An excellent recent blog post by Mark Graf deals with a quote I had never heard before:
“Art is never finished, only abandoned.” - Leonardo da Vinci
As is often the case, Mark’s posts stimulate thought. I commented on his blog that I often develop an image soon after making it if I feel I can capture the emotion I felt while in the field. This allows me to most precisely create an image that reflects both my feelings about an experience and also the colors, contrast, and general biological attributes of the scene. In this way, my “finish” point is based on a fresh memory. It’s not so much an “abandonment”, as in I don’t know what else to do to the image so I will just leave it be, as it is a recognition that the finished piece is what I intended when I started the process in the field.
The result of working on an image while the experience is fresh in my mind often results in a finished piece that also reflects closely what I saw. Although, once I am physically removed from the scene, if only by hours, every image becomes an interpretation based on memory. An especially exciting experience may be remembered more “vividly” than it would have appeared to someone standing next to me while I made the image in the field. I am of course perfectly OK with this (not that I have a choice really), as what I am creating is always an impression of an experience, not the actual experience. Neither film nor camera sensors record anything exactly as they appear. Film always had color and contrast biases. Working in digital format can be just the reverse of film (if working in Raw) in that it can require almost total artistic input due to the little pre-determined color or contrast decisions made by the camera.
So what happens to an image not developed soon after the field experience, but instead worked on six months or even years later? Well, like any other art I use all my experiences with the subject (some of which may be new since making the image), and my current mood and esthetic tastes to make a finished piece that reflects who I am at that moment. In this case, I have less of a “field intended result” in mind and more of a “current state” of mind on which to determine when a piece is “finished”. A year later I may be in a different state of mind still and work the image differently.
I suspect da Vinci didn’t foresee photography when he made his quote (or did he?). Photography, unlike many other art forms, may always be a work in progress, allowing different interpretations by the artist without end. It may not be so much a matter of abandonment as it is a temporary withdrawal (a temporary satisfaction). Because, unlike a painting which must be cast off (abandoned) if it is ever to find itself with a new owner, an original photographic image is always within reach of a new interpretation by the photographer. Unless of course you consider each iteration of a photographic image a form of abandonment, in that case……never mind.
Blue Bird - (c) Paul Grecian
*****************************************************************
Interesting thoughts. My own take is that the image is only finished when it becomes a print. The process up until it reaches the print can be modified at will. The negative (digital or film) isn’t the finished product.
Beautiful image. I love your use of color in all your work.
Thank you Roberta. I’m pleased you mention liking my use of color, that is very important to me. I agree that the print is a point of finish. But even there, I’ve made changes to the printing of this piece over the years including different paper types, bringing out shadow detail and adjusting the color slightly. These decisions reflect my own preferences which have changed over time amd will likely change in the future.
I am the post stimulated some thought Paul! I suppose I am a mixed bag. Some times I want to process images right away. Other times, they sit around for years before something clicks with them and I know what to do.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your comment. I totally understand what you’re saying. Many pieces that I ultimately print are done so a year or more later. The result is that I print those pieces with a more removed-from-the-event objectivity. It may be a recent experience that makes me reconsider an older piece but not likely the original emotions associated with the making of the image. Different emotions are at play I think when printing an image after time has passed.
I love your Blue Bird. I don’t find it all that difficult to work on photos “later,” but that may come from my background in painting (when I often took months of consideration before making any more brush strokes.) Still, I prefer to work on things immediately, although it can be fun to go back & play with older images, too.
As a BROAD generalization… If the immediate result is acceptable, the image tends to be more about the visual impact of what was in front of the lens. If one can (to pick one word) “transpose” one’s emotional state through the medium to an final image, it is successful.
When an image strikes a chord later, some portion of our internal process is now engaged; what was previously in front of the lens is now the hook dragging it towards recognition. Some new sense of vision, assessment, reaction, etc. is now the motivation, not the original emotional state. The success is as much the recognition as the image itself.
As one proceeds along whatever path one takes, we literally abandon our previous steps to make new ones.