Jump to content

Prediction: RAW is going to eventually be a deprecated file format


Recommended Posts

In all aspects of life, we take on a part and an appearance to seem to be what we wish to be--and thus the world is merely composed of actors.― François de La Rochefoucauld

Paintings and photos can be as deceptive as human interactions but can also tell more truth than them. Appearance can hide and it can reveal reality.

 

A straight likeness is no more sure a representation of a person than can be the most impressionistic, expressionistic, or even abstract picturing.

 

Good portraits and photos in general often do more than point.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know this discussion is weeks old but there is something about it in particular that would pop into my brain now and then and that's the discussion of Juliet. I'm assuming Leo is referring to Juliet of "Romeo and Juliet". To be sure there are many paintings of Juliet. But she was a character written for the stage, - intended to be played by a flesh and blood actress in costume.

 

The idea that a painting could properly capture Juliet while a photograph could not doesn't make any sense given that Juliet was meant to be portrayed by a real person.

 

Yes, a camera can capture what is real, but it can also be a tool for the imagination. Just as flesh and blood actors and actresses can bring works of fiction to life.

I have book of Portraits by Sugimoto, it is something in between of painting and photograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo, what a bizarre post. I think you've lost it.

 

I'll end my participation in this thread with a photo of mine I think has a narrative. And ... I salute you.

 

[ATTACH=full]1315244[/ATTACH]

Love the photo, not to be off topic, but where is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romeo & Juliet is an archetypal story characterized not by the 'photographic' specificity of its characters nor by the 'painterly' lack thereof but precisely by its universality that can apply to and through a wide range of different "Romeo's" and "Juliet's" (on stage, novels, film, comic books, etc...).

Which is why you see the story reproduced in so many different historical and cultural settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why you see the story reproduced in so many different historical and cultural settings.

Shakespeare updates can be hit or miss, but Baz Luhrmann’s splashy take on R + J from 1996 with Claire Danes and Leo DiCaprio is definitely worth catching. Luhrmann has a distinctive voice in staging and directing some of the great classics.

Edited by samstevens
  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a painting could properly capture Juliet while a photograph could not doesn't make any sense given that Juliet was meant to be portrayed by a real person.

 

No one said Juliet can't be photographed, only that GBS's Miss Wilkins fails as Juliet (where she succeeded in the same pose as a painting.) I don't understand why you dragged theater into this, the part of Juliet is presumably more persuasive than her standing absolutely still before an audience for however many hours, which would be the more apt comparison.

 

Here's the quote again.

 

"There is a terrible truthfulness about photography."

 

This is the thesis. GBS is putting this statement forward as a premise to support. His support will consist of a comparison between two portraits.

 

"The ordinary academician gets hold of a pretty model, paints her as well as he can, calls her Juliet, and puts a nice verse from Shakespeare underneath, and the picture is admired beyond measure."

 

In case you weren't aware how painting can obscure tangible reality with layer upon layer of artistic pretense and bullsh*t, GBS helpfully stipulates an academic painter and even a verse underneath.

 

"The photographer finds the same pretty girl, he dresses her up and photographs her, and calls her Juliet, but somehow it is no good — it is still Miss Wilkins, the model."

 

Here GBS is appealing to our faith in the impartiality of photons to record Miss Wilkins as she is.

 

"It is too true to be Juliet."

 

Indeed, because her photons are broadly accepted as a substitute of herself, whatever the f she looks like. Affirms the thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Affirms the thesis.

That may be true. A problem arises, though, because both the thesis and its affirmation are bogus.

 

The thesis and its affirmation rely upon a lack of imagination and ability to empathize with photographic transformations, instead getting caught short-footed in the myopia of mere representation.

 

Photons, hah!

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one said Juliet can't be photographed, only that GBS's Miss Wilkins fails as Juliet (where she succeeded in the same pose as a painting.) I don't understand why you dragged theater into this, the part of Juliet is presumably more persuasive than her standing absolutely still before an audience for however many hours, which would be the more apt comparison.

 

Here's the quote again.

 

"There is a terrible truthfulness about photography."

 

This is the thesis. GBS is putting this statement forward as a premise to support. His support will consist of a comparison between two portraits.

 

"The ordinary academician gets hold of a pretty model, paints her as well as he can, calls her Juliet, and puts a nice verse from Shakespeare underneath, and the picture is admired beyond measure."

