On what you see

Photography neither describes nor does it have a vocabulary. Photography is inherently non-verbal.

Asserting that it "speaks" is like asserting that it wiggles its ears.

Communication does not have to be verbal,John. Really that is a one dimensional thought. Even ears that wiggle have some sort of communication. One only has to look at facial expressions to understand non verbal communication.

Any piece of Art communicates on some level. Indeed that was why they were created in the first place. To communicate.

may carry messages but they're not in any language, though we may read things into them.

The sky is blue.Language does not have to be verbal. Indeed the power of photography can be the most powerful language of them all. But a photograph cannot talk in the strict sense of the word. But again we are back to the sky is blue.

Verbal communication or written we can read things into. Photography, in every way is the poor relation in the world of communication, but on the other side of the coin it can also be the rich relation in every way.

"Photography is a language, a description, a vocabulary (among other things).

A photographer doesn't capture the world or herself. Photography is part of our human vocabulary, which is contingent upon our perspectives, cultural and historical location, and other unfixed considerations. Photography speaks."

I'd agree that a photograph "speaks" because that is what we do: we decode, or read, texts with language. It doesn't have to be a photograph, say, of a rock. The actual rock itself is a text and we decode it with language. Humans in language are like fish in water.

The viewer (including the photographer) decodes; the creator (the photographer) consciously or not, intentionally or not, encodes the photograph for later decoding by viewers. Language is like the air we breathe.

I prefer strong definitions rather than weak ones, so I will not consider any sort of "communication" as "language". I mean human language which nothing but humans have. So, in itself, the photographic image does not speak, neither the photograph of the rock or the rock itself. The issue then is the coding.

The photographer brings language to the exposure and most photographers, I gather, intend to encode the photograph with their message or their intention so that the viewer can decode it the way the photographer would like them to. The photographer may consider the photograph successful if they get feedback that indicates the viewers' decoding is what they intended. They hear the language coming back to them. The circuit is complete.

Language is something photographers bring to the exposure, but we don't have to code up the subject. We do not have to attempt to predetermine its 'speaking'. We can attempt to keep language out of it and let what is before the lens "speak" for itself. No photograph is silent to any viewer (unless a viewer is adept at meditation).

"and most photographers, I gather, intend to encode the photograph with their message or

their intention so that the viewer can decode it the way the photographer would like them

to"

I think it's looser than that. I think the "encoding" (I put it in quotes because I'm not

familiar with this kind of usage of the term) takes place whether intentional or not. I'm not

sure it's always a matter of "message" either, more of a personal stamp (due to individual

perspective, etc.).

In the cases where it is intentional, not all photographic expression is so explicit. In a

portrait, I may want to capture and convey genuine expression, but I may not think of it

(as the photographer) in terms of sadness, melancholy, joy, what have you. Yet the viewer

may see it that way. I have no problem with that difference.

The sexual ennui expressed in a lot of French films is not necessarily meant to make us

bored. Photographic and/or artistically significant form is sometimes meant to convey a

deeper "idea" of emotion rather than a particular emotion itself.

"we don't have to code up the subject. We do not have to attempt to predetermine its

'speaking'"

We are likely going to keep coming back here, no matter where it gets pushed to. I think

we don't have to make an attempt in order for our own human perspective to have already

predetermined (used in a loose sense, not in any way religious or in opposition to free

will) at least some of the meaning the photo of the rock will have. As above, it doesn't

have to be as explicit a meaning as "this rock is beautiful" or "this rock is dangerous" or

"this rock is in my way." But there will be some meaning in the fact that I shot the rock

with this exposure not that (even if on automatic) and from this angle not that and in this

lighting not that.

Here's the thing. I know what you mean when you say it speaks for itself, but I don't think

it can. It's speaking through a photograph which someone took at a certain time of day in

certain conditions using a camera with a certain lens and certain settings. All those things

create the tone of voice with which it's spoken. When we take the photo we will or won't

include background, we'll shoot sharp or soft, we'll carry with us a certain mood, all of

which infuses meaning into the pic in addition to what the rock "in the world" is saying.

That's why not only the photograph of the rock but the rock itself may say different things

to each of us.

"That's why not only the photograph of the rock but the rock itself may say different things to each of us."

I see no reason then to make an effort to encode my meanings into the photos I take (I am not saying they do not have meaning to me). I'm ok with light delineating forms.

"It's speaking through a photograph which someone took at a certain time of day in certain conditions using a camera with a certain lens and certain settings. All those things create the tone of voice with which it's spoken. When we take the photo we will or won't include background, we'll shoot sharp or soft, we'll carry with us a certain mood, all of which infuses meaning into the pic in addition to what the rock "in the world" is saying."

