"The Nature of Photographs" by Stephen Shore, part II

The second level of Stephen Shores definition of the nature of a photograph is the depictive level. He introduces this level by talking about how photography differs from any other discipline: photography is an analytic discipline; meaning, a photographer analyzes existing reality and then chooses (by vantage point, frame, moment of time, and selecting focus) what he wants to create the structure of his photograph. This differs from any other art form; painting creates something from nothing; film is about fluidity in time, not just a moment; etc. Thus, Stephen Shore lays out the four ways that a photographer depicts the content and structure of a photograph: flatness, frame, time, and focus.

Flatness
Taking a photograph flattens the depth of field of a three-dimensional world. This, in turn, creates new juxtaposition relationships that were otherwise non-existent in reality. Stephen Shore uses a photograph by Robert Frank to portray this effect. A cloud way off in the background juxtaposes (is right on top of) the yield sign; thus creating a new shape of the two (in this case, the shape is similar to cotton candy). . Robert Frank could have stepped a couple feet to his left, and the cotton candy shaped formed by the juxtaposition, created by the cloud and yield sign, would have disappeared.

Frame
The edges of a frame also create new relationships. From the juxtaposition of lines and shapes to the frame, new meanings and forms are created. This is best seen in Japanese woodblock prints. Stephen Shore uses the print Scene from a Kabuki play by Toyokuni III (Kunisada) to portray this casual relationship. There are two objects that are cropped by the frame. One is a hand. The hand has been cropped in such a way, that only the hand and part of the arm is showing. It is of great importance, because the hand is holding the sword and stopping the man from using it. Why is it important to only show the hand? By cropping in such a way, the eye is drawn to that part of the print. If the whole angel was shown, it could have gotten lost in the whole scene. The second instance of use of the frame to intersect a shape is the cropping of a leg; only a portion of a leg is shown. While the leg serves no purpose to telling the story of the print, it suggests that this scene is part of the drama of the larger world; there is other drama, action, and what not going on around this scene. In a sense this has a philosophically deeper meaning. One must be aware of other events outside of what is in our vision: such as the atrocities of the genocide of Darfur. We so easily get trapped in our own drama, that we fail to recognize that we part of a whole. This ideal is important to Japanese philosophy.

Time
The world’s concept of time is fluid. It is impossible for us to stop time, and that is one of the purposes of photography; it is a moment in time. The flow of time is interrupted by photography. It is a new way to see. There are two factors that effect time in a photograph: the duration of the exposure and the staticness of the final image. The use of time is what makes photography so unique. The time can be a fraction of a second, minutes (photographing some sort of time), hours, etc. This is yet another tool that is used to depict a scene of a photograph and is used to create the photographers meaning.

Focus
A camera focuses like an eye focus; the difference is, once the focus of a camera is chosen and the photograph taken, that plane of focus is static; whereas, humans change focus constantly to alter their depiction of their environment. Focus is critical for a photograph. The eye is drawn to what is in focus; it is, therefore, important to use focus to draw out the subject from its content. The plane of focus tells the viewer what is important in the photograph. If the focus is of a person in front of a background that is out of focus, the viewer is lead to believe that the person is the subject and it is the important part. If on the other hand, the background was in focus and the person not, it is reversed, the environment is the important part. In a camera, f-stops are used to extend the depth of field. There still is a plane of focus that is the sharpest and most in focus. What is different between short depth of field and long is that the drop off of focus in a long depth of field is more gradual (thus making more in the photograph appear to be in focus).


In summary, this level of the nature of photograph is about how a photographer can use technical tools to create meaning of a photograph. A photographer must be aware of these tools (flatness, frame, time, and focus) and use them to his advantage. It is easier for a photographer to be lapse when it comes to framing. I myself don’t always pay attention to everything that is near the edge and what new relationships are formed by what is cropped. My conclusion to the importance of this section is awareness and of purpose: Be aware of unique relationships that photography creates and then use those relationships to produce or embellish your meaning.

What objects are being juxtaposed and formed by the flattening of space? Can I use these new formations to my advantage or are they a distraction and should I take a step or two sideways?

Why am choosing to frame the photographs the way I do? Everything in the frame should be there for a reason. Pay attention to the edges, nuances can be important to adding to your meaning.

Why am I setting the shutter speed a certain way? Can extending it further emphasize the meaning of my photograph better? Or can purposeful blurring due to long hand held exposures be of use? Purposeful shutter speed.

What is the plane of focus? Is it on the subject of the photograph? Is it being used to point the eye to the correct place in the photograph? What is the most important part of the photograph?


