Photography as appreciation of Nature

This may depart somewhat from the context of this forum as it explores the conditions necessary under which photography is a means to convey a Natural experience and nothing else. But it may be some food for thought for those interested. The following essay I wrote in April of 2010:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KXtkem8yVeyMoh75ZJz9E3Sj3j4Nv6YyZNf4r3wACT8/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=COyT2uQP

Constructive feedback and opinions always appreciated.
Thanks,
-Nick

Excerpt.

Also, here is a small anecdotal excerpt from the essay that conveys one way of pursuing the photographic process. This particular way is outlined to reinforce the conclusions drawn in my thesis, exploring the relations between Nature, photography, and art.

Given this model, it is possible to develop criteria under which photography can be interpreted not as a work of art and object of appreciation in and of itself, rather a means to convey a Natural experience. It should be noted that the following personal description of the photographic process is but one manner in which a photographer may go about photographing the environment. Key components of the process necessary for 'photography as a means to convey a Natural experience' will be discussed afterward.

When a photographer emerges herself in Nature, she does not think of the camera. She frees her mind to wander, dwelling not on any specific feeling or idea. She brings her focus to breathing deeply and slowly, cultivating a sense of heightened and simultaneous awareness. She is at once conscious of the periodic lapping of water in the river, lingering odor of fresh pine and mountain dew. The craggy peaks in the distance evoke feelings of the sublime, while the delicate alpine flora at her feet bring comfort and support. Patches of snow on Northern slopes bring memories of winter. Blooming flowers bring hopes of Summer.

The day had begun at dawn over a cup of tea, and had proceeded at a muted pace, punctuated by shortened strides underfoot and labored breathing at altitude. Now, however, the world stands still, the burden of a heavy pack lifted from aching shoulders.

Succeeding sufficient contemplation, the photographer moves to erect a tripod and camera, acting deliberately but swiftly to capture the fading alpenglow. She choses a wide-angle lens and a long depth-of-field, hoping to bring to her image both the flora at her feet and the peaks in the background. A two-stop neutral density filter is used to evenly expose both the illuminated mountains and the shadowed forefront, bringing the limited tonal-range of a camera closer to that of the human eye. Lastly, she peers through the viewfinder, and composes the image as to include those elements most pertinent in her Natural experience. In 1/100th of a second and the clap of a shutter, the image is captured.

In two weeks time her photograph is printed, matted and framed – confined to 12 inches by 16 inches of ink on paper. It hangs nicely on an eggshell-white gallery wall, illuminated by it's own spotlight, carefully positioned to prevent glare on the invisible glass cover. Spectators don their hats of 'art aficionados' and circle the gallery with a sense of sophistication and self-worth inflated with the consumption of complementary wine and cheese. Occasionally they stop at the photograph, giving it it's 4 seconds of fame and a wrinkled brow more appropriate for the solving of Navier-Stoke's equation than the contemplation of a photograph. When the allocated 4 seconds have passed, they move on, often muttering something along the lines of “Oh, honey, well wasn't that a pretty picture”. The few, the proud, carry away their pensive look and wait an additional 4 seconds to relax their brow. These spectators look, but they don't see. They want to appreciate the photograph as an object itself. They don't see what it represents. They can't relate to the photographer.

The individual who perceives the photograph correctly understands that the photograph is nothing more than a vehicle for conveying the photographer's experience. When they see the photograph, they are captivated. An unwavering gaze. A quiet demeanor. The clinging of wine glasses and mahogany frame no longer play a role in their perception. The photograph evokes in them memories of familiar places and past emotions. They can almost taste the beads of sweat from a long day of hiking, or the sweet taste of glacial runoff. They can see the mountains as if they were before them – feel the cool bite of evening as the sun sets behind the horizon. In short, what they experience standing before the photograph is not all too different, hopefully the same, as the experience of the photographer herself. The photograph, then, is not an object to be appreciated. There are no brushstrokes from which to infer style and intent, nor are the subjects positioned to convey some cryptic message. It is merely a vehicle for evoking and conveying the Natural experience originally perceived by the photographer. “[E]xpression theory [sees] the artifact as the middle link in a communication from artist to spectator”.# This is very much the case in photography, assuming the photographer's artistic intent extends no further than to convey the Natural experience immediately perceived.

