all photos (embigenable)
wonder: v. desire or be curious to know something.
“I work to create an image that draws people in with its aesthetic, but then has them grappling with it and wonder why they are drawn to it. They’re thinking, “I am reacting against what I am seeing, but drawn to it.”….. If it makes the viewer somewhat uncomfortable, that’s interesting.” ~ Edward Burtynsky
I HAVE SEVERAL TIMES PAST MENTIONED THAT ONE of the most common comments I hear from viewers of my photographs is, “I don’t know why I like this, but I do.” In my experience, the “dilemma” they are grappling with is that they do not understand why they are drawn to / curious about a picture of something that is conventionally deemed to be very ordinary / plain / unexceptional.
When I hear such a comment, I am tempted to throw my hands and arms into the air and yell, “Success!!!!” That’s cuz, like Burtynsky, I work––although it does not feel like work to me–– to create an image that draws in, a. my eye and sensibilities (first), and, hopefully, b. other people’s eye (second) with its aesthetic, AKA: the form I see and photograph in the quotidian world and which is on exhibit in my photographs.
I am in no way trying to be condescending, however I do believe that most viewers who express such consternation have no conscious / learned knowledge, re: form …. ASIDE Unlike, say, an art center gallery director who asked, when viewing my very early on, unorganized portfolio–– I had yet to understand my discursively promiscuous picturing tendencies––”Are you a designer? Your photos, despite their random subject matter, have a very identifiable look that holds them all together as your work.” END ASIDE …. What I believe is happening with the don’t-know-why viewers is that, while they may have no formal recognition / understanding of form, many people* do possess an unconscious sensitivity / positive reaction to interesting / pleasing form when they see it.
That written, here’s the thing about form …. when attempting to describe form, most veer into vocalizing wispish vagueness, like, say, defining it as an orderly method of arrangement; a definition which most likely means many different things to many different viewers. Ya know like, one man’s orderly arrangement is another man’s sloppy mess. Others might describe form as the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art; while that might be viable for a painter who starts with a blank substrate, iMo, it simply don’t work for a straight photographer cuz, ya know, the visual structural elements of the real world are not very malleable.
There are also those, primarily found in academia or the writings of academia trained critics**, who go to great lengths to rip apart / dissect the visual structural elements of a work of art––a kinda post-mortem mori memento, an autopsy––in an effort to explain / understand how it “works”. It has always been my contention that if you have to kill it to understand how it works, then it was already dead to begin with.
All of that written, and to paraphrase A. Adams;
“There are no rules for making good form, there is only good form.” ~ I said that
*although, probably a minority of the population cuz ya can’t forget the quote attributed (but not verified) to H. L. Menckin;
“Nobody ever when broke underestimating the taste of the American people.”
** and don’t forget the how-to-make-great-composition workshop hustlers