Here’s to the snapshot (beware: long read!)

[LaFoto]

Permission given, of course :greenpbl: --- I am really curious to see where this is going.
And my earlier remarks were spoken more in general than in direction to anyone in particular, Mike. No worries there.

 

[Mike_E]

OK, How about starting with grammar? Should we describe an action trigger with say a present-tense metaphor? Or would this become too unwieldy?

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that misunderstandings occur because the form in which we see both snapshots and intended images is the same, emulsion congealed on paper or electrons impacting a screen. Thus the intent behind the two is concealed behind the common medium.

This common media obliterates all the intellectual differences between the two streams.

A terribly exposed, poorly constructed intended image is, to the anonymous viewer, not obviously different than a snapshot while, to someone party to the shared memories, the snapshot is wonderful.

 

[LaFoto]

:scratch: Mike ... I think I am losing you just now....

And yes, Lew, that might be the reason.
Though I must say that even though I am happy about the photos which I have of my deceased son, I still do see all their photographical flaws very clearly! Liking to have them as something that is left to me of my son and not liking how I took them are two things that reside inside myself simultaneously. So I cannot really find them "wonderful". My son's presence in my life was wonderful! But hey, not the photos I took at the time (the majority of them is really "bad" in my new personal terms).

And still: those photos have a value.
For me.
Only for me.
They do!

 

[mysteryscribe]

personally I think trying to decide how we see things and what we see in things is a fine way to pass a rainy sunday... It won't change anything but it's nice for people to discuss anything that might them see what they do differently and maybe even make a change or two.

To be honest the people I shot for wouldn't have recognized an inspired snapshot from a enviornmental portrait. Most would have just said it's a purdy picture and let it go at that.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The next step in this discussion... is to begin to describe these triggers in such a manner that they will be easier to assemble into a language

This is not as easy as it appears. This is part of what I have been working on for a long time and I soon came to realise that if this is to be done in any meaningful way (if it can be done at all) it requires a framework within which to work.
There is no suitable framework in existence for Photography. For Heaven's sake, no one has even been able to define it successfully yet. This is largely because the people involved in Photography divide roughly into two groups.
We have those who take pictures and are only interested in the pictures themselves, mainly the technical aspects, and who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense. And we have those who write 'meaningfully' about Photography, using big words but not saying much with them; who generally don't know much about the technical aspects and who approach the endeavour from a Linguistic viewpoint.
There is a big gap in between that is mostly terra incognita and this is the zone we are entering. In essence it is the dead zone between practical and theoretical.
It is possible, however, to skirt around the edge or make small sallies (like this thread) and come back with something useful.
To avoid getting bogged down in theory I feel it would be best to take a broad view and just go through the general 'triggers'. But if anyone is to get anything out of this they have to first accept that most of Photography goes on inside their head - either in the viewing or the taking - and in most people it is a process invisible.

 

[Mike_E]

Hertz, I am in agreement with you! How we interact with the physical world (photos) is totally dependent on our psyches' make up and our prior experiences.

It is my belief that we are unique, but only about 0.1% of each of us is what makes us unique. The other 99.9% we share and can use to draw some understanding of each other. I do not feel that we can completely understand each other due to the 0.1% wild card acting as a multiplier.

When I put out the metaphor as structure idea i was remembering an old star track episode (Wait, hear me out) where some alien race had evolved to use metaphor as a language. It seems to me that our current system of language is too narrowly structured and focused to allow for the kind of generalities and shading needed for our purposes. Describing the emotional impact of triggers and modifications of those triggers by others still-all within one photograph is not what our current language is designed to do. Think of a gobo- a metaphor if you will for things used to modify light by getting in the way of it, a hindrance.

Neither am I suggesting that we try and come up with something too complex because to do so would cause the original intent to be lost in the form of the thing.

We can go on with a grammar, but first perhaps we should start with some terms.

How about: Trigger- a set of cues to begin a particular range of emotions - as dried vegetation or barren sand will trigger thirst.

Cue: An element of a scene within a photo given as a hint of meaning either as a beginning, an ending or a strengthening agent for the body of a trigger. The texture of brittleness of dried vegetation and also the color of dried vegetation.

Foreshadow: The area at the beginning of a line leading into a trigger or grouping of triggers.

Subject: The main trigger or triggers. Everything else within the photo is a modifier to the subject.


Anyway, what do you think?

mike

 

[Hertz van Rental]

It is my belief that we are unique, but only about 0.1% of each of us is what makes us unique. The other 99.9% we share and can use to draw some understanding of each other. I do not feel that we can completely understand each other due to the 0.1% wild card acting as a multiplier.

Absolutely. It is through shared experience that Photography generally works and it is the fact that we are all so alike which gives me hope for developing at least a rudimentary framework.

