The Language of Photography

[danalec99]

Looking at the visual from Mark's poem's, I'd prefer 2 or 3.

But, is there a better photograph among the four?
Must there be a better shot?
If so, what is a 'better' shot?

From one of the threads from few months ago, Hertz mentioned that a photograph should convey the intended message by the photographer, or else it fails (I do not recollect the exact words, but I think it was something along those lines. Please correct me if I'm wrong). Now let's take Ralph Gibson's work. Mark did not go through the nirvana that Hertz felt. And I'm sure those who have visited the Gibson link had their share of unique responses. Copy Paste the same situation with Robert Frank's work.
The question is, did Gibson/Frank fail or succeed in their, if I may, 'quest', if at all there was one?
Are their work active or passive, if there is a reason to make such a distinction?

Coming back to Mark's poems, my version could be different from his, if I were in the same spot. The point that I'm wondering is that, isn't it personal taste that runs the show Or is it?

 

[ThomThomsk]

From one of the threads from few months ago, Hertz mentioned that a photograph should convey the intended message by the photographer, or else it fails (I do not recollect the exact words, but I think it was something along those lines. Please correct me if I'm wrong).

He did, and I thought at the time (and may even have commented at the time) that this is what makes photography such a challenge as a means of communication, compared with poetry, or prose come to that.

Language allows the author precise control over meaning, with endless scope for nuance through allegory and metaphor and other tools. The photographer can do many of the same things, but has a much blunter instrument at his or her disposal. Visual imagery and symbolism has a long and important history, but as an example if you want to know about Christian doctrine you probably read the New Testament rather than study a lot of stained glass windows.

So my question, which was also my question at the time of that earlier thread, is how does the photographer rise to this challenge?

 

[markc]

Mark did not go through the nirvana that Hertz felt.

That wasn't the distinction I was making. I definitely felt something when I looked at it. I meant that it didn't go away when I tried to analyze it.

Coming back to Mark's poems, my version could be different from his, if I were in the same spot. The point that I'm wondering is that, isn't it personal taste that runs the show Or is it?

I think most people will come up with their own thing. I'm guessing I got too complex trying to demonstrate what I was going after and then I got caught up with debating semantics of language.

I'll try again. Just ignore most of what I wrote above.

With a snapshot, you have a bunch of random elements, like having a bunch of random descriptive phrases. I don't believe there's much taste involved except for preference of subjects on a very basic level ("Oh! It's got kids!" or "I like that car!"). Sometimes you can make a distiction between a landscape and a portrait, but not always. "Is that person supposed to be in with those trees? Oh, that's who you were taking the picture of?"

There are also shots that focus on only one level of photography. Someone could go for just technical mastery (perfect focus, exposure, etc.), just aesthetics (is it pretty?), or just message (does it say something?). There may be other levels, but those suffice for what I'm trying to say. Here taste comes into play much more, as I know someone who just loves technical images, regardless of subject or message. Others don't care if the whole thing is out of focus and is overexposed as long as it says something. And others just love things that pop or are beautiful.

Then there are photos that combine it all. I do consider a photo at this level to be a better photo than any previous type, but not because of taste (and that's my own personal view, not something that's objective). You can ignore preferences like landscape vs. portrait (or color vs. b&w) since you can have a landscape that only tries to be pretty but also a landscape that is pretty, was made with technical skill, and has a message. Now you appeal to a much wider audience.

I focused on the "language" (or symbology, or whatever else you want to call it) of photography because it seems to be something that so many people are unaware of. Our choices not only affect how the image looks, but what it "says". People may not care, and that's fine. I just wanted to point out that even if you don't care what the message is, there are elements in the photo that say things to people who are listening; just like a French poem says something to someone who knows French, even if you only care what the words sound like.

