Spacial awareness, music & numbers
Don’t you think they are all related?
I’ve found that there seems to be a high correlation between mathematics and music for instance – a lot of IT offices often have a fair share of musicians in their departments.
I can understand the relationship between music and numbers. Music is the division of notes being played at intervals and this all tends to boil down to how many beats, crotchets etc there are per bar. Music is counting in an abstract way. Maths is counting.
But what about photography? Don’t you think that images can be broken down into basic components, each with different volumes, weights and most importantly – relative distances between the objects in the photo?
Don’t you think that our brain tends to work out the spacial distances between relative objects in a photo – to balance the scene out?
Don’t you think we just compute the presence, size, depth of objects in a scene against each other and the resulting sum of the parts either equals a well composed photograph or a photograph that jars… that doesn’t add up properly?
Your comments please.
Yes, we do. We measure spatial distance and proportions in the same way we think about a room layout, for example – if all the big furniture is on one side of the room, it ‘feels’ wrong. With photographs, we need to do that visualisation in the same kind of way, but we can shift our perspective to rethink that spatial visualisation.
Comment by michael — 29 November, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
One of my favourite composers is an American pianist called Harold Budd. His work is generally sparse, patterned and understated. Listening to his seemingly simple compositions, it’s easy to find space to appreciate how the notes fit together, how the music is communicating with you. You get lost in the music, almost without realising it.
I think it’s exactly the same with photography. The photographs I keep coming back to, such as the work of Michael Kenna and of course yourself Bruce, speaks to me in a similar way.
The composition of such good photographs give me space to dream a bit, space for my eye to wander around and to use my imagination to ‘interpret’ (for want of a better word) the image. Tone (or colour) are important too, but for me it’s how the tones relate to the composition that is the most important thing, not just having fancy colours or deep blacks or whatever. This could be a pleasing balance of colour across an image, or the way dark areas fade into lighter areas and so on. I think Michael Kenna in particular has helped me to appreciate that.
I think the work of Harold Budd and similar artists speaks in the same way. Because it gives space for personal interpretation and imagination, it’s longevity is much greater. I still listen to Harold’s collaboration with Brian Eno (Amient 2) on a regular basis, while I often tire quickly of more regimented music.
Comment by mike — 29 November, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Hi Mike,
You might want to try ‘Through the Hill’ by Harold Budd & Andy Partridge (of XTC fame), and also Steve Reich.
I’m a big Steve Reich fan, and find that the music is an exercise in syncopation, trance, space…. pretty much what you describe in your posting.
I listen to a lot of music, and like photographs, everything around us is an influence. So I can’t help thinking that the music I listen to, influences the way I make my images.
I feel I’m advancing. Simple is best, and there are plenty of examples of simplicity around us in the music of Reich, Budd, other forms of music… lots of things, not just photography.
I’m really pleased you brought up Harold Budd and Eno.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 29 November, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Hi Bruce,
When you mention IT, if you are refering to Information Technology, conside this. My work is in IT as a network technician, I like music and I can play the electric and acoustic guitar as well as the harmonica and, of course, I love photography.
At times I find all three going on at the same time as I do photography on my way and back from calls and I’m constantly listening to music, especially The Blues, Country and Contempory Christian. For me, my work, my photography, the music I like and play, they all fit together.
So, instead of trying to make an in-depth analysis I would just say, “yeah, in an uncounscience way, what I see in creating a previsualization of an image I’m after, my brain works out the equation for me and just lets me push the shutter. And sometimes the music I’m listening to will quietly influence the direction I want to photo to go”. :-)
Comment by gc — 30 November, 2009 @ 2:35 am
Bruce,
I am in Banking (working with numbers 90% of the time) and I love photography because it allows me to be as wild or as structured as I want at that particular moment. Do I want a perfectly composed image that’s a pleasure to look at in the future? Sure! Do I want to try something wild and crazy? Please!
Which bring me to my question. I am a big, big fan of your photography; at the same time seascapes is my favorite subject to photograph (if you don’t count the kids). I noticed that you shoot film. How do you know out which settings to use? I mean, there is no instant feedback to tell you if you under or overexposed?
Do numbers just pop in your head (i.e. I’ve been using this camera with this glass and this film for this number of years now, and for this kind of light (direction, intensity, color) and this 2-stop ND filter the settings are “F11 at 2 seconds”, or you do it somehow differently? If you don’t mind sharing, could you please describe?
Thank you in advance,
Mark
New York, USA
P.S. One day, when my kids get older, I’ll visit Scotland – if only for breathaking seascapes, not to mention Balvenie and Lagavulin distilleries :))
Comment by Mark — 1 December, 2009 @ 4:06 am