text vs image

my friend keeps on telling that Text/literature is superior to

Image/photography. in short, Text is more subjective, therefore it is more

suggestive and powerful, appealing to the very personal imaginative and

(sub)conscious level.

 

 

e.g. when we read "ugly man" , we all imagine him differently , according to our

own concepts.

photography provides kind of more objective image.

 

 

 

of course, its kind of lame comparing 2 mediums, each having different means of

communication.

 

 

but still, what do you think? can image be justified in this way?

Sounds like your friend is a sheila who, as they say "love with their ears". Hence, photography must be a blokey business

Pod, if every body on this forum will agree that Text/literature <b>is</b> superior to Image/photography, will you stop making photographs and start writing books<b>?</b>

Each medium has unique strengths. Setting them up as competing media to me seems to be comparing apples to oranges. Some would prefer the picture while others the thousand words.

Neither is better, so to speak. To say photography is more objective is completely personal. None of us see the same colors, tones or notice different aspects of light or composition. Take a picture of someone where you concerned over the technical aspects of the print- show it to the subject, they don't see what you see at all.

 

Let a literal minded person read a book, vs a more liberal minded, and they don't read the same words or are affected the same way, conscious or sub-conscious.

Both media can be interpreted literally and both can be interpreted figuratively. A photograph can be a straight forward recording of a scene or it can be very suggestive. Ever see one of Helmut Newton's images? They are very suggestive (and repulsive IMHO).

<i>can image be justified in this way? </i><p>

Methinks you mean: Can an image be <u>rationalized</u> in such a way.<p>

Consider this: rationalization is language based, therefore it is words, literature - for better

or worse. Images are something else.

I think it's a question not of the medium but how it's used. In

particular (and especially in your example) how much you specify

and how much you leave for the reader/viewer to fill in. <p>

 

In words you can use a few words and let the reader make up

the rest according to imagination or you can describe every

feature in minute detail so the reader knows exactly what you

mean. In photography the detail is generally already available

but you can use a variety of abstracting techniques, both at the

taking or printing stage, to create an "impressionist" image with

just enough detail to get your message across (<i>eg</i> John

Math's "<a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5292668"

target=blank>Beach</a>" or my "<a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3987124"

target=blank>Photo sketch</a>" and "<a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4549451&si

ze=lg" target=blank>V.LowKey</a>"). <p>So you <u>can</u> use

a 1000 words to make a description as clear as a standard

photo or you can choose to make your image as vague as a brief

phrase to stimulate your viewer's imagination.

As a writer and a photographer, I'd say you need both to really tell a story. It's like brick and mortar - you could build a house with one or the other, but it really works best if you use both.

 

Neil Peters wrote:

"Let a literal minded person read a book, vs a more liberal minded, and they don't read the same words or are affected the same way, conscious or sub-conscious."

 

Very true, agreed 100%.

"my friend keeps on telling that Text/literature is superior to Image/photography. "

 

This is the old mind /body paradox rephrased with different words. We are neither putre

mind or pure body. Tell your friend to stop being so lazy and to get out of his own head.

 

There is nothing inherently "objective" about a photograph, except for the form it is

presented in.

<b>Doug Grosjean</b><br><i>

As a writer and a photographer [...] </i><p>

:) I have a sense of your work and interests so let me ask: have you read <u>Zen and the

Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</u>?<p>

If you have, then you probably have an image of Robert Pirsig and his son, Chris, and

possibly Robert's motorcycle.<p>

Several years ago I posted two photos of Pirsig with his motorcycle. One of the pictures

was of he and Chris on the bike during the period of the trip. I wonder if seeing the photos

might change your impression. <p>

(It was a heady time when Pirsig went through his mental and physical adventure. He lived

across the alley from me. Danny Lyon was in the same neighborhood. So were so many

others who became 'notable'. But not moi. Thank god.)

Check out Barbara Kruger: http://www.barbarakruger.com/

Hi Pico,

 

You wrote:

"If you have, then you probably have an image of Robert Pirsig and his son, Chris, and possibly Robert's motorcycle. ... Several years ago I posted two photos of Pirsig with his motorcycle. One of the pictures was of he and Chris on the bike during the period of the trip. I wonder if seeing the photos might change your impression."

 

I've read ZaoMM, but I'm tainted - I've seen the pics of Pirsig and his son quite a long time ago.

 

Am trying to recall my initial reaction now (to the photos). IIRC, neither person was as I'd imagined them (visually). That seems normal, that we never find the real person in the book or the actor who plays that person in a movie, to be as "right" as our imagination was in portraying them.

 

*But*... I only saw the pics of Pirsig's bike, gear, and companions recently, so my memory is better there. I was more startled there, because the gear was so old and cheap / crude. It's what was available then, but I was imagining their gear as I read "Zen..." with my own special-colored glasses. I got into bikes in the late 1970s, so figured the gear must be like what I began with. So I missed there, too.