Don't take the following as a literal comparison to a photograph, but just something that illustrates the use of "meaning". Please ignore it:
Someone can put the biohazard symbol on their notebook without knowing what it means just because it looks cool. So now the notebook looks cool, but to someone who knows what the symbol means, the message falls flat or is garbled/confusing. Now put that same symbol on a coffee mug. The coffee mug also looks cool, but now there's a more cohessive meaning. The idea of papers being biohazard seems kinda silly, so it's ignored, but the idea that the coffee you are drinking is that dangerous... that's kind of funny. In a photo you could use the color red because it looks cool, or you could use it for it's meaning in our culture in a way that says something cohessive.

You don't have to, but for people who weren't aware of this and like the idea, you can. It's a whole other way to work with an image, and I think it's fun. I'm only a beginner at it myself, but I love the idea. And since a lot of it works subconsciously for the viewer, I think you can make a more "successful" image if you are aware of this level of work. Even if a viewer only cares about the beauty, they still may respond to the message and respond with "I don't know why I like this image, but I do."

 

[markc]

So my question, which was also my question at the time of that earlier thread, is how does the photographer rise to this challenge?

And a good question it is.

I guess we read a lot about it, study and become aware of our own responses, and ask others about theirs.

Certain colors have already become very ingrained in our culture. You'd probably be a lot more hesitant to open a door with a red light over it compared to one with a green light. You'd probably also have a different response to a picture of a man reaching out to help someone dressed in a white suit and sky-blue tie compared to one dressed in a blood-red suit and black tie.

Other choices are less obvious and often have to be combined in order to form a cohesive meaning. Amount of DOF alone probably doesn't say much. My guess is that it needs to be combined with other elements.

 

[markc]

I'm going to try my hand at analyzing Gibson's third image and explain why I like it and find it amusing.

First you have the two adults being circled by the two kids. This is a common sight in many movies that involve a weak group being attacked by a stronger group. The ones being attacked often huddle together while the attackers circle, but here, the center group is unconcerned. In fact, the one woman on the left even seems to be sporting a slight "attitude" or is bored while the one on the right seems a bit jovial. From this perspective, the kids are both taller than the adults, and the closest kid is huge. And even though he's probably looking at his playmate, his line of sight seems to go to the women. It's a rampaging giant toddler! The juxtapositions here are so entertaining. And you know, with the way kids are, they just might leap into the middle of the two women with no warning. The "threat" isn't entirely empty.

So I see two worlds colliding: the "attacking" kids, who are larger than life; and the unconcerned adults, who see the kids as just kids.

I don't know if this is what Gibson intended. This isn't something you have to see in order to like the image, but I think sometimes a person can look at an image like this, like it, not know exactly why, and all the while their subconscious is laughing its ass off.

 

[Arch]

I have to say this thread is very intriguing...... i'm not half as articulate as you guys......and i haven't studied photography seriously, and even tho I have an art degree it doesn't count for much these days , but i thought i'd add some input anyway.

"From one of the threads from few months ago, Hertz mentioned that a photograph should convey the intended message by the photographer, or else it fails"

Im interested by this idea..... but from my stand point I think a photograph should convey the intended message TO the photographer..... not sure if this is what hertz meant, but to me if the photograph works to the photographer in every way they intended, then it is up to the viewer to try to tap in to that message or concept. If however the photographer isn't sure if the intent is clear enough, even to themselves, then how can they expect a viewer to fully understand what they are proposing...... meaning in a sense, the photographer has failed to deliver the message.

I also find the idea of combining aesthetics with language in art interesting...... there are paintings and art pieces that achieve this but to my mind in more complex ways than photography. I think photographers have a real struggle to achieve both in one image.
A painting which is purely aestheticly pleasing also has other factors that can convey emotion, like the brush strokes, the way the paint was applied to the canvas, the mixture and cohesion of paint..... which can be found in much of the abstract expressionism movement.
With photography it seems a lot more litteral..... a landscape shot with 'nice' colours and depth is aestheticly pleaseing but may not be able to offer any other kind of emotion or message........ am i making sense?

I dont mean to say this cannot be done in photography, because of course it can, but is it also too easy for a viewer to look at an aestheticly beautiful photograph and not see past the aesthetics to the real meaning of the photograph?.......... a photograph which conveys a more obvious message but is not technically good doesn't have this problem because the viewer is immediately asked to look for the message or meaning in the shot.

