Guest post from José Carlos Robles. NB

Both Google Translate and I got involved in this thoughtful post; I hope that I have come out on top in helping to get José Carlos’s ideas across.

WHY DO I TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS?

para J C Robles

About a year ago, the Spanish nature photographer José Benito Ruiz asked me, “Why do you take photographs.” I think his question wasn’t a comment on my photography but it got me thinking all the same. I just didn’t know: I was floored. I think, however, I may be getting closer to some answers now.

I have read many times that photography rests on three pillars: ISO, aperture and shutter speed. That composition could be codified into the rule of thirds. But this reductionist formula left many unanswered questions. And so began my exploration. Along the way I have met with Niepce and W. H. Fox Talbot, Peter Emerson and Stiegliz (with his equivalence theory), not to mention Ansel Adams and visualization, and more recently Minor White. Later, my focus turned to Degas, Sorolla, the French Impressionists, Mondrian, Bierstadt, Whistler, Velázquez and Vermeer, and others. Add Dondis’s syntax visual theory and some writings of Walter Benjamin and my mind was at bursting point!

Meanwhile, I was still taking pictures. One dawn on the Reef of the Sirens I framed up the  stone monoliths emerging from the sea and stood back to enjoy the scene as I waited for the light. Then a strange sensation swept over me, almost like becoming part of the scene itself, utterly absorbed. Just then the stones  were struck by the sun and the picture was completed. The moment was past. Months later I experienced the same sensation at El Campello (Alicante). And with that I made a splendid discovery: the enjoyment of beauty is a stimulus to the heart and mind.

The power of the triangle

In a chat with Niall Benvie I told him about my thoughts on it. He used the word “Trinity” in response to an email in which I talked about my ideas. The triangle – the first shape that can be formed from the union of straight lines- embodies what I now think of as the essential elements of photography. In this case, we’re not talking about ISO, shutter speed and aperture but instead about mind (intellect), heart (emotion) and sharing (humanism).

Intellect.

Peter H. Emerson claimed that we are all born mentally blind. Image formation in the brain is little more than a chemical process mediated by intellect. That’s a bit depressing! Minor White said: “When searching for images, the photographer’s mind is blank. But that’s not the same as an empty void. Rather, it’s actually a very active, receptive state of mind, ready to latch onto an image pre-formed in the mind.” His words were a revelation to me. I was not alone and the sensation of connection with place and subject I had experienced at the Reef of the Sirens began to make sense.

We need, on an evolutionary level, to observe and to learn through those observations. Photography gives me a mechanism for processing these observations and a medium for interpreting them. Through it I can direct my curiosity about the world and my engagement with it.

But these observations are not, cannot be objective – the images reflect as much about my view of the world as the world itself. They are emotions in two dimensions.

Emotion.

Art is the affirmation of life”, Stieglitz said. Life is emotion. Tears, laughter, anger, calmness, joy, sadness, despair, hope, nostalgia, joy, disappointment, love, lust, hate, joy, sadness, passion, indolence, folly, serenity – intense words which find their way into the description of powerful photographs. When the photographer tries to remain hidden behind a coldly objective representation of the world, we sense the photograph lacks heart.

Of all the emotions felt by humans, laughter and joy, the positive energies, are the ones I want to provoke through my photography. Scientific studies even suggest that  the optimistic live longer. Laughter is a uniquely human trait and is all the more intense in company. And that leads me to the final part of the trinity: Humanism.

Humanism

“Friendship” was the first word I chose for this last point of the trilogy. The hero of the film “Into the Wild” when dying at the end of his journey wrote in his notebook: “Happiness does not exist unless it is shared.” Hallelujah! As social animals we need each other. And we given expression to those feelings of attachment through photos. Indeed, photographs of our family are one of our most precious possessions and the ones most sorely missed after a house fire. But to photographers, the expressions of our lives and loves, of our connection with and view of the world – our photographs – are almost as precious. They are evidence that we have led interesting lives, that we were are individuals. And just as powerful as the need to create these emotional records is the urge to share them.

