Music and Photography?

It looks like you are compering apples and oranges. Sadness or joy are emotions (human reaction) and tears is their "weight" (property). I hope my dissection did not offend you.

Cheers.

It looks like you are compering apples and oranges. Sadness or joy are emotion (human reaction) and tears is their "weight" (property). I hope my dissection did not offend you.

Cheers.

No offense at all. Thanks for joining in. Not sure who you think is comparing the apples and oranges, but speaking for myself, I wasn't comparing sadness and tears. I was talking about tears symbolizing something. I said I thought tears was an embodiment of emotion. That seems similar to weight, so maybe we agree. I wouldn't say, though, that tears are a property of sadness. I'd say they can be a symbol of it and they can be a physical result of it, but I don't see how tears are a property of sadness.

Wow, Phil, thanks for sharing this! I started this thread from the perspective of a photographer. This perspective of musicians who chose one or more photos for their music is completely different but just as valid (perhaps more so). Great photo btw.

Mike

 

How long can you stretch a photograph in order to convey within it a song or piece of music?

 

Uhmm, I think we're digressing somewhat from the original topic. That happens and it's fine by me. I'm delighted that this thread has aroused so much interest! IHMO, symbolism (tears, crosses, etc.) is a subject that perhaps deserves a separate (follow-up) thread. If you want to continue the discussion on this one, feel free. I don't own it.

 

Mike

I’m talking about tears as a symbolic sign.

Do you accept the richness and validity of your interpretation of the tear in my photo as a symbol of redemptive sorrow as being not the universal interpretation? Do you accept the fact that some folks saw it as rapturous and wondrous, not sorrowful at all? Or is your interpretation THE universal one?

If yours is THE universal interpretation and a lot of other viewers' interpretations are not the universal one, please tell us how you gained access to THE universal interpretation? God and the rest of us would like to know! [This time I'll symbolize the smile with characters instead of an emoji] ;-)

I appologise for for too technical terms. I try to say that tears are indicators of deepness of human emotions.

 

Cheers

Uhmm, I think we're digressing somewhat from the original topic. That happens and it's fine by me.

Yes, digression is often the name of the game. There seems to have been a reasonable progression to this point.

 

Bringing it back to music, one of the reasons I think music is so apropos is that music (lyrics aside for the moment) is so non-verbal and often non-literal. So it helps me to relate to artistic gestures in a more non-narrative way. If I give "rhythm" to a photo or try to accomplish photographically what a crescendo accomplishes, I tend to think more gesturally than narratively and more esoterically than an attempt at a one-to-one translation of rhythm from music to photography would provide.

I appologise for for too technical terms. I try to say that tears are indicators of deepness of human emotions.

 

Cheers

Thanks. I agree with that. What I don't think (and you haven't said you do either) is that tears universally indicate sadness, though they certainly can.

Thanks. I agree with that. What I don't think (and you haven't said you do either) is that tears universally indicate sadness, though they certainly can.

 

Yes, I agree with you, tears are not universally indicate ONLY sadness. The problem is perception/experience - owervelming number of reactions associated with tears is sadness. This is why our mind most likely will jump to "pull" sadness from the " shelf" instead of joy.

Cheers

If you would only show the eyes, would those same viewers get a sense of rapture or of sorrow?

I couldn't "only show the eyes" I could only show the eyes in this lighting or that lighting, in black and white or in color, in muted colors or in bold colors. And I'd maintain that there is no "tear" in itself. There's only a tear in context, whether it be with a cross juxtaposed or isolated to a pair of eyes. If it's isolated to a pair of eyes, the eyeballs might say a whole hell of a lot about what I'd think of the tears, or the shadows, or the saturation level of the colors. Imagine an eye, with a tear, and almost cartoon-like colors with very sharp contrasts and virtually no shadows but strong highlights in the eyes. That wouldn't necessarily say sadness to me. Now, as you get further and further isolated and even remove the eyes so you're supposedly just left with a tear, the tear would be against some background which would give clues as to how one will feel and respond. At some point, isolate that tear enough and you won't be able to tell whether it's a tear or a raindrop or a drop of water coming from a fountain. Meaning, interpretation, symbolism all require and work with context.

