The problem with previsualization...

[Mark Sawyer]

Not so much a question as an observation, which feedback (and related insults!) are of course welcome on...

I've noticed to myself that I often have some great idea for a wonderful photograph, but because I can do the Weston "previsualization" thing in my mind, I generally don't get around to ever actually shooting the negative. When I find the time to go photographing, I would rather go wander around in a forest or desert, looking for the undiscovered that will tell me something new instead of going through the technical exercise of making something I've already seen finished in my mind.

This may be the danger of working without an audience; why make a picture you've already for most practical purposes seen? Then again, the unmade images are a very different type of image from what I find myself making spontaneously- the unmade tend to be more "clever," or at least more of an attempt at being clever, with a defined and finite statement, (as often as not some inside joke), so maybe they're best left in my mind. Those made without the preconception seem more stream-of-conciousness and open-ended, and I can go back to them more often and find new things in them. But a few of the unmade have been bouncing around in the back of my brain for years now, and I'm building up quite a portfolio.

Probably not a unique experience among photographers...

[paulr]

Among the people who would agree with you are Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, who late in their lives admitted that they hardly ever pre-visualized anything, at least in the textbook sense.

For what it's worth, I agree too. I'm much more interested in making photographs that I don't already know how to make.

[tim atherton]

if you "pre-visualize" the photograph, then at what point do you actually visualize it?

[Steve Sherman]

Great observation Mark, for me the pursuit and mystery of the unknown is always greater than the known.

[paulr]

"if you "pre-visualize" the photograph, then at what point do you actually visualize it?"

immediately before post-visualization.

[Daniel Morgan]

If I remember correctly from reading the Ansel Adams books, when he talked about pre-visualization he wasn't talking about a composition which he would then go and hunt for, but rather he was thinking about the way the final image he saw on the ground glass would look when it was finally printed. In other words, pre-visualization was about what he wanted the final image to convey and the technical mastery that it took to take that image in his mind, release the shutter, develop, and print.

But talking about pre-visualization in the other sense...

At my highschool seniors have the option to drop some classes their second term to do an independant project. For my project I did a series of 4 30x40 prints of teachers that were somehow technically modified to incorporate their passions. I had been pre-visualizing the final images for over a year when it came time to actually doing it, and when I was finally done it was one of the most satisfying things I had ever completed. Often as artists we all visualize what we want our art to look like, but do to lack of technical skill are unable to achieve the same image that we see in our heads. I think that the whole value of pre-visualization is that it forces us to strive for a certain technical mastery that we don't quite get if we are always satisfied with what we simply "discover." I know that personally, I want to strive to create any image that I pre-visualize so that I am in no way limited.

But thats just me.

[Jim Reed]

A previsualized photo or image is much like an artistic itch that just has not been scratched yet. There is no rush. Often, over the years, the concept will change somewhat, and even when you set out to make the image you will improve, improvise and actually end up with a result that will give you a life-time of satisfaction far beyond your original previsualization. But there is no risk of failure to put it off for a while, even though that may trouble you if you think that may be what you are avoiding. To put it in another way, previsualizing a lovely evening with a beautiful woman can not begin to compare with an actual evening with a lovely woman, even if it does not turn out the way you previsualized.

[Daniel Morgan]

Wayyyyy off topic but I just have to know....

Jim Reed, are you Jim Reed the printer?
If so I helped you move into your new apartment with Cal... just thought it would be funny if you were the same person.

Sorry for posting a personal question like that.

[Alan Davenport]

IMO, "previsualization" is something that usually happens when a photographer sees his/her negatives and asks, "How the heck am I going to get this onto paper?"

[Mark Sawyer]

"if you "pre-visualize" the photograph, then at what point do you actually visualize it?"
immediately before post-visualization. --paulr

I suspect the approach to photography could argueably be divided into "pre-visualization" and "post-rationalization." And I suspect we all do a bit of both, making the arguement rhetorical...

It strikes me as one of my own little odd eccentricities that while I'm happy never making some of these previsualized images, a couple of time I've gone out and found a spontaneous image that spoke to me, shot it, and when it didn't turn out for some reason, (wind motion in the trees, missed a corner with lens coverage), I was fairly frustrated until I went back and did it right. That's the itch I had to scratch, I suppose... (Light and weather aside, one of the joys of photography is that we sometimes get "do-overs.")

"...for me the pursuit and mystery of the unknown is always greater than the known." --Steve Sherman

I think (not quite sure) for me it's as though personal photography needs an element of exploration. It seems more satisfying to search for meanings and answers rather than go out with the answers already in mind. Now if I could just figure out what the questions are...