The Art Of Sensibility

2 Comments

Sometime back I wrote a post about how photographers should not spend time searching for a “style” to set themselves apart, but rather cultivate a “sensibility.” I recently posted a link to that blog post on social media in response to a friend and fellow photographer’s post on the subject of style. My linked comment got some very interesting responses, one of which came with an interesting point of view and disagreed with how I viewed the term “style” (see the comment below). So I thought it was time that I update and perhaps clarify why I still feel that style is the wrong road to pursue. Ossos do Mar 28 I’ll finish with a final anecdote on what I think is the quintessence of sensibility. This comes from the beautiful and remarkable documentary film on photographer Dorothea Lange by her granddaughter, called “American Masters-Dorothea Lange: Grab A Hunk Of Lightning.” Her granddaughter narrating recalls as a little girl eagerly going up to Dorothea on the beach where they had a cabin, and holding out her hand with stones and shells she asked her grandmother to “Look!” Dorothea responds, “ I see them, but do you see them?” The little girl laughs and says matter- of-factly, “Yes, I see them”, to which Dorothea replies sternly, “But do you SEE them?” and snaps a photo. Her granddaughter says she looked back at her palm, and from then on she apprehended the world differently. That is the Art Of Sensibility.

Keywords: Art, Creativity, Fine Art, Imagination, Inspiration, Invention, Learning, Photography, Sensibility, Style, The Creative Life

Comments

Trace(non-registered)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment, David! I think your last two sentences encompass exactly what I’m talking about. That mysterious collaboration is between one’s sensibility, which comes from everything that influences how one sees the world: the music one listens to, the books read, the visuals one sees, the language and ideas that surround one and especially speak to one’s soul or spirit, those are what make up sensibility, and for one with an open mind and heart to the mystery, that sensibility can be constantly in flux. One problem I see with many photographers is their unwillingness to see things today differently than they did yesterday. They get stuck in and cling to a “style” as if that is the only thing that defines them and their work. Perhaps that is how Harry Callahan feels about his work. No “growth” is antithetical to creative .
I look at the Beatles and how they were constantly innovating and creating new music based on their collective sensibilities. “Sgt. Pepper” was not like anything before it, and came like a shockwave to the music world. They started the psychedelic genre that so many tried to copy and keep going, clinging to the keeping the “style” , while the Beatles moved on and created new music that was nothing like Pepper. Every record after was a true Beatles record, but they were informed by who they were at the time and how they saw their world. Unlike Coldplay (sorry if you’re a fan) who seem to keep recording the same album over and over again. I stopped buying Coldplay after their third album sounded exactly like their first two (which I liked.) Some folks get hung up on and stuck on a “style” and don’t realize how limiting that is. I could give many examples in many genres of the arts, but you get the picture.

Harry Callahan may well have summed up your perspective, but for me, the Ernst Haas quote I have on my home page really speaks the shared truth of a kindred artist. My view as a photographer is to let the subject speak to me about how it wants to be made manifest. It’s my task to “listen” (visually) and have a wide ranging skill set and openness to creative improvisation to bring that about. It really is a mysterious collaborative dialogue. Cheers!

David Reinfeld(non-registered)

I think style exists on a level deeper than your definition of style or sensibility. An alternative view is from art critics and curators with a perspective about a period of art- modern, renaissance, and the like. Which then breaks down to categorical aesthetics- pointelism, etc. Usually the artists are the bottom of the chain. Personally I don’t follow the historical view of style. I’m more concerned with what is helpful for my art, and does knowing help me in some way to keep moving. And by the way, if has nothing to do with moving forward or growing. For me, it’s about openness and collaboration to see what is hidden in plain sight. Harry Callahan summed it up for me. He was once asked by a reporter after one of his shows at MOMA how did he grow as an artist. His answer was clear and short- I have not grown at all (ignoring technical learning). He continued saying he’s always tried as hard as he could. Emphasis on “try”, as it seems to be a dirty word for the “do” crowd. You might conclude his thoughts validate growing but they do not. It is about openness and tapping into something internal from who knows where. The mystery resides in the collaboration.

No comments posted.