How do you learn to "see?"

[Rachel Foster]

This thread got me to thinking. There, I posted this comment: "These are an amazing set of images. But.. I tried looking at them first as if others took them (which they did) and thought them wonderful. Then I tried to look at them as if I had taken them and I found them far less wonderful. This has gotten me to thinking...."

My evaluation of an image differs dramatically based on who captured it. If I did, it seems no where near as good as if someone else did.

So..how does one learn to "see" an image? It should look the same regardless of who took it! I'm letting my own inner critic run amok...or am I not critical enough of others' images?

Your thoughts?

 

[Asher Kelman]

This thread got me to thinking. There, I posted this comment: "These are an amazing set of images. But.. I tried looking at them first as if others took them (which they did) and thought them wonderful. Then I tried to look at them as if I had taken them and I found them far less wonderful. This has gotten me to thinking...."

My evaluation of an image differs dramatically based on who captured it. If I did, it seems no where near as good as if someone else did.

Why not take one image and describe how you would be disappointed by its value if you had taken it yourself. That way we'd have some idea about the gap you refer to in your perception of the pictures others have made.

So..how does one learn to "see" an image? It should look the same regardless of who took it! I'm letting my own inner critic run amok...or am I not critical enough of others' images?

When you have presented your diverse impressions, we can approach answering your second question.

The pictures I have chosen are merely some of those that impress me, not works that have stood the test of time. Still, IMHO, they each have something special that commands out attention.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

To be honest, I would hate to rip into someone else's work the way I do mine!

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Rachel: I don't believe that what you describe has any relationship to aesthetic vision or preferences. It seems related mainly to your own self-image. Please pardon me, if necessary, for being frank.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, I'll buy that (with a restriction to photography; I'm actually quite arrogant in many other areas, I confess). But how does one learn to see one's own work and lose the perfectionism? You see, I know I'm hard on my stuff...or am I? That's where feedback from others comes in. But "art" is so subjective that that is also tricky.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Learning to view, appreciate and understand why art and photography is valued.

Hi Rachel,

As suggested by Ken, your own ideas of your worth as a photographer can't be projected to other people's work.

A good way of "seeing" is to go to Photography and Art exhibits at fine museums. They often have guided tours and with an art docent or else a tape from the curator, director or scholar for that collection to guide you on each print or work of art as you go from room to room. Then, after the tour there will be especially written small books for merely $18 to $45 which have superb reproductions of about 20-40 of the works with detailed critique of each. These books are often soft cover but printed on the finest paper with amazing fidelity. Likely than not, these Museum Art books related to an exhibit are subsidized by some grant or the endowment of the museum. Not only are they bargains, they're treasures.

Right now, before I go to sleep I read one critique on Edward Weston. I have a stack of such books to go through. By choosing works you like, then one can start to acquire some insight and facility to approach other peoples' work and then one's own.

Over time you'll likely develop your own set of rulers by which to judge art. That eventually happens. After all you start with works you are attracted to in the first place!

Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Ok, I'll buy that (with a restriction to photography; I'm actually quite arrogant in many other areas, I confess). But how does one learn to see one's own work and lose the perfectionism? You see, I know I'm hard on my stuff...or am I? That's where feedback from others comes in. But "art" is so subjective that that is also tricky.

You can't.

Striving for "perfection" in your own work is the fun of amateur photography. When you lose that desire you will join millions of other camera owners who have put their cameras deeply away, eventually to be posthumously excavated by children liquidating property.

Stop looking at others' work as if you were sitting for an eye exam. ("Is this better, worse, or the same?") Rather, look at others' work for what it offers visually and conceptually.

I also heartily agree with Asher's suggestion to see as much serious work as possible. I am very fortunate to have access to one of the word's finest photography collections, although I can't just peruse it at will. But, aside from books, on of my favorite sources of visual variety are art auction catalogs.

For example, here's a catalog for Phillips de Pury's London photo auction which was held this evening. Sotheby's and Christies also have catalogs online but de Pury has specialized in photography-only auctions for quite some time. Such collections represent a real stew from which you might be able to draw creative inspiration.

But, for goodness sake, get past the eye-exam syndrome!

 

[nicolas claris]

But, for goodness sake, get past the eye-exam syndrome!

Wouldn't that be the wrong side of "Comments and critique welcome"?

I do agree with you Ken and Asher, too much wondering about one's work is a kind of brake/break.

I do remember some years ago, when my son Romain -at that time still attending a movie school in Paris- got an assignement as a cameraman for a movie directed by James Coleman (the Irish one) to be displayed in a museum.
Another movie director, a friend of us, told my son (being, one can easily guess, a bit anxious for his first real job): "Now my young friend, forget about doing a beautifull image, just shoot it as you feel it".


Good lesson!

 

[Asher Kelman]

I also heartily agree with Asher's suggestion to see as much serious work as possible. I am very fortunate to have access to one of the word's finest photography collections, although I can't just peruse it at will. But, aside from books, on of my favorite sources of visual variety are art auction catalogs.