The main thing that is wrong with your thinking is to consider the Photograph as containing language, or that it is capable of being structured like language.
Images work through systems much deeper and, in some respects, more rudimentary than language. All animals with vision work with visual cues and it is from this system that language developed. Language is representational and it's usefulness is what has caused it to overlay and supercede the visual.
The word 'rose' for example represents an ideal. We all have an image of a rose that the word conjures up (and for the majority it's red) - it is a metaphor.
But a photograph of a rose is something else. It represents both all roses and one specific individual (the rose in the image) at one and the same time. It is because of this that a photograph could be said to contain too much information*. Which is one of the reasons that B&W photography is considered more 'arty' than colour. That and the fact that a colour photograph is too 'real'.
All this aside, any attempt to codify the system of signs (those signals within an image that trigger our various responses) must start with defining all of the elements that can play a part.
Light and colour are two immediate ones. There are different qualities of light and these can be further modified (in colour photography) by colour temperature, and in all photography by direction.
We will have a different set of responses to an image shot in morning light (quite blue), at mid-day (yellowish), evening (orange), fog and so on. That is because they represent times of day and weather conditions that we have associations with. And we haven't even started with artificial light.
Then shadows will play a part. Shadows have a variety of functions in an image from providing surface texture to giving an air of mystery or oppresion.
Body language, facial expression, composition.... And each will modify the others. A person reclining on the grass in the evening will have one set of cues, the same pose on a bed will give another set, and a third if we position the body on a sofa.
It appears a daunting task but I think with a lot of careful thought we can analyse it down.

Ralph Gibson has done some interesting images that might help people understand where we are going.
http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery/


*In this instance I use 'information' in the sense of telling us about the surface appearance of things.

 

[Mike_E]

I do believe that every thing is capable of containing a language, even if that containment merely provides an echo for the voice inside our heads (conscience if you'd rather).

I do not believe that such a limited format as a photograph may be structured so as to contain it's own language. Rather I am seeking a language to describe the underlying dynamics which create a successful photograph.

I do concede that I put this badly in my previous post though.

I do agree that images work on a more fundamental level than language and that level I think is emotion. Whatever language comes of it, comes from ourselves.

I do not feel comfortable discussing the technical aspects of the 'cues' or techniques just yet. I suppose I feel that this is getting too far ahead (as you mentioned).

Mr. Gibson's gallery was very much to the point- though very dark. Have you any others that you would like us to view to add to our baseline of information for this discussion?

mike

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Everything is capable of being turned into a language, certainly, but it is done by getting an object/colour/whatever to represent the spoken language. And a lot of language works on concepts.
For example: red rose = love.
There you have a representational word standing in for a conceptual word. And the written word represents the spoken word.
To follow all of this you need to read Saussure and Barthes - and then read Derrida.
To try to impose a language on images is a mistake. It is better to analyse the meanings within images and their relationships. That is to say, symbolism. Objects can be symbolic and stand for something else - which is what happens in a photo. A picture of a horse is a symbolic representation of all horses at the same time as it being a depiction of an individual horse.
And the context modifies the meaning of the symbol.
Ralph Gibson's image of the biker holding a rose gives us a message. A bride holding a rose gives us a different message. A rose on a grave would give another message. And so on.
I do not think that there are any straightforward rules to all of this as symbolism, like language, is plastic. But by learning as much as one can about Art (artists have been using symbolism for a long time), various other symbol systems (like the language of flowers, the language of colours, the language of gem stones, etc) and the large range of compositional techniques (there is a lot more to composition than the 'rule of thirds') it is possible to put messages into pictures. But these messages can only be read by a viewer who has been trained in the same way.

As for photographers - there are so many but try finding the work of:
Duane Michals (I understand he was the first to write on his pictures)
Joel-Peter Witkin (disturbing and not work safe)
John Blakemore (a very nice man and wonderful photographer)
Les Krims (one of the best, particularly the games he plays with titles. We disagree on Derrida and other things so we stopped communicating but I still rate him as probably my favourite photographer of all time)
Googling should pull stuff up for most of them.

 

[The_Traveler]

I shall print this thread, run it through a shredder and sprinkle it on my lawn.

 

[Antarctican]

^^^ I disagree with what you seem to be implying, Traveler. I find this a most interesting thread, with articulate responses.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

We have those who take pictures and are only interested in the pictures themselves, mainly the technical aspects, and who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense.

:mrgreen:

 

[Mike_E]

:lmao::lmao:

I haven't forgotten this I'm merely digesting the last set of examples.

BTW Les Krims is a HOOT! I'm guessing Sally was his wife? She must have been a remarkable woman.

mike

 

[The_Traveler]

This is largely because the people involved in Photography divide roughly into two groups.
We have those who take pictures and are only interested in the pictures themselves, mainly the technical aspects, and who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense. And we have those who write 'meaningfully' about Photography, using big words but not saying much with them; who generally don't know much about the technical aspects and who approach the endeavour from a Linguistic viewpoint.

This is a false dichotomy, set up to make the argument. There aren't two groups, there is the entire continuum of people who are interested in photography as a technical exercise through people who are interested in pictures and subordinate the technical issues to people who are interested in only content-specific pictures. Those who see photography as part of continuum of communication approach photography along a completely different axis.

who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense.

This particularly is a generalization without any basis, that I challenge you to attempt to prove.