When does photographic understatement succeed?

<p>Julie said:</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p><strong>Matt Fahrner</strong> [Oct 18, 05:25 p.m.] said: "My favorite photos have usually come when I was most into the moment, but least inside my head. When I was able to "feel" the photograph and let myself go to capture it."<br>

What about before? How did you get there? To that moment? I can't think of any endeavor where I could, without mental preparation or schooling, do a good job of it.<br>

There is a long, long tail of directedness that trails behind you wherever and whenever you are imagining that you are somehow perfectly virginal there in your "moment."</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I know this is a side track from the OP but I feel compelled to comment here. I agree with both Matt and Julie. I think the confusion is about what is going on at the "moment" or "moments" that one is concentrating on taking the photograph. I have been aware for decades that when approaching a potential photograph I very often "go into" what can be best described as an altered state of consciousness or trance state. If you study hypnosis you'll know what I mean. In this "state" I am conscious of only the visual world in a heightened sense. All my history, learnings, experience, etc. ("long trail of directedness") is certainly working in my brain too, but at an unconscious level, and I trust it to be there to guide my decision making. This is not something that I learned; it just developed on its own. It sounds like Matt experiences something like that as well. I don't believe this denies all the preparation that came beforehand, it just is a recognition that you can just let your "unconscious" guide you and to trust that guidance. I gather from other folks that the process is much more conscious and thought out. It just shows that we humans have variations in how we process and work, like different types of personalities.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, this writer did not "poeticize." He seems to be intentionally obfuscating. He has not written about communicative aspects of photography. He is woefully non-communicative.</p>

<p>Comments about photographs can be responsive, observational, descriptive, visual, and emotional without being either poetic or boringly technical.</p>

<p>I'm not too concerned with understanding your photo.</p>

<p><em>Addition:</em> Moonscape is a nice metaphor and visual. That's a plus.</p>

<p>"I'm not too concerned with understanding your photo."</p>

<p>Fred, I am afraid you have lost me there, or you have also obfuscated a little in saying this, as you have just mentioned in your prior sentence that images can affect one in an emotional manner, and such understanding and such accompanying reaction can be part of the viewer's comments. That is surprising as the Fred Goldsmith I have read here often seeks his photos to be understood by the viewer (while no doubt honestly agreeing that such understanding can be different than his own).</p>

<p>Understanding photos is part of the communication in photography and other art. We do not simply react to simple visual stimuli. I believe that there is more to observing than that. You say that you are<strong> not concerned with understanding someone's photo. </strong>I ask you, is that not a rather snobbish or even disdainful approach to photography (or indeed any other communication)? Perhaps I missed your point? I apologize if I have.</p>

<p>Arthur, either I've been unclear about understanding or you've been missing my point about it for weeks. You choose to see my talking about reacting with emotion and describing that as a form of understanding. You are right, there is a little disdain and snobbery at play here. I don't hesitate to admit that.</p>

<p>I can't think of recent instances where I encouraged or wanted someone to understand a photo of mine. As a matter of fact, on several recent occasions I've been accused of evasiveness, which I admitted to. I am more likely to explain my process than my photo. I tried, perhaphs unsuccessfully, to describe the photo of Bill and to put it in the context of this thread, not understand or explain it. At some point, we might discuss the differences between understanding, explanation, and description, but that would quickly become about words, not photos.</p>

<p><em>Addition:</em> I said I was not interested in understanding your photo, not someone's, and not everyone's at all times and in all situations.</p>

<p>Fred, I understand your point about description versus understanding, even though I have not given time to reading all yours or everyone's comments so far (it does take a monk's devotion at times, given the extensive writing). Description is fine as far as it goes, but for me the real purpose of art and photography is communication. Life is reflection (at one extreme, the monk or philosopher) and action, but also very much our feeble attempts at artistic and human communications. I often accept works of artists I don't fully understand at my seasonal gallery. There is enough there to make me curious, but that is it. I let the clients decide. I do enjoy the fact that there work is individual (often abstract) and might interest some.</p>

