Hi all,

While screening, is it fair to say - in general - that an original image demand less technical quality?

At least I tend to look at it that way.

By original I mean an image that carry a strong message, tells a distinctive story, ask fascinating questions and/or are very moody.

Any thoughts on this fairly well chewed topic?

U

I agree in most cases - If a photo catches me very much technical quality is not so important.
Often due to a special moment and circumstances a photo cannot be just redone in better quality.
It's always a mixture to me, depending on how origianal the picture is and how bad the quality -
Also a picture in not so good quality can strike me ... but on the other hand I often think that some pictures could be so much better in case...

In general I second Sven's opinion.
But I often vote against an image that has a good message or is composed perfect because of technical quality. Not if there are minor flaws but when there are things like sensor dust spots, color banding, compression artefacts or completely unreal colors (as editing results) my opinion to publish is (often - not always) negative.

Personally I enjoy a very original technically inferior image to a big beautiful technically perfect, but boring one. In general I'd say the more original the less important is the technical quality and vice versa. However, it's always a shame to see an image which is very interesting but has technical flaws which could easily be fixed. Of course I prefer an image which is both very original and technically perfect, unless it's been consciously deprived of technical quality as an artistic statement and it fits the image.

I support this fully. Sure, there are some givens that should be considered, which Sven mentioned.
Sometimes there is simply no time to do the technical fine tuning for fear of losing that special capture. Should the image portray the essence successfully, in spite of other flaws in the non-essential sections of the frame, it will be a pity to get turned down.
Many iconic images from over the years suffer from motion artifacts or similar technical factors, yet we appreciate them in spite of this.
Should there be more leniency and understanding in this regard, I personally feel that sections like Street and Everyday can only benefit, and gain in stature/gravitas. Good point raised Ulf.

That is the mixture I mean - It's depending on how dominating they are. But in close cases I usually leave a comment to explain in detail then!
I have to say there are many pictures which I could not have voted for because of technical weakness cause they are dominating too much in my eyes -
Still possible that I vote for but usually not if these could easy be "fixed" (Oversharpening, Halos, Spots, Burns)....

Then I try to leave another comment and suggest to fix and upload improved....

Exactly :-)


So let's give them a chance for improvement 'before' publishing :-)

i agree as well:) original is so much more interesting... capturing moments of life that other can relate to... many times situations happen in not so good light but the emotion captured can be overwhelming... for me emotion and originality is more than technical. but i do love 1x for teaching the technical part by the way of rejections :) at least my rejects have better technicality :) i think....

Well... It really depends what we call 'originality' and what we call 'technical quality'.

If you have a very original subject matter then of course that could forgive some flaws, such as spots, noise, little blur, approximate editing etc... But if we consider composition as a technical quality (and I think it is) then it also has to be here because a photograph - on my opinion - has to be more than mere description of facts, and photographer has to say more than just "I was here".

Also I think that technical quality, or better said the craftsmanship involved can be part of originality. Take Dave Nitsche's photographs for example, I think it is hard to separate the craft from the subject matter. Both are intimately tied and combined.

Why am I boosting the above topic?

Well, basically because I'm under the impression that a majority of uploads here on 1x, above all, are aimed for technical perfection rather than originality!

I also think that most of us have a tendency to favour technical perfection in screening, which could lead to a predominance in technically perfected images. We probably do this naturally because it's easier/quicker than to evaluate originality. To be honest - the latter is certainly more subjective and therefore trickier to judge in a split second.

I certainly don't mind technical perfection, on the contrary. Sometimes it's even essential! Nevertheless, it almost constantly - to me at least - comes second to originality. In my mind originality is the key to further delight, pleasure and inspiration. But that's me.

I therefore wish that more members (including myself) would dare to upload larger portions of images with a stronger message, story and mood. I also wish that more members (including myself) would dare to favour originality to a greater extent in screening - even though it's quite challenging and time consuming.

The end result might be an even more appealing place to hang around, with a somewhat better balance of technical perfection and originality.

I must say that I think technical quality is VERY important, in landscape, macro, night, still life and some other catagories!!

But IMO it is not so important in Mood or street, but that is just my oppinion!!

But Im probably wrong, I have no idea how a good photograph should look like :-)

/Wulff

... and architecture!

Indeed, for PJ, street etc... it is imho not a "conditio sine qua non" - although this must be evaluated case by case: having the shot vs. technical ability. I doubt that a good photographer will make a total mess of important moment.

BTW the term "Originality" is a bit misleading here; are we speaking about something original=new, fresh, spontaneous... or having the shot?

Interesting subject though... and I assume this is general and not 1x related?

I agree, most proff photographers would not put their name on something not technical ok :-)

But again Im probably wrong, I have no idea how a good photograph should look like :-)

/Wulff

Why are you saying a thing like that? Is it a joke or are you trying to say something, without really saying it? I'm confused.

Just a taught...


So, a technicaly perfect image demands less originality?

My C.P.U. is a neural-net processor--a learning computer.

CPU=central porn unit?

I'm a cybernetic organism: living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.

A Borg?

Wrong movie, mate!

Yeah, sorry, still stuck in the '90... What are you watching?

No I'm dead serious Ulf, currently I have no idea what a good picture looks like!! I have no idea, unfortunately :-((

/Wulff

Skynet does not believe in you like I do.

Thank's Clyde :-)

Skynet must be connected to my camera, it does not seem to work as well as usual :-((((

/Wulff

terminators turn me on. Careful Clyde..

Not my impression, Ulf, absolutely not.
I don't know which tendency most of us have. But although I always look for the technical quality of an image, most important is the message the image sends out or the feeling the image causes while viewing. But I admit that it can come to a negative vote when an image that touches me shows technical flaws in a too big extent. That does not mean that there are exceptions where I can completely overlook the technical flaws. It really depends on every single photo which weight I give to the technical quality.

I think that too....

But
I've got a different impact of this - I think many pictures would not be published but are because of idea/story/originality. But I have to admit that of course sometimes I just can't get into a picture's originality and I think it's the same for everyone.

I also share the opinion that for some categories the quality is much more important than for others.

Ulf, sometimes technical quality isn't what makes the most beautiful image! Grain and scratches, overexposure and blurriness is sometimes an advantage.

When added as artistic enhancement, this may be OK in some cases. But when it's a technical flaw then I cannot accept it.

Agree...!

/Wulff

I'm primarily thinking about 'originality' in terms of artistic creativity and message/story. But even "new, fresh and spontaneous" are on my mind. I'm also thinking about challenging the schoolbook and breaking rules. Does for an example certain rules of composition really matter that much? And what about instant eye pleasure versus roused feelings?

I'm not trying to make a stand here; I'm simply asking questions in a subject matter that interests me a lot.
U

Any image that challenges my prevailing assessment that all humans are "blah!!" to the point of being lethal, gets my vote.;))

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

To me, certain photographs don't need to be technically brilliant to make my heart beat faster. Such as this one.

:-)))))

Good question! Personally I believe the answer is yes. I might expose my chin here, but I'm quite sure a technically perfect schoolbook image (composition-wise and such) would easily be published here on 1x without any originality whatsoever. That said I'm however aware that most published images on 1x have originality too. But I'm also quite sure an original and artistically creative image easily would be rejected here on 1x if it was breaking certain schoolbook rules and wasn?t more or less technically flawless.

I?m not saying one is better than the other. I?m just wondering if we (collectively) tend to favour one before the other! And by doing so, letting a lot of crazy, fun and ridiculous images down the drain, even though they are original and artistically creative.

Just some philosophical thoughts.
U

Funny, that makes two of us :)

My opinion is exactly the other way round! I've seen a lot of very fine composed and also technically flawless images rejected. On the other hand a lot of "photographs" are published which only take their "impact" by adding a lot of postprocessing filter effects and looking more like a artificial and unreal product than a photo. Also a lot of blurry, grainy, unsharp, over-/underexposed photos are published. I absolutely cannot go with your statement that "technically perfect schoolbook images ... would easily published here on 1X".

This, I fully agree, is a problem that leaves me at unease too.

be still my beating heart! . . . . .

We had three guinea pigs that got out of a hole in their run and lived free in the garden. . . . boring but true.

Jon

Ginipiggies are never boring, rejections are. Has a piggy ever rejected one of your photographs? Now you see. They know what compassion means.

But I don't want to hijack the topic... to me, the vast majority on 1X photos is not "original" in the sense of Ulf's meaning. They make us wow by showing beautiful people and beautiful things beautifully photographed, but there is hardly a strong message or whatever to have a dramatic impact. And I hardly see such photos in screening either.

The culprit behind fetishizing picture quality is digtal age I guess. As late as in the 90'-s, tack sharpness for example was important only for photographic nerds, to whom a good photograph is a good lens resolution chart on photodo. Why? Because the norm was to look at prints, magazines and art books. Now we look at computer screens which provide a totally different experience. Something that is of perfect quality on paper does not look necessarly good enough on the screen. For example, there is the famous Che Guevara portrait by Alberto Korda. It is a pop-culture icon but if it would be taken now, we would probably call it "too soft", "out of focus", "blown background", "not sharp enough" (and reject it anyway because of the lack of eye contact, haha).

We also had this topic about critique on famous photographs. The point of the topic was that there's a flaw in even the most hyped image, sometimes even a serious flaw, that could mean rejection. Fortunately, it is usually the great public who decides about the success of a photograph and not fellow photographers.

And the big trap of the 1X experience is for me that it makes us look for imperfections of the image while screening and in critique. Together with the hype about image quality, this might explain why our gallery is in general nice and technically brilliant but rarely fascinating by the subject or human emotion in it. Just an opinon...

beautifully said. When read commentary on some of the most heart stopping slap in the face impact shots that its too blurry or the it's 0.01 mm off on composition my heart sinks, I wish we would seek out the good in images not the bad.

i agree with Balazs......
i am missing more real emotions.... more real images
now what is real? subjective again :)

i think it is the photographers style.... i do documentary or documentary portraits.... and now i include more mood in them... i am less attracted to studio w
work... but i am sure many dont care too much for documentary

the big trap of 1x is capturing images suitable for 1x.... that is limiting our view. we must be open to more variety
however 1x is the best teacher i had :)

I'm very "happy" to see images like this:
http://1x.com/photos/documentary/21552/
(Sorry sasson :))

or:

http://1x.com/photos/member/13292/27625/

And I'm still sad over the rejection of this:

(I still own you a better version Mal...)

Balazs I think you are very much aware by now that it's not allowed to complain about rejects in the forum. This is a reminder, further posts like that will be deleted. Please return to the topic discussed or the thread will be closed.

And so ladies and gentleman ends a beautiful thread. I was wondering when this was going to morph. 44 posts. More than I thought.

Ulf, before this is locked, deleted, whatever, I think that yes, originality get's a 'get out of jail free card' from time to time. In this day and age seeing something truly original will get anyones heart going. It's a very, very rare occasion. It's still held to some form of technical standard (at least by me) but certain things will be overlooked.

I see Balazs post as a glass 2/3 full and 1/3 empty (2/3 of published pics, 1/3 of rejection). So from pure arithmetic point of view - and with regards to 1X screening - it is a fair post, unless you want to drink full glasses all the time, which may be suitable for beer but not for good wine.

I do not want to dwell on this. It was shown as an example for an interesting documentary photograph rejected for bad technical quality. (After all, we have lots of nice head shots but none about a headshot). I didn't "whine" about it then, neither do now. (I only regret that I can't improve the doubtlessly bad quality.) So, topic finished, let's get back to the thread.

PS Sorry Ulf.

Sounds strangely familiar, is Richard in the room??


Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. SkyNet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. And, Skynet fights back

Discussing individual screening decisions is not allowed in the forum, not even if it's 1/10 of the post. Just leave that part out for the next time and there's no problem. Now let's try not to ruin this thread and stay on topic.

OK, as long as you realize that YOU are the one who diverted the attention off the topic with your comment to Balazs...

A way to promote focus on the good in images could be to have a number of canned reasons in Screening for publish-votes: 'Select what indicates the strenght of this image', like originality, mood, story et cetera. - Like we have it for don't publish-votes: 'Select what indicates the problem'.
And have the positive canned-reasons to the left, so that we consider them first, and the negative canned-reasons to the right.

Just an idea....! :-)

As for the original topic: I try hard not to look at technical considerations at all. I think it's the least important, always. I've said many times, if I like it I look at it, if I like it more by looking more, I comment or add to my albums. It's all about emotion and movement for me. If there's neither, I just move on...

