Doors on Perception

June work-shopping session. Working with detail.

Simplicity is not an end in art, but one reaches simplicity in spite of oneself, by approaching the real meaning of things.

                                                 Brancusi

If you recall, the assignment last month was on DETAIL . Specifically to create four photographs that shared a common detail, however you conceived that to be. There was some confusion as to what detail was: was it 'detail' as in all those little bits of stuff in our photograph, or 'Detail' as Szarkowski defines it as the important element among the many that will express what we think or feel, or is it something broader and could be also named as 'theme'?

At the beginning of this session Simon and Greg both had a shot at clearing up the vagueness associated with the concept of the detail. Essentially theme is a broader classification and detail is the tool that we use to express it. For example, I might be thinking about 'flow' as the theme of spring snow melt and runoff, but will use the detail of falling water to express that idea.

I admit that I found some of the submitted sets of imagery confusing in terms of whether detail was the thing in common or a story element or a certain technical approach. Is a set of images that share a common monochrome treatment for example really talking about detail? Perhaps in seeking to broaden the 'detail' idea we have in the process created a certain vagueness.

The nice thing about this seminar series however is that we get to return to all the previous Sazakowskian slices through art photography over and over again even as we advance to new cross sections: the thing itself, the detail and, next month, the frame. Be sure to return regularly to previous month's postings to review and re-establish a sense of continuity.

During the process of performing a formal analysis on the sets of four images we noticed that the photographer's ideas about what detail formed a common bond was not necessarily obvious to others. A nice set of images of violinists busily sawing away suggested 'music' to the viewers, while it was the detail of eyes that had placed these together in the photographer's mind. Turns out that visual communication is difficult. While photographs can inform and move us 'in the blink of an eye', there is no accurate way of controlling how that will work for each viewer. We bring ourselves to each thing we see.

So, what we can communicate depends on our own personal development, what we are capable of understanding and transmitting, and upon the capacity of the viewer to go to that place also. It is the struggle to bring all the disparate strands together, the sheer difficulty and possible variety that make the whole process challenging and rewarding for all concerned.

The frame. A quick forward glance to next month.

Here are some examples of framing ( Ansel Adams) to get you thinking about this powerful design tool. You have a month, why not experiment with detail and frame?

We will have noticed that it is difficult to discuss detail within a photograph without wandering into the framing of that detail. In photography, unlike in the gradual development of a painting, every consideration about subject matter, selection of the relevant detail, how it will be framed, depth of field, shutter speed, and so on, must come together at the moment of capture. A broad collection of design and technical camera issues come together at the crunch moment of 'click'!

We capture our detail, what our image will contain, and at the same time are framing it, deciding what will be within the walls of the frame and how those details will be arranged. Much of what we end up discussing in the formal analysis work-shopping sessions has to do with concerns around framing.

Here is an example I took recently based upon a Chuck Close self portrait, painted square by square. With a Lucite cover of a lighting fixture and a mini camera held at arm's length I had the means to experiment with his original idea. That was my capture of the detail, but of course I needed to decide what was in or out of the eventual frame, so I cropped to a tall narrow frame and I decided that the hand was important in my version, but the background was not. ( As Greg would point out, the hand of the artist is visible. :)

Chuck Close