<p>Some of my artists are quite disdaining of the work of others, which is not something I feel comfortable with. When I cannot be constructive about another's work I tend to say little (and like everyone, I'm sure, I feel there is some work at Photo.Net from even serious photographers that seems quite banal to me, overly iconic or precious or stereotyped, and I prefer not to engage in comments on their work, if only because of my very different outlook and my comments would not likely be useful to them - there is a too great gap in interpretation or observation). The work I may feel to be inferior (the Van Gogh appreciation syndrome) may well survive and flourish in the eyes of others. Again, I quite appreciate what you have commented. </p>

<p><strong>Arthur - </strong>John's Chevrolet picture is the third from the viewer's left on the top row. The car is barely visible in the thumb. It's in the foreground, to the lower right side.</p>

<p>The critic who wrote that review of your picture was way over the top, IMO. I have read further and see you agree. In your picture, the gestural eloquence is the salient point, which, like Fred, I find iconic, but I find the composition somewhat antagonistic to that.</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

 

<p><strong>Matt Fahrner</strong> - "My favorite photos have usually come when I was most into the moment, but least inside my head. When I was able to "feel" the photograph and let myself go to capture it."<br>

<strong>Julie - "</strong>What about before? How did you get there? To that moment? I can't think of any endeavor where I could, without mental preparation or schooling, do a good job of it.<br>

There is a long, long tail of directedness that trails behind you wherever and whenever you are imagining that you are somehow perfectly virginal there in your "moment."</p>

<p>In all fairness, don't see where Matt said or indicated he re-virginizes himself or is born-again between pictures. Letting go of the self is hardly a new thing in the art world (and one can see it often in the scientific world, as in the story of Paul Dirac getting caught in a downpour in between buildings at Harvard, and stopping at an intersection and waiting for a red light to change, staring at that little red orb in the stoplight while getting drenched, he had one of the greatest ideas of the age come to him).</p>

<p><strong>John - "</strong>The conceit that we are able to photograph "instinctively" begins with a misuse of that term and continues with lack of awareness our own ability to quickly juggle incredible amounts of internal and external information."</p>

<p>No one used the word "instinct", so there is no misuse to speak of, nor conceit. Nor is anyone suggesting that the processing is happening outside of one's being, or that it happens without antecedents.</p>

<p>"You have described only too well", replied the Master, "where the</p>

<p>difficulty lies. Do you know why you cannot wait for the shot and why</p>

<p>you get out of breath before it has come? The right shot at the right</p>

<p>moment does not come because you do not let go of yourself. You do not</p>

<p>wait for fulfillment, but brace yourself for failure."</p>

<p> ---- Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery<strong> </strong></p>

<p><strong>John - "</strong>Why rush? Does lightning speed, combined with ignorance about one's own capabilities produce remarkable imag</p>

 

<p> Sometimes the moment, for a multitude of reasons, is fleeting. Life and light can be like that. Lightning speed does not equate with rushing. It only looks like rushing to the uninitiated. To the practiced, it is calmness. This is why it often looks so effortless & graceful. To answer your question, yes, speed can result in remarkable images. But working intuitively does not always mean working rapidly. Nothing guarantees great images.</p>

<p>Now, if by the above you meant to work contemplatively, then we agree.</p>

<p>*Disclaimer* Before anyone attacks, or gets their strap in a knot, no one here working intuitively has claimed it to be a superior way of working, only how they work.</p>

 

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,</p>

<p>I don't believe any scientist would claim to have (been able to) let go of his self. To your description of any act or thought that you claim was done by a person without self, I will ask you "Why did it happen?" and whatever your answer, I will again ask "And why did <em>that</em> happen?" until ultimately you will have to either admit that the person did it because of what he is -- what his history has formed him to be, of which he is an inseparable part, of which he is made -- or you will have to claim an uncaused cause and that I do not believe in.</p>

