On Saturday afternoon I had a fun and enlightening chat with an artist friend. Among the various topics that we discussed, there was one in particular which I thought might interest this group.
As a nature photographer do you consider your work to be your creation or simply a recording of found subjects?
I'm a parasite of the earth. This includes nature photography, where I lack the divine power to create any of it, but I use it for my own purposes. Wow, that comes off rather bleakly. Sorry.
I believe neither...as a photographer I use my (questionable) skill, within the limitations of my equipment, and whatever vision I have to manipulate a view of nature as it is presented and display it in a manner that hopefully reflects our artistic vision or perhaps evokes some emotion in the viewer. Even if the goal is only to produce a technically excellent "bird on a stick" image there is some artistic element to it but we can create nothing and we really can't accurately record what God has presented so we try to capture what our minds eye would like to see. It just becomes our vision of what was actually there.
Anil >>>"...simply a recording of found subjects."
My choice for my body of work and style. Not the right way or wrong way, nor the easy way, but rather my choice for the artform. Being able to frame a rectangular image of what I see in nature from the incredible dynamic immensity of what is there, recording a moment in time, is my challenge. I have a great respect, enjoyment, and satisfaction of nature just as it is without needing to introduce enhancements even if my mind can easily imagine such. ...David
Well, to be honest, I think by using the word "simply" , you are asking a loaded question. Even so, I am actually surprised and encouraged by some of the responses. Tim
A photograph is a cooperative effort between the subject in front of the lens and the person behind the lens. To say that I create a photograph gives too much credit to me. To say that I record what was there gives too much credit to inanimate objects.
This is not an either/or question. I believe that I attempt to document my subjects, but try very hard to capture the "essence" of their character. This, to me, makes what I try to accomplish art. If in carrying out my efforts I also record accurate renditions of my subjects then both goals are accomplished. In our chosen medium of nature photography I don't think the two can be separated.
I believe we create, not simply record. My reasons - We do not show the truth at all, we modify the scene through composition, perspective, light control, exposure control, DOF control. We only record what we want someone else to see. We purposely omit unattractive elements, garbage, people, etc. There, IMO, we are creators of the illusion we choose to record.
Anil, this is an interesting question that I have been pondering recently. While there is not an absolute either/or in my personal opinion, I believe I do a lot more recording than creating. I certainly didn't create nature, which is the subject I'm photographing. If there was no nature, then there wouldn't be anything for me to photograph. Or better yet, the beauty of nature exists whether I photograph it or not.
I am creating an interpretation of nature, so I guess that's where my part comes in. Of course, what or whom gave me the ability to create is now yet another question - so I guess there goes my ability to brag about my creativity.
Anil, your artist friend's statement is open for interpretation here because the rest of us don't have the benefit of "hearing" whether the intention was to demean the art form of photography or whether it was an innocent attempt to understand your personal belief.
As for me there is no doubt that photography can be both, dependent on the skills of the photographer. To support that position I present that there have been tens of thousands of "artists" who worked with watercolors or oils to create, yet there are only a few whose works are sought after and recognized as "masters". The same holds true in our chosen field. I'm a photographer (one of the tens of thousands) but my limited skills and feable attempts to create art don't diminished the fact that there are a few sought after "masters" of our art form too.
There are a rare few masters (in any field) whose talents and vision elevate the final product to an art. Art lies in the abilities of the individual and the recognition of those skills by the masses.
I attempt to record the beauty of nature to its best advantage (limited, of course, by my level of knowledge and/or my equipment). If I attempt creativity, I label it photo art and that is a completely different realm... different in that the end result is influenced tremendously by the artist's personal artisitic ability.
Anil, this question seems to me (with only the background you provided) to be another version of the "Is photography art, or not?" question......
Personally, based on the fact that I've gone out shooting with some very talented photographers and we invariably come back with completely different images, I'm going with the creation approach. You give multiple photographers the same basic materials (location, light, time of day, whatever) and they will return with lots of different images. You give multiple painters the same basic materials, and they will return with lots of different paintings. You give multiple sculptors the same.....well, you know.
Without the benefit of the rest of the conversation, I am not sure what other answer makes sense?
Thanks for all the responses posted so far. I wanted to gain some insight into the intentions behind the making of photographs and it was interesting to note that some of you are attempting to record the beauty found in nature, while others see their work as a realization of their own creativity. I think both approaches are perfectly valid. While it is not necessary to know the intention of the photographer, I believe knowing does help (me at least) in appreciating the finished piece of art.
BTW, my friend is a painter, who works with both oil and watercolors, and holds an MFA from Stanford University. She is an avid nature lover and all her paintings are done outside in the field. She believes that through the medium of painting she is "recording" what nature has to offer.
I do not consider myself a "nature photographer", although I use "nature" in my photographs, and I consider my work to be 'creations'. On the rare occasion when I make a 'grab shot' (I assume everyone knows what these are), I without fail reject close to 100% of them. Why? Because they feel like "recordings" that reflect little of me or my imagination in the finished image.