For example, here's a catalog for Phillips de Pury's London photo auction which was held this evening. Sotheby's and Christies also have catalogs online but de Pury has specialized in photography-only auctions for quite some time. Such collections represent a real stew from which you might be able to draw creative inspiration.

Thanks for the pointer to these auction catalogs. This is a very interesting way of expanding one's access to great works. It's addictive!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, thank you for the link!


There is another aspect to this thorny problem, though. I look at others' work and think it wonderful. If it were mine, not so wonderful. That's already stated. However, I look at a lot of images in "how-to" books and magazines and think "Oh my, how awful!"

So, not only do I not know how to evaluate my own work, I look at other work that is supposed to be good and can NOT see much of value in it.

Perhaps this is simply the nature of "art." Perhaps it's my training in the scientific method. But...I want to know, not to flounder. Perhaps what I'm saying is that I want expertise. In science there are "rules" and "guidelines." Not so much with art.

Or perhaps the bottom line is "I want it and I want it now." Hmmmm........

 

[Ken Tanaka]

No, I think that "the bottom line" may be that you really don't know what you want now.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Interesting idea. I'll think on that.

 

[Asher Kelman]

"Learning to see": Acquiring appreciation of art shown in fine museums.

There is another aspect to this thorny problem, though. I look at others' work and think it wonderful. If it were mine, not so wonderful. That's already stated. However, I look at a lot of images in "how-to" books and magazines and think "Oh my, how awful!"

So, not only do I not know how to evaluate my own work, I look at other work that is supposed to be good and can NOT see much of value in it.

Perhaps this is simply the nature of "art." Perhaps it's my training in the scientific method. But...I want to know, not to flounder. Perhaps what I'm saying is that I want expertise. In science there are "rules" and "guidelines." Not so much with art.

Or perhaps the bottom line is "I want it and I want it now." Hmmmm........

Rachel, I too am trained in the scientific method. However, art might be different and require experience to recognize and appreciate the range of experiences are can purvey. Much Art requires experience to "experience"! In the business world, a salesman has to qualify a prospect. The person might have knowledge of the product but not like it or really need it all like want and need it and not have the money. Similarly to look at art and appreciate a full experience takes more than just being able to sense the art. We need a library of references to give meaning, relevence, rank and consequence to this art work.

Ten steps to "learning to see":

• Be open to new experience

• Withhold judgement until you have looked at the shapes, compositions, movement, drama, beauty, physicality, common motifs, colors, patterns and story behind the picture

• Put away the scientific method, it's only good for pricing, preserving art or detecting provenence.

• Visit Fine Art Collections especially photographs where there are guided tours and printed materials

• Get one book on the history of photography

• Get one book every 3 months on another photgrapher you like.

• Seek out more exhibits on photographers you like

• Don't insert your own work into this "learning to see"

• Revisit the fine art museums and galleries with friends and then bring them to the pictures you like the most, tell them why they are so important to you.

• After a year or so, you should have found a few artists who's work you appreciate, can read and enjoy and would love to possess. Then you have, perhaps learned to see!

Good luck!

Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

To Asher's list I'll add on more point: Don't try to create "art".

 

[ashik ikbal]

To me 'Seeing' is sort of a crime. Solitary seeing bypasses the depth of observation. Being the most efficient creature the only way to judge is to observe. Logic, evidence and facts can't always figure out the truth.

Everyone has certain perception of aesthetic values. Not many are common but mostly are infrequent / random, depending on someone’s experience, propensity and association.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Rachel,

Asher and Ken have covered most bases. Their knowledge far exceeds mine but what works for me is
reduced to one factor:

Why?

If I know the answer to this the other elements seem to follow...sometimes!

Enjoy the journey without an end!

 

[nicolas claris]

To Asher's list I'll add on more point: Don't try to create "art".

Yep! see the second part of my post # 8 upthere…

 

[ashik ikbal]

the biggest point from Asher is : Don't insert your own work into this "learning to see"

Learning is a total immersion process. We got to work on it recurrently; it is really heavy to learn ‘how to learn’.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Wow!

I see the wisdom in this advice (which is wonderful). Now I need to work on putting it into practice. Just as an aside, this will also be a wonderful growth experience personally since 1) I don't tolerate ambiguity well and 2) I'm not used to having to struggle to learn something.

Thank you all.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Wow!

... I don't tolerate ambiguity well ...

Consider reversing this personal quality, at least where photography is concerned. Ambiguity can be one of the strongest, most compelling (but most difficult) qualities to capture with a camera.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ah, but what is ambiguous? I'm assuming you mean the intention conveyed by the body language of the female figure and the child. Yet, photographically, I would say there is little that is ambiguous. The eye clearly is drawn to certain aspects of the image and there is little doubt what the focal point is. Very compelling image.