 

You wrote:

"(It was a heady time when Pirsig went through his mental and physical adventure. He lived across the alley from me. Danny Lyon was in the same neighborhood. So were so many others who became 'notable'. But not moi. Thank god.)"

 

You may have been the lucky one.

 

The name Danny Lyon rings a bell, but I can't place it. Will have to Google the man.

 

Back on topic, I still think photos and text go together. For accuracy's sake. If Pirsig had had photos in his book, yes, my image of Pirsig, Chris, and their gear would have been more accurate.

 

OTOH, I don't think the photos would have actually improved the book any - it just would have made the images in my head accurate.

 

Pico, you made think a bit. Thanks!

 

Doug Grosjean

Pod, you wrote: "of course, its kind of lame comparing 2 mediums, each having different means of communication."

 

Agreed.

Also check out Duane Michaels: http://www.temple.edu/photo/photographers/michals/duane.html

<i>The name Danny Lyon rings a bell, but I can't place it. Will have to Google the man.

</i><p>

See his book <u>The Bikeriders</u><p>

I think it is back in print. The first editions are prohibitively expensive now. I bought it

when it came out and got another first edition for $2 in the "automotive" section of a

Berkeley used book store. I gave them both away along with a lot of books when I

lightened my lifestyle and moved to the country.<p>

Then see his other books, such as <u>Conversations with the Dead</u>. Lyon worked

with film later and with Robert Frank. <p>

I don't want to give the impression that I know Danny. We were some of the same places,

had a couple mutual aquintances, and talked once in a hapenstance meeting, but I can say

this: his

work remains inspiring.

One more thing before I hit the darkroom: one of the pictures of Pirsig with his bike was put

on the net without the photographer's permission or credit. If it comes up again, I'll post the

photographer's name.

 

It just goes to show you that if you share an image via email you can never be sure it won't be

used inappropriately. The Net Leaks!

Regarding "The Bikeriders".... I looked on Amazon, and have some Borders gift cards to use up from Christmas - looks like one I'll pick up.

 

Pico wrote:

"One more thing before I hit the darkroom: one of the pictures of Pirsig with his bike was put on the net without the photographer's permission or credit. If it comes up again, I'll post the photographer's name."

 

I recently saw an entire site of ZaoMM photos. I browsed them but didn't bookmark them. I'm on some motorcycle email lists, so about twice a year such a site is posted.

 

Pico wrote:

"It just goes to show you that if you share an image via email you can never be sure it won't be used inappropriately. The Net Leaks!"

 

Yup. Quoting stuff is the same way. Anything spread digitally, might end up where you don't want it to be.

 

Have fun in the darkroom - I'm off to drop the lens on my new-to-me 4x5 Burke & James press camera off for a CLA. Lags at slow speeds, but have taken about a dozen pics so far. My first exp. with 4x5 and shifts / tilts - wow! No more leaning buildings....

<i>I'd say you need both to really tell a story. It's like brick and mortar - you could build a house with one or the other, but it really works best if you use both. </i><br>

Doug, you are correct, the "Spiderman" comics is a magnificent house, while the "WAR and PEACE" or the "La Joconde" are just halves.

It is like that old gag that 'radio beats television because the pictures are better'.

<i>It is like that old gag that 'radio beats television because the pictures are better'.</i><p>

 

That is worth engraving in stone, or at least a good Sig!

<I>It is like that old gag that 'radio beats television because the pictures are better'.</i><P>

 

Or television is called a "medium" because it's seldom well-done.<P>

 

As for text versus image thing, I suppose we got away from hieroglyphics for some reason.

<i>As for text versus image thing, I suppose we got away from hieroglyphics for some

reason.</i><p>

We still have pictographic languages - Chinese, Japanese for example.

<p>

And it is suitable for poetry. Photographs can be as well.

Pod,

 

The argument is that a photograph leaves little to nothing to the imagination? That can't be right.

 

--

Don E

I think you need to investigate further the characteristics of signs and symbols in order to

argue one way or the other. I wrote a paper several years back, which really got me

thinking. In the paper I proposed and discussed the similarities adherent to the work of

Dorothea Lang (The Farm Securities Commission) and Barbara Kruger. Decades apart and

aesthetically different their work seemed to me to be driven in part by the same desire to

fuse text and image: not to present one form or sign differently or independently from the

other. Keeping in mind you can't read either the text or the images independently from

the social setting in which they were created the paper argued that you can't view the two

mediums separately.

 

You may also be interested in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2123578">this image</a> and the discussion it created, thinking with words.

(I'm PT in this case)

 

Great question. Loads to think about!

 

Sally