Henri and the 10,000 monkeys (Part II)
So, following from my previous post Henri and the 10,000 monkeys (Part I) When considering De’bonos concept of ‘PO’ I have to remind myself that ‘PO’ is not the answer but merely a starting point from which to evaluate options. We’re looking at ‘PO’ as a means of forcing a rebellion in the way we normally think and approach our photography. It’s all about tapping into what we might normally label as ‘artistic creativity’.
“But this is silly”. I hear you say. “What you’re saying is that if I normally take a photo standing upright I should what… take it standing on my head instead?!?” We’ll it’s not as silly as it sounds. It would move the scene outside of traditional context and allow us to look at it differently in terms of the relationship between negative and positive space. Thankfully, you don’t have to stand on your head to do this as this is what uncorrected ttl view cameras have done since time in memorial. However, those of us with non-ttl view cameras will have to be content with standing on our heads.
I posit the imaginary argument above as it demonstrates the likely rejection of our rational brain to the notion of ‘PO’ as the product of faulty thinking. We can’t blame the rational side of our brain for doing this — that’s it’s job! Afterall, you don’t just side-step a lifetime of rational cognitive processing to suddenly postulate the notion of “Say …let’s shoot with the film out of the camera”!. Trust me, your brain will have a serious reaction to ‘PO’ and unless you can find a way to suspend the need to immediately rationalise it you are likely to discard it as impractical or file it away as a party trick. So, the problem then is not in conceptualising ‘PO’ but in practicing it. How do we switch ‘PO’ on and our rationalising brain off — at will?
Thankfully, it’s easy, first you invoke your rationlising brain and let it inform you as normal how you should approach the scene. i.e. What do the normal photographic rules say you should do with this scene? This is the brilliant thing about this. Rather than having to agonise about how you’re going to do things differently all you have to do is consider the standard approach–just be normal. Remember, the normal approach is easy because we do it everyday–usually without thinking. Now, we take our normal approach constructs be what they may and ‘PO’ them. To start with simply turn them into opposites, don’t start rationalising them just note them in your brain. We’re not looking to use them necessarily as a solution but as a starting point.
So, if I was looking to photograph the Jetty at Picnic Bay tonight how do I do it? Yes that’s right I’m actually looking to solve a real problem.
Normally, I’d just arrive there and assess the scene. I’ve photographed it before at night from the vantage point of the old surf life saving club foundations and that’s probably where I’d head — out of habit. I’d want to get the whole jetty in the photo along with the lights and the headland in the background. Or maybe the whole vanishing point thing that’s so de rigeur. So, now let’s ‘PO’ this. Instead of the ‘whole’ jetty let’s just get a ‘part’ of it. Boy, I’m already starting to get uncomfortable . I’m already starting to think where the @#$! is this going? “…must fight rational brain.” Now we’ve got ‘PO’ point One: Photograph a part of the Jetty. Great! Which part of the jetty? Hmmm…. I’m stuck. So, rational head back on. What the easiest way to photograph part of the jetty? Probably on the top of it. Let’s ‘PO’ this and and do it from underneath instead. So, ‘PO’ point two: Underneath viewpoint. Rational brain back on screaming at me: “Ohhhh… do the pylons do the pylons …everyone does the pylons” That’s right I recall seeing many photos taken underneath jetty’s using the pylons. ‘PO’ says: “No pylons.” Rational brain asks meekly: “How about a little vanishing point?” But ‘PO’ says: “Be strong. No vanishing point.”
So, what have I got so far. I can’t photograph all of it jut part of it. I can’t be standing on it I must be under it. I am not allowed to use all the pylons in a vanishing point technique because @#$!ing ‘PO’ thinks it’s too derivative. Strangely enough, I’m starting to get an idea. It involves doing the jetty at the water-line, I’m thinking long exposure for ethereal water effect and a short focus to throw the background out to accentuate the lone pylon and it’s barnacles. It’s a jetty pylon …it will have barnacles — right? Maybe I can use the light play across the water from the jetty lights as well.
And there you have it in the space of a few minutes I have gone from the dread at perhaps regurgitating the same-old-same-old to coming-up with something new and now I actually feel excited about going out. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t know if this is going to work or even if the tide is right to do this shot tonight. But I will scope it out. As stated at the beginning I’m not saying that ‘PO’ is the answer but it makes for new beginnings and that’s what makes life interesting.
I’ll let you know how I go.
Oh, and you’re probably wondering where the title “Henri and the 10,000 monkeys” comes from. Well I thought of it after reading a quote by Henri Carrtier Bresson who said: “Your first 10,000 photos are your worst.” Which prompted the realisation some months back about how I equated my progression as a photographer in terms of how many frames I had shot or what I now term my ’shotgun’ period where, like the old notion of 10,000 monkeys on 10,000 typewriters creating a masterpiece, if I shot enough photos some of them would have to be good. However, there’s no sense of achievement in accident.
Update: 14/06/2005
Ok, I got my negs back from Doug Kemp’s Camera House today and I’m quite pleased with the results of one of the seven frames which I have titled Foundation which cropped quite well to 6×6. On reflection I should probably do this again with Neopan depending on how well it stretches (read: forgives my bad exposures) and next time I’ll even take a cable release :))
Leave a Reply