doug anderson
New member
I've wanted for some time to start a conversation about "vision." Not the sense, but the consciousness that acts on the world and makes art out of it, seeks to illumine it in new ways, to break it out of tired and numb ways of seeing. It's a little different from weltanshauung in that it isn't just a world view, but an impulse to illumine it. I've been writing and publishing creatively for quite some time, but I find that the same idea of vision is transferable between art forms. In photography, the term is especially poignant, because we are using our eyes.
Coleridge said that true poetry discovered the world fresh each time. He said imagination was an active penetration of what is and not just invention. When I look at great photography, I see a rediscovery of the subject. If I look at a shot by Walker Evans I'll realize I've never quite seen the subject, at least not that way, not that illumined, fresh way.
Vision would be different than trying to reproduce commodities; that is, those shots that people always seem to want because they affirm a place in normalcy, in social acceptance. There are people who go to Europe and photograph things in order to claim them, to bring back a trophy of having seen the Eiffel Tower, etc. It really isn't necessary to actually see the Tower; merely reproduce it in a recognizable way. Most people don't get up close on the iron work, the rivets and bolts, or the shapes within the single iconic shape.
So I guess what I'm talking about is a restlessness, a desire to see "into" something, to penetrate it with imagination and "vision." Photography without vision is boring. Well, that's enough to start. Who wants to pick up here?
URL for a Stephen Shore shot I believe illustrates vision: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/shore/shore_presidio.jpg
Coleridge said that true poetry discovered the world fresh each time. He said imagination was an active penetration of what is and not just invention. When I look at great photography, I see a rediscovery of the subject. If I look at a shot by Walker Evans I'll realize I've never quite seen the subject, at least not that way, not that illumined, fresh way.
Vision would be different than trying to reproduce commodities; that is, those shots that people always seem to want because they affirm a place in normalcy, in social acceptance. There are people who go to Europe and photograph things in order to claim them, to bring back a trophy of having seen the Eiffel Tower, etc. It really isn't necessary to actually see the Tower; merely reproduce it in a recognizable way. Most people don't get up close on the iron work, the rivets and bolts, or the shapes within the single iconic shape.
So I guess what I'm talking about is a restlessness, a desire to see "into" something, to penetrate it with imagination and "vision." Photography without vision is boring. Well, that's enough to start. Who wants to pick up here?
URL for a Stephen Shore shot I believe illustrates vision: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/shore/shore_presidio.jpg