Logical Positivism and the Phenomenology of Photography

[John Kasaian]

In attempting to understand what I'm doing when I use a camera intuitively, such as shooting a handheld Speed Graphic, as opposed to a more contemplative approach as when playing with a 8x10 or ULF, I begin to wonder if there is a correlaton between photography and Phenomenolgy vs. Logical Positivism debate. As Logical Positivism refers to to existence being determined only by what can be measured, that would support the more contemplative approach, such as reading a light meter, utilizing the Zone System, selecting a lens on its known merits and characteristics charted on the spec sheets published the manufacturers, and other scientific data like grain shape and silver content of the film selected and so on. On the Phenomenology side of the issue, and I'm refering here to more of a Husserliana definition, there is the mental existence of the image, photograph in this case, which does not submit to any form measurement---f stop and shutter speed were set before the image presented itself(OK, "sunny 16",) distance---infinity, also preset long before any idea to take the picture in question existed. It is a photographic image that exists only in my mind, then it becomes an exposed piece of cut film through the act of taking(how appropriate the word "taking") the picture. I only mention this because in practice, I'm finding this is a very refreshing way to make photographs and I'm wondering what others think, especially those with differing views. Any thoughts??

[David R Munson]

Wow - this is so much along the lines of the philosophy of mind paper that I'm specifically not writing at the moment it's almost creepy. I would definitely lean in the direction of the phenomenological stance. To me, logical positivism is highly problematic in its application to real human affairs. One thing I definitely take issue with is it's verifiability principle. Is something really only meaningful only in the event that it can be proven true or false? I say no. Particularly in relation to the kinds of things one encounters in photography - something that is innately subjective and thereby not terribly fun to try to put into true/false terms. It's rejection of any and all things metaphysical is also troubling, as it seems to me that metaphysics is a critical part of the subjective creative experience.

OK, I'm not sure if this is making sense. And so, I'll stop for now. I may post again later once I get some sleep and can devote more brain cells to the question.

[Doug Howk]

"Taking","shooting","bagging", etc. have some negative connotations vis-a-vis the subject of the image. Seize the moment, even with its inspirational tone, suggests the importance of a singularity in time. All emphasize the importance of the moment when the shutter is released. An intuitive approach to photography is a worthwhile goal, but there are no short-cuts to learning a craft. Besides the obvious technical skills that must be learned, an appreciation for & an understanding of composition requires at least an initial, contemplative approach to photography.

[Michael A.Smith]

I question your premise: the setting up as opposites the intuitive and the contemplative. When you mention conteplative, you mention zone system and light meters, selecting a lens and film based on known characteristics. None of that has anything to do with anything conteplative--or intuitive.

I believe the proper opposite to intuitive is analytic. One can use a hand-hed camera intuitively or analytically. One can use a large view camera intuitively or analytically. One can be contemplative and intuitive and one can be contemplative and analytical.

Intuitive picture making (I have never thought of what I did as "taking") is when there is a flash of recognition that what is on the groundglass or in the view finder feels "right." This can be preceded by contemplative activity or not. I think of contemplative activity as just walking around getting the feeling of a place--not even thinking of photographs or photographing. Often, when you may have been in the same spot for quite a while, things and relationships present themselves that were always there, but were not consciously registered. They register as a result of contemplative activity. At this point, for me, what registers may have nothing at all to do with any picture I may attempt to make. When I do get out my camera, chances are I will not photograph that which caused me to get it out, but something else entirely--something that is discovered as a result of looking on the ground glass. The ground glass is where the intuitive discoveries are made. And they are made in an instant.

The zone system, film, lenses, light meters: Decisions about this stuff is made years before in the case of film and lenses, and with the zone system and light meter the decisions are made so quickly and automatically (it usually takes about 10 seconds) that it is just a mechanical thing (and the least interesting part of the whole process) that helps insure the correct exposure. But outside of that, it really has nothing to do with the creative process of making photographs.

[John Cook]

Fifty years ago, my Dad used to tell me that, "It's all in how you hold your mouth" while working.

[Don Wallace]

John,

The only point on which I would agree with your model is this: one of the main criteria of positivistic science is repeatability. Adams' method offered a way of understand the basic materials in such a way that one would know what to do in a given situation in order to produce a desired result. However, Adams also emphasised visualization, something that you have missed. He was a musician (and a very good one) and what he did with photography, in terms of method, is very similar to what a musician does. One learns the basic materials only to be able to use them in an unconscious and intuitive way. There is no contradiction. Those who use theory as if it were practice have missed the point. I teach music and tell this to my students all the time.

[David Mark]

Sound technique is a prerequisite to a good photograph whether your approach to making photographs is analytical or intuitive. If someone gives you a hammer, a chisel and a big block of marble, whether your vision for your sculpure comes to you in a flash of insight or from weeks of preliminary drawings and careful study of the marble, you are unlikely to be able to realize your vision unless you have mastered the craft of sculpting.