Well, we all know that non of us has the power to create anything such as is found in Nature. So, in that sense we are recording what we find but I take exception to the word "simply" because it is not simple to do that well. And doing it well is where we cross the line into creativity. When we carefully arrange our composition, use the correct lens to achieve the desired perspective and DOF, use reflecters or flash to correct or enhance lighting, use neutral density filters to correct for contrast or to achieve a desired shutter speed, use a polarizer to .... and on and on it becomes clear that we are not "simply" recording anything. We have learned to recognize when subject matter lends itself well to communucating the desired subject. We have learned to recognize great and complimentary light and some of us ( not me most of the time) can actually pull all of this together into a FABULOUS work of art. In that sense, we are creating great photography.
To say that the incredible artistry of people like Marc Adamus or Guy Tal is "simply" recording a found object is a insult of the highest order.
I think it is the treatment of the subject that transforms it from a simple recording to a creative work. A simple recording is "a mug shot" of the subject.
> To say that the incredible artistry of people like Marc Adamus or Guy Tal is "simply"
> recording a found object is a insult of the highest order.
My use of the word "simply" wasn't meant to derride any one. I apologize to all who have been offended by this.
BTW, I have never stated anywhere (here or otherwise) that Marc or Guy are into simply recording found subjects, so I don't know how or why you have come up with that example. I believe their work exemplifies creativity of the highest order.
Oh, rest asssured, I was not offended. Simply stating the case as I see it. And I realize that you were not singling out Marc or Guy, but if any of us are guilty of "simply" recording then we all are. We're all in this together regardless of our various levels of competence.
I commonly asked and often written about question. I wouldn't spend the incredible amounts of time I do in nature, often days and days just waiting for something to happen if I wasn't trying to 'record' or 'capture' nature at least in part. But the artist in me always escapes and wants to impress my personal vision on a scene as well, and make a connection that shows something about me as well as something about the landscape. So it's some of both, without a doubt. I think most photography is some of both. I also wrote an archived topic 'look inside first' that touches in part on the subject.
Discussion
23 repliesAs a nature photographer do you consider your work to be your creation or simply a recording of found subjects?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Regards.
Quoting from my current article:
"Don't dismiss your involvement in your own art to being just a bystander who knows how to operate a camera."
Guy
Doyle
Pete D.
My choice for my body of work and style. Not the right way or wrong way, nor the easy way, but rather my choice for the artform. Being able to frame a rectangular image of what I see in nature from the incredible dynamic immensity of what is there, recording a moment in time, is my challenge. I have a great respect, enjoyment, and satisfaction of nature just as it is without needing to introduce enhancements even if my mind can easily imagine such. ...David
I am creating an interpretation of nature, so I guess that's where my part comes in. Of course, what or whom gave me the ability to create is now yet another question - so I guess there goes my ability to brag about my creativity.
As for me there is no doubt that photography can be both, dependent on the skills of the photographer. To support that position I present that there have been tens of thousands of "artists" who worked with watercolors or oils to create, yet there are only a few whose works are sought after and recognized as "masters". The same holds true in our chosen field. I'm a photographer (one of the tens of thousands) but my limited skills and feable attempts to create art don't diminished the fact that there are a few sought after "masters" of our art form too.
There are a rare few masters (in any field) whose talents and vision elevate the final product to an art. Art lies in the abilities of the individual and the recognition of those skills by the masses.
Bruce
Personally, based on the fact that I've gone out shooting with some very talented photographers and we invariably come back with completely different images, I'm going with the creation approach. You give multiple photographers the same basic materials (location, light, time of day, whatever) and they will return with lots of different images. You give multiple painters the same basic materials, and they will return with lots of different paintings. You give multiple sculptors the same.....well, you know.
Without the benefit of the rest of the conversation, I am not sure what other answer makes sense?
CJ
BTW, my friend is a painter, who works with both oil and watercolors, and holds an MFA from Stanford University. She is an avid nature lover and all her paintings are done outside in the field. She believes that through the medium of painting she is "recording" what nature has to offer.
What about you, Anil?
To say that the incredible artistry of people like Marc Adamus or Guy Tal is "simply" recording a found object is a insult of the highest order.
Bob
I think it is the treatment of the subject that transforms it from a simple recording to a creative work. A simple recording is "a mug shot" of the subject.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
> To say that the incredible artistry of people like Marc Adamus or Guy Tal is "simply"
> recording a found object is a insult of the highest order.
My use of the word "simply" wasn't meant to derride any one. I apologize to all who have been offended by this.
BTW, I have never stated anywhere (here or otherwise) that Marc or Guy are into simply recording found subjects, so I don't know how or why you have come up with that example. I believe their work exemplifies creativity of the highest order.
It's all good, man
Bob
My photos are the visible manifestations of the images stored in my brain. Sometimes that image is artistry, sometimes documentary.