<p>Luis, I'm interested in people's experiences. Experiences aren't subject to agreement or disagreement.</p>

<p>I'm especially interested in the ways in which people work, or think they work, in relation to the work they share, or at least work by others to which point. When there are no images of either sort it's like referring to a deity using neither vowels (G-d) nor consonants (- - -).</p>

<p><em>"*Disclaimer* Before anyone attacks, or gets their strap in a knot, no one here working intuitively has claimed it to be a superior way of working, only how they work." - </em><strong>Luis </strong> <br>

Some here do claim to work that way and others obviously do (in their photos). Nobody's claimed it to be "superior." However, I think that in terms of images, it tends to be an "inferior" approach.</p>

<p>As a traditional archer (wooden bows, wooden arrows) and appreciator of Herrigel on zen archery (Kyodo), I understand why it's mentioned in relation to snapshooting :-) In fact, among traditional American archers the same sort of discussion goes on, as most of us carelessly do use "instinctive" to describe the seemingly instantaneous way in which we draw and release, in moments and seemingly without aiming (effectively same as Kyodo, different words). The fact remains that a formal discipline must be employed in every shot, it's never completely mindless. Zen practitioners, including Kyodo archers, aspire to "empty mind", but don't necessarily achieve it. In fact, the last thing such an archer notices the microsecond before release is likely to be what he then hits, and that's often not his intended spot. As well, the smaller the spot, the more accurate at the same distance...not a bad parallel to photography by people who have defined what they're after.</p>

<p>Archery and photography typically diverge at the point of intentionality.</p>

<p>An archer does have a very specific intention. In Kyodo, that is only the discipline (like training) until the point at which s/he first looses an arrow...and the flight of that arrow is simply an extension of the discipline. Photography tends to use technology to evade discipline (autofocus, auto-meter, digital, Lightroom etc). If one merely points and shoots, one may not exist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some here do claim to work that way and others obviously do (in their photos). Nobody's claimed it to be "superior." However, I think that in terms of images, it tends to be an "inferior" approach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I understand the reference you make to archery and that "a formal discipline must be employed in every shot, it's never completely mindless". Could I invite you to elaborate on this with reference to only one type of photography such as "street photography".</p>

<p>Personally I would never suggest that I leave my brain home, when I go out shooting photos. I shoot what shouts to me, but I surely track such places and such lights, recalling them at different seasons and times of the day, and I would never leave what ever I have got of technical skills behind. What I don't do, is consciously to interpret scenes, giving them meaning, beyond what I see. This come later. I'm not blind from the fact however that what shouts to me have that effect due to what I know about the social events, structures, behaviors etc around me - unconscious interpretations of what I see is surely active. I will not again quote Descartes.</p>

 

<p><strong>Fred, Luis,</strong></p>

<p>Just to put things into accurate context, the critic was referring to a showing of some 16 images which were relate to the two photos I have put in my PNET portfolio. While I have my feelings about some of the hyperbole used by the critic, a real appreciation here by anyone of his remarks would really need to take into account the entire exhibition (“Espaces Temporels”) of sixteen 12 x 16 and 10 x 14 (or their portrait format equivalent) prints.</p>

<p>Understanding and interpreting an image can be simply a visceral experience (like drinking wine but in the absence of conversation), as with texture, light, sensual visibleness (something which I too thoroughly enjoy making at times), or it can go beyond that, in inciting the viewer to think about (understand) other messages that are inherent, although often hidden at first sight, in the visible matter. An understated photograph may be such an image, in that it has the potential to communicate more to the receptive viewer. I agree tat we do not always want to understand every image we see. We are constrained by our own background, value judgement, culture and ability to do so. Not an easy thing to realize by the photographer, but one that in my mind that is worth striving for and one that can give real wings to a medium that often is practiced and contemplated on a superficial level. My OP that dealt with the communication of the immaterial in photography sought to share with and receive from others ideas in that regard, just as I believe Landrum may well have been seeking (or could have been seeking) in the present OP. </p>

