So, I watched another episode on Martin Osner’s Youtube channel the other day. In this episode, he discusses the art of composition, and why it is important to break the rules of said composition.
I both agree and disagree with much of what he says in the video.
One of the things I both agree and disagree with, is his medical reasons for how we see the world. He states that the human eye is not made to take in every detail in our surroundings – and this, I do agree with. There’s a reason why there’s a thing called peripheral seeing, and why that which we do not focus on, is out of focus.
However. I also, to some degree, disagree with this. Mainly because of the way that [ eye c ] – all pun intended.
I would like to stress the fact that I can only speak out of my own experience. How other people view this is their own responsibility. This is how I look at the art of, and the act of – c-ing (also all pun intended).
While Martin Osner has a huge point in that we as humans do not see every detail around us, in my experience it has a little less to do with actual seeing, and a bit more to do with perception.
And when we enter the realm of perception, what I personally find interesting is that we percieve that which we find interesting. What we find interesting, likely has to do with how we percieve the world in general. Which in turn requires a photographer to have some serious self-knowledge, to understand what draws her eye to certain things.
Again, in my own personal experience; what I photograph is heavily, overwhelmingly dependent on everything that I stand for, everything that I am, everything that has made me who I am.
I understand that this might be different from those who photograph for money. I have after all made an active choice to not photograph on other people’s ideas of what they want. It doesn’t work for me, I don’t have that commercial eye, at all.
But the way I see it, there’s a difference between what Osner describes as medical reasons for how we see, with our physical, actual eyes, and how we percive it. To me, perception is what’s really interesting.
Another thing Osner brings up is the question about focus. He gives the example where to look at one’s hand and see if what’s behind it is still sharp, then shift focus (!) to what’s behind the hand and see what happens.
Then, Osner speaks of focus in photography, and how to direct the viewer’s eye to the important parts in a photograph, by using in focus and out of focus.
On this matter, I both agree and disagree. I agree that sometimes, especially in certain types of photography, what’s in focus is the most important part. In other types of photography, it could be the reverse. Or sometimes, the least important part in a photography is in focus, to tell a different story than one might expect. Or just because – it’s prettier that way.
Returning to the self-knowledge within any given photographer; it is less common than I’d like. It appears to me that many photographers just – photograph, without really knowing why they are attracted to certain areas in the photographic field. I really should say “motifs”, but I really dislike that word. Mainly because I don’t photograph “motifs” myself, but something else entirely. At some point, I’ll write a blog post about that as well.
Another things Osner speaks about in this episode is why it’s important to photograph for an audience. This is something I both agree and disagree with.
If you intend to photograph for money, you do need an audience, and you need something that they are willing to pay for. While this may not only be how you visually express yourself, but also how good you are at marketing yourself, as a sales person, how good you are with people et cetera, Osner has a solid point in this.
However. Who you photograph for is not the entire point. Again; I’ll use myself as an example. I don’t photograph for money, I don’t need an audience in that sense. My main reason to photograph these days is because I love it, because it is the visual expression I’m the best at, it is how I express my world view, my life philosophy et cetera. I don’t need validation from others for that.
I am a human, though. Just like anyone else, I appreciate validation and appreciation for what I do. It’s just not necessary for my financial situation. I would however not adapt to a certain style because someone else thinks I should – never. I am doing me, for oh, so many reasons.
…
What I find most interesting with listening to other photographers, is how different our views are of what photography is, of how to use it, what we choose to do with it, how we approach it, how we theorize about it, et cetera.
And that, specifically, I would like to make a pun of, directed to any theoretician out there. If you ever want to theorize about photography; talk to an actual photographer. Preferably, many different photographers. That’s how you’ll end up with nuanced theories for whatever book you want to write.
Oh, and while I’m at it – if you’re a photographer who focus only on the practical side of it, try to incorporate some theory into your world around photography. It’ll provide some spice, some thought, and most likely will expand your c-ing process, your perception, and perhaps even you as a person.
…
When it comes to composition, the general idea is quite easy to grasp. I suppose how one chooses to progress with it depends on what kind of person one is. I am familiar with the idea that my own thoughts on composition may vary from others. I’m okay with that.
And that is why I’ll write at least one post about what composition is to me, the system I have deceloped for myself (and also teach), how I use it, what I look for when photographing, et cetera. All these things are deeply connected for me, and I hope it can be of value to someone else as well.
Until then, I highly recommend you go follow Martin Osner on Youtube. There are loads of interesting videos on all sorts of photography stuff (I have not seen everything, probably not much at all compared to how much is there).
[ Eye C ] you around!
/Malinka
