Saturday, June 9, 2012

Vision and Visual Literacy



The Mall as Rembrandt might have photographed it.

Several months ago I taught a workshop on techniques one could use when converting a digital color image to black and white. However, as I got into the workshop, what I discovered was that the students were really interested in how I looked at a raw (not RAW as in format) image and decided what to do with it visually to make it into "fine art."

This got me thinking about the old saying that, "if I own a piano I am a person who owns a piano, but it I own a camera I am a photographer." What I realized was, that most folks working in this media, creation of the final image is almost a random walk where they think they will recognize something good when they see it but have little idea where they are going.

While this may be one approach, I have always thought of photography as a backward medium in that we should have some concept of what the image should look like and then use whatever tools are at our disposal and mastery to achieve that image. I recognize that we can see something working that may divert ourselves from our original thought path but ultimately I think we should have a concept in mind before we start on an image.

Chuck Close said something to the effect that photography is the easiest medium to master but the most difficult to express your vision. An artist for whom I have a lot of respect had a saying that craft is the language of the arts. I actually think that craft is the tool of the arts, it is not a substitute for a lack of vision. (I'm tempted to make a snarky comment at this point about all the beautifully crafted boring pictures that are made with a view camera. I'll refrain....)

I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that we teach photography backwards. I think we should teach visual literacy before we teach how to use a camera and lenses. The basics of photography should be taught after we teach how to see, not before.

2 comments:

  1. Jim, As you know, I collected photography before getting into Marfa minimalism. I still follow photography closely. I agree 100% that visual literacy should be a prerequisite for any form of art, including photography. Of course, this will never be the case.

    I look at many benefit auctions held by regional photography resource centers - good ones. The sad part is that out of 100 photographs, there may be a handful that reach the level of "interesting". Honestly, copying someone else's style or subject matter is lame. How many girls adorned in a prom dress standing in a field do we need to see. How many old doors or windows are really art in any sense of that broad word? How many Sugimoto seascapes will we have to endure with the photographer not even understanding Sugimoto's concept? What is interesting about any of this? What is new and fresh?

    Because of my gallery experience - I see that any good artist has something that they need to share. They want to tell the viewer something new. If it isn't new, why bother. Most young, new artists are not at this place. They haven't looked at 10,000 images to see what has been said, what is important, the concept of art history and progress, etc. Your rant is quadrupled. A beautifully crafted photograph is not art. The vision, the concept, the message creates art (as opposed to decoration).

    I love the rare times when I really see something that is challenging and new in photography.

    Vilis

    ReplyDelete