Just to add my take on Gibson's third image....... i may be way off base here, but here goes.

The feeling i got from this picture was that the lady on the left in middle is looking at the boy as if to say "im watching you........ troublemaker!"... and i agree with mark that the scale of the boy makes him the 'bigger threat'..... but what amuses me, is that the girl who has run out of sight of the centre lady seems to have been the 'instigator' of the trouble, and is laughing that 'yet again' she has got away with it........ like the predetermined rule that the boy always instigates the tomfoolery and therefore should be closley watched at all times!

But i could be way off.........

 

[markc]

I dont mean to say this cannot be done in photography, because of course it can, but is it also too easy for a viewer to look at an aestheticly beautiful photograph and not see past the aesthetics to the real meaning of the photograph?

Yes, exactly. This is why I wanted to bring this up. The concept that a photo can contain more is often too easily missed.

but what amuses me, is that the girl who has run out of sight of the centre lady seems to have been the 'instigator' of the trouble, and is laughing that 'yet again' she has got away with it

Hehe. Yeah, I noticed that. Her face and where she's looking doesn't fit well into my "story". It's a bit like a mixed metaphor. I don't think the two ideas conflict terribly much though. There still seems to be a seperation of worlds, even if they each can be interpreted in different ways.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I got caught up with debating semantics of language.

Unfortunately you have to deal with the whole linguistic/semiotic thing when dealing with photographs.
Language - especially written language - has an unbelievably powerful grasp on our minds, and it has it to such an extent that we subvert all else to it.
'A picture is worth a thousand words', we 'read' an image, 'every picture tells a story, and so on. Even when we are discussing a picture our first action is to describe the picture in words.
To an extent this latter is unavoidable but what we in fact do is analyse our written interpretation of the image and as we don't notice we are doing it we can find ourselves making errors (Barthes made a classic one in one of his books). We don't interpret the image, but we interpret our interpretation of it.
Studying language and it's development can make us aware of it's shortcomings.
With written language the letters and words are symbolic - they represent an abstract concept.
The word 'horse' merely represents the class of all objects which are horses. This includes not only the equine variety but saw-horses, wooden horses, iron horses... Without a qualifier (the preceding or successive words and the context) the word 'horse' becomes ambiguous.
If I qualify it to mean the animal, 'horse' comes to represent the class of all animals that qualify as horses. That is, it represents the abstract concept of horse but this is a concept we all understand.
With a photograph things are somewhat different.
A photograph of a horse works on the same level as the word because language forces us to do this. A picture of a horse represents the class of all animals that can be considered as such but at the same time the picture also represents a single and unique individual horse, distinct from all others. That is, it only represents itself.
If you know the animal you will recognise it, if you don't then it becomes more abstract but then you still classify it as a big horse, little horse, shire horse, stallion, pony.... A photograph can never be as truly symbolic of an archetype as a word can unless you reduce the information within the picture to the point where it becomes a graphic image. Paintings manage it but the photographic process works the opposite way.
This is one of the fundamental problems of photography - it's excessive subtlety.

 

[danalec99]

That wasn't the distinction I was making. I definitely felt something when I looked at it. I meant that it didn't go away when I tried to analyze it.

My point was, the reaction differs from person to person, like the Dolphin photo that Rob posted few days ago.

Then there are photos that combine it all. I do consider a photo at this level to be a better photo than any previous type, but not because of taste (and that's my own personal view, not something that's objective)...Now you appeal to a much wider audience.

1. Could you point a photographer who falls in to this category?
2. Audience: I happen to passionately love the work of HCB, the same way my mother would drool over the snapshots of her grandson (my nephew). Now, would that make my tastes better than my mom/realatives who do not give a though about the technical/creative merit (or the lack of it) of the image?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I think a photograph should convey the intended message TO the photographer..... not sure if this is what hertz meant

Of necessity, if a photograph conveys the photographer's intended message to his audience it must also convey it to the photographer. How else would he know that it worked?

