What is the value of novelty in appreciating photographs?

<p>Luis,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One is entitled to see anything, I suppose, but we are not seeing a pipe. We are seeing a representation of a pipe, transduced onto a 2-dimensional space, out of time, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tough. Because this way we might be entering the realm of sensorial perception. Dogs do not "see colours", bees apparently see only spots of colours and the sun.<br>

Apparently what we are seeing is an elaboration of our eyes and neurons.<br>

Magritte's work is a painting. A photograph in the majority of cases is something different. Ceci n'est pas une pipe is a representation of a pipe.<br>

But if a photographer would present us with the photograph of a pipe, we would see a pipe even if the photographer would intend to manipulate the projection of the picture stating that it is not a pipe.<br>

But that was Magritte's precise intention.<br>

As I said, the adjective "wrong" in association with "perception" or "response" is ... wrong. It should say "different" or "unintended".<br>

If the Morocco picture had no caption, I would have broadly identified the place, and I would be attracted by it in any case.</p>

 

<p>Luca, what do you think is the photographer's role in the photograph? And do you think that role really ends at the doorstep of the viewer? Do you think a photographer puts any sort of stamp on what he has seen? What's the difference, to you, between a pipe and a photograph of a pipe? If Steven Shore took a picture of a pipe and a German Expressionist from the 30s took a picture of a pipe, do you think you might be able to tell a difference and identify one as being from one photographer and the other as being from someone else? No doubt, there would be nothing fool proof about the identification, but there are many signs of authorship that can inform photos and their viewing. The viewer is NOT on his own, even though he has great freedom. Even freedom is not absolute, IMO. It is relational. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But that was Magritte's precise intention.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd be careful claiming what Magritte's precise intention was. Even if I were Magritte! And je ne suis pas Magritte. [Hope I got the French close to correct.]</p>

<p>:-)<br>

without the photographer there would be no photograph to look at.<br>

Of course there is a relation, but here there is the hypothesis of separation of author and viewer, even if it is merely theoretical.<br>

And also there are other influences, supporting your Shore/German expressionist example.</p>

<p>Luca, sorry, don't know what you're saying.</p>

<p>I don't know how what you're saying works. "Of course there is a relation" and "but here there is the hypothesis of separation of author and viewer." What's the relation and what's the separation is my question? What do you mean when you say the photographer loses all control once the photo is in the viewer's hands. That doesn't sound like a relation to me. It sounds like a rift.</p>

<p>______________________</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Without the photographer there would be no photograph to look at."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true. Is that what you think is the extent of the photographer's affect/influence/control? That there wouldn't be a photograph without him . . . and nothing more? I'm not clear on where your answer gets us and if you think that's it or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you're into embodied cognition, being <em>is</em> movement with/in/to/from (eyes, head, body, etc.); to verify, to locate, to position to interact etc. etc. You can take it from there ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, I was earnestly asking you for a clarification of what you are saying here. I don't understand it and would like to. It was a serious question about the difference between a photo and other objects in terms of the perception possibilities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course there is a relation, but here there is the hypothesis of separation of author and viewer, even if it is merely theoretical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, the photographer produces a photo. When the viewer is exposed to it a relationship is created. The "direction" of this relationship should however be difficult to predict. I am also unsure on how much control in general the photographer has over the reaction and response of the viewer.<br>

Once the image is passed on, who can say what the authentic relation is, its content?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once the image is passed on, who can say what the authentic relation is, its content?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's important to consider beyond "who can say?" It's, for me, at least, a very important aspect of the communication part of photography. I want to be able to communicate. That's why I learn a language, and photography can serve as a visual language. That is much less strict, much less literal, and much less direct than the spoken or written word, but it is a language nonetheless. Assuming that signs, signifiers, and symbols are recognized and have some sort of shared emotional thrust (if not shared literal meaning), assuming that my choices will have an effect on the eye movement of a viewer, that my perspective will suggest a certain tone, that my voice will carry through a body of work, all tells me that what I put into a photo is more important than just my doing it. It has to mean SOMETHING to the eventual viewer or at least have an effect, even if I can't predict it verbatim. This is not about translating nor is it about certainty. But it is about sharing and it is about communicating. That requires, IMO, that I consider what it is I put into a photo that has an effect. No, I don't necessarily consider it consciously when I'm making a photo. But I am a part of my photos enough to know that the viewer's response does not simply take place in their own vacuum. I have established a connection, through the photo. I don't know why I would share photos if there weren't more to my role in their being than just having produced them. I'm not just a name on a plaque in a gallery.</p>

