Essence in Photograph

<p>Off topic....</p><div></div>

<p>The real essence of huminity is offering a helping hand to our fellows.</p>

<p>Beyond greed, self gratification....behold self.</p>

<p>The ultimate drug....the open hand to our brothers/sisters in humanity.</p>

<p>To walk with them in our little moment of time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By the way, just ran across <a href="/photo/14363895">THIS PHOTO</a>, which I think is narrative.</p>

<p>Kudos to Line Martel for telling this story with a picture.</p>

<p>And just to make me skeptical of my own skepticism about essences, I may still not know the essence of this particular child, but the photo seems to capture some of the essentials of childhood, parenthood, feeling protected, and love. Normally, I'm not such a romantic, but I've been allowing myself that liberty lately . . . on occasion!</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>Michael, I think you hit on something with abstraction. Essence is an abstract concept. It almost has to be. Since there's likely something essential about form, in that it is a distillation of what is, in that it is structural, abstracting something via photographing it (often absent a context and absent literal content) might be an entryway into something's essence (again, if there is such a thing, which I still doubt in my own curmudgeonly way).</p>

<p>I would rather stay on the hard core realistic patch and maintain there's no one essence [in person] to capture in photograph and alternatives are too great many to mention. Mike Weaver told me once: " The constancy of physical ambiguity, the tendency of the mind to perceive one thing as another ... " and so on basically make it an undeteminable variable passing the ball to the realms of games. Much of this essence talk can be easily reduced to primitive longing for transpersonification IMO.</p>

<p>"* <em>Transpersonification </em>is a word coined by Łobaczewski to describe the negative effects on the mind and personality from persons with certain inherited or acquired psychopathologies."</p>

<p>Ilia, are you not a bit off course here?</p>

<p>However, regarding essence, my favourite definition of essence, via the OED, is:<br /> "A property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is"</p>

<p>From what I can gather from other comments and my own here here, no complete portrayal of the essence of a subject may be possible by the limited means of a photograph.However I believe that an approximation to that essence is clearly possible.</p>

<p>It also varies from subject to subject (Is not a block of wood easier to ascribe an essence to than a person?) and with the approach of the photographer (To an artist "the world is a beautiful blue orange". Essence and reality are not necessarily apparent bed-fellows).</p>

<p>What I consider as essence of a subject may be different than you. I am also happy with just a fractal (sorry for that word again) of the overall essence, rather than a full portrayal. What I don't know about the essence of something is often as alluring as what I do know (or think I do).</p>

<p>If we describe not the essence of a subject but instead the essence of a photograph, the latter is an apparently easier task (but I won't go there for the moment, as it wasn't the specific subject of the OP's question).</p>

<p>(I also don't see much essence in the foregoing four images; what essence they purport show to the photographer may possibly be related to other factors or influences outside of the photographed subject and not conveyed in the image itself) </p>

<p><em>"no complete portrayal of the essence of a subject may be possible by the limited means of a photograph"</em></p>

<p>Arthur, I agree with you.</p>

<p>And I would especially want to add that no complete portrayal of the essence of a subject may be possible by any means conceivable, be it photo, essay, novel, Bible, movie, painting, series of paintings, book of photos, finger painting, coloring book, Torah, architectural blue print, driver's license . . .</p>

<p>The interesting question, for me, is not what a photo or all these other things can't possibly do but what a photo <em>can</em> do and if there's something special or unique a photo might do in portraying a subject that other means are not as good at.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>That's where I think Michael has made a very good point, and Ellis had already brought it up earlier, in bringing abstraction into the mix.</p>

<p>Because a photo is a stilled moment, it may be operating, in some ways, at a more abstract level than a lot of other means by which we might encounter a subject. For me, a still photo commands in many instances a heightened focus of attention on its subject that greatly affects the portrayal of that subject. And because the subject is taken out of time and often out of context, a natural abstraction (even when the subject is completely recognizable) takes place. That sense of abstraction occurs even in genres other than "abstract" photos, because of the time and space changes. This may be why a photo can strike us uniquely and in a very special way and I think saying that the photo captures the essence is really just a way to express that specialness without really necessarily meaning we have encountered the property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is. I think most people who claim a photo captures the essence mean that the photo captures something very special for them and has clued them into something and focused their attention in a significant way. And they're right, unless we get so hung up on the word "essence" that we miss their actual point.</p>

>>> And they're right, unless we get so hung up on the word "essence" that we miss their actual point.

 

I don't think "we" are missing the actual point. It ("Is it possible to capture a subject's essence in a

photograph?") was an excellent question that was worth posing and then sussing out in the discussion. Some may have

reflexively assumed yes, that it was possible, but were likely thinking of some portraits

having power/energy/intensity/the power to reveal/connection/etc.

 

>>> The interesting question, for me, is not what a photo or all these other things can't possibly do but what a

photo can do and if there's something special or unique a photo might do in portraying a subject that other

means are not as good at.