<p> Nobody "understands" a photograph in verbal terms. If they're honest they describe what they see (graphically, tonally etc) and how it affects them (ie how they feel in response). </p>

<p>Interpretation is theft or deceit. The interpreter endeavors to steal someone else's image by "interpreting" it...or if s/he claims to interpret his/her own image, s/he is working hard to prevent the viewer from responding honestly. Again, see <a href="http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/sontag-againstinterpretation.html">http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/sontag-againstinterpretation.html</a></p>

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, I am not the best person to address "types" of photography. I don't like them. I prefer to think about the work of individuals....that of Anders, or Fred, or Arthur, or Luis, or my own for example. You can see some of my unfortunate thinking on last week's "street" ethics/morals/law thread.</p>

<p>And yes, Descartes is relevant.</p>

<p>Lannie didn't just ask about understatement. He also asked about the "success" of images.</p>

<p>My response is that side of his OT is that we too easily attribute success to "liking." Some of my images distress me, I wonder if I hate them : I just printed 9 of one of those, sent them to a print exchange to see what others would say... "success" might be getting complex, harsh responses.</p>

<p>The greatest sin is to be boring (according to Christopher Hitchins' mother). I think successful photos of some very popular subjects are almost non-existant.</p>

 

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>I don't believe any scientist would claim to have (been able to) let go of his self."</p>

<p>Seriously? What on earth would make you say that? Believe this (and I am sure there are more, this took a few seconds to find):</p>

<p>"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself." -- Albert Einstein.</p>

<p>What do you make of that? What do you suppose he meant? Schizophrenia? An extra uptown body/mind? Was he ignorant of causality? Was he too dense to imagine your logical rebuttal? Is it possible he's right? That there are aspects of living many have not experienced? Excluded themselves from because of their biases? I think it's true of me and maybe one or two others on the planet.</p>

<p>Like most communications on this forum, this one is as full of misunderstandings as it can possibly be.</p>

<p>[bTW, Arthur, these are <em>my</em> disappointments with this forum, the inability of its participants to consider/entertain anything beyond their own personal dogma for a moment, the possibility that there is something in a remote corner of the universe they might not know or understand, that others do know about and experience, and I am not talking specifically about Julie, who is often the shining exception in all this. Having someone flatly deny your own experience to your face on PN is commonplace. Look at John, gleefully and disrespectfully calling that way of working "inferior".]</p>

<p>Letting go of yourself is not literally a disassociative fugue. Nor is it an escape-from-Alcatraz type breakout from who you are to become another persona, a temp extradimensional disco-killer/ psycho-floater, or a Boltzmann brain.</p>

<p>Time for me to go back to recommending lenses for beginners.</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

<p>Luis, you intentionally twisted what I said in relation to snapshooting.<br>

Here is what I said: <br>

<em>"... I think that in terms of images, it tends to be an "inferior" approach." </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That's my personal impression. I don't find all photos or techniques equal, kumbayah. Some approaches and photos are superior, others are inferior.</p>

<p>You are of course free to attempt some kind of personal case . Go ahead, be bold, speak for yourself...you may find it fun...you don't need to use me as an excuse.</p>

<p> Julie, maybe to me, your example of the movie isn't perfect in that I suppose you can argue about what is foreground and background in the scene you described, nonetheless for what it's worth, you are about the only person who's posted in this thread that has made any sense to me. Hmmm understatement based on understanding..I like it.</p>

<p>Thanks <strong>Barry</strong>. I'm especially happy that you brought up the <em>Man For All Seasons</em> post because I've been thinking about it and trying to decide if it was worth dredging it up for a further post ... so this is your fault :)</p>

