WEEKLY DISCUSSION 2.0 #13 - Imogen Cunningham

<p>All Im saying...</p>

<p>If you entered a deserted building and there was a dirty torn photo on the floor it would instantly communicate to you in its own language. It would tell you a story. With more information perhaps it would be a more fulfilling story or perhaps not. Subjective.</p>

<p>That's what I mean when I say a photograph can "stand alone".</p>

<p>http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/starry-night.html</p>

<p>It is just so very special... I do not need to know anything about who painted it or why to understand the Art it communicates. Yes, I would like to know everything about the Artist and the whys and wherefores'...</p>

<p>But it easily stands alone as a masterpiece.</p>

Some things that come natural to us require an effort, work. Requiring that effort, work, is not in opposition with being something we like to do or something that comes naturally. Your language example: yes, it would tell me a story, in its own language. I need to understand that language, need to know, i.e. learn that language. Work. And that message may require some mental effort on my part for me to get it. And to fully understand i may need to know more. Remember my "it's terrible" example? You needed more to know what those few and easy words meant.<br>And that's not about subjective or not. I understand that you understand "subjective" as meaning "how i understand something", and oppose that to "what the work of art means in itself". That work of art, that photograph is a carrier of the subjective view of whoever made it. That work of art can only stand alone if we assume that it, that message, is formed so perfectly that it cannot be misunderstood "subjectively". Very few, if any, are. There is always that "subjective" something, something we need to do to decipher it, something we bring to the work of art ourselves. Works of art depend on that. Most assume that you know the discourse the message is part of. And often it is indeed trivial, so our effort invisible. But it is always required. No photograph can stand alone.<br><br>Your van Gogh example: is that painting so very special?

<p>Allen, as mentioned "art...<em>is a great mansion with many, many rooms to visit</em>". <br>

You are stubbornly insisting, that the room you are strolling around in, is the only room that exist. Your choice! No-one would force you out of it! Free world ! etc. <br>

BUT, just accept, that there are in fact so many other rooms to explore when contemplating art and that some of us are strolling around elsewhere in the mansion, from room to room - with the greatest joy and enlightenment. </p>

<p>"Allen, as mentioned "art...<em >is a great mansion with many, many rooms to visit</em>". <br />You are stubbornly insisting, that the room you are strolling around in, is the only room that exist. Your choice! No-one would force you out of it! Free world ! etc."<br>

<br>

Free world! are we on the same planet?<br /><br>

Anders, you are stubbornly refusing to undestand what Im saying and putting words into my mouth;)<br /><br>

All Im saying...</p>

 

<p >If you entered a deserted building and there was a dirty torn <a id="itxthook6" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00dZRv?start=160" rel="nofollow">photo<img id="itxthook6icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png" alt="" /></a> on the floor it would instantly <a id="itxthook7" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00dZRv?start=160" rel="nofollow">communicate<img id="itxthook7icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png" alt="" /></a> to you in its own language. It would tell you a story. With more information perhaps it would be a more fulfilling story or perhaps not. Subjective.</p>

 

<p >That's what I mean, in that sense, when I say a photograph can" stand alone."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"Your van Gogh example: is that painting so very special?" Q</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Only you can decide if its special to you.<br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > <br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>" it would tell me a story, in its own language. I need to understand that language, need to know, i.e. learn that language. Work"</p>

<p>I agree to a certain extent, however, a good photograph will still communicate regardless of the ability of the viewer. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.imogencunningham.com/display/4NEW0002.jpg">Imogen Cunningham, <em>Portrait of Martha Graham</em>, 1931</a></p>

<p>Allen, don't worry, I hear you loud and clear and we do share the same planet.</p>

<p>I don't think Cunningham's portraits are as transformative as her flowers, though I think the earlier portrait I posted in the OP of <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/ee_uploads/news/2335/edward_weston_and_margrethe__1922.jpg">WESTON AND MATHER</a> from 1922 has more of an edge and tells more of a story than the one I posted just above of Martha Graham. By transformative, I'm talking about that architectural and spacious quality talked about with respect to the Magnolia photo. I only need look at that photo of the Magnolia to realize the power of photography and the gift the camera can give us in changing the effect, feeling, and characteristics of a subject. The delicacy of the magnolia blossom re-presented as the regalness of a castle. I like Cunningham's photo of Graham but, for me, it doesn't quite capture what Stieglitz captures (in a somewhat similar but I think more poetic vein) in his <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O'Keeffe-(hands).jpg">PORTRAIT OF GEORGIA O'KEEFFE</a> from 1922. What both portraits show is how important hands can be to a portrait and reminds me that gesture in addition to facial expression and eyes matters a whole lot.</p>

<i>"I agree to a certain extent, however, a good photograph will still communicate regardless of the ability of the viewer."</i><br><br>I disagree. You're playing down the importance of the role of the receiver much too casually, and incorrectly. A hugely over the top for instance: That photo communicates abslutely nothing to the chair the viewer might rest on while absorbing the message the photo has to tell. That could be, of course, because the chair is incapable of sensation, let alone understanding.<br>And that is the point.<br>There is no 'innocent' perception, no blank reception. Communication does not exist unless the receiver arranges what is received into his mesh of (in varying degrees) known and/or understood things. There is no succeful communication unless what is received leads to a rearranging of that mesh (mere recognition is not enough - we want to hear more than reminders of things we already know and understand). The receiver must do almost as much work as the sender, also because understanding something is more than just having your own thoughts about something, but involves figuring out what the intended message is.<br><br>Yes, i decide whether van Gogh's painting is special, to me. That involves bringing my appreciation of things (in general and particular) to the painting. The painting does not stand alone. To decide whether van Gogh's painting is something special takes even more effort, requires knowing what was going on in van Gogh's mind, what he set out to do, the entire context of the time it was made in and how the appreciation and relevance of that might have changed over time, what is left of all that (besides being a historical thingy) for us.