One thing for me is that an image may make more sense considering the body of work from the author. Considering "originality" from a standalone photograph might reflect too much subject matter IMO. I does not mean that it can't count, but more than often originality can also be found with regards to the photographer vision, and you need a wider picture (i.e. the body of work) to figure that out.

Exactly. That's why it is useful in Critique to check out the photographer's other works before judging it. Sometimes the only measure of a photo's quality and impact is the whole portfolio.

This comes back to the artist's intention, which is hard to discover without access to a body of work.
I read an interesting take on originality in a book the other day. The author stated that 'if something has been done before, so what? It hasn't been done by you before'. or something along those lines. This was in the context of developing your own personal style, and as such is quite useful. Copying is fine, up to a point, but moving past that should be the objective.

On the subject of picture 'quality', certain aspects of picture quality are readily measurable or easily discernable, which makes them the obvious thing to comment on. It's easier to say 'it's a bit soft' than it is to say ' I don't like the way your mind works' for instance ;-)

Jon

Brilliant illustration, Balazs. You are laughing but unfortunately I'm confident that you're right.


Interesting thought. Photographers are certainly more interested in technical perfection than the common guy. I think there might be the same relation between grown ups and children. So perhaps we are too serious here at 1x? Maybe we would profit by opening our eyes and challenge our perceptions even more?


I agree with Mal about the importance of seeking out the good in images rather than the bad.
U

I'm not sure I understand what a 'get out of jail free card' means.

Talking about original work, I'm not primarily referring to the rare originality that takes your breath away, rather the plain and artistically creative stuff. Even crazy, fun and ridiculous images are quite original. But we hardly ever see it here.
U

Ulf (and everyone else), you are more than welcome to invite photographers to 1x who you find original and creative in their style!

A fine illustration:
http://1x.com/v2/#forum.php?action=viewtopicc&tid=19447

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I hope it's okay to have these kinds of discussions though? Because I'm just interested in how we, collectively, perceive images in general, and what's key in getting published. At least for me it's an important learning-curve in order to be a more robust screener. I also believe the arguments have been upright and quite enlightening so far - with a few exceptions about Skynet and such ;)
U

There is a root to this issue which I think we could profitably grab a hold of, and that is that typically we are afraid that these days photography, and the publishing of images, are so easy, too easy, and in our insecurity about that our reaction is to try to make it harder. This is the anxiety which I see typifies 1X. Part of 1X's premise is to separate the photos that are too easy from the ones that are so hard that they are in a class of their own, the 1X class. It is discrimination for the sake of lessening our anxiety about being lost in the crowd. More photographs enter the internet every day than almost any other kind of material, I would guess. Visual material now predominates over word and everything else. We swim in a visual environment, we are like fish that are all eyes.

So, each of us feels very anxious and wants somehow to create a value system, which would allow us to make classes of images and hopefully place ourselves in the top one or two or three of those classes. The OP's original question is really about these anxieties of ours and how we try to manage them by manipulating the whole of the photographic universe. As a result, when we examine just how we have formed these classes that give us security and the chance of standing out in the oceans of photographers and their images, a chance of prestige, a chance of being discovered by 1X etc, we find these classes of ours so empty of real substance and real logic. It's because they are not about *worth*, they are about our resistance to being anonymous. Two very different things.

All of us want some way to make ourselves heard when we shout "Look at me!!". 1X is one such way. That purpose has nothing to do with *value* in photography. Value is something else entirely. It is instructive to consider that there is no equivalent in science to 1X. There are no forums discussing scientific works according to criteria which evaporate on close examination. I think there is a real identity between science and ART, in the way that the value of works of science and art become recognised and incorporated into culture over time and on the basis of community need and consensus. We would do well to approach our photography in a similar way to how scientists approach their work. Not primarily to place ourselves in some arbitrary pecking order of our own creation, but to add something to a life-supporting edifice whose efficacy is a matter of pragmatic fact.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

When a photograph actually makes me think, ask questions, wonder, has a story, a message..a mood..well...for me there is no room to be looking for technical problems. What I am trying to say, is that if and when those things are present, there really is no "space" to search for technical issues because I am just mesmerized by the work itself. Ulf, you have done a very good job of identifying various elements that would make it original for you, and I would agree with your brief description.

As I read through the various thoughts here about technical vs originality - I found myself wondering what others saw as original. It would have been helpful to see examples. I realize that the rejected images cannot be placed here, but can published works of others, or generally works from the Internet be used as examples..I think that might help the discussion along.

Perhaps one of the issues with websites devoted to photography, contests, publications etc..is that there are basic rules set it place, for what is and is not permitted. Or, if not rules, than norms for that website. This can have the effect of not being able to submit work which you believe might me very original, but not fit in with the style of that particular place.

But yes, I would choose originality (that had the characteristics you mention) over the technical 100 percent of the time...

Phyllis

Yes I agree originality (or mood/story) is more important that technical quality.
Though, the problem is that many people (learning photography or just beginning) focus on technical quality because it is what they care about at this time, it is the first thing you learn when you have a camera for not so long. They look at every little things that could be wrong : for example when someone says crop 1 centimeters on the right, or other such minor things (little tilt, little blown out or too dark areas etc...), I wonder if this person care about the whole image or if his goal is to find flaws.
Have a look at Magnum photographers portfolios, absolutely none of their image is perfect, all of them are tilted, noisy, blurry or other such things.
IMO these flaws make the images living.

And on the contrary, some photographers exagerate flaws like noise, contrast, blurry effects etc...(with photoshop tricks or special lenses) but their images are empty, the only interesting thing come from these artificial effects.

Some people prefer instant impact (which could be done with these special effects), other ones prefer more subtle ones or subtle mood which come from seeing several images of the same photographer.

Sometime it happens that I screen (also to have some more slots ;-) ), and I admit that I cannot be fair because I see so extremely different images from a minute to another, i can't feel well the mood, the photographer wants to give, by seeing just 1 of his images.

We don't want discussions about the screening process, screening decisions, the front page and so on, because it has been more than thoroughly discussed before and those discussions tend to get too heated up. Such remarks should be directed to the founders in private messages only. On the other hand, a constructive discussion about originality versus technical quality, like this one, is very welcome!

Ralf, if you don't want threads like this to be interrupted by "off topic" comments about the screening process. AND if you want these kind of comments handled in private thru OE-mail, WHY have you interrupted this tread twice in public when instead of you could have sent "private messages only"?? Perhaps this would have been a chance to lead by example...

And BTW, who is "We don't want discussions"... Is we just you and Jacob or do you perceive that the community doesn't want these discussions.
And BTW, what is "too heated up"? Is "heated up" inherently bad?

AND BTW, if I click you "Contact Ralf" button for private messages, all I get it a blank screen...

AND BTW Clyde, you never answered the question of which way the birds were heading!

I'll pick up on Phyllis suggestion and use some of my own pictures, to partly illustrate what I've been trying to say in this thread. I hope I?m not doing something wrong?


This is an attempt to be somewhat creative. I wanted to show how bizarre and sometimes amusing reality could be. This image also carry my 'signature' as a photographer, and I'm quite sure the image is - more or less - one of a kind. However, as you can see it's not technically flawless, but given the relatively strong message (and story) one can hopefully oversee that defect.


And here is an example of a technically fairly flawless picture. Composition, sharpness and exposure are acceptable and there is a small amount of eye-candy as well. However there is no real originality ('signature') involved. To be honest, it's one of those images that thousands of photographers already have taken, over the decades. And it lacks the artistic creativity to be displayed on an exhibition, imo.

Food for thought.
U

Actually I thought we did cover that...NNW, Newport Beach, CA between the Newport Pier and the Balboa Pier, I was walking towards Balboa.

And BTW, you have a good memory Glen!!

This is an interesting definition of 'originality'. Quite by accient I just read an article about Ries Rasmussen/Lily Dillon and her - among a lot of other artworks - photography, which are very original in the above sense, though certainly - at least some of them - not technically flawless!
Click on 'Photography by Rie Rasmussen' here:
http://www.rierasmussen.net/art-photography.php
and judge for yourself!
Lars :-)

Clyde, you are off course free to do whatever you like but I would very much appreciate if you could keep Skynet and other OT's off this thread.
Thanks,
U

How can originality be used as a standard? Are there examples and samples, so that we can judge success in originality by them? And isn't that contradictory? How could originality be used to judge originality? Come on, guys!

I think, as I said in my post above, that what we are really talking about here are ways to narrow the field, to cut out the competition, to get our voice heard above the universal clamouring for attention. We latch onto "originality" as a way of doing that. Originality is a harder idea than what most of you are talking about here.

Furthermore, I don't believe one can order originality a priori. I don't think it is possible to go out camera in hand with the intention of shooting an original picture and do that. If that could be done, everyone would be doing it, surely, and where would "originality" be then, I ask you?

Let me come back to the analogy with science. A scientist cannot plan to do something original. The originality of something a scientist does *emerges* out of the context in which the science is done, and is *recognised*, as its implications are felt, by a community of people. In that sense, originality is unique, and therefore cannot be ordered on a menu, or emulated after the event. Can any of you describe what the next original photograph will be like? To try to do that would be to contradict the very meaning of originality. And if an original is used to create laws for emulation then obviously those laws are the death sentence to any subsequent originality. Originality is a complete surprise. It is a one-off. On the other hand, just as for science, originality can only be *recognised* within a context, as part of a process. Originality, paradoxically, can only exist when it is seen in relation to like things. It one of the functions of critics, who are expert in context, to alert us to an originality.

Originality is also, as I said before, a contribution of something valuable to a field of activity, pragmatically, so that the field is altered by it, so that some hitherto nonexistent benefit accrues from it. The ideas of context and community are integral with originality. But herein this discussion it is used to mean a competitive edge, a triumph belonging to and congruent with an individual. You are talking about something like a star rating.

Some comments in this thread seem to be equating impact with originality, or mere difference, or affective excitation, something to which we give attention, more attention than to some other things. Well, don't you think it's worth trying to keep the meanings of words intact? Not to would, after all, be to make discussion ultimately impossible.

I would say that it is possible to be original in many ways. One could be technically original, or thematically original, or syntactically original, or allusively original, and so on. Any or all of these, and more. Do you really want to separate "originality" from any consideration of image sharpness or exposure etc? Once again, to claim that originality has nothing to do with technique is to try to limit originality, which as I have been arguing cannot be defined a priori.

I think we have the cart before the horse if we try to produce originality as a kind of *brand*. It just isn't that kind of thing. Originality is hard precisely because it cannot be purposely produced. I have said elsewhere that great ART is consummate skill. Just as great science is. And consummate skill is not necessarily prosaic, humdrum and uninspired. I think the way to originality is through technique. Originality *emerges* in unpredictable and undefinable ways, but consummate skill is a necessary prerequisite. And so I think the proper subject of this discussion is the relationship between technique and originality, not whether we should value one over the other. I don' t agree we should not talk about one in the context of the other. Quite the opposite.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Interesting stuff Brose, Setting out with the intention to be original is a silly idea, you are right. Striving to be original is trying to force something into being that should by rights come along of it's own accord when you aren't looking ;-) the way to originality is probably through not worrying about it. Which is easier said than done.
Jon

Interesting stuff Brose, as said by JBA. But I can not avoid thinking about the concept 'filibuster', when I read your elucidation. Do you want to end this thread, or do you have something constructive to add, so that we can proceed in our endeavour to de-mystify the photographical world?
Lars :-)

Why should I cannot go into a studio or something like that and produce an original photo?


I do not think so, because not everyone has the vision to do so. And this has nothing to do with technical skills.

Frank

Sure, why not...

Who said it could?


I don't know about you, Brose, but I'm here to share my thoughts and to learn from others ;)


Well, I seriously believe everyone can be more or less creative. But for most of us - including myself - it's a matter of sweat, determination and playfulness. Maybe even readiness to break some rules!


Am I? In that case I'm sorry. I was merely trying to get the topic into play, and possibly have people start thinking about alternative ways of approaching images.


True. I agree completely.


I'm not sure I have claimed any such thing. Making a point is not necessarily the same thing as saying that everything else is false. I do, for an example, truly appreciate images that are both artistically creative and technically flawless. And I guess that goes for all of us. But I also believe that artistic creativity - generally speaking - always comes second to none.
U

Thanks :)
U

OK, I shoot a LOT of sunsets, most folks on this and and some other sites I've participated on tend to think sunsets are just sunsets, seen on seen 'em all. Unless of course there is milky water in the foreground...

