[Leica] In search of the elusive nuances

[imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)]

When I brought up the "appreciation" of bokeh I said nothing of  
tools. I'm totally on board with the irrelevance of the "tool" in the  
hands of the artist when initially experiencing the work. What ever  
tool the artist uses s/he will fully harness the qualities of the  
tool and use those qualities to express the "feeling" that they're  
needing to express. Those various qualities have names. They exist.  
We don't have to use their names to appreciate them.

But denying the existence of the wide range of appearances in out of  
focus areas in photographs, and their effect in the final graphic  
work does not make sense to me; anymore than denying the difference  
between Charlie Musslewhite's deep, full, rich tone and Junior  
Parker's smooth tone. They achieve their results with totally  
different choices of instruments. They could trade instruments and  
neither would sound like the other. But their instrument choice is  
part of the equation.

A couple folks submitted examples of OOF areas which have a distinct  
and, to my eyes, disturbing, for the given subject, rendition of OOF  
areas. The point is not that these renditions are "good or bad." They  
simply didn't work for the subjects. In the hands of an artist, who  
could exploit the unique qualities, those particular tools could be  
used to expressive advantage. Whether we use the word bokeh or refer  
to the "rendition of out-of-focus area" we can see and talk about  
those qualities. In many photographs those qualities are secondary,  
or even meaningless, to the power of the image. In others they're  
very much a part of the mood created.

What we're really talking about here is not a composer's spirited  
nature, melancholy or religious fervor; but the musician's rendition  
of same. And I know enough musicians, photographers, and artists to  
know that they're all constantly on a quest for the tools that will  
deliver the "tones, timbre, and resonances" which they seek in their  
work. To assume that a reed-man doesn't care about reeds can only  
mean you've never had a conversation with a reed man; the same would  
be true of string players and their strings; ad nauseam. While you  
may not care about what reeds, strings, brushes, pigments, papers,  
canvases, etc. are being chosen - I can assure you that the artists  
do care - and it is their caring which finally brings the tears, joy  
and goose bumps to us as appreciators.

As an art appreciator you can simply appreciate the "feeling." Or you  
can appreciate the feeling as well as how that feeling was produced.  
I've always had this little "how'd they do that?" voice in me.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com



On May 14, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Walt Johnson wrote:

> Edvard Munch is an artist whose work I admire. When I look at it I  
> don't care what type of brush he used or how he mixed his paints. I  
> do care what he was thinking when he worked. He was trying to  
> communicate with me and that is what art means. (my opinion)  
> Whether it's Chopin's spirited nature, Beethoven's melancholy or  
> Bach's religious fervor what counts is feeling. I'll let the  
> intellectual athletes label it all, my preference is plain old  
> feeling.