaborate with the natural forces. “Found” beauty happens when you get the collaboration right.
I view life in general like that. I do not, cannot exist independent of the world around me. The life and work of an artist becomes beautiful when he/she attune themselves to both the subject and the process. Part of that attunement is graciously accepting what we are given.
Hey Guy
A trickier subject to discuss than to understand, I think. Isn’t all composition artistic? Or isn’t all beauty ‘found beauty’?
Cheers
Carl
Jim, that is beautifully stated. I don’t disagree. Accepting these gifts is what I live for. It’s this acceptance that I try to convey in my images. When you think about it, those deep feelings are not inherent in the things themselves, though, it’s in how you interpret them, implicitly or explicitly.
Carl, I would answer “no” to both. Composition is a quality of any image. It can be random or deliberate. Deliberate composition can be artistic. Not all beauty is found. Objects are found. Beauty is in how we perceive and what we create from these objects.
Guy
Generally I avoid iconic scenes; mainly because they are so difficult (capturing something unique and compelling is very, very hard). However that being said, there is a reason they are iconic (and not simply because an outstanding photographer has a photograph of the scene). Two things further, the light transforms everything (often I am so overwhelmed by the light that I forget to set up my camera; and, to be honest, that is perfectly okay). Second, several photographerrs can be shooting a scene at exactly the same time and their photographs are so different that you wonder if they were shooting at the same time. The fact that maybe only one touches something deep inside of you seems to make your point. Personally I find the word art to be so ambiguous as to be meaningless. My question is, does the photograph touch my heart and soul?
Thoughtful and well-written, as always, Guy!
Since you’ve posted the beautiful image “Infinite Autumn” above, can we use that as an example for discussion?
- Do you consider it representational or artistic? (I assume artistic, but just in case…)
- If artistic, what was the conscious use of skill and creative imagination that changed it from an obvious impression that a random observer would have had?
Thanks for another thought-provoking post & conversation!
– Jack
I just thought I would check and see if anyone had figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
Cheers!
Hey Guy
I think all composition is artistic; to one degree or another. if not, how much deliberation is required to take place before the composition shifts from ‘found’ to ‘artistic’?
Where we stand is part of our composition. The fact that we’re in a particular place is part of our composition. I think it’s a very blurry area from the idea of ‘random’ to ‘deliberate’.
Cheers
Carl
Thanks for the comments, everyone!
Jack Larson, I agree with you completely. Still, what if an image touches your soul and you later learn it is but a well-executed copy of someone else’s original idea and aesthetic considerations. Will you still consider the copy to be art?
Jack Johnson, I do consider it artistic. If you had been standing there, this is not how you would have perceived it. Skill is the easy part: successfully capturing the desired composition, and processing choices made to alter the tonal relationships to emphasize the white trunks, retain a little blue in the highlights, darken the background, etc. In creative imagination I include identifying a composition that encompasses the full spectrum of colors (as is the case with the rest of the Rainbow Mosaics portfolio), visualizing the possible outcomes and selecting one that best conveyed my feelings and impressions at the scene (love for the season, calmness, winding down after teaching a workshop, grasping at the last of the color just days before it was gone). I have a 32×40 print of it hanging in my bedroom. I love watching it come to life when the warm afternoon light filters into the room, reminding me of being there.
Michael, yes I actually have figured it out.
Carl, it’s not a matter of how much but of “if”. I would argue that most compositions are not deliberately considered. They either result from the photographer instinctively pointing to the center of interest, copying compositions they already saw elsewhere, or repeating formulas (near/far, etc.) rather than consciously(!) applying anything of their own deliberation into the decision. If you read the post above, the distinction is “conscious use of (…) creative imagination”. Certainly compositions can be appealing that are not created in this manner but if they are formed by default and not through conscious application of the unique thoughts of the specific individual making the image, they ultimately don’t fit within the definition.
