Psychological Photography Wednesday May 11, 2005
Photographer Alfred Steiglitz used the term ‘equivalents’, where a picture expresses the inner state of the photographer. It was useful to have this formalised and defined but it was an obvious principle, with wider ramifications than he considered. Photographer Minor White used the idea as the basis for some of his work, which became a journey of self-exploration related to the psychological self-development methods of GI Gurdjieff. I’ve never discovered what kind of link White had with Gurdjieff’s ‘Fourth Way’ teachings, but it’s well known that he tried to explore and express them in his work. On the one hand I find that interesting because I think artists and photographers sometimes explain their work in weak conceptual terms, which might ultimately be nonsensical. Gurdjieff’s ideas are quite sophisticated. On the other hand, that kind of project – using photography to explore the Fourth Way – is likely to become a strange and contrived enterprise. Apparently one of Minor White’s photography students described his classes as “excruciating”, and I think I understand that. White famously took photos of clouds in the sky, believing they had ‘equivalent’ significance, i.e. that they expressed his inner state. If you look at those pictures they are nothing to get excited about. Clouds can be an interesting and beautiful subject, but his images were wholly undistinguished: casual snaps, worth only cursory attention. The fact that they had psychological significance for him is not relevant for other people.
When I take my pictures I am aware of this process, whereby my photos could be interpreted as an expression of my inner state or personality. As a psychological principle, this is sometimes used as a form of personal therapy. In one photo-theory book I got from the library, there was a chapter about workshops and classes where women explore their ‘self-identity’ and ‘body image’. But the photos were presented as artistically interesting. I don’t think they were, because it was predictable material: here’s me half naked, ‘re-discovering my sexuality’; here’s me feeling really, really angry, ‘recovering some blocked energies from my childhood’; here’s me pretending to be completely wasted – dirty, unkempt and curled up on the floor, exploring my ‘self esteem’. If it was a useful experience, then great. But that doesn’t make it artistically interesting.
Photographs, indeed all kinds of art – carry emotional energy for the people that create them. Photos are important to the photographer, because they capture a physical location and sensory experience, and have meaningful associations. The bulk of photographic activity is social, practised amongst families and friends, and isn’t meant to be ‘artistic’. Even when there’s some attempt at pleasing colour, composition etc as with formal portraiture, the results tend to be formulaic.
I hope that people find my work beautiful and interesting. This shot was taken where I most like to be in my leisure time, wandering over the Lake District hills. It is significant as a record of that location, meaningful to anyone who has been there (Kentmere), enjoyed it, and who enjoys remembering it. But relatively few people are in that category. My personal ‘emotional investment’ is twofold. My Lake District pictures record moments of pleasure, and they document an area I return to frequently, in relation to which I have an ‘internal map’, a personal knowledge, derived from years of walking experience. Photographs assist this map-building process, and document it. This occasion was not an exceptional walk, because the day was overcast and sombre. Boxing Day, 2004 – better than Christmas TV, thank you very much. But it was still lovely to be there, enjoy the snowy decoration, and as the sun began to set it cast an exquisite light over the hills.
Unless you know and love the Lake District like I do, this picture needs to have value according to the configurations of colour, light and composition – making it beautiful to look at, even if you’ve never walked there. The meaning it has for me is personal and supplemental.
Most art is like this: it’s a satisfying and rewarding process for the artist, as used in the methods of Art Therapy – a recognised part of the National Health Service. But the autobiographical benefits don’t in themselves make for interesting art. So this is a question we can ask: I understand that it’s meaningful to you, but does it say anything to me?
(Note: GI Gurdjieff was a psychological teacher and his methods were collectively known as the Fourth Way, as distinct from the First, Second and Third Ways of the ‘fakir’, ‘monk’ and ‘yogi’. You’ll find plenty about him in Google, and the same applies to Steiglitz and Minor White).
— josh · Oct 28, 05:04 AM · §
— James Lomax · Nov 4, 02:30 PM · §
Hi James, some interesting ideas there – I know what you mean about the section on women’s self discovery. The trick is to get n image which not only means something to you, but which is interesting for other people to look at at the same time.
Cheers,
Daryl
— Daryl · Oct 12, 10:15 AM · §
it was actually Alfred Stieglitz who came up with the concept of “equivalents”.Minor White further developed the idea with great sincerity.we may look at their images as cliched now,but these artists were at the forefront of photography; pushing for it to become an accepted valid art in its own right.technique and subject matter were intensely addressed…all that is needed is patience in looking!
— frances · Oct 19, 10:50 AM · §
Yes you’re right – and I’ve corrected my article now.
I didn’t do that before, because it made the comments look odd.
I agree that the photographers of that generation were and still are important for photography. It would be quite interesting to plot the history of this art/craft, beginning with the “from today painting is dead” beginnings when it lacked its own identifiable aesthetic, leading to Steiglitz, White, Kertesz, Cartier-Bresson etc, and then to consider what’s been happening say in the last 20/30 years when it’s been different again.
I suppose you could describe the ‘middle’ photographers as ‘cliched’, and I’m sure some people do. I don’t think we should bow down to them, in 2007, when our thinking and understanding is now far more sophisticated. It would be interesting for example to compare Martin Parr with Cartier-Bresson, not in terms of a preference as such but in terms of a critical evaluation in relation to what ideas they expressed. Not forgetting as well that Cartier-Bresson was very privileged by coming from a wealthy family that gave him the leisure to roam around the world getting pictures, not worrying about money which can be an obstacle to creative practice. If I had the freedom to spend 3 years travelling around India, I would undoubtedly get some great photographs. I think Cartier-Bresson once did spend 3 years on photo travels, Steiglitz used to say that travel is a tremendous photographic stimulus and I’m sure C-B would have agreed. I think it is: photography is in part based on seeing things in an original way, and the enemy of that is habitual perceptions.
I think White though stands apart a little, even for people who like and respect the ‘middle’ photographers. Not because he was distinguished (I don’t think he was), but because he had ideas and practices I don’t think many people will either understand or like. I’ve studied Gurdjieff, and I understand his ideas. I’ve also studied Theosophy, which as I recall White was also interested in. And I’m not really convinced with what White did with photography, though it’s worth taking a look and studying him a little. As I recall his autobiography/personality was also a bit odd and questionable, and that can’t be divorced from his photography.
— James Lomax · Oct 19, 11:28 AM · §