I, being a careful observer of sunsets, can tell you that each and every one is unique, say original if you like. I could set up a tripod and an intervalometer up on Glendora Ridge and shoot an original/unique photograph every day without even trying. What I do instead that works for me is, I walk around where ever I am and look for an interesting viewpoint, a different tree to put in the foreground, something to make the sunset stand out in my mind. Some views I like. When I find a view I like, I set up my tripod and shoot. The results are then up to God and his paintbrush. If I like the results when I get back to my computer, I post it for others to look at, if they like it too, BONUS!!

An example is these 2 shots were shot from spots that are within a couple hundred yards of each other on different days:



The second image can also be seen here if the thumbnail won't load full:
http://www.clydebeamer.com/2009/05/glendora-bw/

One was published one was not. Does that make one unique or original and the other not, no. Should one be given more "grace" about technical flaws than the other, no. Should we all just try to look at the photographs more and the technical stuff less, YES!! Going too far beyond that is neither interesting nor productive for me.

Hillbilly out!

I have to say I agree again with the points Ulf has made regarding some of your points, and I cannot say them with any greater degree of clarity then he already has. However, I did want to respond to the one thought you have above - as quoted.

Again..I start by acknowledging that much but not all of what I want to say is subjective.

I would answer you by saying that it is not a matter of me or anyone 'wanting' to separate out the concept of originality from the process of technical excellence. It is more that they are just not the same thing.

Their origins are different.

Technical expertise is very often the result of skill building. To develop a skill we usually gather data, and study; either formally or self taught. In the case of photography you might take a course here and there or do an entire degree. Then we usually take that knowledge and go out into the world and practice it. In this case we take pictures. Over time hopefully we improve out technical skills.

Originality comes at least in large part, from the creative process - which has been written about extensively. There are ways to enhance one's creativity, but the methods to do so are also different from learning a technical skill. While it has been proven that we can all become more creative I personally believe that some people are actually born with a brain that functions more easily in that realm of being. So it is easier for them, but not impossible for the rest of us. :)

I not only think that originality can be purposefully produced I think one can find evidence of it all around them. If we take the time to look at the lives of the people who have demonstrated originality in their work I believe we will find that they have worked at it...toward it..over time. Not in school, not with books, not with technical knowledge...but in other ways.

Now where I may agree with you is this..Once you have that creative style, way of being, idea, etc..you have to show it to the world..that requires some degree of technical expertise. You can't take a picture if you don't know how to turn on your camera, and at least know its basic functions. You can not write brilliant poetry without a pencil or something to record it...you cannot paint without the ability to put strokes on the paper...

For me the problem comes in confusing the two..which goes back to Ulf's question...which was a rather simple one..but I believe an extremely important one in light of the reality that anyone can take a clear crisp picture today..thanks to the digital age. Over the last five or six years I think I have seen not hundreds, not thousands, but probably hundreds of thousands of photos on the Internet. I do like looking at photos. :))

Only a handful of pictures have stayed with me...left a deep impression...and I believe I can say honestly that it is not because of the technical excellence. (thought they may be technically so)...For me it is that they have something that touches a part of me, which cannot really be explained easily with words. Also, when something is original, I don't think it can or should be explained. It just is and the thing is ...you know it on a visceral level.

So...when asked the question of whether or not an image that has originality ...can have technical issues looked at less...for me the answer remains yes. And I would add that I am longing to see more of them. I may not live long enough to see it, but I do believe that this is going to happen on the Internet in time and over time. It has only been a few years and we are often on overload with the same perfect flower:) I think, or maybe it is a hope that that original ideas will take over...like the process of selective adaptation...

Thanks for listening,
Phyllis

Bravo Phyllis...I think that you have spoken for many of us.
After reading your contribution to this thread I do not think that there can be any valid counter argument to what you have so eloquently explained, and in such an objective manner.
Thanks for taking the time out.

If I were to decide I would have chosen the second one on my kitchen wall. I'm not quite sure why, but it probably has something to do with the intense and energetic light. A light that almost hits you in the face. A light that more or less cover the whole landscape and makes it harder to grasp. It simply tickles my mind and therefore becomes - in my eyes - more creative and intriguing. Thanks for sharing, Clyde.
U

First of all I have to second Andre and thank you very much for taking the time to sincerely elaborate on the topic. If not you should at least consider being a professional columnist. Secondly I was cracking up when reading about the utopia flower. Please don't get me wrong, I do love nature images, here is a fresh one that I particularly appreciate.

http://1x.com/v2/#photos/latest-additions/31409
© Tamyl

And here is an old one from my own collection (to prove that I'm also dead serious about nature images:)

But to be honest, sometimes I wonder if everybody is relatives to Genghis Khan, living right next to the great plain. Surely I can't be the only member on 1x that lives a normal and quite boring, suburban life? And surely I can't be the only member on 1x that doesn't travels around the globe for living, meeting fascinating people and seeing exotic places all day long. If I'm wrong, I envy you all, and ask you please to come home and take some ordinary (human) shots around the house. Where you hopefully live in real life.
U

You like it, BONUS!!

"Interesting stuff Brose, Setting out with the intention to be original is a silly idea, you are right. Striving to be original is trying to force something into being that should by rights come along of it's own accord when you aren't looking ;-) the way to originality is probably through not worrying about it. Which is easier said than done. Jon"

Jon, I think it's fine for the idea of originality to *motivate* us, and for us to be motivated - *inspired* - by originality when it appears. I think that one of the benefits of originality that I talked about is just that - that originality makes more originality more likely, so that we progress. As much in the art of photography as in science.

But I don't think that originality is directly accessible, learnable or manipulable, and some of the flavour of this discussion seems to suggest that it is, that it is part of an image, resides in an image as another thing alongside sharpness or exposure etc. I don't think that originality is so because it emerges from a set of relationships, a process. You can't put originality in an image, you have to put yourself in the right kind of relationships, and in the right process, for originality to emerge. A photographer, an artist, a scientist is not the author of originality. It is not created in the click of the shutter. It appears when the relationships, the process, is at a certain pitch. It has a gestation. You see, this concept of originality is miles apart.

You can be motivated by originality, you can be inspired by it, but no amount of looking at examples of originality is going to directly produce originality, no analysis of any one instance of originality can bud into originality, like a bud on a plant. Every instance of originality is by definition unique and creates its own terms of reference unlike those of any other instance of originality.

What can we do? Well, all we can do is perfect our craft. But as I said before, craft, skill, are not trivial or prosaic. They are an essential prerequisite of originality, and as I argued, originality cannot be discussed without also discussing technique. Nor is craft-skill one dimensional. Let's look at Michelangelo. No one I think would argue that this person did not produce work of originality. However, the originality of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, for example, is not restricted to their subject matter, style or any other quality residing in them. Those things are like flowers on a plant. The plant is Michelangelo and his craft-skill, and that includes the skill of his "being-in-the-world", to use an existentialist expression.

Neil

Lars, It is not my intention to block discussion, but if discussion is headed down a blind alley it will be blocked as a natural consequence. Better to change the alley than persist in futility. I am not absolutely sure which alley is better, that?s why I joined the discussion, but I do think the particular alley that some of this discussion has been in is headed towards either a brick wall of word confusion, or the fluffy nothingness of piety and sentimentality.

Neil

http://www.brosepix.com

I agree to some extent, but these people you mention will have worked, not at being original, but at expressing themselves better and finding ways of communicating what they want to say. Their intention would be focused on their Art or Scientific train of thought and it's progression. I don't think they would have set out with the express intention of being original per se. It wouldn't have been their primary intention or objective. Basiclly, they worked hard at being at being bloody good at what they do. Originality came as part of the package. Einstein didn't wake up one morning and think 'I want to be original', he woke up wondering about the problem of light and it's speed etc and came up with an original theory. Originality as perceived in an artist's work becomes apparent because of their high level skill in communication of their objective. Originality is part of the recipe for greatness, but there are plenty of ways to be original that would be pointless and not considered great at all. I could make a series of photographs of 'toenail parings of the rich and famous' ;-) to be surreal for a minute. That would be original, but I doubt if I would be hailed as a great artist. Insanity is a definition of a certain kind of originality. . .
So we are talking about originality in the context of something we perceive as 'good', which opens up a whole new area of hazy definitions. . .

I read a quote from a photographer who's picture editor would preface any discussion with the phrase, " If you wish to discourse with me, first define your terms! " I think that applies to all of us. 'Originality' is becoming more slippery the harder we try to define it, like 'reality' and 'good' . . . ;-)

I hope I expressed what I meant to express, but i can't be sure,
cheers,
Jon

oof! ;-) A collective 'oof!' rather than a personal one.

A teensy bit of tact might be in order however. . .

I do know what you mean though. It would be nice to feel everyone was actually arguing about the same thing, but that seldom occurs in human interactions. Such is life, such is the limitation of language, and such is why I seldom bother to argue, and why, when I do, i am so sadly out of practice and basically so crap at it. . .
Jon

Ulf, sorry that I wasn't clearer in my intention. You are the OP, so it is understandable that you took the "you"s to be referring to you. But in fact I was using the generic you, and referring to a number of comments in this thread. Not arguing ad hominem.

That said, you put your original question in the context of screening on 1X, and as I have said, I regard the whole premise of 1X to be a filter created to make photography so hard as to be out of reach of most photographers, and consequently to be an antidote to the poisonous drowning flood of images we are sinking under. 1X is elitist in nature, and of course I am not the first or only person to use that term or something similar with respect to 1X. Ranking is fundamentally what 1X does. I don't think 1X is evil even so, I should add!

However, I do think we should be careful about using the idea of originality as a means of ranking images. I think you would agree that your original question is indeed about ranking images, with "original" being on top, transcending mere technical quality, and several people have agreed with you and have been more explicit in using such a ranking. Your "second to none" leaves no doubt this idea was in your mind. This is what I was thinking of when I wrote star rating. The danger is that people will nod their heads in agreement, possibly without really knowing if such an idea for ranking makes any sense. You know that my position is that originality is not possible without consummate skill, and that any discussion of originality is not possible without discussion of skill.

And don't you think that getting published in 1X turns up the volume of your voice? When I write at 1X it's likely that I will be asked, "Well, where are your published photos?"

Neil

http://www.brosepix.com

Hehe!! I'll take that on the chin. Yes, I forgot to put the gloves on! But I am harmless, really. All my intentions are good! And I was a bit upset at being taken so negatively by Lars. Am I forgiven?

Peace to all!

Neil

http://www.brosepix.com

Yes, Jon, very fine!!!

Neil

http://www.brosepix.com

Oh, I see I have had an identity malfunction. brose = Neil, to solve any confusion. ;)))

brose/Neil

http://www.brosepix.com

Maybe there is a problem with semantics in how we are understanding each other; I am not sure.

I can only guess at the creative process of others, by observing their 'way of being' in this world. You can listen to the way they speak, hear the history of their lives, and see evidence of a life that would open a path to creativity.

The only thing I can feel certain of is how I personally relate to my own creativity - which in my mind is what brings about the potential for originality. I don't think I said that one wakes up and decides today I will be creative and original. :) Rather, I think you can try to live your life in a way that generates and fosters creativity. Unlike Neil I believe it is directly accessible, but you have to be available for it and be living a life that would allow it to manifest.

A definition is probably not going to be very helpful..because then you will need a definition of the definition. On my Mac here is says..that originality is...
the ability to think independently and creatively : a writer of great originality.
? the quality of being novel or unusual : he congratulated her on the originality of her costume.

Now when you read that don't you want to know ..what is novel? What is independent, what is creative?

I believe that the creative process can be taught, because I have in fact taught it. I have taught it as part of a college curriculum, and also in workshops. It can be taught through mythology and story telling, through actual exercises like visualizations, guided meditations, meditation it self, mindfulness exercises, & music, writing, just to name a few.

I think it requires risk taking which I did not mention before. The kind of risk taking where you simply do not care how your work will be perceived. You just do it.

I don't believe it is something outside of yourself that you must wait for. That to me would be magical thinking. However, I do think patience is very critical - originality will be more likely to be available - if you don't push it.. As for the insane, well I do think that people who are quite imbalanced can be exceptionally creative. A short list make look like Diane Arbus, Andy Warhol, Jason Pollack, Jack Kerouac, Rimbaud, William Burroughs and so so many more..These people did not live ordinary lives, and they did produce the mundane. Unfortunately, they suffered but we can at least say that they took risks.

As a writer whose work I know to be very creative, on some level I think you must understand what I am trying to convey.If not, you will have to come and meet me..we can have tea.