Awareness. Nuances. Purpose.

"The Nature of Photographs" by Stephen Shore, part I

Stephen Shore begins his introduction by commenting on a photograph by Robert Frank called “View From Hotel Window – Butte, Montana.” What is the difference between the photograph and what Frank actually saw? There are obvious differences. For one, the photograph is in black and white, and unless Frank was totally color blind, he viewed the scene in color. The photograph is bound by the edges; however, Frank’s vision was much broader. He might have seen it more clearly and with more detail. I believe the feeling that he got as he looked out onto Butte, is the same feeling that the photograph evokes. This is how Stephen Shore introduces that his book will be about not the content of a photograph, but how the photograph functions to serve the photographers purpose.

Stephen Shore introduces the first level of the nature of a photograph: the physical level. This level includes the chemical makeup of a print, the photographs flatness, the fact it has edges making it be contained in boundaries (unlike our own vision, which, when combined with the moving of the head, is infinite, compared to the finite view of a photograph, making the photograph seem limited), the texture, and the color (or lack of color) of the print. How do all these physical attributes of the photographic print help a photographer? They can all be tools to define a meaning, evoke an emotion, and so on. Stephen Shore is saying the physical attributes of a print are important, but they are not the only tools used to form a photograph. It is the first level of what looks like a total of three that Stephen Shore explains.

This part of the book, I believe, is something that is sometimes lost in contemporary photography. In some cases, photography has become so academic that the physical aspect of a photograph is not used to help portray the meaning. Or is it? These contemporary photographs that I talk about, still are on a piece of paper that has texture, borders, and tone. Stephen Shore is not talking about aesthetics; he is talking about the physical makeup of a photograph. It is up to the photographer if he wants to use that in an aesthetic way, or just simply use the physical aspects of a print to emphasize the other levels that Stephen Shore is to talk about. My initial response reminds me of the response people had to modern art: “It isn’t aesthetically beautiful and doesn’t represent something real.” This is not progressive thinking and I must watch myself when I continue judge a photograph based on its content and aesthetic appeal. That may not be my choice or vision for my photography, but that doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, my choice may be old and static; the world moves fast; art progresses. This is something to think and keep an open mind about as I read further in the book.

Fame and Competition

This is in response to reading about Fame and Competition in "the Complete Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron.

Fame.
Fame is not the same as success. Fame is a drug that is never ending, and you are constantly wanting more fame. It is like the lure of money; it is never enough! In search of fame, you are constantly asking if the people (or fans, or industry) think you are good enough, and NOT if you think your work is good enough. With fame, the focus is on what others think of your work. That is a dangerous road to go down. In lusting after fame, you lose track of your own vision and your own view of success in your own work. Wanting fame is taking away attention and concentration from your own work and from your own unique artistic vision. Fame takes away your uniqueness; that is death for an artist.
From now on, I will not focus on becoming a famous photographer; instead, I will focus on being the best photographer I can be in my own eyes. I will focus on my happiness in my work, not on other's happiness of my work. The answer to feeling the fame bug? Get to work and do something creative for just you.

Competition.
Competition is another drug for an artist. Focusing on competition stops our own progress and takes away focus from our work; instead of focusing on our own work, we focus on the work that other's have accomplished. By saying 'Oh that isn't that good, I can do that,' we are engaging in act of jealousy. That person has made it and thought of those ideas, and you haven't. It is negative energy to constantly compare and compete with your colleagues. Often, to boost our egos, we tell ourselves 'well if I had the same opportunities or met the same people as so and so, I would be published too.' We make our own luck; that is, through hard work and paying attention we tend to be in the right place at the right time (also known as luck).
Focusing on the competition is a creative block. It takes focus away from what you should be doing (your work) and places your energy and time on someone else's work. We must search with in our own selves, not outside ourselves at other people's work. In search of being better than someone (or everyone), we lose the desire just to be, to be ourselves. When we are angered when someone else beats you to a scholarship or beats you to a prize, this is the ego stepping forward. There is no place for ego in art; it is a creative block. The ego wants self gratification; whereas, art requires time to develop and create something unique and meaningful. The need to win is the need to boost your ego.
From now on, I will not compare my work to others or think of photography students work as a competition that I have to best everyone at. Instead, I will focus my energy on my work. Life and art are not competitions; in the end, you have to live with yourself and your own work. Be happy with the work that you do, because that is the best thing you can do for yourself.

In the end, focusing on fame and beating the competition is a waste of artistic energy that takes focus away from your own unique voice.

I choose the road less traveled.