The great thread about exhibitionism vs. voyeurism got me thinking about another set of opposites that come up for me frequently when I take my camera gear with me on a trip. I wonder if any of you come up against the same struggle as I have.
I travel a lot on the weekends, mostly for fun. I always bring my camera gear with me but I sometimes find that the desire to participate, rather than observe, means that my gear bag never gets cracked open. It might be a music festival, a camping trip with dozens of good friends, or a weekend excursion to my family's farm; regardless, if I jump into the experience and immerse myself in it, I find that trying to get into photography mode means I feel I'm withdrawing from the actual experience and becoming more of an observant to the event, and often that's just not a desirable option. I end up feeling like I have to choose between direct experience and floating on the edges of the experience so I can observe and shoot. I come home exhilarated from my excursion but regret not having taken any pictures.
There are other times when I set out to specifically shoot for the day and in those circumstances I have no problem busting out the cameras and immersing myself in THAT experience. The other times, though, become an exercise in frustration as I feel pulled in two different directions. I haven't yet reconciled with it. Is this a struggle that any of you encounter?
I travel a lot on the weekends, mostly for fun. I always bring my camera gear with me but I sometimes find that the desire to participate, rather than observe, means that my gear bag never gets cracked open. It might be a music festival, a camping trip with dozens of good friends, or a weekend excursion to my family's farm; regardless, if I jump into the experience and immerse myself in it, I find that trying to get into photography mode means I feel I'm withdrawing from the actual experience and becoming more of an observant to the event, and often that's just not a desirable option. I end up feeling like I have to choose between direct experience and floating on the edges of the experience so I can observe and shoot. I come home exhilarated from my excursion but regret not having taken any pictures.
There are other times when I set out to specifically shoot for the day and in those circumstances I have no problem busting out the cameras and immersing myself in THAT experience. The other times, though, become an exercise in frustration as I feel pulled in two different directions. I haven't yet reconciled with it. Is this a struggle that any of you encounter?
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Wed, January 2, 2008 - 10:46 PMI don't have that struggle, because I chose to be observer, and I tend to be more introverted, and antisocial, so I only use the camera to connect with people./situation. I am also trained to look since going to art school for years, so for me it is always about looking, taking to people is more an effort. As far as immersing yourself, one has to feel is it time for fun or is it more important to capture your experience. This would be true if you plan to ever attend Burning man.
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Thu, January 3, 2008 - 3:06 AMMost of my photography is nature/wilderness. I pretty much always have my camera gear in my pack. Sometimes I get so totally wrapped up in the wilderness experience it's like I lose all track of time and space - and forget to take the camera out and shoot some of the awesome stuff I see. In 2008 I want to make the camera more an extension of myself.
Peace.
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Thu, January 3, 2008 - 12:18 PM> Is this a struggle that any of you encounter?
Frequently, then I remind myself that when I do this for fun, it's just that: Click if you feel like it, or not. Life through a viewfinder 24/7 yields a limited perspective anyway. -
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Thu, January 3, 2008 - 6:33 PMWhen i was 17-23 i was a US Navy Photographer I traveled the world, I took pictures, but being Enchanted- life circumstances lead to my being discharged. Film was expensive, I took off on a Sidartha Journey to Faerie Land and went through the looking glass. Yes I took pictures but there was something disconnected. Joy perhaps was lost, then In the Last year a man equally bruised and battered by life came into my life and handed me an electronic Camera. I have begun to bloom again as artist and as a person. Traveling the light
remember to "click" in the moment, breathing in-breathing out. p.s. always make sure your batteries are current LOL..I ran downtown today
because on the way home I saw the sunset..got there and the camera batteries weren't recharged..but my man and I had a wonderful sunset anyway. Peace from Nashville Timefire Rex.
-
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Fri, January 4, 2008 - 6:01 PMYeah, I've never been a "snapshot" type of photographer and that's primarily why. But shooting feels very different to me than taking snapshots, I think it is another way of entering into the experience, another way of seeing, but I almost never photograph people so...? -
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Fri, January 4, 2008 - 6:10 PMYou bring up an important distinction. Most of the times when I feel torn between the two modes is when people, mostly loved ones and friends, are involved. I'm not much of a snapshot shooter myself either - I prefer to catch candid shots when people aren't paying attention to me or it's a totally focused photo shoot when they are the reason I have my camera out in the first place.
But then there are instances such as attending a music festival where I *know* I would enjoy doing nothing but shooting, but then I go and get myself so involved in the organizing of the festival (usually as a happy volunteer) that I'm fully *in* the experience and it's hard to remove myself enough to be the observer.
