Photography is knowledge work

andang76

@Sascha said:

@andang76 said:

What can we learn from photography about knowledge work typically focussed on text?

I’ll try to write a few thoughts freely, as is my habit.

I think it's an endless maze.

I've currently traced many possible directions (and some of them are probably dead ends) into my notes.

For example, one could be understanding well the differences between photography and writing, starting from the most basic level (semiotics?). But honestly, it’s a direction that doesn’t really appeal to me.

Personally, I really like to humbly try to answer questions that come to mind, rather than trying to develop a "theory".
For example, yesterday I wanted to learn more about the tehory behind a "very simple" photographic theme — a simple question about how to ensure that a photo is truly a photo and not just a meaningless fragment, led me to discover Gestalt and some very interesting words by Cartier-Bresson. And fragmentation is a real issue dealing with atomicity. But Currently, I only have the track I just found.

Since the subject is so vast and I’m not even a good photographer myself (it takes photographers who truly think while shooting, and have a real purpose for the photos they take. I'm not, I used to take photos for the sake of taking photos, in the past...), my personal approach today can only be to bring up some reflections on certain photographic themes that come to mind today, or return to mind from my small past experience with photography. When I encounter a photographic theme today, I implicitly think: could this be useful for me in terms of ideas and knowledge development? With the time I have available, this is the most I can dedicate to this work.

The persistence of my zettelkasten, in any case, preserves every single trace I find.

Several months ago, I realized that in photography, a landscape represents the landscape itself, and not merely a collection of elements such as the sun, mountains, trees, and fields.
A landcape is not physically atomic, but that meaning is.
This understanding allowed me to carry that idea into the concept of atomicity, and to stop thinking of atomicity as simply treating atoms as pieces. This simple aha "solved" one relevant issue about atomicity at that time. Rather than considering landscape a methaphor into idea development, it's truly as the photographer envisions that photograph in their world.
Another important idea taken from photography was the background-foreground dynamic that you also showed in your article about atomicity.
And this two cases are only "low level" things that can be borrowed from photography. There is much more higher.

In all of my reflection, I never considered that the aesthetics of photography could also play a role. A question now raising, when I'm writing now, is: how does aesthetics shape and develop knowledge?
And two directions emerge into my mind after this question. A photograph with a very significant impact hits me and 1) can remain printed in memory for a long time, even forever, or 2) it can generate significant questions and reflections. As an example, I recall a photo from a very old science book of mine, showing the rabbit-proof fence in Australia, with one side of the field practically desertified by the action of rabbits. For me, It has represented and always represents the problem of alien species in an environment in all its drama, something that cannot be conveyed in words with the same power. Can I somehow translate these dynamics today, and if so, how?

So, I have many ideas about; as I come across something interesting, though explored at least a little, I can share them.

One important thing: personally, I don’t focus on how elevated a photographic concept is, but on how useful it can be to me. The principle of landscape is very simple and obvious, it is low level, but in my case, it was an important contribution.
And one of my next investigations will be precisely this: The concept of landscape has been very usefult to me. So, how does a good photographer take great landscape photos? What are their mental models to be a good landscape photographer?

I also think, and this is interesting as well, that the opposite is true.
Learning (and in my case, relearning) photography with experience as a knowledge worker could elevate the photography practice to a very high level. Today, I regret having discovered the Zettelkasten years after my photographic experience had already faded. I would have studied photography in a much more effective way

Confused and messy thoughts, not a theory but a pile of ideas with potential

Sascha

For example, yesterday I wanted to learn more about the tehory behind a "very simple" photographic theme — a simple question about how to ensure that a photo is truly a photo and not just a meaningless fragment, led me to discover Gestalt and some very interesting words by Cartier-Bresson.

Several months ago, I realized that in photography, a landscape represents the landscape itself, and not merely a collection of elements such as the sun, mountains, trees, and fields.

A landcape is not physically atomic, but that meaning is.

It seems to me that you are in search of the concept of The Whole.

There are quite some concepts that are related to Gestalt: Holon and Monade are two of them.

The concept of landscape has been very usefult to me. So, how does a good photographer take great landscape photos? What are their mental models to be a good landscape photographer?