<p>If understatement is dependent on awareness of something more that could have been shown, it depends on the viewer being aware of whatever that not-shown thing might be. In the case of the Scofield/More scene, it assumes that you know that he's there to be killed. But presumably, somewhere in the world, there are people who don't know that a masked man with an axe would be there to cut off your head. To them, the scene I described would not be an understatment. It might not even make any sense at all. So understatement seems to require prior knowledge/experience of history or genre or stereotype, etc.</p>

<p>I think that <strong>Lannie's</strong> old houses work (or not) as understatements not because they are old but because they are visibly abandoned. It's "house as home" with all that "home" encapsulates that is being understated becuase the "home-ness" has been left empty.</p>

<p>This point was further illustrated, for me, with <strong>Fred's</strong> <a href="../photo/11679431&size=lg">Bill picture</a>. When he posted it, I didn't find it to be an understatement. But in the interim, I bought two Graphis Nudes annuals (on sale at Daedelus books ... ) and, while looking through those annuals (commercial art -- think Herb Ritts and Albert Watson) I happened to think of Fred's picture. And in that context, his picture became absolutely and unquestionably an understatement. The Graphis nudes are typical of the genre -- stretched, contorted, oiled, buffed, on seamless or linen or satin or some bizarre background. When I think of Fred's picture as I'm looking at the commercial nudes (which are very good, by the way), by not being of the genre, not being contorted, not being oiled, not being on seamless, etc. as a nude, Fred's Bill becomes extremely understated to the extent that I look at it "as a nude." Actually, what happens almost sumultaneously, is, for me, Bill turns into what I believe it was/is meant to be, which is a portrait, not "a nude."</p>

<p>It's the absent "nude genre" that leaves Bill as either a very understated nude or not a "nude" at all. But I only get that or felt that in the context of being immersed in a book of the "nude genre." In this case (for me) the missing nude genre does the same thing as the missing violence did in the movie scene.</p>

<p>An understated photo<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3110057">http://www.photo.net/photo/3110057</a></p>

<p dir="ltr">I believe the familiar shot in a dull way is 'understated'.</p>

</p>

<p>Perceptive comment, Julie.</p>

<p>Bill was very much an individual to me, especially in that moment in that place, but he is also part of my deliberate (a key word that Steve and John have used) exploration of human type and photographic genre. That's why I brought up my body of work (and I notice John did as well).</p>

<p>Understatement can be approached as a matter of expectation (flouting or questioning a genre or type, or a matter-of-fact as compared to a pointed or melodramatic approach) and also from a more strictly visual perspective, the play of figure and ground.</p>

<p>John's observation makes sense to me. The word "understatement" can be misleading if I don't accept that there's a difference between "statement" being used metaphorically, as in "visual statement", and more literally as in a written or verbal one. "Understanding," if it is to be used at all, does well to take this difference into account.</p>

<p>I think "appreciation" is a term some of us might find apt. </p>

<p>If one "appreciates" an image in some way, one is likely to do it in one's own way and to one's own ability. If one's ability mostly has to do with appreciation of "pretty" or "poignant" or "graphically refined," that's fine. That reflects their ability. Ability can increase with experience and effort...or it can be static, even decline.</p>

<p>Assertions that images are "over" or "under" stated seem incosequential, have mostly to do with one's personal benchmarks and comfort factors. ie yours may not be at all similar to those of somene else.</p>

<p>When I appreciate an image I may dislike it in the exreme or respond positively to it...but I do notice that it stands apart in some way.</p>

<p>It doesn't necessarily "leap out," but it does stand apart. <strong>"Standing apart"</strong> seems to me to be the nature of <strong>"significant."</strong> A happy or unhappy-seeming image that reminds me of other images is unlikely to be significant to me. Greeting cards serve that purpose. </p>

<p><em>Do we see things as they are?</em></p>

<p><em>Or as we are?<br /></em></p>