What is Vision?

[Scott Youmans]

Since this thread got started some time back I have had discussions with Joe, Jeff and my wife (an artist) about the topic.  Since I share much of what Joe and Jeff have already said I won't re-write their posts here. I will expand on one point and that is the changing nature of this "vision" thing.  For starters, none of us operate in a vacuum and to be influenced and inspired by the work of others is both natural and almost unavoidable. As with technology progress is often made by building on what has been done before.  But beyond that, as with any endeavor artistic or otherwise, we learn from studying our own work. In aviation photography in particular there are quite often circumstances that are beyond our control.  While sometimes frustrating, it can work to our advantage in the long run by introducing unexpected and sometimes very desirable elements that we might never have thought to incorporate otherwise. This could take the form of compositional aspects, lighting, even subject matter.

One statement often made by people with little or no experience in photography is that if you take a huge number of photos anyone can take great photographs.  While it might be true that somewhere in thousands of exposures there might be some gems, there is some doubt that the individual with no actual talent will recognize the gem when he or she sees it!  That is particularly true when the "jewel" is hidden within what might appear to be a run of the mill image at first glance.  Talent and technical skill come into play in specifically seeking out situations that are likely to yield the results that reflect our "vision".  Indeed much of the task in photography or painting for that matter is weeding out the extraneous elements, leaving what is important and visually interesting behind.

Joe made a good point about looking through your earlier work and identifying the pictures you like and just as importantly what you like about them.  In this regard going out and taking a lot of photos is a good place to start.  Maybe some of the "mistakes" will turn out to be the jewels. If not, then you know what not to do next time. The key is developing the "vision" so you know what to look for.  No one but the photographer can decide what is good or bad.  While there are some tried and true guidelines for composition etc, ultimately there are no rules.

One last comment in regard to Bill's tendency to throw up in regard to the "vision" topic.  I have to agree with him to some extent.  Having grown up around visual artists of vastly more talent than myself, I have spent a lot of time in galleries and talking with other artists. Consequently I've read more than my share of artist's statements and articles analyzing their work.  Some of them are down right laughable.  While I'm confident that some art, photographic or otherwise, carries with it a deep connection with the artist's thoughts and feelings, a lot of art can simply be taken at face value as a pretty (or not) picture.  There is no necessity that art express anything in particular.  Some things are just inherently pleasing from an aesthetic point of view and that is valuable enough all by itself.  It's when artists try to infuse their work with some greater meaning than they can sincerely justify that they run the risk of seeming pretentious. In those cases the tendency toward nausea is justified.

[Jay Beckman]

Interesting assessment Scott...

I think photographers are held to a slightly different standard than those who draw and maybe even more so than those who paint.

Paint allows an artist to truly start from scratch (and to some degree, pencil, pen or chalk does too) and create something that truly comes from the "third eye."  Yes, an artist may call an abstract painting "Soup Can on the Table" but unless there's a cylindrical shape resting on some kind of four-sided plane, it's only the artist's word that that's what he/she meant to create.  There's no basis in what most would call reality.  It's certainly art, but...

Even the most abstract photo has, at its core, a real object that was in front of the lens.  That object was also in front of our eyes (and often the eyes of others) so to truly do an object justice for wider appreciation, I think there has to be at least some element that is universally recognizable to most folks.

Of course, you can always make a blurry, OOF mess of anything you shoot, but would it then even appeal to you?

Good Discussion...

[Scott Youmans]

Jay, I agree that especially in aviation photography the standard to which we are held is different than for fine art photography for example.

I've noticed that most people comment about the clarity of photographs more than other aspects.  So much for my efforts to compose etc.  Maybe if I hadn't done everything else right they'd say, "well the pictures sucks but at least it's sharp!

The beauty of painting is that, as you alluded to, the artist needn't have any connection with reality in their paintings. As photographers we left to extract what we can from the cards we are dealt.  I enjoy that challenge and a challenge it often is.  Putting yourself in a favorable environment certainly helps!