Nihlism & photography

[John Kasaian]

One thing I enjoy about photography, my own as well as many of the fine photographers whose work I've been fortunate to see, is an element of energy---a spark of beauty---something positive(or a negative thats a positive?:rolleyes: )

Pretty cool stuff anyway.

When I was in college I noticed a trend that kind of turned me off to photography for a while. I didn't know what to call it until now though. I see it in many different genres but what I'm curious about is how come it finds the photographic process so appealing as an organ of dissemination (or at least a comfortable host medium) and if digital is also rife with nihilsm (or not?) It would seem that digital would be right up a nihilst's alley---you can take all the pictures you want without printing them or even look at them (like, uhhh...whats the use?)

I don't know why this subject came to my mind, but I thought someone here could provide some insight.

[walter23]

Isn't that called lomography? Wait, that's not nihilism, that's youthful vigor and colourful spontaneity... just shoot from the hip!

[Shen45]

Walter wasn't that Winnograd :) [pardon the spelling]

[Eric James]

I've yet to print a digital image, and never had Nietzsche...so I see your implication.

I love the sound of my D200 hammering off exposures, but when the green light goes off, I feel empty.

[Mike Davis]

This actually hits somewhat close to home. I work at a University, hold a degree in film and have taken several photo classes there.

I'm not sure that what you're describing is actually nihilism. In a large format class that I took a few years ago, I sat through critique after critique with people who couldn't be concerned over whether their prints were dry, or flat, or spotted. Invariably they "just didn't have time." Since I was working fulltime and going to class and managed to get the work done, their complaints seemed like excuses.

Don't get me wrong, there were several people there who wanted to be there and who consistently did good work. But some of them just didn't care. Maybe it was nihilism. Maybe it was malaise. Maybe it was exhaustion or maybe it was laziness. I just don't know for sure.

Photography (and art in general) requires work. It takes time to capture the image and just as or more importantly time to create and present your vision of that image. Until weekend before last, I had shot a single sheet of film in a year. I still haven't developed that shot. But I did get in the darkroom this past week and develop some new work. I also went back out this weekend to shoot some abstracts. Will my excitement wane? Are most of us doomed to experience photography as a feast or famine artform. Again, I don't know.

I do believe that places like the LF forums and APUG can help us maintain our excitement. We get to see other work and I believe that that can be an external force to push us to complete our own. I don't know if anything in these paragraphs really offers insight. But... who cares ;)

Mike Davis

[John Kasaian]

Maybe another thread on decay got me thinking about this stuff---the beauty of old rusted stuff battling the elements and falling to pieces vs. the dispair and hopelessness kind of decay (like Bratz) maybe?

I came across a sheep carcass that had been picked clean by vultures this morning on my way to putting up a fence (I found a length of intestines on top of one of the fence posts a few days ago) and I was thinking of how to photograph the carcass but the image in my mind would have been blatantly nihilistic---I just couldn't think of any way of shooting it where it would come off differently (I couldn't likely entice one of the vultures to pose with a "Mmmm...yummy sheep!" grin on his beak :D )

[Turner Reich]

Sounds a lot like a denial of forum mixing in an evocation of external forces of intention. Or a seeking of luxury in a void of independence of internal actions.

[John Kasaian]

Sounds a lot like a denial of forum mixing in an evocation of external forces of intention. Or a seeking of luxury in a void of independence of internal actions.

Huh?

[John Kasaian]

Sounds a lot like a denial of forum mixing in an evocation of external forces of intention. Or a seeking of luxury in a void of independence of internal actions.

Huh?:confused:

[paulr]

Would you call Winogrand a nihilist? By Szarkowski's estimation, he left hundreds of thousands of rolls of film undeveloped by the time he died.

You don't need a digital camera to be a nihilist (we can probably agree that neither Nietzsche nor Turgenev carried camera phones).

But I'm also curious about why collecting latent images (or viewable images that aren't printed physically) implies nihilism. Is video nihilistic? Seems like the same thing. It's always disembodied, never printed; but it can be seen.