One of my favorite quotes of all time, comes from Michelangelo. In fact, I used it in my workshops on Creativity. For, he seemed to understand that the 'object' he would create already existed outside of himself..I believe he was speaking of the 'essence' of that object..he somehow could see it..experience it..long before he created it. His mind was expansive enough to be able to imagine it in his minds eye. He seemed to realize the divinity in everything and with this his creativity knew no bounds. He was receptive to what was already there. In a strange way he almost did wake up and say..oh..today I think I will make a David!
HIS QUOTE
?In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.?

Thanks for listening..
Phyllis
SORRY about the underining..not intentional.

Edit: Fixed formatting.

Neil, I just saw this.
I think that this is how these discussions move from ideas to insults. Then people get angry, and the fun is over. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are headed toward a brick wall of word confusion or the fluffy anything..When you write a sentence like that I personally find it condescending not to mention self righteous.

I think we have all had different life experiences and we bring to this table here all of who we are. I don't care if we disagree as long as we are still talking. No one here as the ultimate answer - except of course maybe for ourselves.

In major peace, ie (very big peace)
Phyllis

Just out of pure curiosity, what do you think about the images yourself?
U

Hi Phyllis, there are things here which are similar to my point of view. For example, that technique is not the same kind of thing as originality, that skill can be purposely pursued while originality emerges from a process, and cannot be directly or reliably or solely produced by skill, that there is a link between originality and way of being. Yes, certainly!

One cause of confusion in my own writing is in my use of those words technique and skill. By technique I mean execution, the blow-by-blow doing of something. By skill I mean the sum of a person's existence. So when I say art is really consummate skill, I am not talking only about technique, I am talking about the whole capability and potential of the individual. Technique creates capability and potential, and is part of a much greater set of proficiencies, which together comprise skill. Jon has beautifully expressed a similar idea.

Someone famously said that art is about art. There is truth in that. Photography is about photography. Particle physics is about particle physics, and so on. You can't be original in photography without doing photography, without the techniques of photography. You can't be original in article physics without doing particle physics, without the techniques of particle physics. One might know a lot about particle physics, and about the techniques, by reading NewScientist every week for example, just as a critic might know a lot about photography, and about the techniques, by studying art history, but unless one is *doing* particle physics or photography there is no way that originality in either can happen. Originality emerges out of a triad ? of practice (praktika - technique, method), of material, and of context (society, culture and history). It is not in the artist's technique only, not in the material only, nor in the context only. The skill of the artist, the qualities of the material, the sophistication of the context ? all are necessary, but none of them alone are sufficient for originality. Yet, how many times in this discussion has the subject and gear used (material) of the photo been included as being a part of originality ? eg camera, developing, the mountain, the child, the action ? how many times has the audience of the photo (context) been mentioned? Can Henri Cartier-Bresson's originality be considered independently of such things? I disagree with you, originality does not reside in the photographer any more than in the photograph itself. The photograph, the photographer are part of a triad, a system, a process. The whole is necessary and sufficient for originality to happen, each is necessary but not sufficient.

But I don't agree with you again that originality is mysterious, mystic, beyond rational reach. Nothing need be mystified. This is too sentimental. Now, I am very sentimental by nature. I always cry at the movies, and even often when I am looking at photographs ;))) But I decry sentimentality as an intellectual tool, as a rational explanation. When I was a kid my personality was manipulated by black-robed individuals who imposed a system of myths. One could not understand those myths, they were potent but shrouded, insulated from rational thought. When I was a child I thought as a child. Now those particular veils have been torn to shreds, and I am similarly not going to abide any untouchable numinous veils around creativity and originality!

To be original, one needs to *be* original, and to *be* here means your skill, your material and your context.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

&&&&&But you must have consummate skill

I have already given my apology and explanation. You will hardly meet a nicer guy than me ;) Oh yes, there *is* truth, and we all have a bit of it! Some more than others. That's what having heroes and gurus means. We all also have some error, and someone should take pity on us and help us with that. Likewise why certain people are valuable. Sometimes it is more of an insult not to speak plainly. Though rudeness and insult are never productive. I was describing faults in arguments - "some of this discussion" - quite a long way from being personal. I hope that is noticed.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Sorry guys, this is a bit of debris from an edit, which should have been cleaned up in the post . Please disregard, it is meaningless!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Gee, it's a pain that one's posts cannot be edited, 1X!!

Also, I don't know what is with all the question marks where there should be parentheses in my reply to Phyllis, 1X??

One struggles enough to communicate without additional barriers.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Brose, please don't take this the wrong way, but in my personal view you have had a lot of good points lately! I can't comment on all of them now. I'll have to let them sink in for a while. However there was one thing that immediately set my mind in gear. Se above quote.

I can clearly see your point, Brose, and I think your analogy with "art is about art" and "Particle physics is about particle physics" and so on is quite clever. At least it helps me to put your above theory into a plausible context. However I'm reluctant to agree with you. Basically because photography primarily has to do with the use of light, and how to manage that light in a creative way. For an example to 'paint' an image. And a photographer should preferably - at lest the one with ambition to be creative - first and foremost use the eyes to see an image, before even thinking about what kind of tool or technique to be used to capture it.

Or as Elliott Erwitt brilliantly and briefly once said: Its just seeing - at least the photography I care about. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic.
U

That's a great quote from Erwitt, Ulf! Thanks for it. I know it to be true, painfully in my case!!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I hope the underlining goes away. This post looks ok to me so far.
Ulf, I'm going to disagree with the above statement, especially in the light of the Erwitt quote! Street shooters and opportunist shooters such as Erwitt would have no fixed idea of a shot before they set out. They know the kind of thing they want to find, but that's it. imho.
If you are a photographer setting out with photography in mind you see differently to a painter setting out with painting in mind. A camera is a very particular thing and does a very particular thing, compared to what a painting is and does. of course now we have to define the word 'see'. . . ;-) but there are different types of 'seeing' and I think Erwitt is referring to a particularly photographic 'seeing'.
Pre visualising is the domain of the landscape and portraitist in my opinion.

Phyllis, i think we agree on pretty much everything but our choice of words are kind of bypassing each other. . . You can certainly live in such a way that your creativity will be enhanced. Put yourself in the right place, so to speak. I do however think that originality, like sanity, is a social construct and the dividing line between what is acceptable or 'good' and what is not is a culturally determined and subjective one. One person's genius is another person's lunatic for instance.
Now put the kettle on, I'll be over in about 14 hours. . . ;-)

Jon

Put out three cups (at least), Phyllis!

Jon, yes I agree with your emphasis here on the consensual-contextual nature of originality. I have been talking about just that, among other things.

The formating problem goes away when you reopen the thread and all the replies are collapsed (for me anyway).

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Hopefully this will stop the underlining.

But I was starting to enjoy it!

I have not said this nor even intimated any of this. ??? So, maybe you have me confused with someone else? Quite to the contrary I pretty much said the opposite.


The definitions you have given to these words may make sense to you on whatever level they do..but even now reading them as you try to describe what you mean your description is muddled for me. I find myself trying too hard to understand something which I think is quite simple. By simple, I mean the question that was originally posed. It is just not THAT complicated a question.


Yes, and you cannot type on your keyboard unless you first get out of bed. Yet, it is not relevant to the question at hand.


Now if you are speaking of systems theory yes..I agree - the entire universe seems to operate on it. So, of course there is an interplay of creativity, originality, technique, material, culture, and even what I ate for dinner before I took the photograph...but again this is not the question that was posed. If the question that was posed was something like 'make a list of all the things which are related to Photography, then I think this detailed a discussion would make sense.

This sounds familiar. Did you go to Catholic school? :) If so ..we have a lot in common.:)
Phyllis

I agree with your choice, something quite magical about that image. But the color one is pretty darn good too.

I have read this tread and I think that brose has added an interesting comment when he started the discussion on what is common between art and science. I will try to elaborate on this theme by summing up my own views on how science progress. My thinking is influenced by Thomas S Kuhn who wrote a very influential book back in 1962 "The structure of Scientific Revolutions" and coined the term "paradigm". My memory of that book is that he said that most scientist are neither creative nor original but do "piecemeal engineering" They are adding new minor discoveries and improve existing methods.

That may also be true of most photographers, even the ones that are published here. We try to find yet another way to make an image of a coastline, a spiral staircase or an old face. Most of these photographs are not very original but they may give the viewer a sense of beauty and satisfaction to the photographer and as every situation in real life is unique there is no risque that we will make a photograph that already exist. That is enough for most of us, but it can be boring sometimes.

To continue the analogy to science. A major development in science is only likely to occur when the "existing paradigm" is unable to integrate new discoveries and the person most likely to make a major contribution is someone who is trained in another discipline and or very young and therefore capable to look at the problems in a new way.

Back to photography! That would mean that originality is most likely to come when you switch genre. I once heard a painter say that he forced himself to paint in genres that he did not like for several months during periods when he was low on inspiration. An interesting idea IMO and a cheaper than to make that long journey to get inspiration.

I was also starting to think that this thread was becoming a bit to complicated and over-theorized. Let's start all over and try to simplify things for a while :)
U

Then your intention was to make a poll? - How many people think technical quality is irrelevant if they like the image? Or the inverse, how many people think technical considerations should only apply to images they don't like? Result - x number of yes, y number of no, "over-theorized" answers not counted? You are satisfied now?

Where/what would that poll get you, and us? Or would the explanation of that be too "theorized"?

Interesting how the inverse of your question is a different question.

So, Ulf, let's take your lead again?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

My feeling is you use the word "school" rather loosely in this context. Why am I thinking of a cuckoo's nest?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

No..it was literal. I went to Catholic school for eight years. There were robes...they were black. There was indoctrination, and so I thought you might have had that experience.
Since I cannot read your mind I have no idea what those three sentences mean, nor will I assume your interpretation of a cuckoo's nest. If you want me to understand, how you were manipulated and by whom, I think you will have to say - or not. It may be important to you in how you view ideas and opinions but since I am not you..I simply do not understand. :)
Phyllis

Okay I will try again. if an image actually did all or some of what you suggest..

carry a strong message, tells a distinctive story, ask fascinating questions and/or are very moody.

I am wondering how bad could it be technically ..to accomplish all of that? But okay..lets say that there were some technical problems I would be willing to let them go to have a photo with some originality. We certainly have enough crisp, clear photos these days, so what would we being giving up to occasionally see some really interesting ones that have some flaws? I also think that to see more of these would encourage people to take risks, and to experiment.

That about sums it up for me.
Thanks ..
Phyllis

Hold it! Not so fast! Stick around, parrdner! (hehe How's my John Wayne accent?)

I am really *thinking* about your post of yesterday, Phyllis, but after Ulf's remark above I'm not sure that I should be (really *thinking*, that is)! So depending on Ulf I will post my *thoughts* (read, my complicated over-theorized irrelevancies) or not! And as for you, I'm also not sure what I should be doing to keep you happy. Simply replying "yes/no" (as in Ulf's poll, if that's what he wanted, or to your question did I go to a Catholic school).

The answer to your question is just as I said, I went to an insane Catholic institution. Doesn't that say more than a simple yes or no? Or am I from another planet?

I also have given a simple answer to Ulf's question(s)/poll(?). It is there in black and white, repeated perhaps three times, and it was even briefly underlined and in italics yesterday ;)) And it is this, to call an image original necessarily takes into account its technical qualities. How much simpler would you like me to answer? But can my answer simply stand naked like that to Ulf's (and your) judgemental stare, or does it need a certain amount of unpacking, dare I say some amount of complex theorizing! %P

Yes or no, please! : > o

(simply) brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Stig, you have made an interesting addition to the ideas here, thanks. I hope Ulf realises he is getting more than his money's worth!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

No, not at all. That's your assumption.

However I might have to rephrase my intention: Let's have a look at the topic at hand and reboot. Because long threads like this one tend to loose focus on the original topic. I don't mind the theoretical or the philosophical part of this thread. On the contrary, I enjoy it very much and my learning curve is quite steep right now:) But I would, though, like to stick to the question I first launched.

While screening, is it fair to say - in general - that an original image demand less technical quality?

