subject matter and conventional photography
Hello, I am practicing photography for a large part of my life now. About ten years ago I learned about Miksang and contemplative photography. A thing that still occupies me is 'subject matter'. In the book on page 3 you are talking about the conventional approach to photography and the emphasize on subject matter. Isn't any kind of photography about subject matter? From the point of view of contemplative photography, what is wrong about content and subject matter and relate to that in photographs? Can you explain more, since this topic is a bit confusing to me. Kind regards, Ditmar
It is not a question of subject matter being right or wrong. The point is, when you have an idea about what you are trying to shoot, you are relating to an idea of a thing, rather than the direct experience of perception. The point we are trying to emphasize is direct seeing, rather than thinking. I hope this helps clarify what the issue is.
- Login to post comments
The Book
“This is not your usual ‘how to be a better photographer’ book. It takes you into deeper water. It requires investigation and commitment to areas new to you. Among other things, you will think about perception in new ways. If you read this book with care, and without skepticism, it will radically expand your thinking, seeing, and photography.”
—Jay Maisel, photographer
and author of Light on America
Comments
Can subject matter be a framework where I can have direct experiences of perception? Such as 'color' or 'texture'. If the subject matter is for example 'my neighbourhood' or 'street life' and I am going in town to take photographs, I can experience flashes of perception, isn't it? I find it very difficult to have these flashes without a framework.