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
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.
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).
Comments
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
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.
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.
I am a Zettler
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).