Only a 'good' original image! ( i.e. not one of my theoretical series, 'toenail clippings of the rich and famous' as mentioned earlier in this thread ) Then, as long as technical imperfections don't get in the way of the viewer's perception of the artist's intention, they are not important. imho.
jon

I think an "original" image, if that adjective is to have any satisfying and mutually understandable meaning (that is, *not* just a matter of personal liking), the image must have a technical perfection (which might or might not be what is regarded as conventional technical perfection). More like "perfectly suited technical quality". But I am merely rephrasing what I have already said. And I'm not sure that full value is got from that bald statement *without* it being unpacked. ;))

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Since this is off topic, I won't elaborate, but I will ask you to point me to the part of this thread where you actually wrote that you went to an Insane Catholic Institution. I am not suggesting it is not here - somewhere. Only that I may have missed it. Since you seem certain it is here, it would be so much easier if you could just link me somehow..rather than my re-reading everything. I would appreciate that, and I thank you in advance.
Phyllis

You see you have an imagination, and this is why you write. . Think about it in terms of the work you do and you have a new book I believe. And I am not joking. Many kids hate having their toenails clipped and they won't stay still...imagine a book where you took that fear away..with comedy..and one or two pages could be about toenail clippings from characters they would know...rich and famous..and the rest..many other ways to decrease their anxieties via comedy. You could do illustrations..and even some photos of toenails.

I liked the second part of your paragraph also, but it is a bit more complicated, though interesting. A whole topic I think...How perception influences our likes/dislikes..But okay I do get your point and I would agree.
Phyllis

I wonder if the question could be asked differently...something like this..

If your end goal is to have an artistic image, which should be given more weight - originality or technical perfection? Of course you could ask that people elaborate on why or what makes them believe this (whatever their answer is), but from a personal POV, not so much a theoretical one.

:)
Phyllis

It's actually a quite good idea. The edge is more clear. And yes, one has to think about what 'artistic' mean. Well, the thread is still open!

This piece is leaning towards artistry. It suffers from technical flaws (grain and composition), yet many appreciate it in spite of this.
Whereas this one is aimed for technical perfection, without being artistic at all.
Which one last longer - stays in your mind, so to speak?
U

Picture Nr. one.

Moving

If you would allow me to give you my reactions to these images of yours, Ulf, the first, had it had the shadow of a person in it, would have been stunning. As it is, it doesn't have quite as strong a point as it could, in my opinion. The second relies on point of view to make a not very special structure somewhat special, or at least its reflection. The first one approaches originality, the second doesn't even consider originality, rather sensation. I consider the technical quality of the first better.

I notice the terms being used in this discussion keep shifting. Phyllis has removed the context of screening from the original post, and has remodeled the idea of originality into likable. I'm not sure that this is progress, we are not talking about the original post anymore. Now, both Phyllis and you, Ulf, are using the word artistry. Where does that fit?

I have been guilty of similar, in that I have been using originality as a defining quality of art. I guess it is up to Ulf to confirm whether or not he had art in mind when he used the word originality.

For my part, I have been exploring the two poles in the original post of originality and technical quality. In the original post they are in opposition, and they are in some kind of better/worse relationship - to paraphrase, is an original image better (ie more likely to be published on 1X) than an image lacking originality but with good technical quality, even though the original image has a lesser technical quality? My argument is that an original image will set its own reference of technical quality, and so it will have a technical quality perfectly suited to itself and itself alone.

The problem with samples, is that the technical quality of one image cannot easily or sensibly be transferred as a standard of judgement to another image. This is absolutely the case in the case of original images, where the technical quality is part of the originality. My argument has also been that technical quality is assured in an original image, there is no question of it lacking technical quality, its technical quality is assured by its originality, it is part of the originality. And connected with that, I have been arguing that technical quality is not some abstract measure that can be applied equally to all images, just like originality is not some standard that can be applied across images. In short, the original question falters on the confusion of its terms. The shifting of terms that is happening now is not helping.

Let me try to illustrate with an example from architecture, the Sydney Opera House. This structure is one of the most original structures ever constructed. It cannot sensibly be judged in terms of any other structure. It creates its own reference points, its own terms of quality. One cannot sensibly ask does the SOH have technical imperfections that can be overlooked because it is so original. In the case of the SOH, as in all works of originality, technical quality cannot be considered in terms of some other work. Originality and technical quality are synonymous in this case.

This puts Phyllis and me on a collision course, because Phyllis has written: "I would answer you by saying that it is not a matter of me or anyone 'wanting' to separate out the concept of originality from the process of technical excellence. It is more that they are just not the same thing."

Phyllis has also been substituting personal liking, personal point of view, for originality: "Of course you could ask that people elaborate on why or what makes them believe this (whatever their answer is), but from a personal POV, not so much a theoretical one."

My response to this is that as soon as you equate originality and technical quality with personal liking and personal point of view you have drawn the veils across any possible rational understanding of the issues in the original post. Pure subjectivity can only be asserted, just like religious dogma. To refer again to the SOH. It is not individual liking or point of view which makes this building unique. You can love it or hate it, it will be original nevertheless, and it is sufficient to elucidate its originality, without any recourse to subjective reactions, in terms of skill, materials and context, which terms I have defined in an early post.

Good critics never talk about what they like or dislike. They talk about the skill (including technical mastery and dasein of the maker), the materials which comprise the work, and the context. We have no choice but to regard the SOH as original - and so technically perfect in its own terms. Originality is imperative, because it emerges from that triad in the previous sentence, and not from personal subjectivity. We have no choice but to regard some of the works of Michelangelo as original, for the same reason. I didn't crown him because I *like* him. Salvador Dali, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and so on...

It must be clear now that there is no profit in evoking terms such as originality and technical quality unless one is prepared to do some complicated thinking. Boiling it all down to personal emotions and words that only have personal meaning just will not do. Simplicity is sometimes simpletonicity. Of course, I do not mean that subjective reactions are worth nothing, certainly not, I have my own likes and dislikes, but they are not directly relevant to considerations of originality.

Take a poll if you like, but be satisfied with a sum of yesses and nos. Otherwise come along for an exciting ride!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Brose, it a bit too early on sunday morning for me and I have a headache, but i will try to find time to digest your post in due course. . . Anyway, I am a bit disheartened to find the 'A' word coming up ;-) because that is a whole new can of worms as far as definition goes. I think that all 1X photos are 'artistic' in the sense I think you mean Phyllis, but I can't be sure as, with all respect, it is a very vague term, or at least, one that is open to all sorts of meanings, which is probably the same thing as vague. . . . time for an aspirin. . .
best,
Jon

You have a philosophical approach brose, and I like it, and I do agree with you that if you want to get results with an analytical approach it will get complicated. Philosophy, at least in the AngloSaxon tradition is very much about the meaning of words. But we must remember that it is not always the best method and I think that Ulf was thinking of something different when he started this discussion. I think that the original question can be answered with "yes, in most cases, but there are certain quality criteria that should be met, but the more originality, the lower quality demands".

The interesting question comes later when one has to define what is originality (in photography)! To define quality is also a challenge, but maybe less demanding.

Any agreement on definitions will be changing over time and also vary between different cultures. It will be very difficult to agree on general definitions, if we try to do that we are likely to get into philosophy. But if we limit the discussion to a specific genre, i.e., contemporary architecture photography, there may be a meaningful discussion. Ulf was just doing this with two examples! I like no 1 the best!

Agreed. All good.

My antennae, though, picked up some thin ice in an unspoken attitude that just *might* lie over what you say. There is a common and popular notion that anything which smells like philosophy is thereby practically worthless, somehow effete and impotent. A wank, to put it crudely. This is a species of reverse snobbery. A get-back at what is often felt to be the superior tone of philosophical discourse, at not speaking *ordinary* like anyone else, like Ulf, like you.

To paraphrase a famous aphorism: the mind of man is our only metaphor.

I am determined to be understood, because I believe that one cannot do without a philosophy. Without a philosophy one cannot act practically, is impotent. In fact, everyone *does* have a philosophy, though some wouldn't be caught dead letting it show. Look at the conflicts in the world, and their proposed solutions, to see the unrivaled relevance of philosophy. So, let's not fall into the inanity of pretending to use words independently of the implications of using words.

My own activities, in photography and elsewhere, are the *way* in which I construct my life, my relationships. Through my activities my philosophy is a very practical force, and in that sense my activities are my philosophy. To live otherwise would be to be entirely dependent on randomness. That is the alternative to philosophy.

I am determined to be understood that no one can achieve something original in their activities, in their life, unless they can position themselves in the process out of which originality emerges: they must perfect their skills and their being-in-the-world, they must be intimate with their materials, they must engage with the context, and seek the consensus of their history, their society and culture.

Now, it's up to you to offer a more *practical* and sure strategy than that!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Hi brose, I also like philosophy and have studied it a long time ago and think that it is important but sometimes complicated. I agree with what you say, but my point is that we can act without analyzing and reflecting all the time. Persons can create original work without having a glue on how to define "originality".

Moreover this thread started with a rather straight forward question by Ulf and maybe we should not hijack it for a too theoretical discussion as it is interesting enough as it is. Maybe we should open another thread later on "art and science in photography" or something similar?

One advice for originality that I believe in is to "get out of the box". But you must not leave the box before you have achieved a level of excellence as you said. For photography that would mean that you for periods should work in genres or with techniques that you do not feel at home with and then go back to your own genre.

I think that is highly unlikely, Stig. Are you thinking of someone in particular?


I think Ulf's question is being answered, with a little extra bonus!! ; ))


It's an interesting idea, as I remarked before.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

How about artists not involved in the wider world of art, or people who are not even artists at all, producing art ( for use of a better word ) for themselves and in the process producing something original without being aware of it's status as original? I don't see why this can't happen? Think of all those 'outsider artists', well, think of some of the better ones anyway. . .
not useful to this discussion but I thought I'd throw that in as i still have a headache. . .
Jon

I think here too a specific example would be the next step along this particular detour. Eat a peanut butter and banana white bread sandwich and drink a cup of pure cocoa for your headache (unless you shouldn't), all without sugar (including jam and fruit), and the cocoa without milk. Later, try to get 10-15min of sunshine and fresh air. Take a nap. For dinner, try to get a couple of fatty lamb loin chops from a grass fed animal, or some John West sardines in water. Eat them with a little fresh green salad, with pure cold pressed walnut oil and pomegranate vinaigrette. White bread roll and pure creamy butter.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

... organic smooth peanut butter, such as Whole Earth. You must get some good oils/fats and some magnesium.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Sounds delicious, but I can't see it happening. thanks anyway, I'll survive ;-) I did the fresh air thing but also the Sunday Roast so i think a nap would be a good next step.
Jon

Maybe Magritte? Magritte himself attempted to explain why he wanted no explanations. Seeing, says Magritte, is what matters. Seeing must suffice. That is not a very helpful definition of originality!

My point was only that many artist would not be able to define originality in words even though they would be capable to recognize it when they saw it.

I should have an opinion but I don't.
99% of all images that I take are low in technical quality. Originality is simply a photographic tool in getting a good end result. It is possible to sacrifice one tool for another in the creation of a good photo, but there are no set guidelines as to which ones to use. Dave Nitsche's images are high in technical quality, but original, as are John Parminter's landscapes. Landscapes can be taken with low technical quality provided that their normal technical perfection is replaced by something else. To say that all original photos do not need the 1x sharpness that most have is wrong though I think. They need something, be it concept, technical perfection or ambience or a balance of all.

Would you buy a used car from Magritte? He was a showman, pulling rabbits out of hats! That is no sauvage noble!

No, I think Stig, you really must show that this idea of yours can happen in the real world.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

What is the difference between the tool and the result? If you stick a leg of lamb in the oven, as Jon has done, in a couple of hours you are eating roast lamb. The oven and the roast are synonymous.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Different tools get you different results. You do not always use one element for every photo otherwise we'd all be taking photos of walls. I admire your ability to compare photography to lamb chops.

My point exactly! The result is the tool, the tool is the result.


hehe yes, it would be a pity if we couldn't have some fun in the forums!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

No, the tool is the tool, the result is a combination of tools and the individual's vision.


Yes, yes. :)

Where on earth did you pick that up? Erwitt, perhaps more than anybody realizes, always had a clear view on what he was going to capture while photographing. He sort of created images in his head before he even saw them. Once on the street he either saw his images or he didn't see them. That's how creative people usually work - they imagine what they want to do, what its going to look like and so on and so fort, before the execute the work.
U

Thanks for your comment on the images, Brose. And thanks for your serious input to this thread. I enjoy reading about your thoughts. As I said some days ago - I'm currently on a pretty steep learning curve.

About the image 'Moving' I find it interesting that you would prefer a shadow to make it stunning. You might be right. And I'm quite sure most screeners would think the same. However I believe the very absence of a shadow makes it special! This way there is more room for fantasy and you are encouraged to fill in the gaps yourself. Just like a brain subconsciously colorizes a b/w image.