 

And that's what making portraits and good portraiture are about - speaking for myself. I suspect that's true with many others as well.

<p><em>"no complete portrayal of the essence of a subject may be possible by the limited means of a photograph"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>So if we generally agree that a living subject's diverse facets don't allow themselves to be distilled into a single essence, do we generally agree that photography is adept at portraying the essence of a facet and/or a set of thematically related fractals?</p>

<p>Fred offered a photo (<a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00cfIX?start=50">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00cfIX?start=50</a>) from Line Martel as capturing enough of the essentials of childhood, parenthood, etc., a distillation while being a blend too. An example of mine is a coyote father with it's prodigal son. I think with Line's, mine, there is in those presentations something to relate to, something to empathize with and for my composition it was an accident because the action was taking place too far away for the eye to distinguish the details. If mine is an empathetic presentation it was an accident. Line's is intentional, where the empathy we feel is also Line's empathy toward his subjects. On the other end of the empathy spectrum, from my point of view, are Alan's, Brad's street shots, where if there is something about the subject's to empathize with in the subjects I fail to see it. For some unknown reason, the empathy of the photographer isn't making it into the work at least from my point of view. That lack of response in me may be because of my own limited experience of city life where I don't have within me access to whatever empathetic Avedon like cues that may be present? Instead I just see a collection of unredeemed lost or damaged souls portrayed. There may be more there but I fail to see it.</p><div></div>

<p>Thoughtful comments, Fred, Brad and Charles!</p>

<p><em>"Because a photo is a stilled moment, it may be operating, in some ways, at a more abstract level than a lot of other means"</em></p>

<p>That is right on. I like that. The moment is not repeatable, is unique, and, as Fred suggests, abstract. An abstraction that may or may not be special, but often something which we or others normally do not see, and thereby of interest or curiosity. Unlike other forms of creation/communication, and despite its sometimes careful planning or intent, the photograph can surprise even the photographer. It cannot normally then be revised or rewritten (notwithstanding Photoshop), like a book, a poem, a painting (Botero never finishes his paintings quickly, often letting months go by, inspecting them from time to time using a mirror, and successive retouchings) or a discourse. What happened is what you get, and some sort of abstraction from the occurence of a continuity. A fragment.</p>

<p>What I get out of Fred's last set of comments, as interpreted by Arthur and Charles, is that perhaps every photograph is an abstraction. The difference between photo1 and photo2 may be a matter of degree, or a matter of context, or a matter of <em>genre</em>, or . . .</p>

<p>" perhaps every photograph is an abstraction'</p>

<p>I think by trying to define photography with a word or words is misleading. Photographs have their own language which speak to us in their own way......</p>

<p>Their language is unique to them and has its own mysterious way of communicating on a sublime level.</p>

<p>Really enjoyed the photos on this post " cut above the average".</p>

<p>Thanks Fred to a link to a superb photo.... Really liked the coyote photo; difficult and challenging photos to capture...which have an honesty.</p>

<p>Allen, I agree that seeking definitions sometimes can narrow one's point of view. I also agree that communication takes many forms.<br>

I don't think I was trying to define photography with the OP or with the subsequent comments I made. Rather, I think all of us are trying to get a better handle on this sometimes maddening, sometimes enlightening endeavor in which we are engaged. That was my intent.</p>

<p>"to get a better handle on this sometimes maddening, sometimes enlightening endeavor in which we are engaged. That was my intent".</p>

<p>Excellent post.</p>

<p>Unless we try to understand/discuss.....what will we discover?</p>

<p>Discovery too is process. It's the activity that's more meaningful than the goal.</p>

<p>Any 'essence' in a photograph can only be the perceived one by the viewer. The essence of the moment may be accidental on the photographers part, or it can be thoroughly planned...and everything in between. <br>

Why can some photographers seemingly grab the essence of the moment more often than others? Probably because of their empathy to the subject at that moment. Which harks back to the very first thing I wrote.<br>

Essence as I understand its meaning in this thread is transitory...appearing and disappearing. If time is truly an arrow then essence is merely its attribute at an infinitesimally tiny moment in its path. <br>

...or essence may be quantum in nature, and merely a manifestation created by the observer.</p>

<p>Contradictory? Obfuscated? No wonder in that, it is the same dilemma as the old Greeks faced in trying to define beauty, or goodness, or any other virtue.</p>

<p>I think the essence of a photo is what the photographer wishes to capture. It could be anything ranging from an emotion or a feeling to a tangible quite visible scene.</p>

<p>What is the subject's essence? The subject's essence is that it reflects light. What light and how it's captured is the creative domain of all photography.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Since Avedon has been brought up, I think it is a good idea to watch the PBS "American Masters" portrait "Richard Avedon - Darkness and Light" and the 1999 Charlie Rose interview with Avedon. Both are on YouTube.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I saw the Charlie Rose interview when it first aired. Avedon's words have inspired me every day since.</p>