Balancing Ideas and Perceptions

[jenko]

Read an interview lately and thought this section was particularly interesting …

The most interesting photographers […] are those who manage to find a proper balance between perception and the idea. I was talking about this with Paul Graham a few weeks ago, who said that you can set out with the best possible idea, open your door, go outside, and the world changes that idea. And you have to accept that and shift your expectation to accommodate what you observe and evolve with it. What you produce in the end will probably be quite different from the initial idea. This is what photography is about. It is about having an idea at first and accepting that you’re going to be seduced, in the etymological sense of the word, by the world you’re encountering. Some photographers remain really stiff and rigid. They have the idea. They just want to illustrate the idea. And, then you have the opposite: photographers who go out to shoot without any preconceived idea and then, afterwards, try to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and construct something from their images, which is what has happened in photography since the beginning.

--Quentin Bajac, aperture 213, Winter 2013

What I get from this is the importance of balancing an initial idea with the freedom of the moment. In other words, ideas are great, but if one is too wedded to an idea, the result can be overly self-conscious and stiff. The opposite situation is when there is no initial idea, which can result in an image being unrealized, premature. I have been in both places, and my experience is that the most enjoyable and productive place to work from is one very similar to this quote: having an initial idea that evolves with my changing perceptions. I like to have an idea that I can work through. I don’t really want the problems to be fully solved or for the idea to inhabit a protective bubble.

Photographers often talk about “lucky” shots, and I believe dumb luck sometimes does play a part, but many times I feel as if photographers have absorbed the elements subconsciously, what I would call, smart luck or letting an idea evolve with the moment. A photographer may claim, “Oh it was luck!” If they are experienced and have trained themselves to see those decisive moments, than luck is really not that important. A great image is a lucky one only insomuch as its creator was able to intuitively sense that moment, take a risk, and capture it. There’s an image of Marilyn Monroe, shot by Richard Avedon, it’s my favorite image of her—Avedon took this shot after their official photo shoot. She had zoned out after a day’s work and was completely unaware of the camera. Was it luck that Avedon caught Marilyn so unguarded? Or was it Avedon’s keen eye that saw an authentic moment? His initial idea evolved, and he wasn’t too wedded to the idea of her public persona—the bombshell Marilyn. His best shot of her wasn’t posed, wasn’t “sexy,” and it utterly challenged convention at that time.

Anyway, thought this quote might make an interesting discussion.

 

[pgriz]

The challenge to the human condition is that we are all walking around with layers of perception/projection. Think of any one person. There is the person him or herself. Then there's the self-perception of who they think/imagine they are. Then there's who they want you to think they are. The first person who interacts with them is dealing with THEIR perception of who they think the person is. And if they know the person, then there's the layer of what they want or wish the person to be. A third person looking at the interaction of the first two will similarly see the interaction in terms of their own layers of perception.

This relates also to our perception of the world around us. We rarely deal with the reality of things. We "see" things through a filter of past experiences, prejudices, wants and desires, culture and world-view biases. We impose a mental structure on the things we see, in both hierarchical and relational terms. Things "make sense" to us when we've put everything in its place. That affects our creative side as well, and when we produce our "idea" or "vision", it is colored by our perceptions. When others see these ideas, they too see them through their own perceptual filters.

And yet, we hunger for the moments of clarity when we see things without all that mental baggage. Perhaps it is serendipity that brings together elements of an image in an unexpected way that doesn't allow us to immediately identify, sort, catalogue, and dismiss what we're seeing as "not important". The image of Marilyn Monroe that you linked to, shows an icon outside of the expected "space" of behaviour. And that challenges our expectations and preconceptions, and makes us look. That doesn't guarantee that the viewer can always successfully step outside their perceptual zone, but it does open the door to "seeing" beyond our layers of expectation.

That's the problem with ideas - too often they are a rehash of what we've already experienced. It is actually very difficult to find an aspect or approach that is novel or unique. The best artists develop a new way of perception that forces us to unlearn many of the truisms that we've picked up one way or another, and make us get out of our comfort space. One overused phrase that suits this is "paradigm shift" which makes us see things (or understand them) using a different framework. But to get to that displaced perception requires both heightened awareness and a deliberate effort at suppressing the inner cacophony that most of us live with. The quote you referenced is touching about the need to gave some guiding principles (the overall structure), which are open to improvisation as the situation unfolds. And yes, it does take an uncommon genius to be able to step outside our "reality" and present an unexpected result.

 

[oldhippy]

Well said.

 

[Derrel]

I was reading The Visucal Science Lab's Dec 27 issue last nigth. The author, Kirk Tuck had a 9-item list for how he sees most professionals working in ohotography, and how they assign priorities to their work:

1. An idea. (What will make this photo or this ad unique and interesting to a viewer!)


2. The concept. (how do I turn my idea into a visual construction = what is the concept)


3. The production. (does the scene and lighting I'm creating support the idea and concept?)


4. The casting. (Is this person the right representation of the concept? Can they give me the emotional message I need?)


5. The rapport with the subject. ( Can I lead and direct the person in front of the camera into the right pose and expression I need to fulfill my concept and make it look natural and believable?)//list continues

While commercial work differs somewhat from personal or "fine art" work, I thought his list of priorities was interesting to look at. The way he uses the words, idea, concept,production, in itself was interesting to me.​

 

[pgriz]

Thank you, Derrel, for that post. You got me to go to his blog, and there's a wealth of useful ideas there. It's now added to my list of blogs to follow.

 

[Derrel]

Thank you, Derrel, for that post. You got me to go to his blog, and there's a wealth of useful ideas there. It's now added to my list of blogs to follow.

YEah, sure thing pgriz. Kirk Tuck is a most interesting fellow. He's been a commercial photographer for several decades now, and he's written several how-to books. WHat I like about Kirk Tuck's blogging is that he is very hands-on, very down to Earth...if he likes something, he will tell his readers about it. If he doesn't like something, same thing. He's a big advocate of the various smaller-format, mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, and he has some interesting insights. He is my go-to guy for opinions about how various mirrorless cameras and lenses function. He cares most about getting the job done, no matter what the tool set.

I see I had some funny typos above, pre-coffee. The Visual Science Lab is the name of his blog.