<p>Uncertainty about the relation seems a good start and it will always remain so. But that doesn't mean the relation is severed when the viewer is given the photo. Uncertainty is a good place to be. It shouldn't make us suspicious that there is no place. Uncertainty, IMO, is part of the beauty of photographic communication. It doesn't undermine it.</p>

<p>"Embodied"; where to begin? Surely you're familiar with phenomenology? (Merleau-Ponty; "The theory of the body is already a theory of perception" and "Vision is palpation with the look.") Below is some from Alva Noë's <em>Action in Perception</em>:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The world makes itself available to the perceiver through physical movement and interaction. ... I argue that all perception is touch-like in this way: Perceptual experience acquires content thanks to our possession of bodily skills. <em>What we perceive</em> is determined by <em>what we do</em> (or what we know how to do); it is determined by what we are <em>ready</em> to do. In ways I try to make precise, we <em>enact</em> our perceptual experience; we act it out.</p>

<p>"To be a perceiver is to understand, implicitly, the effects of movement on sensory stimulation. Examples are ready to hand. An object looms larger in the visual field as we approach it, and its profile deforms as we move about it. A sound grows louder as we move nearer to its source. Movement of the hand over the surface of an object give rise to shifting sensations. As perceivers we are masters of this sort of pattern of sensorimotor dependence. This mastery shows itself in the thoughtless automaticity with which we move our eyes, head and body in taking in what is around us. We spontaneously crane our necks, peer, squint, reach for our glasses, or draw near to get a better look (or better to handle, sniff, lick or listen to what interests us). The central claim of what I call <em>the enactive approach</em> is that our ability to perceive not only depends on, but is constituted by, our possession of this sort of sensorimotor knowledge."</p>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p>"We are not given the visual world all at once as in a picture; we must reach out and grasp the detail (as it were) by movements of our eyes and head. We possess the sensorimotor knowledge to be effective in our exporation. It is this mastery that is the basis of our sense of the presence to vision of what is in fact beyond our reach. It is this mastery that is the basis of perceptual content."</p>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p>" ... to engage in phenomenology is, if the enactive view is right, to study the way in which perceptual experience -- mere experience, if you like -- acquires world-presenting content. For the world as a domain of facts is given to us thanks to the fact that we inhabit the world as a domain of activity."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, yes, Julie, familiar with much of that. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was hoping you could specifically relate the idea of embodied cognition to my question about the difference between a photograph and a tree or table re: authorship. What happened was you answered my question about the difference between a table and a photograph by stating and describing "embodied cognition" and I didn't understand how it was answering the question. Sorry for being dense. You suggested I could take it from there and I can't.</p>

<p>In a teeny-tiny nutshell:</p>

<p>As you move (eyes, head, body) around a table, it confirms or rejects conjectures about it (nearer, farther, wider, thinner, thicker, heavier; you can or cannot lift or move it, it is hard or rough or dark or light, etc.). At the same time, the table confirms or rejects conjectures about you. You are nearer, taller, shorter, stronger, etc. etc. as confirmed by the table (along with everything else of the world). The table is made by these confirmations; you are made by the confirmations of the world. But (as you know, phenomenologically) these two are not two, but one inseparable, ongoing union. We are made by and of our body in the world.</p>

<p>A picture of a table, on the other hand, confirms only one presentation. Therefore all other presentations are left neither confirmed nor rejected (if we choose to see the presentation as "a table" and not a piece of inked paper). Depending on how imaginative you are, this means you either can fabricate at liberty, or ... not.</p>

<p>But remember that, as your movement makes the world, the world makes you; in this respect, the picture of a table leaves you largely "unmade."</p>

<p>Got it, thanks. It's actually a rather big nutshell!</p>

Probably the value of novelty is only for a superficial viewer. If I only appreciate a photo because it shows something

"exotic" to me I have done no effort whatsoever to put my understanding, intelligence and skill into viewing. The surprising

is "easy", the challenge is to try and go beyond. The ability of the viewer is to appreciate if any subject, known or not, is

photographed and presented "well".