I am not sure I understand your description of the intent of the photographic process.

You are talking about photography of nature. Let us assume it is a stunning landscape. I see a few way this kind of photography may work:

-the photographer may experience an emotion in front of the scenery, take a picture and the intent is that the viewer shall understand what the emotion of the photographer was. Or, more accurately maybe, relate to that emotion since emotions are not really "understood".

-the photographer may also abstract from his or her emotions and simply try to capture the scenery as accurately as possible so that the viewer may develop the same emotions in front of the photograph that he or her would have developed in front of the actual landscape.

You seem to only consider the first option. Then, you make a point about appreciating the photograph as an object or relating to the emotions of the photographer. I don't think that one is exclusive of the other. One may appreciate the technical mastering of the craft and, as well, experience an emotion about the subject photographed.

Last but not least, your text appears to oppose work of art and the appreciation of the emotional experience of the photographer. I thought, maybe naively, that the whole point of art was to provoke an emotion in the viewer. In that sense, a photograph which would convey the emotions of the photographer or, even, elicit in the viewer the same emotions as the ones of the photographer at the time of capture is a work of art. Why do you make that difference?

Hi Jerome -- Thanks for the reply and feedback.

I think I should have introduced the essay a little more before attaching the link... The primary subject of the essay concerns the area of philosophy known as Environmental Aesthetics (or Aesthetics of Natural Environments). As such, I did not chose to address all of the various ways in which one can pursue the photographic process.

Unlike many areas of formal philosophy, that of aesthetics (when applied to the environment) is quite new, and there are many competing models for the most appropriate 'way' to 'aesthetically appreciate' Nature.

I wrote this essay assuming that most people would approach a photograph as a piece of art, where the photograph is the 'object' of appreciation. In this case, there is no synonymity between appreciating the photograph of Nature, and appreciating Nature itself, since the model you apply to a piece of art is, in my opinion, incorrect when aesthetically appreciating Nature.

I do believe, however, that under very specific circumstances, the appreciation of a photograph of Nature can be synonymous with the appreciation of Nature itself. In that instance, the photograph is no longer the 'object' being appreciated, rather an intermediate means for the appreciation of Nature itself.

I can only assert this, however, if I first define what I believe to be the correct model for aesthetically appreciating Nature, then define the necessary criteria under which a photograph conveys the elements (or the substrate) from which one draws a Natural experience (which can then be aesthetically appreciated).

Ideas like 'intent' in the photograph are important. In 'Environmental Aesthetics', a key defining feature between the appreciation of art vs. Nature is that when we appreciate art, we try to understand the intent of the photographer. We look for meaning in shape and form, and draw 'feelings' from artistic choices (silhouetting, composition, substance, etc...).

In sum, if and only if the intent of the photographer is to convey those elements which comprise a correct aesthetic appreciation of Nature (as I define it), then there is the potential for the viewer to transcend the photograph and experience Nature as a first hand observer (as the photographer does). This would then be an aesthetic appreciation of Nature, and not the aesthetic appreciation of a photograph.

So really it is about the one instance where photography is not art.

Nick Masson said:

Hi Jerome -- Thanks for the reply and feedback.

I think I should have introduced the essay a little more before attaching the link... The primary subject of the essay concerns the area of philosophy known as Environmental Aesthetics (or Aesthetics of Natural Environments). As such, I did not chose to address all of the various ways in which one can pursue the photographic process.

Unlike many areas of formal philosophy, that of aesthetics (when applied to the environment) is quite new, and there are many competing models for the most appropriate 'way' to 'aesthetically appreciate' Nature.

