I’ve noticed an odd trend lately: most of the people I know who aren’t geeky in any way (aren’t technically inclined, aren’t particularly curious about how things work, and, not wanting to be bothered with technical details, tend to favor point-and-shoot or fully automatic cameras) seem to be really into classifying things. When some of my not-so-geeky friends see a pretty flower or bug, hears a bird song, or whatever, the first thing they do is try to figure out what it "is" (what it’s called, what family it’s in, if it’s native or invasive, etc.). Whereas I think most people would say I’m really geeky in my general approach to life, and I couldn’t possibly care less; to me it’s just a pretty flower, and thinking about classifying it actually interferes with my enjoyment of it. And this seems to be generally true of the geekier people I know, the computer programmers, the food science-inclined cooks, the web site builders… I’m not saying one way is better than the other, but I am more than a little surprised it’s not the other way around.
I, and many of the geeks I know, seem to have low latent inhibition in certain areas. When I look at a lens, I don’t see a single round thing, I see all the elements, the shutter mechanism, the raw materials being mined, processed, and delivered to the factory, the glass being formulated, the lens designer sitting in front of their computer weighing the trade-offs between manufacturing cost & difficulty, size, weight, available materials, and optical quality, and wonder what sort of person they are, if they’re happy, and what they had for breakfast. When I see something I know nothing about, my brain has a much harder time falling down all these rabbit holes at once. Yes, when I look at a pretty flower, it can chew on photosynthesis and cellular reproduction and thigmotropism and all that, but these sorts of natural phenomena get to the "and this is where the magic happens" end of the trail of my real comprehension much more quickly. And when that occurs, when I’m really there with it in the present rather than untangling the hair of its past, I can see the pretty flower for what I believe it to really be: nothing short of a fucking miracle.
And that, of course, completely changes how I’m inclined and able to photograph things. I’m out of the rigidity of literalism and into mystery and—dare I use this awful, wanktastic word—wonder, and there’s a lot more room for personal impression and interpretation to come through—at least there is for me—and those impressions and interpretations are of course vastly different, too. (Again, it’s not a matter of better or worse, just difference.)
I haven’t completely thought this out, I’m just typing through it, but it seems like this ties into the wide vs. deep thing (how your familiarity with a place affects the photographs you make in it) that Colin Jago and Paul Butzi have talked about. I’m not sure how, maybe it’s another kind of wide and deep, or maybe it’s a different axis altogether. I don’t know.
yes, when i look at something like a flower I see colour, form, beauty, softness, romance or sadness….all of that…i don’t see beyond that…i’m not thinking of it in more than those ways…it’s about recording it in the way that hopefully depicts what i see…….but when i’m photographing something that i know something about…like say my school project….i’m seeing more than the curtains or the carpets and blackboards …my head’s filled with everything that was there as well as what *is* there now, and an understanding of it’s future….and it’s not just the missing physical items….chairs, coats, kids….it’s also the whole emotions that are tied in with being at school, being late for class…losing your coat….fights…the whole thing and that’s why it’s such a fucking high…a serious high,….. because i get all that as well as the stuff I’d get from a flower, light, form, colour etc and i get to try and capture it all.
Ha! Very interesting observations! I’m definitely not the geeky type (unless, of course, you ask my daughter who snickers at the fact that the guy at the place I get my color stuff processed knows me on a first name basis!!)…and I DO like to know “what family does this plant belong to” or “what kind of bird song was that.”
When thinking about how I shoot…I guess I’m inspired by light and how it falls and what it evokes in a scene. I guess I think a bit about form and all too…and color when it’s color. But then when I get into the pinhole genre, it’s whole different ballgame altogether! I start to actaully *feel* the image rather than see it…because what I seem to be exploring now is movement and how that movement is transferred to my film. But come to think of it, I do that with any long exposure be it pinhole or otherwise…
In the end…I don’t know how this REALLY relates to your words…but it’s made me think…in print anyway, if not out loud…
I think it’s all connected… fundamentally, how you feel and how you see affects the pictures you take, and anything can affect that.
I had another thought about this yesterday, which is that it’s sort of another axis between the structure of Bach and the in-between-the-notes-ness of Mozart.
Reminds me of my father who worked all his life as a marine biologist, but also was seriously into bird-watching. He went out to find, identify and classify birds, but for him it was just the tip of the iceberg – he knew quite a bit about their diets and behaviors and migratory patterns and nesting territories and mating schedules etc – for him this was all part of the awe and wonder and deep enjoyment of bird life.
Personally I wasn’t all that interested in the birds, so learning the name was enough. It provided a mental resolution of sorts and I went no deeper – felt no need.
I can still identify quite a few birds, enough to impress the average jane (or joe). But I know very little about them.
So… I don’t know. Appearances can be deceiving.
Labeling is big with youngsters – it gives an illusion of knowledge, but it can be a shallow stopping point, beyond which we explore no further. Or maybe it becomes another starting point. Kind of depends…
Hey look – cool old house. Oh – that’s an example of Greek Revival. Oh – okay. The End.