I think, the word 'universal' is a little vague when used to communicate something specifically, although it should be permissible in a poetic context. If Phil wanted to mean that there can be non-verbal communication that works across cultural or historical boundaries, its important to see if there's any precedent to it. Binaural beats, depending on the frequency difference have been claimed to trigger certain moods that are tied to basic neurobiology of the brain rather than cultural context. In Indian classical music, different ragas are intended to depict moods, or times of the day like evening or late night, or different seasons like monsoon. They are too claimed to work without people knowing which raga represents what, but I cannot vouch for that.

 

I don't think an isolated symbol can unambiguously communicate something, but a symbol as rudimentary as a teardrop will mean something definitive (sorrow) to the majority of people irrespective of culture, although that interpretation can be often wrong, as Fred pointed out. In other words, if someone wanted to convey sorrow, showing a teardrop in someone's eyes is an effective way to communicate that to a statistical majority irrespective of culture. However, if someone wanted to portray something else using a teardrop, that communication won't be definitive, because people can make different meanings out of it depending on cultural exposure and familiarity of context, and still a lot of people will likely misinterpret it as sorrow. Does that mean, 'teardrop' is an universal communicator of sorrow? If going by the first impression or the knee-jerk reaction, yes, but we often don't view art like that.

 

I am not worried whether an isolated symbol can 'universally' mean something. I am more interested whether the same symbol such as a tear drop when placed in the same context (e.g. a mother mourning over her dead son or daughter) could mean or trigger similar emotions across different cultures and upbringings. I think that is more relevant to what we are discussing here.

Supriyo, speaking of the rudimentary (and/or downright kitschy or cliché or even childish) use of symbols, and a complete lack of ambiguity, I offer

 

THIS PAINTING ...

 

... by Margaret Keane. Now THAT is sad!

 

I am more interested whether the same symbol such as a tear drop when placed in the same context (e.g. a mother mourning over her dead son or daughter) could mean or trigger similar emotions across different cultures and upbringings. I think that is more relevant to what we are discussing here.

Now, I do agree that what you're focusing on is relevant and interesting, but for me it's not more relevant than what I've been talking about.

 

While I do think it's fascinating to discuss how the same symbol used the same way might be similar or vary across cultures and upbringings (and even biological differences such as male/female), I'm definitely interested in exploring how using the same symbols in different photographic contexts can affect the symbols themselves, even within my own culture or cultural milieu. I agree with you there's likely more ambiguity in using a tear to symbolize the many things it can symbolize aside from sadness, and that's what appeals to me in doing so with photography.

Edited December 15, 2018 by The Shadow

communication won't be definitive

I like this phrase, Supriyo, because I think it's an apt description of what art often accomplishes. That's not to say art doesn't sometimes communicate very specifically. It's just to acknowledge some great art is less so. Still, it communicates, but not in a distinct or definitive fashion. You mention statistical majorities, something I think most art and artists aren't terribly concerned with but that a lot of communicators are. This is why I prefer using express to communicate, though they do have fine shades of different meanings. Express seems less clear and distinct to me. I think some of your own work, and probably the best example of it is Phil's work, is somewhat hauntingly ambiguous and non-declarative or definitive. That doesn't, by the way, mean a lack of intention or conviction or commitment, because I think both of you are all those things in your work.

 

Though I did pick up on it earlier, someone just reminded me of Phil's use of "howl" as opposed to linguistic conventions. And I think that would apply to symbolic conventions as well. Howling seems to me the opposite of definitive communication, it is more from the gut, less reasoned, less conventional than sticking just to or relying solely on the traditional and relatively easy symbolism of tear as sadness.

"Scientific Baloney" Vincent

 

Most Mathematicians do not caste aside any Scientific research as Baloney only religious fundamentalists would do that. It is correct to say that as we discuss there no empirical evidence and it is just speculative. Mathematically it is fascinating and think... the mathematics' is the forerunner of the Physics. Allen

 

Basically the string theory believes the whole universe is made of pulsating vibrating, pulsating energy. Nature abhors a vacuum. Allen

 

It is a mind boggling theory but has a fundamental bases in mathematics.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't...Vince

 

Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong . link from Vince, cause some bloke told his so, after searching the web to prove his point...".it is all" Scientific Baloney" .Vince. Amusing.

