Chapel at Blenheim Palace
I would suggest there are two basic types of photographic vision. One type is a vision that is based on what your eyes see. The other type of vision is based on what your mind sees. The question is, do you photograph what your eye sees or do you photograph what your mind sees? I started thinking about this a few months ago when Brooks Jensen interviewed me about a Minor White photograph for the LensWork web site. Minor White created photographs that were the equivalent of a thought or feeling. Because his photographs originated in his mind and moved out into the world, it really didn’t matter too much where he photographed because he could always find a photographic subject that he could present as an equivalent to his thoughts or feelings.
And the rest of us?
Our photographs start out there in front of the camera and hope that in going through the camera (and maybe a whole bunch of other processes) we can conjure up an image to communicate our thoughts or feelings to our viewers. It’s a much different approach, moving from the physical to the emotional/mental than going in the opposite direction. This method of creating photographs does allow viewers to appreciate the image based purely on aesthetics while not “getting” any of the deeper emotional or philosophical aspects of the image’s intent.
Wow this is one of the best questions ever, and now I have to look into Minor White. I have lately been taken (or overtaken)with Wynn Bullock, the interior vs.the exterior! I think I am more like Bullock an interior photographer (that is sometimes)but, this business about getting the emotional and philosophical aspects out out of the way has me thinking. Can I get back to you on this?
Posted by: Nick Van Zanten | March 23, 2013 at 08:33 PM