-two models for this course: A) there are three skills a photographer has to develop, 1) understanding of and mastery over the PHYSICS, which is further broken into two parts, the first being the internal mechanics (apertures, focal lengths) and the other being he external physics (Light Space and Time differentials), 2) understanding of and mastery over STRUCTURE, which includes the way an image is composed, how it controls the viewer’s eye movement, emphasis, hierarchy of information, dynamic vs stoic, etc. 3) understanding of and mastery over the VIEWER’s PERCEPTION of the subject matter. Knowing any of these doesn’t necessarily begin the next, they are three separate concepts. Model B) Three decisions go into making a photograph, 1) physics, 2) composition, 3) content. Most people make the mistake of reversing that order, they choose content, then think about how to compose, and lastly think about what buttons to push on the camera. Much of this course is about inverting the common wisdom of photography, we’ll find that physics and composition decisions combine for what we’re calling structure, and then when structure is applied to content, MEANING is generated. Finally and most importantly, between the two, content and structure, common wisdom still believes content has more input toward the meaning of the shot. We’re going to prove the opposite, that structure matters more. We’ll do this by doing some higher order control and variation, instead of controlling shutter and varying aperture, like we did in P1, here we’ll control the subject and vary the structure. We’ll find this RADICALLY changes the meaning of the shot. But doing the opposite, controlling the structure and varying the content hardly changes the meaning at all (hero shot of person or filing cabinet, sentimental voice applied to Barton Springs or Skateboarding)
-During photo1 review, introduce some important P2 themes including IMPOSITION (imposing not capturing, usually discussed during the spatial truth table example). One differential ENABLING another.
-Tina Modotti: visual vs contextual, then deliberately control viewer’s eyes vs allowing them to meander in their own inclinations, then attempt to apply it to context photography, then integrate it seamlessly so that the composition SUPPORTS the narrative, doesn’t compete with it. The Jesus picture is always met by the same adjectives, first something in the category of heroic or noble, the something in the category of burdened or hardworking, then Christlike, so how does she get a consensus in the mods of an audience 100 years later? Because subjects don’t narrate themselves, you impose narration on the subject (image is not host for subject, subject is host for image). But also an early example of hero shot, or ARCHEYPTYPE. And whether she intended it or she picked it from 100 shots that day, WE can now get these results intentionally, because we have a roadmap that she didn’t. Effective mode of analysis is to take the one most dominant feature or decision made in a photograph and ask what would happen to the image if you simply did the opposite for that one specific facet.
Controlling eye movement SOLELY through non-technical decisions (composing decisions). Static: 1) one thing, 2) centered, 3) V/H lines and axes, 4) symmetry, 5) entirety vs the part, 6) telephoto...Controlled hierarchy: 1) two points, 2) rule of thirds left and right, 3) Z axis with wide angle (foreground left background right, remember, not harmonious, but “reliable.”...High Energy: 1) diagonals, 2) asymmetrical, 3) strong Z axis (wide lens).
Note that each image is achieved by COMBINING every aspect. Also note the problems people have with the second assignment, they tend to find two subjects that relate to each other, which is problematic because while they could shoot image A and C with complete disregard to subject matter, for image B they seem to think they can’t shoot it until they find content that ALLOWS them to, which means they aren’t exercising free will, they’re letting the scene lead them rather than IMPOSING.