 

All current science concludes that particles have a wave nature. There is a whole list of names which support this theory, which is also linked to the string theory, a subsection of the main analysis but follows the main consensus. A theory.

 

Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr to name a couple. To claim any Scientific research is Baloney, only reflects on the immaturity of the individual. Most if not all ,such research, is undertaken by individuals of exceptional ability in theoretical advanced science.

 

Many many forward thinkers in the Scientific world were cast aside by the simple minded as talking Baloney.

 

Their names are among the foremost minds of humanity.

 

Photography and Music bedfellows of the" Art of Imagination" along with mathematics and the volume of science.

"Good pictures are not explained by words

I don't find anyone here trying to explain pictures through words. I think we're discussing photography and symbolism, with words. The philosophy of photography uses words. Photography doesn't have to. I think there have been some descriptions of photos with words and I think they're fine but not meant to substitute for the pictures or adequately explain them.

" The philosophy of photography uses words. Photography doesn't have to" Fred the Shadow.

 

Photography has its own words.

 

You just have to go on a learning curve to read them.

From the perspective of a viewer, drawing an analogy between tears and sorrow* is also very much more of a gut response compared to drawing an analogy between tears and rapture (like for example in your image).

I just think it's generally an easier response, but not more of a gut response. To me, connecting tears and sorrow is more easy and often more likely, but not more of a gut response. For me, art isn't necessarily what's likely. It's often what's unlikely or unexpected, so I think my gut is in tune with that way of responding when I view art and it doesn't necessarily go to likely places. I'm sure others vary.

We are getting a bit....

 

If the scissors are not used daily on the beard it will not be long before is, by its luxuriant growth. pretending to be head.

 

;))

Not Fred or Phil.

Indeed

To me, connecting tears and sorrow is more easy and often more likely, but not more of a gut response.

To me too, and to most viewers, hence tears being a universal symbol for sorrow.

Seems to me you're confusing universal with popular or common. I wish I'd known this was how you were using universal from the beginning, which is why I kept asking what you meant by "universal communication." To me, "more likely" is a peculiar understanding or use of universal. Anyway, we're talking about photography, music, and art, where I don't think "more likely" comes into play except maybe with pop artists such as Warhol (an important artist, no doubt).

Ahh, the thesaurus. Widespread. Not sure why you used the word "universal" which I take to be much more pregnant than "widespread"? For me, "universal" has more of a nuance and fine point to it than just widespread.

 

Here's Merriam and there are other similar definitions. I've highlighted some key words in bold to point out the difference between universal and widespread.

 

including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception especially : available equitably to all members of a society universal health coverage

 

present or occurring everywhere

 

existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions

 

This is why I kept stressing context as it relates to symbolism in photography. Because the tear doesn't symbolize sorrow UNDER ALL CONDITIONS (IN ALL CONTEXTS). If it were a universal symbol, context wouldn't matter. The tear would ALWAYS, UNDER ALL CONDITIONS, symbolize sorrow, which it clearly does not. What photography is so beautifully able to do is take a widespread understanding of something like a symbol, a tear or cross, and FLOUT that understanding precisely by putting it into a different or less known or usual context. The photograph employing the symbol creatively and differently from its more widespread usage can sometimes rely on a viewer's more traditional relationship to that symbol in getting it to symbolize something very different.

 

So, in my mind, a tear is a widespread symbol of sorrow, which makes it a prime candidate for symbolizing something else, requiring a viewer NOT to just go to the default or widespread use but to use their imagination and the context a photographer may provide to go beyond just sorrow and sometimes not just beyond sorrow but having nothing to do with it. This is just one way in which a photographer can defy expectations or shift the visual ground we thought we were standing on.

 

Symbols in art have possibilities and potential as much as they can ground us in common knowledge or experience. While a tear is a widespread symbol of sorrow, it is not a universal symbol of sorrow because conditions can be found or created whereby the tear symbolizes something else, like joy or rapture, or a windy day.