Hey Guy
I think ‘conscious use of .. creative imagination’ is a continuum though. And my question is to what degree, how do we delineate that, to define something like art? Even in the examples you mentioned, I’d propose that those photographers are deliberating, somewhat. Likely not to the extent of some others, but I don’t think that is necessarily a key component.
Art isn’t a mathematical problem, which is kinda where this rationale seems to point.
The photo looks wonderful here on the site, I’m sure the print is a real treat.
Cheers
Carl
Guy, as I was reading your post, I was getting ready to ask if a photographer deciding on composition, exposure, etc. was enough to make a image art as opposed to representational. But then I got to end where you suggest an “random observer” test to decide if that is enough. I tend to agree with you, however, rarely will we have a random observer present to see both the photographic subject when the image is taken and the final processed image. So I guess that leaves it up to the individual photographer to decide if they meet the test or not – except in obvious cases where an image is not representational.
I’d also like to suggest that photography that uses instinct or intuition is not necessarily non-artistic, even if we accept the Webster’s definition of “conscious use of … creative imagination.” The reason – in my opinion, instinct and intuition can be developed by a well-seasoned photographer who practices their creative imagination such that some compositions and exposure settings are learned enough that they become instinctive to that photographer. In that regard, the instinct can be a product of creative imagination. I’m not suggesting a photographer should rely solely on their instinctive creativity, though in certain circumstances (like rapidly changing light conditions) this instinctive creativity will get a shot where conscious creativity may not.
Carl, you could say that almost anything is a continuum, but for practical purposes we do draw lines all the time. For example, I can say that my kitchen faucet does not leak, even though if you watched it consistently for a month or a year, you may see a drop or two falling. Watch a rock long enough and it behaves like liquid, still, for practical purposes, there is a point at which we call it a solid.
The fact that the distinction for art is not strictly quantified in measurable terms means it is not mathematical.
We should also be careful about dismissing the obvious just because we can’t clearly resolve the borderline.
Joe, I agree with your assertion that sometimes only the photographer knows. My intent is not to arrive at a legal binding definition, but to frame the discussion so all of us can be more clear about how we represent our own work without prejudice.
Despite some philosophies (e.g., Miksang) suggesting that creative photography can be completely instinctive, I respectfully disagree. Instinct and intuition may play the key role in forming the concept for an image (see my definition in Rethinking Visualization) but I contend that this concept will never assume a tangible form if instinct doesn’t give way to conscious, technical considerations at some point in the process.
It may look like a copy to someone else, but I will know that it isn’t. More than that; the people who know me and who know my photography will know that it isn’t a copy.
“The fact that the distinction for art is not strictly quantified in measurable terms means it is not mathematical.”
Art also is often not logical, thus an intellectual discussion about it, has its limitations and can eventually wind up going in circles, or at least into circular logic. Though I do feel that many of the points made by Guy and others above are important. Guy, I notice that in this post you clarified your own thinking, which can help others do the same. I feel it also is beneficial to remember that our thoughts are not necessarily worth believing absolutely or holding exactly the same over time.
We are each individual and our definitions of art will vary. I still say that in some contexts, it’s all art. In other contexts, only a small amount of the photography, painting, sculpture or any other genre produced today, or in any age, is art. How do I differentiate between what is and is not art? I know it when I see it. Also, I reserve the right to change my mind later.
As far as process, I feel Jim Bullard’s description of his approach to photographing is the closest to how my father looked at it. Edward Weston said, “I am not trying to express myself through photography, impose my personality upon nature (any manifestation of life) but without prejudice nor falsification to become identified with nature, to know things in their very essence, so that what I record is not an interpretation—my idea of what nature should be—but a revelation or a piercing of the smoke-screen artificially cast over life by irrelevant, humanly limited exigencies, into an absolute, impersonal recognition.” I feel it would be an error to consider that Edward Weston’s photography is NOT art because of his approach to it.
