Jump to content

What the eye sees, the mind knows, but cannot express


Recommended Posts

My original field in college before I became a still photographer was cinema

(and philosophy) and for the Day Job I still do some. We know that

juxtapositions of certain images can (albeit rarely) create a visual

impression, or third image.

 

In still photography there is a similar notion involved in series of pictures,

or one conceptually bound volume - something emerges from two or more pictures

that is not like either.

 

I have read a lot of scholarly material on the concept and certainly wouldn't

pester this group by citing or repeating it because the writing is about words

and because words are known to the language center, the intellect. I am not

interested here in the verbal/literate intellect!

 

We know from experience that an artist or visual craftsperson need not be a

scholar, a writer, or otherwise bound to explanation. It happens all the time

that a person creates something that speaks to the ineffable.

 

The point? Well, we cannot write about it except around the edges, and we have

done that (I think), so can anyone point to a series in which something

emerges as described here?

 

Images emerging from series. Evidence? (Not me. I'm not that talented.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pico, interesting idea. This crappy photo is of two small pictures I did. They are copies of photographs by a famous Magnum photographer. If you know the photographer then likely many other images would spring to mind, if not it's fine. Is there a third image you see? I do, it's the third in the series I did, which actually came first, and is not shown here.

 

Appologies in advance if I have mis-read the idea behind your thread.

Also, these images are just examples to help illustrate my thoughts.

 

Perhaps the images emerging from series reside in the mind of the viewer, is that evidence enough?

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject of your post : " What the eyes sees, the mind knows, but cannot express"

made me think of <a href="http://www.braeckman.be/images.php?

section=group1&g=1">this series of dark black and whites</a> from belgium

photographer dirk braeckman. I don't know what it exactly is, but there's something about

them...something hidden, something we know but cannot express.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pico, you have made it almost impossible to contribute, not being allowed to write about it. I believe that you don't need series to find examples of photos that bring something more than what the photographer can express by words. Any photo brings more than words, but that does not mean that words cannot be put on what one sees and experiences when looking at a photo. As you know the literature on the subject have been written since centuries. Let me just refer to one philosopher that has contradicted you on your main argument: Rainer Rochlitz - but that is another story, if I read you correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben I did in indeed respond, didn�t I ?

 

But, you are of course right that I responded only to the basic idea of Pico, that experience with photo can go beyond words. I believe it is a problematic standpoint because it cuts us from communicating meaningfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben, no harm done. Sorry if I reacted a little harsh.

 

The concept of series of photos as Pica refers to has of course been used by many.

 

One could refer to Richard Prince untitled (four women looking in the same direction) from the end of the 70s which in my eyes produces a very strong feeling of not seeing the essential - the subject of attention of multiple women.

 

Another example would be the series of photos of Hans Haacke and Shapolski a.o. of "Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, a real time social system" (beginning of the 70s)with detailed descriptions of the buildings (poverty). These series with very factual information and unsophisticated front pictures of houses create a very strong message of poverty and exploitation.

 

One could also mention several of Andy Warhole�s : �The White burning car� from the 60s.

 

In my eyes the oils painting of Gerhard Richter, �48 portraits� (1971/2) (sorry not a photo) or Richard Serra�s �Hand catching Lead� which is in fact a film, but repeated indefinitely, both create something else then what you see, but difficult to put words on, as Pica rightly writes.

 

Examples of the sort are many and mostly, in my view, it does nowadays most often not add much. Maybe it is not by chance that when I mention these examples from the top of my head they all seem to be from the 70s. or before, I think we have gone on from that �fashion�. I might be totally wrong of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pico, I like your question. I think it goes to the heart of the photographers process. Although 1/500th of a sec sounds like a moment, it was a moment lost to the photographer. It will be noticed later in the darkroom or computor screen. Visual perception comes from meaningful interaction with what ever is being seen. Painters have the time for their subject to become known to them. Photographers live in actual moments that unfortunately go by too fast to be fully percieved. Thus the overabundance of disconnected shots which show a lack of mental focus . The photographer finds focus by attemting to recreate a long meaningful moment with a lot a short ones. It is rather like putting together a puzzle with hundreds of pieces so that you can understand why 1 or 2 or 3 of the pieces seem to speak to the core of the whole. I have always thought that studio photographers would benefit greatly from spending time and drawing the subject first. Drawing skill is not necessary as it is the seeing that is what its about. You will have an experience with what ever you draw. This is a major difference in painting and photography. The original photojournalists were quick sketch Artists. Whether they were covering a war, fire, baseball game or fashion show or whatever, they were trained to put together the facts of the scene and store the necessary visual and emotional information to create a sigle image from many perceptions.They would create a composition, tell a story , do likenesses etc. etc all very quickly and always under adverse conditions. Finally, Photographers are different from almost all other creative Artists because they must understand their work after the fact and are limited by an imagination which is bound to and as good as the technical gear your have. Painters, sculptors are limited only by our imaginations depth or superficiality and their eye hand skills. One "captures" the moment, as though it was a prisoner locked in time. The other strives for essence , releasing the many moments to be absorbed in a unifing whole. A 'series' gives the photographer the chance to present more pieces to the puzzle, with regard to content, confronting the viewer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When asked by a journalist to explain what a specific poem meant, either Sandberg or

Frost replied: "What? You want me to say it worse?"<P><I>

 

Where Ma Raney and Beethoven once unwrapped their bed roll

Tuba players now rehearse around the flagpole

And the National Bank at a profit sells road maps for the soul

To the old folks home and the college<P>

Now I wish I could write you a melody so plain

That could hold you dear lady from going insane

That could ease you and cool you and cease the pain

Of your useless and pointless knowledge<P>Mama's in the fact'ry

She ain't got no shoes

Daddy's in the alley

He's lookin' for the fuse

I'm in the streets

With the tombstone blues</I><P>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I lived on Discourse Analysis Island for some time years ago. But I'm better now"

 

Pico, what does that mean ? Does it mean that my modest contribution above is only discourse ? Or that non of the examples of photos I tried to argue for are relevant in your eyes ?

It would be better to argue in clear language then to threw quick remarks at each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In film or T.V., the space between the moments ( or between the individual frames in the series of frames) is big business to those wanting to influence by sublimenation. I think ,as Artists, we do the same thing when presenting multiple images. We pretend and allude to the unseen and unknowable ( on the surface) truth or message of the whole, rather than the limited focus of the specific work. An Artists life's work can be viewed as a series with hidden meanings sprinkled throughout. We are always trying to make more out of the less, more or less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hips, I agree with most of what you published here, except this: "Photographers live in actual moments that unfortunately go by too fast to be fully percieved".

 

If you make a long exposure at a small apertuare etc, you can walk in front of the camera, have a coffee, make a call, and close the shutter all in that moment!

 

So I took it literally, I suppose to take it otherwise means that photographers live in moments that they cannot express otherwise, so they use cameras.

 

So on the topic, if a series of images leads to a perception of a third image in the minds eye, that may in fact be the object or purpose of photography, for some. The intent coming from the need to see, experience, or describe that result.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...