Must Form Follow Function?

[NEoPHYte31]

I don't really shoot much nowadays.  I usually only take my camera along when traveling to another city/country or when my main intent in going out is to shoot– which is happening less and less these days.  However, for some reason, as of late I've been evaluating my techniques and philosophies behind my images.  What goes on in my head when I make an image.

My initial findings disturb me. 

On my online gallery, I've always been most flattered to receive comments from people about how a certain photo goes further than just being beautiful and technically sound.  I find that when a photo is expressive and causes someone to feel something more powerful than simply "oh wow that's pretty", then that photo is a winner. 

When I looked into my head and thought about my reasons for taking photos of certain subjects or why I composed the photo the way I did, lit it the way I did, etc, I found that I was simply doing that to make an aesthetically pleasing photo.  Whether its filling negative space, framing, selective focusing, silhouette photos, etc they somehow all revolve around making an aesthetically pleasing photo. 

What I am wondering is.. is my current thinking wrong?  Should I be trying to move from creating artistic, aesthetically pleasing photographs to creating photographs that express ideas to viewers?  Must form follow function?  Am I supposed to let my idea dictate my technique and form?

Even when selecting photos that I find are good, I select them based on how good an image looks and what the image is expressing to me doesn't really occur to me that much.  Is this wrong?

Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense.  Hopefully some enlightened individual(s) can shed some wisdom on this matter.

• Tweet

[Dave_D]

I think it is like learning the rules so you can break them later on.

Personally, I'm not even close to that stage yet but looks like you are so go for it.

When you are following the rules (for creating aesthetically pleasing images), you are trying to please others as much as yourself. When you aren't, you are pleasing yourself and if others are pleased then better. But if they aren't, so be it.

Hope that makes sense too...

• Tweet

[jps444]

form and function goes hand in hand. is the form you are choosing best suites your function? a simple question like that can help you alot. i wrote something similar that might help you understand more what you can do or at least show a possible direction or understanding... check this very short essay out

http://jps444.multiply.com/journal/item/4

now i hope that this makes sense too hehe!

• Tweet

[shuttercat]

Daniel, long time no hear. Its good to see you posting once again. Darn you must be graduating if not finished already.

Anyway, like Dave mentions, when you feel that you have to try something else, go for it, it's your artistic side wanting to be let loose.

• Tweet

[HartSord]

Well, in this case, you're trying to convey a message, and in every form of communication there are three parts: the sender, the message, and the recipient.  If there is a failure in any part of this, the message may fail to be transmitted correctly.  What's worse is that you have little control over the recipient, so you're left with the sender and the message.

Thus, as an artist, it is your job to find the message you want to convey, and a way to convey it in the most efficient way possible.  I don't think it detracts from the message, it's just finding the best way to communicate it.

Just my 2 centavos...

• Tweet

[NEoPHYte31]

Thanks for the insights folks.  I appreciate it.  When shooting, I'll try to actively think about what I want an image to convey. 

When an image needs a caption for the reader to understand it's message, does that mean the photo is not good enough? 

• Tweet

[jps444]

Thanks for the insights folks.  I appreciate it.  When shooting, I'll try to actively think about what I want an image to convey. 

When an image needs a caption for the reader to understand it's message, does that mean the photo is not good enough? 

some may think yes, but i think not. if you are very confident enough with your message in the image then it doesn't need a caption. it's up now to the reader to give time to understand the photo and comprehend the message.

• Tweet

[marcsv]

What I am wondering is.. is my current thinking wrong?  Should I be trying to move from creating artistic, aesthetically pleasing photographs to creating photographs that express ideas to viewers?  Must form follow function?  Am I supposed to let my idea dictate my technique and form?

Well, in this case, you're trying to convey a message, and in every form of communication there are three parts: the sender, the message, and the recipient.  If there is a failure in any part of this, the message may fail to be transmitted correctly.  What's worse is that you have little control over the recipient, so you're left with the sender and the message.

Thus, as an artist, it is your job to find the message you want to convey, and a way to convey it in the most efficient way possible.  I don't think it detracts from the message, it's just finding the best way to communicate it.

Just my 2 centavos...

Depends on what art methodology you are using or what you want to use.

For example the Marxist view of art dictates that it should reflect economic, social and political realities, it reflects the unconscious will of the working class to change society, therefore becoming a tool for social change. This changes the concept of "art for the wall,"    the function (purpose) lies more than it being called beautiful. And thats just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Now if you want o refer to Plato, thats a different ballgame. He said visual art was mimesis (imitation) and techne (skill), copies of the ideal subjects no creative process (well apart from skill)was involved in the creation of the "artwork" itself, and perhaps convey the message "this is what it or s/he looks like."

• Tweet

[EdwinM]

Art is FREE, no form nor function. it pleases the senses and inner being.

Rules were set to make some sense into the free form called art. Photography for me is an extension of art where you find joy simply capturing something that is artful in your own taste.

I agree with dave that rules are there to be broken...because in its truest sense...art doesnt have rules.

• Tweet

[marcsv]

Art is FREE, no form nor function. it pleases the senses and inner being.

Rules were set to make some sense into the free form called art. Photography for me is an extension of art where you find joy simply capturing something that is artful in your own taste.

I agree with dave that rules are there to be broken...because in its truest sense...art doesnt have rules.

Really?

Why does one create images? I don't subscribe to the answer "because I can" or "because its beautiful" everything created serves a purpose at one time or another.

Art is subjective, very subjective. But if there were no classifications, how can you say that it is art. Because the artist say it is? Ano ito? Mabini Art? Ask any real abstractionist or abstract painter and he will tell you the purpose of his works.

When you view a photograph you are looking for the message that it is trying to communicate. and the very least of that message is showing the users the pre-visualized image before the actual capture. Photographers are gifted with the power of immortalizing concepts via pixels or silver grains. why waste it.

And about the rules. The rules are broken because they have been proven unsuitable for  the process that you want to adopt. They are not broken only for the reason that they are rules. Sabi nga ni Michael Muller (photographer or the marketing materials of spidey 3, xmen series, FF4, etc), school teaches you the box (rules, laws, postulates, etc). These rules are there to initialize the direction that you are taking.

An artist without a vision or creates an object without purpose is not, in any academic or professional definition, an artist.

If you are postulating that art only "pleases the senses and inner being", then most of the things around me is art by that definition. Air, water, CPK's expensive key lime pie (YUMMY), hmm even taking a dump falls (no pun intended) into that category.

If i pissed someone off, punta na lang kayo sa UP CFA, inom na lang tayo para matuloy and diskusyon.

• Tweet

[dimsumboy]

agree.

An artist without a vision or creates an object without purpose is not, in any academic or professional definition, an artist.

• Tweet