For Winogrand, I suspect the acts of looking and pointing and framing became the defining exercise, more than making the final product. This always struck me as interesting ... like he was up to something different from the rest of us, something that evolved into being less about art and more about interacting with the world in the moment. But it still struck me as more affirmative than dismissive or destructive.

[Kirk Gittings]

For Winogrand, I suspect the acts of looking and pointing and framing became the defining exercise, more than making the final product. This always struck me as interesting ... like he was up to something different from the rest of us, something that evolved into being less about art and more about interacting with the world in the moment. But it still struck me as more affirmative than dismissive or destructive.

My sense about Winogrand in the latter years was that the process of image making was enough for him, by exposing film he was already seeing final prints in his head, but he had no need to finish the process mechanically for other people. Imagining was more important than image making.

[Mark Sawyer]

My sense about Winogrand in the latter years was that the process of image making was enough for him, by exposing film he was already seeing final prints in his head, but he had no need to finish the process mechanically for other people. Imagining was more important than image making.

Rather the ultimate reduction of Weston's "previsualization"... if you already you see the image finished in your mind, why bother even developing the film? I think most photographers are always photographing that way, seeing the world through a frame, perhaps in black and white, through this lens or that, if only in their minds. Other times we pursue the image to full physical fruition. Winogrand perhaps advanced to an area inbetween...

[paulr]

... if you already you see the image finished in your mind, why bother even developing the film?

When you reach the highest refinement of this technique, you never even have to get out of bed (except to get online and talk about your imagined photographs, get advice on imagined lenses, etc..). That's what I aspire to, someday.

[Kirk Gittings]

When you reach the highest refinement of this technique, you never even have to get out of bed (except to get online and talk about your imagined photographs, get advice on imagined lenses, etc..). That's what I aspire to, someday.

It would depend on whether one "invents" images in your head or "encounters" them in the world. If I never left my bed I would quickly exhaust my petty little internal visions.

[paulr]

If I never left my bed I would quickly exhaust my petty little internal visions.

Kirk, in your part of the country they have little mushrooms that can help with that.

[Brian C. Miller]

IIRC, Winogrand left behind so many rolls of film due to his technique. He didn't want to remember what he had photographed, so he let the film sit for a year before bothering with development and printing. I think that it had to do with the newness of the image, seeing it for the first time all over again.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk, in your part of the country they have little mushrooms that can help with that.

Its very odd that you should mention that. For a number of years I hung out with these guys.

http://www.mirandocity.com/peyote.htm

Anthony Davis is mentioned in the last sentnce of the Acknowledgements page of my website.

[tim atherton]

Kirk, I think that short video link I post a while back of Winogrand showed a lot of that (*as well as his "vault" of film cans).

It seemed a pretty joyous thing for him - that short segment anyway

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/03/winogrand-at-work-movie.html

[Chris Strobel]

Hmmm.........it would be easier to just take my viewing card on trips :D

[Mark Sawyer]

Hmmm.........it would be easier to just take my viewing card on trips :D

...and we could just have conceptual gallery shows and publications. Much easier to get and I'm sure the conceptual reviews would be better than the real ones...

[Kirk Gittings]

Tim,
That is a very revealing clip. Thanks for that. The taking of images seems almost transcendent for him, whereas the developing, printing, doing shows, inteviews, selling etc. all seems like it is drudgery.

Interesting, for me the high point is experiencing the first good, really expresive print from a negative that really sings.

[Greg Miller]

Rather the ultimate reduction of Weston's "previsualization"... if you already you see the image finished in your mind, why bother even developing the film? I think most photographers are always photographing that way, seeing the world through a frame, perhaps in black and white, through this lens or that, if only in their minds. Other times we pursue the image to full physical fruition. Winogrand perhaps advanced to an area inbetween...

Why even bother exposing the film?

Everytime I am driving somewhere and am behind schedule, I inevitably see great images - if only I had time to stop and capture them. I can see them vividly in my mind. Somehow this just leaves me frustrated. I guess I'm no Winogrand...