About the image 'Oil' I agree it relies mainly on POV and of course the 'oily' reflection. It's fairly well exposed, composed, edited and sharp. But other than that it doesn't quite challenge your mind. I think this is what I have been trying to say, that it's valuable to challenge the viewers mind and fantasy. That's what makes and image interesting, imo.
U

PS: I can't help but to say that the building in question is the world famous chapel at Skogskyrgogården cemetery, on the world heritage list:)

You lost me. Are you referring to camera equipment and programs and such?
U

You can't know the exact combination of objects/subjects that will be in the frame beforehand surely? Maybe a second or two beforehand you might try to predict what will be there, but most of the time what you hoped would happen doesn't materialize. That is hardly previsualisation. You can't visualise an exact street shot before you leave the house, and have any expectation of getting that exact shot, which was what I meant. Erwitt didn't wake up in the morning and think 'I'll go out and bark at that small dog and make it jump up in the air' he took the opportunity to do that when it presented itself. As I said, he knew the type of thing he was looking for, not the exact composition and subject matter. He went out looking for an 'Elliott Erwitt' shot. That was my meaning.
Jon

-edit - wrong topic

Of course not. Who can? By imagining I meant seeing a 'draft' in your mind. For an example a certain composition, a meeting between two people, a specific feeling and such. Something intriguing or beautiful worthwhile capturing. I'm sure you understand. And I'm sure you've experienced the same thing, even though you might not be conscious about it yet. Perhaps you saw something the other day that challenged your mind, perhaps you felt something strongly a month ago, and so on and so forth. All in all it effects you. And since you are a human being, with feelings like the rest of us, you create, act and execute everything in your everyday life partly based on those emotional experiences:)
U

Well it sounds likes someone had a good Saturday night..:)
Okay..no I don't think all the images published here or anywhere on the Internet are all artistic.

As for meaning of Artistic..well, actually it is too subjective for one idea isn't it? I mean why can't we answer the question from our own POV?

There is a TV show here in the States called Ovation TV. It is a fantastic station..all art..Unfortunately I lost the station when I switched providers. However, I mention it because you can join - its free. They pick images which have been submitted, and have little poll..asking is it art or not? Now that may seem crude but what it does show is that when something does have at least some artistic value, most people..the majority will choose YES..it is art.

http://ovationtv.com/
I suppose it is a little like beauty...in a person..a face lets say. While perception may change with history, culture and all the rest...there does seem to be some general criteria for what constitutes a beautiful face.
So..can't it just be open ended..?
Please say yes. :)
I hope your headache is better.
Phyllis

First, I have not read all of the comments above. I will, but I don't want to be influenced as I write my thoughts here.

Well, I have to first say that neither image seems to have serious technical problems..so really it is hard to judge that part. I like grain, and the POV on the second one seems quite understandable considering what your subject is.

However, it is easy to answer your question of "which one lasts longer - stays in your mind, so to speak?"

For me it is Number one...
Number two I find 'interesting' to think about. Once you tell me why there is oil there, then my interest would probably end for the photo itself.

For Number one..it has a Zen look - where less becomes more. That is the first thing I see when I look. The next thing I see is that it is not a shinny picture. Oftentimes, these kind of shots are shinny for lack a better word. They are without grain, and look almost glossy..very clean looking. This shot does not look clean, and that holds my attention. The angle of the shot lends for me a slight sense of unease - a tension.

Then of course I focus on the slightly open door with a hint of light coming through. For me it then becomes impossible not to wonder what is behind that door. Also, why can I see a light when the rest of the photo is not dark..What could cause such a bright light. Well, I don't know. It is something metaphysical? Is it from this planet? Well, as you probably can understand I don't want to know. If I 'knew' it would be ordinary...Not knowing allows me to have my mind roam and roam. Imagine this for a moment. If your photo were on a wall, lets say in a place where many people (thousands) sat and waited for something..like an office of some kind. Can you imagine all the different fantasies they could have about what is behind that door, and what is causing that light.

I think a picture like this one needs time to be appreciated. If you just look quickly you could easily think..' and then' that seems pretty dull. However, if you look for a while, then it grabs you. A photo like this needs some time to be digested. What I am attempting to say is that matted and framed on a wall, in print, this photo would get more attention perhaps than on the Internet where we are click, click, clicking all to clickety fast. :))

So...for me the first one is more thought provoking whereas the second is more documentary. If you told me these were the only two pictures I could choose from, and I had to look at the one I chose for the rest of my life...I am going to choose Number One. :)
Thanks for posting them...

Phyllis

Yes, very nice commentary on these images, Ulf. And yes, you and Phyllis have a strong point about the "emptiness" of the first, its minimalism and absence of program, being like a screen on which the viewer can project, or like a zen mandala with one element shown and the other balancing element imminent in the act of viewing. For me, however, there is not enough stimulus in what you have provided in the image to send me hurtling down this or that or some other ravine of associations. I'm not picked up and carried by it, and I don't have a strong enough reason to keep coming back to it, like a child to its dad, for another spin around. However, what I say is not to detract from the enigma and stasis which are very attractive, and yes, as you say, somewhat challenging.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Well put, Brose. Now I'm getting really curious to see an example that pulls you down the abyss of associations :)
U

I'll continue to exemplify what I mean by originality...


A technically perfect portrait. Well composed, exposed, edited and sharp. 1x material? No, I don't think so. It's not original enough, imo.


This one, on the other hand, has much more energy and originality. Of course similar images has been taken before, but nonetheless it works.

Any thoughts?
U

Hi Neil..
Maybe you missed this question from me? I bring it back because when we communicate back and forth as we are here it is easy to misunderstand each other. I have tried to answer your questions as best I can, and I would appreciate it now if you can at least point me to the place in the thread where that occurred.

Now, I am not seeking to argue with you. However, I do want to express myself here. On more than one occasion in this long thread you have interpreted various things that have been said, by myself and others, in a manner that was just not the case - in other words not true. The issue is not so much your assumption that is incorrect, but more that you then go into a long discussion on the assumption..using it as a basis for your arguments. This makes any direct, clear communication impossible - for me - because first all the misunderstandings, and assumptions have to be cleared up - before one can even answer you. Or, worse these assumptions and points - just sit there as though they were true. Then other people join in and begin to build on the false assumptions. I do not expect anything from you. However, if you make an incorrect assumption about anything I have said, I will just let you know.

Lastly, you have referred to me a few times in the thread above...actually several times..and I am not sure why you would do this or expect to gain from it? You wrote the thoughts 'about' me and my opinions to another person. They cannot answer you - can they? If you want to discuss me...Neil..I am right here. We may be in different time zones, but I will respond since I have joined in the thread. BTW, in those references to me above, many are again not true. :) So...if you want to know what I think and feel about anything just ask me and I will do my absolute best to answer you honestly as I am capable of.
Phyllis

Hi Ulf,
The first image you have posted is coming up for me as No Longer Available. Not sure why.
Phyllis

Since there's roast beef, headaches, Catholic schools, Zen and all in the thread already, I guess adding planes, ships, trains and automobiles isn't going to worry us?

If I say I have been on a train trip, I am not just telling you that I have travelled from somewhere to somewhere else. You would feel the difference if I were instead to tell you that I had been on a boat trip, even from the same somewhere to the same somewhere else as in the train trip. Or a car trip. Or a plane trip. While the journey is the same journey, from that somewhere to that somewhere else, I am sure you would not understand the trips to be identical experiences.

So, I say that the way you travel is the travelling, and the travelling is the way you travel.

And, the tool defines the result, and the result the tool.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

OMG, so know you've enlightened me? I'm still lost, Brose!
U

Hi Phyllis, the subject of those Catholic "things" is too painful for me.

If I refer to you in posts not directed to you, it would be because I think something you wrote is relevant to my post to the other person. While one might be posting in reply to a particular person, this is a public forum, and any post is a contribution to the whole thread and to everyone in the thread.

Yes, it often happens in forums that what one is understood to say is not what one really means. It is tedious.

I am looking forward to your further contributions to the thread, especially about the issues of whether original art can have faults, and how subjective likes or dislikes can have anything to say about a work's originality.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

But Ulf, where are the technical imperfections in the second image we are supposed to be overlooking because of its originality?!?!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Are you lost because people like you are hard to find?? ; )))

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Yeah, it was perhaps not a very good example. But you wouldn't know how many comments I got in screening informing me about the weird composition, the blur and the disturbing clouds/stripes in the sky and so on :)
U

It seems like you don't want to respond to the fact that you lost me. That's okay. I leave it be.
U

Well, I am not here to give you pain nor make you suffer. However, let me point out that it was you who brought it up, and me who just asked if you were referring to going to Catholic School. Does this sound familiar? If not you can read the words yourself above in this thread.

In response to my asking if you had gone to a Catholic school, you said..
The answer to your question is just as I said, I went to an insane Catholic institution. Doesn't that say more than a simple yes or no? Or am I from another planet?

Your answer has two problems. The first that you are alleging that you said something you did not. And then in the second sentence building on that thought to make a case that I am not understanding and then to become sarcastic about being on another planet.

Now really, this is not about your Catholic things..or whatever you experienced. This is about respecting other people at a forum. All you have to do Neil is first acknowledge that you made a mistake, and I did not say those things to you and you are confused. Now as for your question..Well, I think you are on Earth actually but flying in a different reality than I am.


That is a poor excuse as far as I am concerned. If you were referencing something factual that I said..only...then maybe then I could see your point. But you are going on about our relationship..interpreting my words, and making assumptions again. So, from now I should I communicate with Ulf when I want to say something about you?


Okay..I will discuss these things with other people in the thread and reference you..as you have me.Maybe we can even made a comedy show out of it..a sit com. We could call it - Communicating with Neil and Phyllis - it could be a comedy hour.
bye bye for now. :)
Phyllis

Not to worry..I will pick you up at the airport, in a car that is technically sound, like a nice Honda..unless you want something more original..then I can bring my Lambourghini. I have two. One in black and white, or I could bring the yellow one if you want eye candy. Or I could just bring chocolates; a box for you and me. Oh..I can bring some for Brose too, not sure if he likes chocolates though. Anyhow..not to worry..remember what a famous Defense Secretary once said....it should clarify everything in this thread. :))))

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld

I am going to play Mafia wars now to clear my head. :)
Phyllis

Someone set that Rumsfeld quote, and others to music. It was quite fun. ;-) it's on the net somewhere.

Yes, Phyllis, I do see what you mean about a kind of 'generally accepted' view of what is 'artistic' ;-) Kind of 'we know it when we see it' . . I can accept it as that, sure ;-)
It's a word that bothers me though, because it is used quite often in a sarcastic sense. 'Very Artistic' usually means 'High falutin rubbish'. . . Actually, 'creative' gets used that way too, to describe anything out of the comfort zone of the viewer, but as a put down.
sigh. . .
Jon

I do *so* much like a touch of the absurd! This thread is coming along beautifully. ;) ;) ;)

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Trying to find a link for that Rumsfeld song but only found the CD site. The guy is called Bryant Kong anyway.
Jon

I bet it is very funny..I remember the day he said it..and I had to replay it..because I thought..something had gone wrong with my brain and I was unable to follow the line of thought..Of course that was not necessary since it has been played thousand of times since then.Also amazing is that he said it with a straight face.!
Thanks for looking.
Phyllis

I just came upon this blurb for Syl Arena's book, LIDLIPS, including quotes of Syl Arena, which have a connection with my idea of originality emerging out of the photographer's "larger" life, rather than from his "narrow" photographic activities:

>As our world becomes increasingly cluttered with cameras, there are fewer people who truly understand the nature of photography. Refreshingly, LIDLIPS >presents thought-provoking insights on photography as art, philosophy, science, business, and lifestyle
>[...] the most important lessons he learned about being a photographer, he learned by being a father, husband, business owner, mentor, and
>artist. Photography, it turns out, has more to do with who you are as a person

http://pixsylated.com/2009/10/lidlips-lessons-i-didnt-learn-photo-school-book-pre-order/

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I love this quote:
"This book isn't about lighting or technique. It's about how you think about photography, how it intertwines with your life, how it excites your passion."

A useful tip, Brose. Thanks!
U

Holistic photography? pass the meusli. . . . ;-) That blurb makes photography sound so worthy and wholesome. Not disagreeing with your point Brose but just reacting to the tone of the promo text . . . I mean, as if this is Big News. . . as if anyone seriously thought photography really was only about lighting or technique. sheesh.
Jon

I haven't read this thread in its entirety, I only read the first post and skimmed a few more, but I thought I would add my thoughts to this matter anyway. For the record, I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative, I'm just stating my thoughts :-)

To answer your direct question, I'd say that it is likely that "original" images demand less technical quality to be approved in screening, though I have no statistical data to support such a theory.