I should qualify my previous statement to say I don't tolerate ambiguity well in regards to my goals and methods of achieving them. When I set out to accomplish a task, I want a clearly defined goal, plan of attack, and "plans b, c and d" in case of roadblocks. (Whew! I wonder how many more fractured metaphors/similies/cliches I can toss into the mix?)

 

[Ivan Garcia]

I think I just found the root of all your photography problems...
You need to let go an just go with the flow... photography (for me) is not about control... is about feel.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I certainly don't want to steer this thread off-topic, especially since it seems that I built my last point out of context.

But the subject of ambiguity in imagery (photography, painting, drawing, etc.) is germane to the general subject here.

Ambiguity can be introduced in blatantly explicit and/or humorous ways, as in this image:

But it can also be introduced conceptually, as I did in the earlier image of the boy standing at the holiday store window. The ambiguity here concerns (a) consideration of which world the boy exists (psychologically), (b) how/if the figure could apparently be inviting the boy into her world, and somewhat more basically (c) what the gender of the child is.

Recognizing such qualities in imagery is part of "learning to see". But sometimes we have to stifle natural urges to analyze factual, but irrelevant, details to do so.

 

[Asher Kelman]

How art is living, changing with each experience and not perfect or totally defined.

Ah, but what is ambiguous? I'm assuming you mean the intention conveyed by the body language of the female figure and the child. Yet, photographically, I would say there is little that is ambiguous. The eye clearly is drawn to certain aspects of the image and there is little doubt what the focal point is. Very compelling image.

I should qualify my previous statement to say I don't tolerate ambiguity well in regards to my goals and methods of achieving them. When I set out to accomplish a task, I want a clearly defined goal, plan of attack, and "plans b, c and d" in case of roadblocks. (Whew! I wonder how many more fractured metaphors/similies/cliches I can toss into the mix?)

Rachel,

Art must have some ambiguity or else it's defined and then it's dead! Don't ever think of perfection. That does not apply to art or beauty. Don't ever think of completion, that too is illusionary.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ken, as a psychologist, I'm very comfortable with what you describe as ambiguity. And I agree, in that respect the image is ambiguous. The sort of ambiguity I refer to is a bit different. It's a problem-solving ambiguity.

And, Asher, you're quite right. And it ties into what Ken is talking about. The ambiguity I am not doing well with is in knowing what is right and wrong --in my own eyes--about my images. (This thread, by the way, is helping enormously in my quest to analyze and pinpoint the problem. That is why I may have and most likely will contradict myself here.) I have shot a number of images that initially were terribly disappointing only to find them almost decent when returning to them months later. For example, when I shot this in May, I was disappointed. I recently had another look at it and find it almost interesting. Still there are things wrong with it and I'm struggling to pinpoint what. Maybe it's best said that I want to know what I know. And what I don't know also.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Maybe it's best said that I want to know what I know. And what I don't know also.

Ah, written in the fine tradition of psychotherapy!

I can offer no criticism of your image, per se. But perhaps I can offer a hand-hold with which you can inch forward in your self-discovery.

As you may know from your studies and practice, shape trumps every other characteristic when people are first viewing an image. The brain immediately searches for familiar shapes when the eyes first send it an image. Depending on the size and visual complexity of the image, the first pass of that is finished in perhaps half a second. In the next second or two we search for other characteristics such as colors and proximity relationships.

If there's anything unfulfilling or subliminally disturbing about your image it's that it features several strong, identifiable forms in a familiar scene. But the strong contrast --the narrow dynamic range-- conceals most details and features, which may leave the viewer feeling unsatisfied. For example, compare your image to an image by Stephen Shore, sold at this weekend's de Pury London auction. Neither features people on the street, and each features strong forms. But Shore's image offers full details which enrich viewers' impressions. In a second or two you feel comfortable with it and turn your attention towards details such as the car, the distant house, identification of the Rexall pharmacy logo on the near storefront. Your image's deep, blanketing shadows conceal most of the scene.

So perhaps this will help you learn what you know.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ah! I see!

But, would you say the shadows leave it too ambiguous? The Shore image is far clearer, in fact.

(P.S. I should say I'm a research psychologist. I am not a therapist...I'm too impatient! Ha!)

 

[Ken Tanaka]

No, your deep shadows don't impart ambiguity, per se. Rather, they conceal most meaning or understanding. Consider this extreme version of my earlier image:

We can still (roughly) discern the scene. But we've lost visual access to the subtleties that provided the image's various interpretive cues.

Of course there are times when shape is all we really need, as in this image:

I could convert this to b&w and crush the dynamic range to a fly-crack and the image would still convey its visual potential, perhaps even more powerfully.

So the fun, and often the success, of making and viewing imagery really lies in such judgements and observations.

 

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for the pointer to these auction catalogs. This is a very interesting way of expanding one's access to great works. It's addictive!

Asher

Addictive Asher??? Has the San Francisco fog gotten to you?

 

[Rachel Foster]

I see what you mean, Ken.