<p>In 1961, Cunningham made <a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52eb401ae4b03e6cdd66cb0f/530991bae4b0a1bd57ad7940/530991c9e4b032b4d4b0fa98/1393136074442/Cemetary+in+France,+1961.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a> of a cemetery in France. <a href="http://www.imogencunningham.com/display/INA01.jpg">HERE'S</a> another version of it. I don't know if anyone's seen this photo in a book or museum, but I wonder which is closer to the print. I prefer the first, lighter version on line because I can make out more detail, though it's less bold in its contrast, which is fine by me.</p>

<p>While, at first glance, she seems to present a matter-of-fact and static representation of the scene, there's something about the symmetry of the two trees and the centered cross below them that sort of captures and defies at the same time our notions of death. Looking more carefully, and seeing the man seeming to be partially obscured by the tree seems to provide the reason for this being a photograph as well as a testament to what photography does so well in terms of capturing a moment.</p>

<p>Very nice shot of Cunningham, Fred, which shows, not a "cemetery" as far as can be seen, but a "<a href="https://croixdherault.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/marseillan-croix-de-ste-eulalie-ancien-chemin-de-pinet-2.jpg">croix de chemins</a>", a road side cross, which can bee seen in thousands beside country side roads throughout catholic countries like France. <br /> As it is not a place where you would be buried, but a place for contemplation, parsing by as traveller, I read the image of Cunningham differently. No notion of death for me. I agree, the scene is marked by the stationary main structure of the composition with the two hills sides behind and the two old trees firmly framing the central cross; and the old man in movement, continuing his travel half hidden by a tree on his way out of the scene. Fine and well thought composition. I clearly prefer the lighter version.</p>

<p>Phil, the cross signifies first and foremost christianity and faith although it depicts an instrument of crucifixion. It should make you think more of life than of death, as far as I understands it. </p>

Getting way off topic: the symbology of the cross? The sacrifice brought to free mankind of eternal damnation. It does signify christianity, but not "<i>although</i> it depicts an instrument of crucifixion", but <i>because</i> it does.<br>Road crosses are usualy erected at places where someone lost his or her life. They are a mark of where life and death (or depending on your belief: eternal life) met. A sign to mark the numinosity of the place.<br><br>I'm not particularly impressed (again) by this Cunningham photo. It is clear that the attraction, the photo appeal, was the symmetry of the trees. The cross was an added bonus perhaps. The figure of the man a sign of haste on Cunningham's part.<br>I don't know. Is it more than just one of the very many easily forgetable, because not very communicative (has it something to communicate that is surprising or impressive?), photos?

<p>Surely, way off-topic and yet, the way we formulated the symbolism of the cross, has a clear influence on how we see the photo of Cunningham. Is the old man half hidden by the tree and close to the cross with reference to "one-foot-in-the grave" or is it illustrating the man's continuation along the road-of-life after having prayed and made the sign of the cross ? I opt for the latter. </p>

I do too, Anders. A passer by. Though i'm not sure that the photo tells us that he prayed at the cross.

<p>Q.G., of course. </p>

<p>I don't interpret the man in the photo to mean anything in particular. And yet his role is crucial to my response to the photo.</p>

So (and i'm just asking, not questioning) what is that role, what would be lost if he would not have been there, Fred?

<p>As I see it (and I'm not asked) without the man we have a scene without movement leaving the viewer to take the place of the man. Still and captivating scene because of the strong composing elements (hills, trees) holding the cross in the centre of our attention.</p>

<p>See my first comment on the inclusion of the man. By definition, rather than interpretation, he adds a human element. And he adds a particularly photographic twist, being caught in the moment. Whether he just finished praying or has one foot in the grave or is continuing along the road of life was not something that entered my mind.</p>

<p>The cross will not symbolizes first and foremost the same thing to everyone, nor should it. It is a recognizable symbol, but the interpretation within the context of the photo that each will (if they do interpret it) give to it will be according to how they read the overall "message" of the photo. Though I didn't specify this to myself when first seeing the photo, looking back I think I took it as a marker, probably of a grave or death site, that all wrapped up in its religious significance as well.</p>

I see, Fred. I must say that the two pollarded trees alongside a road between fields, farmland, and a cross all say "human" to me quite loud already. But of course there is a difference between the presence of such works and the human figure itself, yes.<br>The cross itself is, i think, interchangeable. It is used as a mark, borrowed from the prevailing culture/religion. People would have marked such a spot, for the same reason, with something different too would christianity never have appeared. So, to me at least, it says "human" much more than it says christianity.

<p>The human figure reminds me that photographs are prone to accident or at the very least happenstance. It makes the photo feel more uniquely photographic to me.</p>

<p>For me the human element is all present in the photo without the old man. It is present by the photographer (and printer), the viewer (me), and surely by the christian symbol of all humanity, the cross - here a "latin" cross. Personally I don't need more. The rest, I see very often as animation for those who need it for catching attention.</p>

<p>Having just seen it for the first time my initial gut is that there is a dynamic between Celtic /druidic/pagan religion and Christianity. Just a gut feeling from the darkness of it. I can not believe that the man is happenstance, she would have edited him out or waited till he left and I am sure she saw him there. She wasn't taking this photo to post it on classic manual weekend</p>