Interesting responses to this question so far. I'm curious to know how this sits for more of you. It seems like something so fundamental to the mindset of the photographer. -
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Fri, January 4, 2008 - 6:31 PMI have wrestled with this dilemma on more than one occasion.
My photography is mostly nudes ,or some variant of sensual beauty.
I've often seen compositions with my lovers in private that I've wanted to record and make an art piece from,but this is a risk of course because it changes the flow and becomes selfish and indulgent in a different way than sex...
It takes a willing and tolerant lover for me to mix these two very strong urges,to be involved and intimate with my partner,but have the option to pick up the camera if I feel so moved...
The making of art for me,ALL Art ,has always been part of my sexual expression. It doesn't matter what medium,sculpture,music,decorative arts, it is the act itself not the result that reflects my sexuality. It is a hard thing to explain to others but I've become comfortable with these awkward sympathies after 30 odd years of being a "professional". It is however one of the myriad of eccentric qualities that make long term relationships,"problematic".
-
-
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Fri, January 4, 2008 - 6:41 PMYes, often. Like you I usually bring along my camera gear, but sometimes it never comes out, because once it does I'm usually changed and it is sometimes hard to change back. Not always though. Once in a while I can successfully alternate between being the observer and being a participant.
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Fri, January 4, 2008 - 9:23 PMOne of the reasons I hesitate to call myself a photographer is because I am not the kind that goes around taking pictures of things. The only photography I do, other than the odd holiday snap, is all carefully controlled and in the studio. Seems like there should be a different word for that kind of thing, as opposed to the skill necessary to be out in the world and ready and able to capture things as they happen.
I have, on occasion, taken a camera somewhere with the intention of documenting it, but I always end up taking few pictures and preferring to be present in the moment
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Sat, January 5, 2008 - 3:57 AMReally interesting thread. I guess one conclusion I might draw is that the minute you take the camera out, the experience changes. Never thought about this before. -
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Sat, January 5, 2008 - 10:13 AMSwamp guy, when I chose to photograph them, taking the camera out does not change the experience for me, if I am with close friends, like the photog Nan Goldin, my method is unobtrusive and my friends are use to me photographing them.
The experience is recorded nor do they have objections, and they accept me and my camera as one. Photographing them is I normal activity for me.
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Thu, January 10, 2008 - 5:21 PM"the minute you take the camera out, the experience changes"
neat thought...I guess if we set judgment aside the question is how does the experience change? And why do we want to step away if that's what we are doing? As a nature photographer, it feels like I am stepping into the experience rather than away from it. -
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Fri, January 11, 2008 - 3:25 AMLori, when I'm in wilderness, sometimes I get so wrapped up in the experience I forget that I have my camera with me! LOL. Then, something snaps me back to reality and I pull out my gear and sort of become a technician, testing different angles, different settings, checking around for interesting things to shoot, etc., etc.
I was talking about this with a friend of mine (a REALLY good photographer) and she said that great photographers learn to make the camera an extension of themselves. Maybe they train themselves to do this, or maybe it's just serendipity. Anyway, my friend said that once the camera became "part of her," that's when she became really good - she began noticing all sorts of interesting details without even consciously thinking about it. Her photos pick up all sorts of amazing things I usually don't notice - an odd-shaped leaf, a strange-looking mound of dirt, a rock with light bouncing off craggy features ...
So yeah, I guess when we photograph The Earth, we should be stepping right into the experience more deeply, not away from it. My challenge for 2008.
Does this all make sense?
-
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Tue, January 15, 2008 - 12:21 PMMakes perfect sense to me!!
-
-
-
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Sat, January 5, 2008 - 11:02 AMHere is an interesting thread similar to your question, other points discussed is aesthetics vs professional photographer or amateur photographer.
strobist.blogspot.com/2008/01...ves.html
-
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Sun, January 6, 2008 - 4:13 AMCool blog. I guess becoming part of the experience is all about making the camera an extension of yourself? Then the entire experience just flows ... ? Not sure I'm good at doing this, but definitely something worth working towards.
-
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Sat, January 5, 2008 - 9:50 PMThere are many ways to participate. I find as an observer I am always involved, at least emotionally, in what I am observing. After the moment is gone and I am working with the photographs I am again participating in the past moment through memory and deeper observation. When I am a observer my participation my be different but I am still there in the moment. -
-
Re: Observant vs. participant
Tue, January 8, 2008 - 11:06 AMSLR cameras have been a constant companion for me for the past 40 years, and I can say that they are second nature whatever the situation I'm in, as either observer or participant. I jusy naturally shoot anything that moves me, no matter my involvement. And, as another has said, when I'm with friends or family, they hardly notice the camera, it so much a part of me.
-