The thing that one has to remember is that photography as a whole consists of two distinct and separate acts: taking the picture and viewing the picture.
The photograph itself acts only as the interface.
You can view it as the photographer is the input. The viewer is the output. The photograph is all the gubbins in the middle.
This is a useful analogy.
The photographer can be passive and interfere with the process as little as possible - or he can do the opposite and be active.
So too can the viewer be active or passive.
It can then be seen that four combinations are possible:
Passive photographer/passive viewer.
Passive photographer/active viewer.
Active photographer/passive viewer.
Active photographer/active viewer.
It may be possible to use this to 'order' the photographic process.
Family snaps are passive/passive whilst successful 'art' pictures are active/active...

A 'phone coversation? If one does all the talking and the other doesn't listen - or if neither talk - does communication take place?

(If you listen carefully you can hear me thinking out loud in this thread....)

 

[markc]

I happen to passionately love the work of HCB, the same way my mother would drool over the snapshots of her grandson (my nephew). Now, would that make my tastes better than my mom/realatives who do not give a though about the technical/creative merit (or the lack of it) of the image?

Your taste isn't better, in the sense that you are a superior person because of it or anything like that. You like what you like and she likes what she likes. I do think that an HCB image is a much better photograph than a snapshot, though. This is the separation that I think is important. What you like is very different from how well something is made.

 

[markc]

Unfortunately you have to deal with the whole linguistic/semiotic thing when dealing with photographs.

True. I guess I was mostly trying to point out that there was something more going on, not exactly what was going on. I really do have to study the "what" a lot more, so discussing it is very worthwhile.

 

[markc]

The photographer can be passive and interfere with the process as little as possible - or he can do the opposite and be active.
So too can the viewer be active or passive.
It can then be seen that four combinations are possible:
Passive photographer/passive viewer.
Passive photographer/active viewer.
Active photographer/passive viewer.
Active photographer/active viewer.

Would you find this somewhat similar to what I was saying about simple aesthetics vs. message? I don't think I picked perfect terms, but someone just looking to make or view a "nice" image is more passive, while someone who place or looks for meaning is more active.

 

[Arch]

Would you find this somewhat similar to what I was saying about simple aesthetics vs. message? I don't think I picked perfect terms, but someone just looking to make or view a "nice" image is more passive, while someone who place or looks for meaning is more active.

yes, this is what i was thinking about the 'Passive photographer/active viewer' or the 'Passive photographer/passive viewer ones, where the photographer doesnt have to go through a 'message' thought process to take an aesthetic image and to achieve a response from the viewer. However this only seems to make sense only under certain circumstances.......

Is the response from the viewer an active one? or is it passive?.... does sensory pleasure count as an active response?

I think maybe it does......

Family snaps are passive/passive whilst successful 'art' pictures are active/active...

So if aesthetics....i.e a colourful landcape shot.... is passive photography because there is no other intended meaning, and the response is passive, does this make it less successful than the example of Gibson's work for instance?........ does it even make it successful art?...... this is where the aesthetic = passive rule doesn't seem to work.

In which case maybe passive simply means 'no artistic act intended'..... or recieved for that matter........ ie. not meant to be particularly 'aesthetic' or to have an intended 'message'.

....my head is beginning to hurt now

 

[danalec99]

Your taste isn't better, in the sense that you are a superior person because of it or anything like that. You like what you like and she likes what she likes. I do think that an HCB image is a much better photograph than a snapshot, though. This is the separation that I think is important. What you like is very different from how well something is made.

Indeed!

So photography is similar to music. There are different genres - hip hop, classical, heavy metal, country etc. Obviously there is a seperation, but who is to say that country is better than classical? It all caters to different crowd. To the 'Enter Sandman' crowd, Bach might (but not necessarily) be boring. But that does not make either of them better or lesser.

Please note that I'm newbier than anyone in this thread. I have no background in arts. I'm merely trying to question/figure out the slippery areas here.