(embiggenable)
Consider this, re: good field strategy:
THE VISUAL TEXTURE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH derives from an optical mix of steadfastly articulate, recorded facts that have been presented in a manner calculated to emphasize the subject matter’s cumulative rather than individual visual appearance.
FYI, I consider the subject and its visual essence to be indivisible and the complexity of any given environment as potentially articulate aesthetic material.
The preceding is a slightly modified-by me-excerpt from Chapter 2: COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMALISM in the book the new color photography by Sally Eauclaire (a friend for whom I was a consultant on the book). I have co-opted it to make 2 points:
Eauclaire’s idea, re: Field Strategy, pretty much describes the (my) picture which accompanies this entry.
writing about art, subset photography as art, can get pretty “academic” / art-speak wordy at times. Some might even suggest that it can get rather obtuse.
So, my answer to the question raised in the preceding entry - why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography instead of going over lots of gear and technical work?- is that if one wishes to write or read about the “art of photography”, one needs to write or read about art in a more general sense. That is, if one aspires to making pictures that are considered to be Fine Art (as opposed to Decorative Art), one had better read up on what the FIne Art World considers to be Art. And, there is precious little written about Art in general, photography in particular, on the interweb.
Much of what has been written about Art, in book form, has been written by academics who, seemingly by natural inclination, are devoted to shunning simple English….
…formalists perceive real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation. They test every edge, tone, color, and texture for its expressive potential and structural function. Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is co-opted for its visual capabilities. yet delineated with utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter.
My point: if I, or anyone, were to write about the art of photography in any manner resembling the preceding excerpts-which I firmly believe are actually quite on point, photography as art wise-I believe the “average” reader of just about any blog would stop dead, eyes glazed over, at “real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments”, not to mention “expressive potential and structural function”, “delicately adjusted equilibrium”, and “co-opted for its visual capabilities”. I mean, how many of you out there have a “field strategy”?
So, why bother going down that road? The audience would be minuscule.
All of the above written, I must admit that I have read quite a lot about Art and the subset of photography as ART and it hasn’t hurt me none. Some of that reading has even helped me discover and understand what the hell I am doing-acting more intuitively (recognizing and expressing my “inner” self) rather than acting out a conscious intellectual strategy-in my picture making endeavors. And, I would highly recommend to those wishing to discover and understand what the hell they are doing, picture making wise, to read as much as they can stand about Art with the objective of cultivating a “feel” for the making of Art.
However, writing about the art of photography is not something I pursue on this blog. What I have written about photography on this blog has been more concerned with the idea of what exactly is a photograph? or, what are the medium’s intrinsic characteristics / strengths? And that is what I will continue to do.