Emotion Alone is Not Enough

In a podcast for which I was interviewed last year the topic of emotion in photography was on the table and I was asked how I use emotion to inspire me to make the images I create. It’s a rather broad question, and my first thought was, “Oh shit, how am I going to answer this”? As I attempted to answer the question I knew I was failing to mention something important, I just couldn’t come up with it at the time. It wasn't until weeks later while deep in thought during a hike that the answer came to me. I felt a need to clarify, for my sake if no one else’s. 

It is no secret that emotion plays a crucial role in any artistic endeavor. Art would not or could not exist without it, at least compelling art. It is the engine that fuels inspiration. When photographing the natural world we happen upon a scene that grabs our attention and moves us in some way and we are inspired to make a photo. The most obvious example is a beautiful sunrise or sunset and the feelings of awe and wonder that inspire us to capture the moment. However, the resulting image is bereft of any message or imagination on behalf of the photographer. In short, it is aesthetically beautiful, but obvious and without depth. It is objective, not subjective.

If we wish to make creative images that authentically reflect our individuality more than emotion alone is needed. We need to have something to express, a feeling or idea, whether consciously aware of it or not. The image should be infused with the imagination of the photographer. Otherwise, the image is nothing more than a recording of visual fact. If that is the goal, which seems to be the case with much if not most landscape photography, then fine. But, if we wish to make images that are subjective and reflect our sensibilities and how we see and experience the world we need to have something to say, an idea or thought or meaning to express that is personal and unique to us. A beautiful image of a gorgeous sunset may inspire emotion in the viewer, but it has nothing to say beyond, “Oooh, pretty.” Yes, the photographer has expressed awe and wonder, but to quote Harry Callahan, that expression is “in accord with everyone else.” In other words, no individuality is expressed. It is common, it is cliche. The reason I no longer photograph such scenes is because they offer little to no room for personal expression or individuality. I find I can’t add anything of my personality to the image. There is only one way to “see” it and experience it. Nuance and subtlety would be drowned out by the obvious beauty. I am emotionally moved by the scene, but I have nothing of myself to add to it.

What does it mean to express oneself in art? I admit to being somewhat at odds with how self-expression is often described. The idea is that we experience something first, an emotion or feeling that inspires us, and we then express that experience (feeling) in our photograph. We are trying to convey the feeling(s) we experienced. The description feels too clinical, too exact. From my experience, the only emotions I experience when out in nature are awe and wonder. I rarely experience sadness, anger, or any other negative emotion. I prefer to think of self-expression as expressing oneself through the things we see and feel and how we choose to render them, from composition through post-processing. It’s how we relate and react to the subject matter. It may have to do with a specific meaning or feeling we are trying to convey, but it doesn’t have to, at least not at a conscious level. Some of my images are metaphors for a specific meaning or feeling, but most are not. They simply represent my sensibilities, my way of relating to the world.

The making of creative and subjective imagery requires both emotion and personal, unique expression. Emotion is possible without expression in photography, but expression requires emotion. You are what makes the image compelling, not the subject matter alone. Any painting or piece of music is about the artist first. Why should creative photography be any different? One of the roles of an artist is that of a visionary, to show people a world they wouldn’t otherwise notice. What is the point in showing them something they could have readily seen on their own?