Sometimes I write lengthy descriptions of something mundane like a building, street or object. When I finish I stare and think “I don’t remember seeing that.” But if I look at the building, street or object again I will see it.
I don’t think that I consciously saw it the first time. The first time I uploaded images from my digital camera to my computer I couldn’t believe how much more the camera saw than I did. Yet the photos are framed in a manner that makes it apparent I must have at least seen shadows. Am always conscious of that now when I take photos.
I usually take three pictures of the same object; one in telescopic; second in wide; and the third of course regular, no mode. Then I take pictures in each mode, and lenses exposure, or want to but I don’t have an extra life to spare. Each photo in the first series comes out very differently and each lenses exposure sees vastly different things in a photo of buildings, streets, rivers, oceans, or buildings. The second series differences are usually more subtle; sometimes comical.
Think I began to do this because it’s very different than writing, yet very structured and calls for much patience. I am attempting to learn to be patient, and it seems to be a good way. It also helps me learn the mechanics and intricacies of description; something I intuitively know but have never broken down more than is done in school. Also think the same eye that might allow me to describe the one object that captures a person or inianimate object captures it in digitalese.
Though I think in leaps, I have a need to break everything down to its most basic component. Digital photography lets me examine each element and variable, and see the process behind description. This sounds obsessive and probably is; fortunately, I think, I have limited time to work on this or take every picture in every sequence. Sometimes I actually take one picture of something.
Read Shayna’s interview with me. Shayna’s an incredible interview; Any Courting reader knows how much I love to blog on blogging. If I say so myself I have a good take on the Internet and blogging.
When I answered the question on writers I like I realized that all are descriptive writers; all are past masterful at creating a sense of place and usually time. Updike’s the adjective king, and uses them with precision and brilliance. His descriptions are an exception to my rule.
Back to A history of violence vs Brokerback Mountain I seem to be mentioning them in each post. I prefer the descriptive narrative in A history.. and the quick views of the town than the expansive landscape in Brokerback… . The later is Updike meets Jim Thompson, a very strange but effective pairing.
I’m going to see both movies again shortly to see what I missed the first time. For some reason I saw Hurlyburly so many times I memorized the furniture. Each time my eyes would see more until there was nothing more to see.
I have always understood the power of description and how important that is to good writing. I never thought of myself as a visual person, but I have to be in order to remember so much detail. I’m beginning to see how all art is interconnected.
Blogging is going to make that very clear. I have called it the performance art of the millenium, but never realized exactly how much it is. Nor did I see how interconnected writing and visual arts are. I’m beginning to develop that thought and will stop here. This might be the most truly pretentious post I have ever written as I know nothing about photography, and can write fast and without conscious thought or spend hours thinking up the one perfect word.