Well, yes. Those are given. In order to get a photographic image one must photograph something; that means utilizing the means and techniques of photography. There is no image on the exposed undeveloped film, nor in the raw data. There is, let's not forget, no image in front of the lens. Our subject is not an image. Our fundamental goal is to mimic human vision -- the photographic image. Even if our final goal is to composite pieces of 6 unrelated photos into an image that could only exist on a planet with three suns in the sky, it still mimics human vision. Even the transgression of this by distortions, something is being referenced to be distorted, and that is human vision.

On the register of reality of human vision there is no 'Heisenberg uncertainty' involved. Observation doesn't change the rock. The photograph of the rock doesn't change the rock itself. Like the rock, it is an object in its own right.

The personal significance of what I photograph is not something I want to encode in the photograph. All I can do for the viewer is try to get out of their way and let them find meaning or not in the photograph. They cannot share the moment photographed only this simulation, the photographic image. I try to create a photographic image that mimics what I observed of what has meaning for me, which is the impression it made in me.

At the other extreme: to attempt to overcome the natural tendency of people to find meaning as they do in everything there is, including one's photos, is to attempt to control their language. To strive to erase it and replace it with one's own is propaganda or advertising.

"Our fundamental goal is to mimic human vision . . . All I can do for the viewer is try to get

out of their way and let them find meaning or not in the photograph."

Would you be inclined, if it were practical, not to photograph things and instead to send

people to see for themselves the subjects you are photographing?

"Would you be inclined, if it were practical, not to photograph things"

No. It is my relationship with those things.

"...and instead to send people to see for themselves the subjects you are photographing?"

No. I'd rather they see for themselves their own world: family, streets, houses, neighborhoods...

In a way, my photography is a homage to W Eugene Smith because he showed a way of seeing my world through his Pittsburgh photos which I first saw as a kid at the library. There was a stack of prints and contact sheets on a shelf. This was only a few years after he finished shooting. Few are lucky enough to get a glimpse of their world through the eyes of a great photographer, especially when they were children.

I can't do that (neither Smith's forboding skills nor photograph other people's worlds -- or at least not too many). So, maybe my photo of the alley behind my house might encourage people to see the alley behind their house in a different light.

That's about it.

Don, I think bringing the discussion to a close (for at least this round) with this colorful

picture of your alleyway and that beautiful turquoise sky is appropriate. I'd say "thank you"

for showing me your way of seeing but I'm not sure how you'd feel about that

characterization :-)

No problem, Fred. It was the first sunny day in 3 months. I was longing for color and no snow, no ice, no howling winds 8-)

Regards

Once you start worrying about words like "existential" in photography ... you know you're in trouble......

Why must people place such demands on such a simple craft? If you want to be an artist, DO NOT WORRY about what others think for once you do, you're SUNK.

Photography is about the heart, not the mind......

These arguments are silly.

"Once you start worrying . . ."

Why conflate discussion with worry.

"These arguments are silly."

Then don't take part in them.

Asserting that it "speaks" is like asserting that it wiggles its ears.

"Communication does not have to be verbal,John. Really that is a one dimensional thought."

Allen, you're a rotten reader. I didn't assert that communication needed to be verbal.

Asserting that it "speaks" is like asserting that it wiggles its ears.

"Communication does not have to be verbal, John. Really that is a one dimensional thought."

Allen, you're a rotten reader. I didn't assert that communication needed to be verbal.

Sorry, John, if I misunderstood but I did not realize that you were telling folks that photographs do not have mouths in the literal sense of the word....i would have thought that was pretty obvious really. I enjoyed your thoughts on the moderator's post which were most entertaining.

John you are a "character" unfortunately there are too few about. I mean that in a most pleasant way despite the fact we disagree on many issues. Anyway, it's time for me to fondle my pro-consumer Nikon I think it's starting to miss me;)

"...a photograph "speaks" because that is what we do: we decode, or read, texts with language. It doesn't have to be a photograph, say, of a rock. The actual rock itself is a text and we decode it with language.

Allen, I won't identify the person I quoted above because the quotation is laughable (a rock is a rock, not a text, and a photograph is a photograph).

"Humans in language are like fish in water." Humans outside langage are also like fish in water. We are not creatures of language, we are creatures *with* language. Viewing photographs doesn't necessarily evoke words except among some neurotics...viewing may evoke nonverbal emotions in people who are less addicted to interpretation.

Our existence is not coded. Rocks are not coded. Codes exist in scientific hypotheses, paranoid dreams, and theologies (formulations designed to misguide).

Some claim photographs have "spoken to them," but that's poetic license at best (a good thing sometimes), BS as commonly (a less-good thing).