I think you might learn from the classical arts some of the answer to that question. One could say that it is the quest for the thing itself, the essence of whatever you are trying to capture.

andang76

I’ve got the book Lezioni di Fotografia by Luigi Ghirri. After doing some research, I think this author might offer some interesting ideas. It’s now on my nightstand — hopefully I’ll get around to reading it (though it’s not the only one there, unfortunately).

JoshA

Separating the knowledge building blocks and the four-tier thinking framework helped me capture the essence of the article (I think).

If I have it right, the knowledge building blocks are @Sascha's answer to the level three layer of knowledge while working at level four (philosophy of knowledge). Concepts of zoom, focus etc would not be useful answering questions regarding the nature of knowledge.

The inventory just has a lot of applicability since to hit level three in photography/football/etc. you would need models/arguments/using the language of knowledge.

From Claude (left in the "You're absolutely right" for entertainment):

You're absolutely right. I conflated two different things. Let me separate them clearly:
The 4-level framework is a general model for understanding depth of mastery in any domain:

Level 1: Surface/no reasoning
Level 2: Heuristics that work but don't explain why
Level 3: First principles/direct engagement with the thing itself
Level 4: Meta-awareness of the levels and integrating across them

The knowledge building blocks (concepts, arguments, models, etc.) are Sascha's specific Level 3 answer for the domain of knowledge work. They're what you get when you apply the framework to the question: "What are the first principles of knowledge?"
So the 4-level framework is the thinking tool — you could apply it to chess, boxing, investing, photography, anything. The knowledge building blocks are one application of that tool.
This is actually why the photography debate matters. Andang76 was essentially saying "photography could be an alternative Level 3 framework for knowledge." Sascha was saying "no, because photography is about visual representation, not about the structure of knowledge itself — you'd need something like semiotics to bridge them, and that would be working at Level 4."

harr

@Sascha said:
What can we learn from photography about knowledge work typically focussed on text?

Good question!

I think we can learn that some knowledge is better captured and processed in images than in words.

a) One use case is illustration. The picture adds to the text. Photography as communication tool.

For example it's difficult to describe in words, how an iPad looks like. But people can grasp it immediately with a good photo. (Making such a good photo is a skill that requires lots of knowledge from various domains. For example, if you want to demonstrate that an iPad is a handheld device with multi-touch interface, the photo could show a person holding the device in their hand while touching the screen with a pinch gesture.)

b) Another use case is capturing and preserve information.

Photographs are used to document specimens, buildings, sites, symptoms, …

Before we had photography, knowledge workers used to draw.

Botanists drew plants, because it was the only way to document what we'd document today with photos. There's a whole category of botanist field books. For example: https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/botanical-illustrations-history

Archeologists made drawings of what they saw during a dig.

c) Visual thinking

Some archeologists still draw today, because drawing helps to understand stuff. For example: https://www.museums.cam.ac.uk/story/illustrating-ancient-history/ or https://archeology.uark.edu/archeology-is/archeology-is-scientific-drawing/

Photography can also be used as a tool for visual thinking. In the example of the iPad, the photographer really has to understand the key features of an iPad. What makes it different? And how can we make it visible?

As I dabble with photography myself, I can tell from personal experience, that it changes my understanding of a thing, when I try to capture its "essence" in a picture.

The psychology behind visual thinking is complex. The simple model of two distinct brain hemispheres might provide a clue. Here's a quotation from McGilchrist The master and his emissary about the importance of the non-verbal part of our brain:

[The left-hemisphere] prioritises the system, regardless of experience: it stays within the system of signs. Truth, for it, is coherence, because for it there is no world beyond, no Other, nothing outside the mind, to correspond with. (…) The right hemisphere prioritises what it learns from experience: the real state of existing things 'out there'. For the right hemisphere, truth is not mere coherence, but correspondence with something other than itself. Truth, for it, is understood in the sense of being 'true' to something, faithfulness to whatever it is that exists apart from ourselves.

Photography activates the right hemisphere. It reminds us that there's a whole world out there.

For the dangers of purely left-brained knowledge work I refer to McGilchrist.

EDIT: Post expanded and restructured.