I wrote this essay assuming that most people would approach a photograph as a piece of art, where the photograph is the 'object' of appreciation. In this case, there is no synonymity between appreciating the photograph of Nature, and appreciating Nature itself, since the model you apply to a piece of art is, in my opinion, incorrect when aesthetically appreciating Nature.

I do believe, however, that under very specific circumstances, the appreciation of a photograph of Nature can be synonymous with the appreciation of Nature itself. In that instance, the photograph is no longer the 'object' being appreciated, rather an intermediate means for the appreciation of Nature itself.

I can only assert this, however, if I first define what I believe to be the correct model for aesthetically appreciating Nature, then define the necessary criteria under which a photograph conveys the elements (or the substrate) from which one draws a Natural experience (which can then be aesthetically appreciated).

Ideas like 'intent' in the photograph are important. In 'Environmental Aesthetics', a key defining feature between the appreciation of art vs. Nature is that when we appreciate art, we try to understand the intent of the photographer. We look for meaning in shape and form, and draw 'feelings' from artistic choices (silhouetting, composition, substance, etc...).

In sum, if and only if the intent of the photographer is to convey those elements which comprise a correct aesthetic appreciation of Nature (as I define it), then there is the potential for the viewer to transcend the photograph and experience Nature as a first hand observer (as the photographer does). This would then be an aesthetic appreciation of Nature, and not the aesthetic appreciation of a photograph.

So really it is about the one instance where photography is not art.

Click to expand...

Nick,

What is your model for nature or the natural? I can’t seem to find your definition for these terms.

cheers

Hey Mark --
It isn't a model for Nature or the natural, rather a model for 'aesthetically appreciating' Nature. More importantly, it distinguishes our aesthetic appreciation of Nature from that of art. For example:

1) When we appreciate art, it is the observer appreciating the object (predication). When we appreciate Nature, however, the subject is intrinsically linked to the object, thus a subject object distinction is useless. i.e. When we observe and appreciate Nature, we are part of the environment as well, thus cannot appreciate our environment as a 'fly on the wall' as we would when appreciating art.

2) There is no divine intent in Nature (creationists would beg to differ). As such, there is no 'correct' way to appreciate Nature in as far as that defined by an artist. It is possible to incorrectly appreciate a piece of art if the perceiver observes the artwork differently than the artist intended it to be observed. (again, this is my opinion).

3) Because there is no artist for the Natural world, and because we can not objectively appreciate Nature, the observer effectively becomes the artist. Nature presents a (seemingly) infinite number of qualities from which we can distill our observation. Two individuals, even given identical vantage points in space and time, will not perceive their environment identically. Simply, if one person has a stronger disposition to be 'moved' by smell while another sight, they will 'see' things differently in their mind's eye. Both are correct.

3) When we appreciate art, the artist intends us to perceive the artwork in a given context and through given means. If we observe a painting in a gallery, we are 'supposed' to observe the painting through sight and sight alone. We 'phase out' senses that are not pertinent to a 'correct' appreciation of the artwork.

There are some other points, but these are the key distinguishing ones.

All in all, I tried to demonstrate step by step the process of aesthetically appreciating Nature, the anecdote being an example. This was premised upon an assumption that the described process (in the anecdote) coincides with what I believe to be a correct model for aesthetically appreciating Nature.

The thesis then, is really just to demonstrate that the process of aesthetically appreciating Nature can, under specific circumstances, be synonymous with that of the photographic process. But this requires both the process of aesthetically appreciating Nature and that of photography to be carried out in a very specific way. I think that's why the essay seems pedantic.

Anyway, let me know if that makes sense and clears anything up...

Nick, might I ask if you are engaged in writing a doctoral/research thesis.

Regards.

No... sometimes I wish I were concentrating in philosophy or critical thinking, but just a strong interest of mine. And I find that thinking in this way very much shapes my outlook on Nature, life and photography.