I have to disagree with your definition on "originality," however. How does carrying a strong message, telling a distinctive story, asking a fascinating question, or being emotive equate to being original? An image can convey a strong message without being at all original and the same goes for your other criteria.

I think, based on your definition of "originality," your question should be reworded to: "While screening, is it fair to say--in general--that submissions that transcend the superficial demand less technical quality?"

To that question I answer, again, in the affirmative, with the same disclaimer, regarding evidence, as before.

To digress slightly, is there really that much material that is truly original in these times? I suspect not. I suspect that there's a much greater quantity of untrite material rather than truly original material. That's not to say that there is no truly original works being created, just that I think they might be fewer than people might think. Just because you haven't seen it before does not make it original.

Best Regards,
Lee

A troublemaker huh? ;-)

Good post, it may yet save us from the swamp of definitions. . .


This is very true, and at the same time, in a sense it is false ;-) originality, it could be argued, is in the eye of the beholder. Ignorance can be bliss,
otherwise we might not do anything ever again for fear that someone got there first without us knowing and therefore we would be accused of plagiarism. . .
Jon the troublemaker.

I think one of the defining things about originality must be that it can't be ordered in advance, that it comes unexpected, for the artist as for the consumer. A number of times in this thread, in the original post and in your comment, Lee, some descriptive language has been used to try to tie it down. There have also been suggestions that originality can be encouraged, that preconditions for it can be set up to make it more likely to happen. But I think originality is something that eludes a priori description and encouragement. I said before that originality *surprises*, perhaps in many ways, but it does so most deeply at the level of relevance in a larger context, it's part of how we progress, personally and as a society and culture. I have many times said that originality *emerges* out of a process, out of a dynamic of relationships. The context and the consumer are part of originality, making it even more difficult to describe and to encourage before its appearance. It is something that emerges unforeseen and unexpected from a set of relationships, that is recognised as being relevant and of value to our individual and collective progress. Its definition must be operative and unique. This is what Syl Arena is saying.

It follows that as far as technical quality is concerned, an original work creates its own criteria, the quality of its technical properties are prefect to it and unique. I have said this before, and also that works of originality can't be qualitatively compared in technical terms, can only be described after the event. So, my opinion is that there is a problem with the way Ulf has presented the question, because it separates technical quality from originality, and directly compares the technical quality of original and unoriginal works. This makes originality not what it is.

We can perhaps make an analogy with persons. Can we predict the life of an unborn child, its appearance, its behaviour, its history? Of course not. And why not? Precisely because each of us is original, each of us is a surprise, unforeseen and unexpected, we each emerge out of a process of relationships. Are there some people whose faults we can forgive because they are more original than others? Can people be compared on vices and virtues? Doesn't the originality of each of us make each of us qualitatively unique?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Jon, could one be forgiven for thinking you are being a touch glib, a touch trivialising?

It is easy, obviously, to trivialise. There are other examples in this thread where the relationships between things are trivialised - everything is related to everything and so relationships are meaningless - or meaningless relationships can be invented between things, and so all relationships between things are meaningless.

I don't think the relationship between lighting and technique and originality in photography is trivial - "only about".

Life can seem trivial, can easily be described as trivial, "only about", sure.

But everyone knows that the living of life is as far from trivial as can be imagined.

So, do you think photography is trivial - not worthy or wholesome, and that lighting and technique are trivial things in photography, as it appears to me you do?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I would agree and you have made a reasoned argument also.


Unfortunately, you would now be asked to defined 'superficial'. Basically, I think original is a better term for the question - but without those particular descriptions as Ulf as put them.


Again..this is true. Yet, for me it would be original. Wouldn't it? From my POV. And since the question is asking me what 'i' would vote for, I think that this would be okay..to be considered original for me..in this particular circumstance.


It would seem - not a chance.

Lets call you Jon the Reveltor - it has a better ring.

A question for Jon and Lee..from me.
Do we have to define original in order to answer Ulf's question? If so, can we just use a dictionary definition and agree that since that has been the on-going definition for years - it might serve us just fine. I have the Oxford English..my husband being a poet..but its too late to look it up..
Anyhow..what do you think..if it has to be defined isn't that enough..for us to understand the general meaning of this word. Then based on that agreement (if possible) we could answer the question..OR is having to define the word actually necessary at all?

Phyllis

That's the prevailing art school presumption, but I don't think that it is true--in the sense that if true then there can be no exceptions.

I would like to join in to chew my bit on this topic.

For 1x I guess originality has / should have priority over technical quality.
But I use a slightly different definition for original... (first hand, not imitative, new in character or design....)

Originality can take shape on three levels that I use to assess pictures. An these levels are not an original idea sprung from my mind but from an article on judging photographs ("An analysis of judging" van Dr. E.R. Sethna, published by the Photographic society of New Zealand inc.)

The three levels are
- Message (your distinctive story, questions, moods or aesthetic quality)
- Medium (use of light / composition / use of context / DOF / perspective / colors / et cetera)
- Technical quality (finish / sharpness / post processing / exposure et cetera)

Mr Sethna argued that Message is the most important (over 50% if I remember well) in assessing pictures and technical quality comes last. I tend to agree with him. But you can also state that a certain minimum of technical quality is necessary to be able to judge Message and Medium at all. But a Technical perfect image without any meaning is an empty shell...

In my opinion the aspect of 'originality' has a strong multiplier effect on the three levels.
A strong original Message can deliver without great Technical quality or use of the Medium. (but maybe not on 1X ??)

To conclude
a: If all three run low on originality and quality we are dealing with a bad picture
b: If all three run low on originality but have (high) quality we probably are dealing with a (very) well executed cliché
c: If all three get high marks on originality and quality of execution ... well then we are looking at an excellent winner!

So in my workflow in assessing pictures is:
1st the message and its originality
2nd the medium that is used to convey the message and the originality of the use of the medium, (does it support the message well enough)
3rd the technical aspects of the picture and the possible originality in the technical approach (does the technical quality support the medium an the message)

And of course there are plenty of gaps to fill in this approach too...

Now all I have to do is deliver pics that can stand up to my and your scrutiny... ;-)

Best of luck

@ Lee & JBA

Not all of Michelangelo is original, nor Dali, nor H C-B, eg, and not everyone has seen them, but most in the Western world have, and we regard some of their work as original. Originality is not in the eye of the individual beholder but in the eyes of the collective beholders. Originality is not for you or I, individually, to decide, it is a group phenomenon. It *emerges* out of complex relationships.

@ King

Nevertheless, it is an inescapable attribute of originality. One of a number of aspects.

Can you show us how an "exception" would work?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Willem, where are you if the medium is the message, and randomness is the technique the artist uses?

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Hi Brose

Interesting question.... that needs chewing a bit more....

"meaning" does not have to be meaning in a philosophical or linguistic sense or a great political idea.
Randomness as you say can be an aesthetic quality in itself. What I am not sure about is if that randomness can be random itself....
Putting up a camera on the corner of a street with an random generator used for making pictures at random intervals delivers pictures that may not be great 'stand alone' but as a series have a "meaning", it has to do with the concept and intent of the artist behind the randomness.

Not sure if that answers your question...

Another image that springs to my mind is the use of light in abstract reflections. That does not have 'meaning' like the declaration of independence, but the way the artist plays with it and weather it works or not transcends the level of 'medium'. I suppose it gets more and more 'meaning' in the context of the work and development of the artist.

So my escape route is that meaning can also be seen as aesthetic quality, and randomness can have aesthetic quality.... and so can technical innovation...

For me Meaning - Message - Technique is a fuzzy workflow.
But it is interesting to think about the concepts behind it and the different meaning it has for all of us... That is challenging. And I don't have the ultimate wisdom to decide what has to go in which bucket.... ;-)

But this an interesting topic to wander and wonder about...

Yes, it certainly is. And hard work. I am struggling!

Two cases in point (medium is message, randomness is technique) come to mind: Jackson Pollock and William S Burroughs.

But as you know, I think the onus and responsibility of *emerging* (used for a moment as a transitive verb) originality are not anyone's individually. It is a collective phenomenon.

Consider Georg Mendel. His work on genetics lay gathering dust in a monastery library until a set of relationships dynamically brought it into a context in which its originality was recognised by the scientific community. It was not *original* until then! Originality, as I have been saying, *emerges* out of complex of relationships which creates a context. It's definition must be dynamic and operational. No one instance of originality defines originality, that would be a contradiction in terms. You won't find a true definition of originality in a dictionary, unless it is that originality is a quality which dynamically emerges out of a complex of relationships which gives something a context in which it is recognised by a community to have a value which did not exist before. No mention of technical considerations.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Yep, very true. And I believe the other way round is true as well i.e. there could be originality with no obvious message etc..

@ Brose

It is a difficult one.
Not to mention that "meaning" is a difficult concept to handle too. Meaning isn't static and it is pretty much in the eye of the beholder...
On Rottnest Island Australia, my name rings a different bell than in Paris or Rome...

Ideas and 'concepts' are 'fuzzy' that is why it is important to communicate and investigate ones own and each others ideas and thoughts. Not taking things for granted, but trying to understand the other and in doing so oneself...

willem de vlaming

It's trivial and worthy and wholesome at the same time of course.
My irritation at the book blurb you quoted was that it seemed to imply that approaching photography in the way it described was something new, which it ain't. . . Hence my trivialisation. . . I was taking the piss. The guy sounds like a goddam hippy . . . ;-)

Phyllis, yep. i'll take your dictionary definition, but I answered the original post earlier in the thread. . .

Jon the Revelator ;-) yeah i like it. Got me singing Blind Willie Johnson now. . . "Who's that writin'? " etc. except i need to gargle gravel and meths to get that voice right. . .

What do you mean by a hippy? Wait... wait... wait... ...only kiddin'!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Willem, this is very reductive. With such criteria most of the work from artists such as Winogrand, Walker Evans, HCB, Friedlander ... would be considered ranging from average to bad.

Didn't think there were any bells on Rottnest!???

But of course the name's connection with Rottnest I know!

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Hi Jaques

I think I've not made myself clear enough....., I'm not familiar with all of them. But having had a quick look on the web I would not rate them average to bad at all.

These are photographers with a strong social documentary style, that make very good use of the 'medium' to do their 'thing'. (message)
I think the photographers you refer to illustrate the point I want to make quite well.. Strong message, good use of the medium ... making the technical quality more or less irrelevant..

Sorry Willem, I might have badly interpreted your post indeed...

Anyway I do think that it is difficult to define originality based on mere criteria, as fathomable as they can be.

Take Friedlander's nude shots for example. They are not of astounding technical quality, they are crude and apparently awkward (un-aesthetic), I am not sure they convey a specific message nor they are documentary (except the ones that document Madonna's body which may raise high interest for many people... just kidding). But they are certainly relevant and strong with regards to Friedlander's peculiar vision (which is IMO highly original).

Maybe Jon would jump on that since he is a Friedlander's freak...

That is an interesting point. I'm not familiar with his nudes. Maybe as loose images, they are not good, but they may gain 'value' because they are part of the entire work of Friedlander. The "oeuvre" aspect of an artists work. Not sure about that....
But with work like Friedlanders and Magnum there is also something else that is interesting. A lot of them are like good wine, they mature well. Sometimes presenting a hard an harsh mirror in the time when they were made. Bit also growing as great documents of the ´human condition´ in the 20th century...

something like this one
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/F/friedlander/friedlander_drunk_under_vermouth_full.html

you can´t measure the quality of a picture like that in terms of hot spots, blind pixels circle of diffusion..... et cetera. It is raw, it is rough, it is hard and it is excellent. Triple A on `meaning´ and a double A on medium... ;-)

That's the only Friedlander shot I am deeply suspicious of ;-) The nudes are very matter of fact. Not 1x stuff at all. A feminist critic described him as 'the least gynophobic' photographer of the female nude around. I know what she means. I don't at all mean in any pornographic sense. It made me see how most photographers 'avoid the issue' so to speak. How there are unspoken conventions being adhered to. Anyway, this is getting far off topic. . . sorry
Jon

I am bit surprised, considering you dig his tree's studies. To me the nudes are closed from the trees' studies in essence. And I don't get the gynophobic argument at all because I think these shots are not about female at all, but rather the body as sheer material and how it might fit or not the medium (hence the absence of pre-conception, convention that brings him on the edge of pornography, at least visually) - and in that way it is not that far from Weston's approach - which was much more sexually charged though. I may be completely wrong of course.

