What makes a photo “deep”?

[C. D. Keth]

To me, it's a photograph that thrills me or interests me on more than just a visual level and holds my interest over time and through multiple viewings.

[Darin Boville]

In odd contrast, I can stare at a Pollack, and come back to it over and over again. I don't love it at all, and in fact at some level it offends me. I'd be hard-pressed to buy the notion that it has any meaning at all, let alone on multiple levels. But it is...compelling. It does not engender shallow or superficial thoughts the way Warhol's soup cans do. Much of the attention it commands is, "why does this work at all?" I never have an answer to that, but there is so little to the technique that the answer to that question has to be about me, and not about it. The sheer unconcern of it to my questions seems to me an aspect of its depth--it somehow forces me to bring my own. It just is, but I can't ignore it.

This is exactly my experience. Two footnotes, at least for me, none of this is true for reproductions. They do nothing at all for me. But the paintings themselves (well, at least some of them) are a real experience to look at. Also, I've seen one or two fake Pollacks and--maybe not surprisingly--some of that "magic" or whatever you want to call it is there as well.

--Darin

[rdenney]

This is exactly my experience. Two footnotes, at least for me, none of this is true for reproductions. They do nothing at all for me. But the paintings themselves (well, at least some of them) are a real experience to look at. Also, I've seen one or two fake Pollacks and--maybe not surprisingly--some of that "magic" or whatever you want to call it is there as well.

Pollock's methods were often mechanical and therefore reproducible. But for one to create a replica of his work, they would have to know how he did it. Thus, it would still be his idea even if someone else's machine dripped the paint. And I think it's the idea that makes it interesting.

And my poster of Monolith is powerful. I've seen a real one on several occasions in museum showings (in fact that's where I bought the poster). Yes, the prints have a technical quality that makes them better. But in the case of that photo, at least, it's not the technical quality that drives that image for me.

I've told this story before: I have a Special Edition print of Dogwoods, and I have compared it side-by-side to the reproduction in Yosemite and the Range of Light. The optical print is a bit less "sharp", which for me means that the transitions from light to dark are smoother, even on the micro scale. The dot pattern on the reproduction provides false edges that make it look sharper. As soon as the photo is behind glass, it loses much its tonality advantage over the unframed reproduction, though. I do not find that the optical print is particularly more compelling than the reproduction in that case.

From this I draw the conclusion that, for me at least, technical virtuosity is not the primary source of "depth", as I've described its effects on me. But, as with music, lack of virtuosity can certainly undermine it.

Rick "thinking expression and technique are distinct but sometimes mutually dependent" Denney

[CP Goerz]

I wonder too if there is a certain amount of 'emperor-has-no-clothes' factor going on with some artists/images. If its a Weston/Adams/Caponigro et al that we are 'supposed' to 'look' deeper at/into the image, maybe a picture of a pretty shell/tree/mountain is just that.

[paulr]

Photo of the Mariana Trench.



Hard to get deeper than that.

[CP Goerz]

Or conversely.......:-)

[Drew Wiley]

I'm pretty skeptical that anyone could duplicate the true gestalt of Pollock, regardless of
how good there were at mimicking outward technique, anymore than the thousands who
have tried to mimic Van Gogh. Genius has a certain undefinable spark. I also get tired of all
the backseat quarterbacks who think that just because one has perfected the Zone System they automatically acquire the musical skills of AA. Uncle Earl had talent and the same subject matter but not the same poetic sensibility. I could spot the difference instantly. One time I was walking thru a major Carleton Watkins exhibit quiety explaining
things to a photog friend who didn't get it. Several of the museum staff ended up following
me too, because all they understood was the historical import of his work, not the visual
complexity at all. Some things you either get or you don't. I couldn't ever get Rembrandt
in coffee table book reproductions. Once I stood in front of his actual self-portrait in the
Natl Gallery I got it instantly. Sometimes you need to see the real deal to access the nuances which make things work. Pity this generation which only knows web images.

[JBelthoff]

I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it!

[Lenny Eiger]

I also get tired of all
the backseat quarterbacks who think that just because one has perfected the Zone System they automatically acquire the musical skills of AA. Uncle Earl had talent and the same subject matter but not the same poetic sensibility. I could spot the difference instantly. One time I was walking thru a major Carleton Watkins exhibit quiety explaining
things to a photog friend who didn't get it. Several of the museum staff ended up following
me too, because all they understood was the historical import of his work, not the visual
complexity at all. Some things you either get or you don't.

Totally with you on this one, Drew. You can't go wrong with Watkins, or Muybridge in Yosemite....

Pity this generation which only knows web images.

Absolutely. I think there is a moment where a photograph becomes an "object" all its own. If you go somewhere you think is magical, get in the space of that magic, tune in and "understand" then the possibility exists that the print that you make can be its own little bit of magic as well.

I also rail at the purely technical. Perfecting the zone system is just a beginning. I think its important to question why you photograph, hell, why you're here in the first place. I saw someone the other day reproduce a Weston photo and present it as an homage. All they did was turn the nautilus on its side. Why bother, its clearly a copy? I have heard so many talk about "getting the shot" like they were building a catalogue. Oh, I have my picture of that one spot in Escalante Canyon, or McClure's Beach... What does that do for anyone?

I have a portrait I took many years ago. It was dusk, and I shot a 90 second exposure with this woman. We were friends, she was my best friends girlfriend. He met her first, and I wasn't about to cross that line so what we ended up with a line but a lot of sweetness between us.. sort of the knowledge that if things were different... The image is good and sharp, the only part of it that isn't is her collar, which moved up and down just a little with her breathing. It creates a glistening highlight. This succeeded because of the long exposure. We breathed together and over some minutes slowed things down. We were connected and it shows. The image speaks of intimacy. I was thrilled to be able to communicate using a larger concept. I think we should be after those - intimacy, integrity, selflessness, humility, to name a few.

We have so many good examples of photos that can speak to the indomitable human spirit. Dorothea Lange, and almost everyone in the FSA. I think its about looking deeper. Caring enough to take a portrait where what we want is the inside, not just the outward appearance. This is the difference in real photography that makes Instagram irrelevant. Amusing at times, it doesn't have any illusions of depth. It won't do anything for anyone. Nothing that is based on a gimmick will have lasting value.

We live in a world that appears to be getting more selfish by the moment. I think we desperately need artists who can show a little depth, point the way to a whole series of emotions. I like to be intellectually stimulated as much as the next guy, but there is real possibility here to move the human spirit, and perhaps, if I may be so bold, a responsibility to do so.

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

I find Dorothea Lange's images amazing, to some extent that I am simply incapable of ever
getting into someone's face with a camera, while even her own family dreaded her constant stalking. Not a happy life. And it's amazing how her husband's painting style changed when they were seriously fighting. But her images per se - formula stipulated per
contract by Stryker, but still with enough latitude to instill her remarkable personal style.
Fortunately the collection is well care for in the Oakland Museum. My aunt's work was just
the opposite - I find her WPA murals stiff and predictable, in the usual socialist realism
style dictated by those times, but way more fluid when it came to watercolor and personal
work. She eventually became a nun, but one who appreciated the rhythm of Hendrix!