With the way I ended that previous comment, someone might think I am against post processing, that I am “with” Edward Weston in the debate between minimal “natural” unprocessed, or raw photography and what is newly termed “art photography” or photography artistically enhanced in Photoshop, much the way Ansel Adams enhanced the later versions of “Moonrise, Hernandez” and other photographers using traditional processes have dodged and burned in the darkroom. Ansel and Edward did have friendly discussions about this, but generally, though they went about it differently, both of them intended to represent nature as purely and accurately as possible, hence the Group f64 Manifesto. Ansel believed in the importance of self-expression in art, just as you do, Guy. Ansel also did significant darkroom work on some of his images. However, just as he taught, this was for the purpose of bringing the resulting print to the point of looking more like the original scene than the negative, more in line with his original vision or experience at the time of exposure. I have professional photographer friends who use a lot of Photoshop, but do it tastefully, and I have friends who are purists and present their images nearly or completely raw. Some of these are very opinionated toward either direction, and I often find myself leaning toward the more purist direction because that’s where my father stood, but ultimately I believe that either end, either approach is valid when done well, and not overdone. BOTH are art in my estimation and I feel the wrangling between each side is unnecessary. I believe that what Edward Weston was talking about in the above quote was the elimination of the ego in photography, which of course is not possible in an absolute sense, but an interesting endeavor to work toward if that is your inclination. I do feel that directing the ego in a positive way toward self-expression is another constructive way to look at it. The difference may turn out to be merely an exercise in semantics. In the final analysis, I have great respect for my father’s photography and his ideals, but I also respect what you do Guy as well. Also, I can’t ignore that in many other areas, you and my father would have been deeply in accord.
I must say Guy that you have really given my noggin a workout with these past few posts. I wanted to respond, but couldn’t quite articulate what they were causing me to feel. On a first read, I thought the predecessor to this post sounded a bit pretentious, but I felt challenged to consider it more deeply. With this followup, I was gaining some clarity on where you were coming from on “found beauty,” but then I am stuck again on this suggested definition of “representational” photography. I suppose I have also called it “documentary” photography. I understand that you are not trying to arrive at a legally binding term.
I have always internally defined this to myself as a “walk up and click” type of shot, with no consideration of the light, no consideration of arrangement of elements in a scene, it is a pure transfer of the scene that was witnessed, the typical snapshot. Naturally, some things are just going to be beautiful given the right time and place.
Conscious choice of inclusion or exclusion is where this becomes blurrier to me in your meaning. It is not always obvious in the end result. It seems like you are saying unless it is obvious, and unless you have a clear idea of the emotional connection of the photographer, that it is just another piece of found beauty. Is an elegant composition intrinsically more artistic if I tweak it more to my liking in post processing just to make it look different than reality? Is a composition that utilizes Fibonacci’s Ratio inherently more artistic than one that doesn’t? If you would argue yes, then isn’t such a thing merely applying a formula? If no, then would some of the famed historical artwork (paintings, etc) that rely heavily on this ratio be simply representational?
I don’t claim to have answers to any of this. The more I think about it, the more questions I develop.
I’m in the same boat, Mark. But, I feel these are important questions to try to work through. I don’t know if we’ll arrive at a universally-accepted definition but it helps me think about my own work. Where I seem to be converging in my own thoughts is that the difference is in intent rather than anything tangible. I’m still thinking, though.
My previous post was not meant to be pretentious, though I can see how that it can come across as such. I apologize to you and anyone else who may have been offended by it. That was not my intention.
Guy
David, I love that you used the word “purpose” since it’s the one that came to my own mind as I’m working on a couple of new essays and trying to refine my thoughts. As you know, I’m a great admirer of your dad both for his work and the way he chose to live up to his convictions. I like to think that all things considered, there is more we might have had in common than things we might differ on, and it means a lot to me that you think that, too.
Guy
Oh, I wasn’t offended Guy, I was more perplexed at what I wasn’t understanding. I certainly appreciate your eloquence in communicating about such complex subjects.