Most photographs today create versions of the Romantic picturesque or rehash the Modernism of the late 20th century. Mine are no different, because it’s really hard to see photographically outside those frames. It’s partly about how our minds work: We see what we’re looking for. The Zen master Shunryu Suzuki advocated adopting a beginner’s mind in our mediation practice: “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s there are few.” Can I learn to see with a beginner’s eye?
Those who consistently manage to create images outside the classic frames are the true greats of photography. I’m thinking of artists like Trent Parke (b. 1971), Duane Michals (b. 1933) and Diane Arbus (1923 – 1971).
When I see a beautiful photo, I’ll feel good and probably think something like “Oh, that’s lovely!’ When I see a great photo, my eyes widen and my visual vocabulary expands. I may never see things quite the same again because my world has got bigger.
I fairly often take a photo I think looks good. It fits one of those conventional artistic frames I mentioned. This is a fair example.
It’s a classic still life and I’m aiming – at most – for a ‘That’s nice’ response.
This is an attempt to do something different and it breaks some of the standard rules. A dead fish isn’t an obvious subject for a photo and the depth of focus is quite narrow. But I find this image more interesting than the one above it. Maybe that’s just me! What do you think?
Ann flowers says:
Nice photograph s
June 4, 2019 — 10:17 pm
AHarris says:
Thanks Ann! I wonder if you have a preference for one photo or the other? I’d be especially interested to hear what you like about ‘The Silver Fish’.
June 5, 2019 — 8:41 pm
Mic says:
Wow, insightful as a photographer myself x
June 5, 2019 — 7:09 am
AHarris says:
Thanks Mic! I’m curious about what you make of the example photos I’ve posted. To what extent Does ‘The Silver Fish’ photo step outside the conventional artistic frame? If it does at all!
June 5, 2019 — 8:45 pm
Mad says:
I rather like the first one. Purely as it has nice textures. This is a personal thing as I never have a tripod and so never get that depth of focus, so I’m rather envious when it is done well by others. I was always a fan of Elliot Porter and he did a lot of that sort of composition. And there is a bit more to good textures than ‘that’s nice’ if it is done well. [And where photography has something that other ‘art’ does not, good textures can be really pleasurable, almost tactile] The dead fish, I want to know more about the dead fish, and your picture does not give that to me. It’s all a bit central and distant, but perhaps what you were aiming for? Did you do any other compositions with it? I’m assuming it is purely a found object, on the coast?
June 17, 2019 — 3:31 pm
Adrian H says:
I’m pleased you like the first image. A few people have commented on the richness of the textures, and I can see that more now. Thanks for that – it’s helped me appreciate it more. Yes, the dead fish was a found object on Exmouth beach. I took several shots, but all fairly similar composition. I wanted to get a ground level view with the green framing the silver of the fish. A friend commented by email that the dead fish “looks lovely”, so the image links the notion of death with the “transitory nature of beauty”. That is partly what this image is about for me, though I didn’t think it through in detail when I took it. The composition echoes that: The green/alive areas are out of focus and the dead fish in sharp focus. That’s easier to spell out afterwards. At the time all that is more intuitive and just outside my awareness. I think that’s how it needs to be: If I ‘over think’ an image it’s usually not very good!
June 18, 2019 — 9:51 am