There care many reasons why we want to share our photos. The most disappointing is merely for congratulation or judgement.  Who puts a price on Art? Who asks what was in my mind when I shot a picture? Human have evolved and progressed through cooperation and this sensibility probably extends today into a wish to share our view of the world too. Humanism is all about belonging and recognising the  benefits of being part of something bigger. It is about a set of values that transcends love or friendship  – values embodied in the notion of society. The Royal Spanish Language Academy defines humanism as a critical attitude based on an integrated human values. Honesty, tolerance, respect, sincerity, friendship, altruism, solidarity, simplicity, loyalty, optimism, confidence, values that should inform our photography.

The end of the journey

My photographic journey is one towards the convergence of these three strands. And it is not a solitary one. The company of friends, photographers and enthusiasts that I meet along the way, take me close to my goal, make it possible. Photography, then, for me is: INTELLECT, EMOTION AND HUMANISM. The process of seeing and making the picture becomes a collaborative process when it is shared: it no longer is just about “self”. Creative energy is generated in this sort of environment, energy that itself feeds into our relationships and sense of well being.

I’ve tried – and I admit, struggled, to answer José Benito’s question properly. But I am not alone in struggling with that age-old question – what is art? But I want readers – especially non-photographers – to reflect on the fact that photography is as challenging and  creative an activity as any other artistic pursuit. When practised with passion, it is not a mechanistic process. I like to believe that photography makes me a better person, more aware of my world and my relationships with others.

So, now I ask you: why do you take photographs?

 

This entry was posted in Comment and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Guest post from José Carlos Robles. NB

  1. paulhd says:

    Jose,

    I greatly enjoyed your post for your thoughts and emotion are clear – I tackle my photography in the same way and think about it, too, perhaps too much at times.

    The matters you raise are things we should and must think about – just occasionally it is good to know why we do what we do and what drives us and, indeed, how it changes with time.

    The dilemma we all face when turning a ‘hobby/passion” into an income source is how to retain the freshness when there is the small matter of survival and maybe other mouths to feed…

    I am a Humanist, though at the same time despairing of humans as a species with capacity for thought, abstraction and…destruction. My prime reason for taking photographs is the same as yours and one for which I do not apologise. I love doing so, it concentrates the mind on small slice of nature and captures the sheer joy experienced. And if I do it well I can relive that experience months, even years later. If others like that image, fine, but that should not be the driving force. Early on, I evolved a modus vivendi that involved taking the images I wanted and then, maybe, dropping the camera angle so that enough of a space was created for the magazine title… pragmatism!

    That statement of Emerson’s (regarding our mental blindness) is depressing in some ways, though I feel we have to go beyond the words chosen in the light of what Emerson did and the way he thought. He was, in many ways, a polymath, a trained medic and also an artist. I have noted that when one comes from any form of scientific background there is inevitably a search for ‘realism’. I only encountered Emerson after struggling with similar personal dilemmas – his contemporaries wanted front to back sharpness but that does not mirror the way we see, for we view by focusing on elements within a frame. Emerson also tried completely unfocused images and abandoned them – I see some room for such things in nature photography but not when subjects are unfamiliar. It is that business of compromise.

    The totally soft, blurred images of nature tell me little and the art is in selecting what element within the frame must be sharp. Ideas, like fashions, will change with time. Not every blurred photograph is ‘ art’, though to read the rubbish in some magazines you would think it is…mainly because too many people are not capable of taking a sharp photo in the first place and do not want to spend time to acquire a skill.

    Thank you for raising these points José it helps to show that the phrase ‘thinking photographer’ is not a contradiction in terms.

  2. Dear Paul, English is not my first languange so, please I beg your perdon for my mistakes.

    Thanks to spend a little to read my article. Your reply is very interesting and I agree with you about the dilemma between photography as passion or a way to pay the bills, to earn a living. You know , I don`t trust it . I mean a prefer to think in photography as a passion, not just an instrument to “earn a living”. As the spanish writer Alex Rovira says our life has been won since the very first moment when we were born.

    There’s another thing very annoying for me around art and photography. Who decides what is art? When a photography, a painting or a sculpture is really a piece of art? I think it has to be with emotions and feellings, not to the amount of money someone has decided to pay for.

    My best wishes.

  3. And of course thanks to Niall, you’ve been very gentle with me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>