But yeah, off topic...

I agree Jaques. The nudes have the same dominant consideration of form as his tree studies and most of his other work. That's what I meant by 'matter of fact'. An objective eye. Impersonal, but without being aloof or distant. . .
I'll shut up now ;-)
Jon

No! - as for me an original image is just the opposite of a clone of earlier works of yourself or others, the (high) technical requirements are not influenced IMO.
Lars :-)

I think my earlier statement "just because you haven't seen something before doesn't make it original," is ambiguous in the use of "you," which has led to some confusion in responses. By "you" I meant the person screening the material, not the creator of the material. If the creator hasn't seen it before it could make it original, but it's not a certainty. Whether the screener has seen it before or not is irrelevant in defining originality, it's only suggestive, to the screener, based on their prior experiences.

Something "original" is defined as "arising or proceeding independently of anything else," therefore I don't think it can actually be argued that originality is in the eye of the beholder; it's dependent entirely and exclusively on the prior knowledge/experience of the creator and as such absolute originality is unknowable to any but the creator.

Now here's an interesting thought. By that definition of "original," someone setting out to create something "original" is, by definition, being unoriginal! For someone to attempt such a thing would require knowledge of "something else" to determine likeness or "originality", thus the material would never be truly independent of everything else and thus unoriginal.


I think what you're getting at here, Brose, is exactly what I mean in the previous paragraph addressed to JBA and I'm in full agreement.


haha. Fair call. I suppose I shouldn't have reworded it quite as I did. I think to be more clear, I should have reworded it to:

"While screening, is it fair to say--in general--that an image that conveys a strong message, tells a distinctive story, asks a fascinating question, and/or is very moody demands less technical quality?"

That is, quite clearly, what the OP meant to question, and it has nothing to do with originality, so unless you wish to ask a different question (regarding originality), I think it should have been worded in that way so that everyone is answering the same question :-)

I must also say that approving, or rejecting, a submission based on whether it conveys a strong message, tells a distinctive story, asks a fascinating question and/or is very moody is, in my humble opinion, not in the true spirit of art, as art is defined. Art is defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." I think the OP's criteria essentially equates to the latter part of the definition only ("of more than ordinary significance"), which, by my interpretation, is an optional component of art. I suppose, to put it simply, what I am saying is that eye-candy is art too :-)

Best Regards,
Lee

I'll admit that I haven't read ALL that precedes this. BUT, who says?? And who can say what is beautiful or appealing or significant?? Those qualities are very greatly linked and inherently derived from one's own life experiences...

A dictionary says. I didn't invent said definition, if that's what you're implying and I'm not debating whether the criteria are subjective or not, as they clearly are.

Best Regards,
Lee

No, Lee, I was being much more general than to think that you were trying to "define" art. You did, in fact, have the "definition" in quotes. I was just implying that it is pretty useless to try to define art or, for that matter, originality. But, if one was going to try, the definition you cite is one of the worst attempts I have ever seen.

Ok :-)


Why would it be pointless to define those words? If it is pointless to define those words, then why not others? If defining any word is equally pointless, then why bother developing a language? I may as well say "skfdj dhfh kjddhe ehui!" if words cannot be defined.

As for best, worst, mediocre, that's subjective. Having said that I would like to see what you consider to be a better definition of "art." :-)

Best Regards,
Lee

Stuff I/we/you/people like to look at/listen to/read...not much more complicated than that.

So, in other words, an expression (visual, literary, whatever) that I/we/you/people find appealing (where appealing is, of course, subjective)? :-)

Best Regards,
Lee

Well, OK, but the part that is different is mine is the lack of: "according to aesthetic principles"

Besides the theoretical stuff:

Viewing the art market in general, here my impression:

Art is, what galleries promote.

Frank

Step outside and say that again! ;-)


Yup, and "Art is what Artists do."
well, that's that sorted. . .

Jon the rotivator

My initial definition of original might be wide of the mark. The meaning of the word may not even be described from a semantic point of view. But maybe a couple of illustrations could help.

From a 1x perspective I consider this piece http://www.gettyimages.se/detail/88583801/OJO-Images to be far more original than this one http://www.gettyimages.se/detail/93187745/Photonica
U

mmm...

I don't think you (one) need to get tripped up on individual, personal issues of whether or not you (one) have seen a work, or how you (one) subjectively rate it, or even how you (one) define originality. The way is much straighter and smoother. The creation of originality is a cooperative action, it is done in and by a community, it is part of the activity-life of a community. Originality is not a *thing*, it is an action in, and a consensus of, a community. Originality takes supremacy away from the individual artist or consumer, and only has meaning in the *relationships* between the two, in a culture. It is not you or I as individuals, individual artists and individual consumers, who are the determinants of originality, it is the *we* we constitute, in this time and place. Originality can have no meaning outside a community consensus and context, and its meaning is operational, not descriptive. It is not message, story, mood or any other descriptive criterion. Originality is relevance and value in the life of a culture. It is the work that it does in a culture. It is synonymous with cultural relationships. Operational!

Willem says in relation to Friedlander: "you can´t measure the quality of a picture like that in terms of hot spots, blind pixels circle of diffusion..... et cetera. It is raw, it is rough, it is hard and it is excellent." Absolutely, and it illustrates my point about technical quality, that it is not germane to originality. Why? Because technical quality is subjective, individual description, and originality is action valued in a culture.

To make progress in understanding originality and art, one has to move away from subjective description to the dynamics of the zeitgeist of one's culture. It is not about my or your likes and dislikes, what it means or does to us individually. It is about the action that it performs in a community and the relevance and value that community awards it. Art is not Love, it is more like War.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Yes.. I like it when it is simple. :)
The second image is very good, a beautiful landscape. I won't fault it except to say that it is something we see very frequently. It is more familiar.

The first image is not something I have seen exactly like that before with the bales of hay wrapped with numbers, so it is more unusual. Well, to me because it is something new. Perhaps to a farmer it would not be..I don't even know if it is real. :) Yet, even though it is more unusual - in this case I would not find it appealing enough in any way - with good technical or without good technical factors involved. It does not move me.

If you gave me money and said Phyllis buy one of these images..I would buy the second. The reason is that I believe I might take it and make an interesting surreal Creative Edit out of it..whereas with the first picture I would not find as much use for it. So, the choice a practical one.

Hope that made some sense. :)
Phyllis

Is the second an example of an "original" photograph or just a fairly pedestrian photograph of an unusual subject? I see nothing inspiring or imaginative about it at all. An example of boring stock photography that gets a very slight second look because of the subject.

Yet another reflection. This time about two street shot.


Graphically clean and strong, pretty well composed and exposed, sharp and a tad moody. However fairly empty on message and perhaps not an image that will last, so to speak.


Whereas this piece is almost messy, not very well composed, however exposed okay and sharp enough but with a very distinctive message and a funny story. This one will last imo, basically because it's more original than the other.

Any thoughts?
U

Ulf, it would seem to me that the media buyer at Clear Channel was the one with the original idea when he/she placed that poster in that location...but I take your point and agree!! Definitely a fun one to look at, well seen imo.

Not sure if this is a question for me..but I will answer it...since you quoted me.

Just want to be sure we have the same images in mind when referring to first/second.
The first is the one with the hay and the second is the mountain scene..yes? So you are referring to the mountains?

If so..then I would say the second - a photo of mountains is surely not original. I would imagine it is possible to take a photo of these mountains and make it more unique than in this shot - but this shot as it is would not be unique IMO. I used the world familiar and you say boring; I think actually we are probably saying the same thing. Maybe. :)
Phyllis

No my comments were referring to the wrapped hay bales.

Yes..I had a feeling that was the case.

I can only agree. The photo has nothing it it to latch onto and it is boring. I see it as a background, not a photo to stand on its own. That is why I suggested a Creative Edit. :)

I would guess that kind of photo might sell for some kind of advertising company..that will add on..images, type etc.
It does not have any of the qualities that Ulf listed as criteria for originality. Well, at least I do not see them. So, although I have not seen this type of thing before, and it is different for me - is very bland. I can see here that 'different' is not always appealing.

Clyde, if people are paying for images like that, I should take a long drive around Augusta county with lots of memory cards!
Phyllis

I think maybe the biggest problem we have with originality is that it doesn't fit in our timeframe. We like the idea of overnight fame for ourselves, and we like to be the expert judge on others, we like to hand down our sentences on the spot. So, the personal, individualistic reaction is king, for that is all we have for such ad hoc purposes. But I would say for someone's work to accrue the public reputation of being original (my meaning of valued by community consensus, "public" is a significant word for its meaning) often takes at least a lifetime and sometimes much longer. Typically candidates for originality are reviewed and reassessed over and over, over long periods of time. For example, I recently went to see an exhibition of Dali's work in Melbourne, "Liquid Desire". There was a pervasive atmosphere in the crowd I was in that afternoon of people being in direct contact for the first time with work that was already "value added" by Western culture, and of their processing that consensus of value in Dali in the context of their own individual reactions and life experiences. The air virtually hummed with this real time relating to and assessing of Dali by a contemporary audience both on an individual and community level. There was an electric dynamic which united that crowd in that experience, the experience of individual and cultural identity. This is how originality is created and maintained, or downgraded. It's a far cry from the 1X timeframe and the cosy ego-referential critique which it fosters.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Two quotes from Gaudi that I like, especially the fist one which is also, relevant to this thread. The second is more about forms in architecture:
# "Originality consists of returning to the origin. Thus, originality means returning, through one's resources, to the simplicity of the early solutions."
# "Everything comes from the great book of nature."

That way of looking at originality is rather different from the definitions that we have discussed in this thread.

Stig and all ..I like quotes too..

On Meaning...
"It makes me uncomfortable to talk about meanings and things. It's better not to know so much about what things mean. Because the meaning, it's a very personal thing and the meaning for me is different than the meaning for somebody else."

"It's a dangerous thing to say what a picture is. If things get too specific, the dream stops. There are things that happen sometimes that open a door that lets you soar out and feel a bigger thing. Like when the mind gets involved in a mystery. It's a thrilling feeling. When you talk about things, unless you're a poet, a big thing becomes smaller."

"You may say that people look for meaning in everything, but they don't. They've got life going on around them, but they don't look for meaning there. They look for meaning when they go to a movie. I don't know why people expect art to make sense when they accept the fact that life doesn't make sense."

"I'm of the Western Union school. If you want to send a message, go to Western Union ... You have to be free to think things up. They come along, these ideas, and they hook themselves together, and the unifying thing is the euphoria they give you or the repulsion they give you ... You have to just trust yourself."

David Lynch

Yep, this is a good point. But in my opinion there is trend in our contemporary society that people need to feel at ease, be reassured as a reaction to global uncertainty (economic insecurity, political instability, environment concerns ... ). And it is possible that this specific situation that Lynch points out is now inverted with, say pre-WWII situation (or maybe more pre-WWI) which was a more optimistic, confident and innocent era where the audience would be more keen to accept the unexpected in Art.

Now I'll go with a famous Zappa quote: "who are the brain police?" ;)

For me the excellent graphical forms and the light - the whole compo - has a lasting impact!



Certainly has a lot of 'Wow'-factor (well seen!), but not so sure about, if it will last?

Lars :-)

re meaning...

meaning is unavoidable for humans, it's part of how we perceive

present someone with perceptual information which is contradictory or ambivalent and they will either ignore what doesn't make sense in it, that is they will ignore (not fully process) that bit, or they will spend more time with the information than a "normal" stimulus. these are empirical findings of research in perception and elsewhere. we take meaning and we give meaning in a continuous exchange through our senses. for example, seeing is one and the same thing as understating with the eyes. we attest that truth in common speech when we say "I see what you mean".

part of the meaning we give to every act of perception is associative meaning, in distinction to, say, literal meaning. things can have an operational meaning, too, like originality, where the meaning is in what they do. so, Phyllis, Lynch is conflating three, at least, modes of meaning, associative, narrative and operational - he says he makes movies by correlating random associations, and then he edits these to produce a narrative. the day he can do all these things without meaning is the day that we will be able to see his movies without meaning. so he doesn't really say anything, though we understand his meaning ;)

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

I am afraid you will have to take this up with Lynch. He lives in L.A.

And brose in Australia!Write him a letter,or give him a call!

Really good quotes Phyllis. Sounds like he is fed up with being quizzed about the meaning f his work.

Jon