The marvelous technology of photography sometimes allows us to delude ourselves about the need for craft. We don't need to make our own lenses, cameras, and film. A very rudimentary knowledge of exposure and development will allow us to get some sort of printable image. But to get the image we intended, even -- or perhaps especially --the image borne of a momentary flash of inspiration, we must have mastered the technical aspects of photography.

To resort to yet another analogy: Could you sit down at the piano and improvise brilliantly if you have not put in thousands of hours playing scales and arpeggios?

Consider your example of intuitive photography: You are wandering the seashore with your Speed Graphic, focused at infinity and with exposure preset according to the sunny sixteen rule. Suddenly you see a striking arrangement of boulders in the sand, partly in sunlight, partly in shadow. If you have the craft, you can refocus and reset the exposure in seconds, and make a negative that will support your vision for the finished print. If not, you have two choices: you can pass on the picture entirely, or take it, and then pretend to yourself that the featureless black shadows and blown-out highlights in the final print are what you intended.

In short, I am agreeing with what I take to be Michael A. Smith's point: technique is a prerequisite to either an analytical or intuitive approach to making photographs. It is not a part of the analytical approach that can be dispensed with when one is working intuitively.

Pierre Auguste Renoir said, "Be a good craftsman; it won't stop your being a genius."

Beyond that, I can't speak to your assessment of how logical positivism and phenomenology would play out as approaches to photography. I have never read the phenomenologists, and have only the faintes memories of having read A.J. Ayer in college. I do think that speculations, philosophical or otherwise, that stimulate you to make photographs must be counted a good thing.

David

[david clark]

Hi all, I think, basically, logical positivism has to do with making scientific claims and, basically, phenomenology has to do with placing what-is into categories. And neither intellectual tool was fabricated for squeezing an art image out of a camera or vocing artistic judgments. I think this is a trial and error game, true some are more methodical in their experiments.

[David L.]

Wow, interesting subject!! Yes, I think the Logical Positivism/Phenomenology dichotomy does indeed apply to the universe of photography and it plays out, in a non format dependent way, something like this. The Logical Positivist defines his existence in terms of characteristic curves, Airy disks, MTF functions, hyperfocal calculations, AZO emulsions and other such things. The Phenomenologist defines his existence by how many times he gets laid.

[John Kasaian]

Interesting, but I can't see how something thats intuitive can't be an example of Phenomenology, though perhaps the arguement for contemplative photography as a model for Logical Positivism is not so strong. It seems like the elements of photography constructed from science---chemistry, optics etc...have to be "children" of Logical Positivism. The contemplative approach, the way I understand it, calls for careful selection of the materials & equiptment as much as it does compostition and tonality---this isn't to say the yield isn't creative or "art," but rather that its vitally important in the process of creating a picture. Have you ever taken a photo, convinced that if you had a wider, or longer, or MC, or APO lens, the fruits of your exercise would turn out better? Have you ever passed up a shot because you felt you didn't have the lens you could use along?(Ansel Adams remarked something to the effect that if you have more than on lens, the lens you have on the camera won't be the right one) I think thats a sound example of Logical Positivism being a force in photography. You know from a technical stand that you won't get the performance what you want, and the performance you expect from your gear and/or the materials you use drives if not the creative process, the ability to realize the creative process. If you never snap the shutter, the image you desire might still exist in your mind, and that would be an example of Phenomenology. Any further "tweaking" of the mental image exists in the mind. The difference then between a Phenomenological approach might be that the image is not 100%(or at least predominantly) dependent on the selection of gear and materials used to measure or somehow place a photograph into existence. The Phenomenological approach then, could jive with the old Kodak ad copy that goes "You press the button, We do the rest" though the approach is that Photographer is driven by a mental picture exclusivley and that mental picture is unable to be measured or catagorized. The Photographer then thinks that "x" f-stop and "x" shutterspeed should produce an image, not because a light meter says so, but by intuition(which may well be from an earlier experience thats become, to the mind, a piece of recognizable furniture) and that the lens onboard is merely that---no "silver bullets" allowed. The image is not finessed, like a choreographed dance or fired like an artillery shell with range, windage and elevation painstakingly computed before launch, but taken---siezed I think is a term someone used---by the hands, though some might argue that Phenomenology cannot go beyond the mind, since in order to exist, something would have to be maesurable(Cyril vs. Dennet?) I'm not saying one way is better than another, just trying to clarify what the differences are between intuative and contemplative(or analytical) methods. I heartily agree with David R. Munson in that such mental gymnastics can leave the brain hurtin' after awhile, but hey, no pain-no gain. Any other ideas or comments?