 

In case you weren't aware how painting can obscure tangible reality with layer upon layer of artistic pretense and bullsh*t, GBS helpfully stipulates an academic painter and even a verse underneath.

 

"The photographer finds the same pretty girl, he dresses her up and photographs her, and calls her Juliet, but somehow it is no good — it is still Miss Wilkins, the model."

 

Here GBS is appealing to our faith in the impartiality of photons to record Miss Wilkins as she is.

 

"It is too true to be Juliet."

 

Indeed, because her photons are broadly accepted as a substitute of herself, whatever the f she looks like. Affirms the thesis.

 

He's wrong. ;)

 

I understand completely what you're saying about a painting. But you can certainly photograph a model, - or an actress playing Juliet, helpfully put a caption underneath the framed photo, - and she will be Juliet to the viewer. Just as someone watching an actress on stage can see her as Juliet while still knowing that she's actually an actress.

 

GBS is incorrect. You can manipulate photons. That's what lenses do. In fact, a huge part of photography depends not on truth but fantasy. Often times the goal of photography is depicting things and people (or food) not as they are, but as how we want them to be seen. And plenty of times, the viewer is in on it, - though not always.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can certainly photograph a model, - or an actress playing Juliet, helpfully put a caption underneath the framed photo, - and she will be Juliet to the viewer.

 

You should accept your own challenge! I'd bet anything 100 photographers selected at random to take a picture of Juliet will produce 98 interchangeable pictures of Miss Wilkins and two ads for Juliet. GBS' claim is a truism in the books I've read but, whatever, internet. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Of course a good photo of Juliet is possible. But when I think what that might look like I imagine a photo essay of actually existing star-crossed lovers. That would be ideal (if unfortunate.) Other approaches are certainly possible (an ironic take on paintings of Juliet?) but I'm never going to be fooled by an ad for Juliet. Photography's strength is the ability to capture details about the real world (think of the iconic photos you've seen); that's what it's singularly good at; that's what's expected of it; and that's what it does. It's challenge is to impose one's hand, or vision, on those immaterial photons; that's the hard part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should accept your own challenge! I'd bet anything 100 photographers selected at random to take a picture of Juliet will produce 98 interchangeable pictures of Miss Wilkins and two ads for Juliet. GBS' claim is a truism in the books I've read but, whatever, internet. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Of course a good photo of Juliet is possible. But when I think what that might look like I imagine a photo essay of actually existing star-crossed lovers. That would be ideal (if unfortunate.) Other approaches are certainly possible (an ironic take on paintings of Juliet?) but I'm never going to be fooled by an ad for Juliet. Photography's strength is the ability to capture details about the real world (think of the iconic photos you've seen); that's what it's singularly good at; that's what's expected of it; and that's what it does. It's challenge is to impose one's hand, or vision, on those immaterial photons; that's the hard part.

Have you actually seen Juliet, to know for sure what she looks like?:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler: it happens because a photo is evidence of its subject. You wouldn't be able to fool people with photographs if photography wasn't mechanically objective.

 

It happens because sometimes photographs are taken for that purpose (evidence). But that does not represent the whole of photography.

 

Written documents are also used as evidence but that doesn't mean one can't write great works of fiction. And sometimes the best works of fiction can be mistaken for fact. I'm thinking of the "Onion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your purpose in taking a photo doesn't change the way cameras work. You can write anything but you can only take photos of facts. Therefore, fundamentally, pictures of facts represents the whole of photography. Maybe you're thinking of someone toiling at the margins who lies about the painted lead in his photos ("it's gold") and Mrs Winterbottom ("it's Miss Wilkins") but he's the liar not the camera and who in the whole wide world who's used a camera or been in a picture is confused by these "exceptions"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can only take photos of facts.

Well, this is just plain wrong.

 

A fact is something that is known and/or stated. Cameras take pictures of things, not facts. Facts are not embodied.

 

Things have various appearances, depending on the light, the perspective, the degree or not of distortion, the sharpness, etc. The picture of the thing should not be mistaken for the thing.

 

More importantly, only some pictures are pictures of things. Very often, the photo is the thing, not its subject.

 

Thingness is a hangup. It’s certainly not what photography is limited to or all about.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fact is something that is known and/or stated. Cameras take pictures of things, not facts. Facts are not embodied.

 

my facts of the world, details of the world, subjects in the world = your things, except my facts are consistent with reality, in case by "thing" you mean something else, which of course you do, something especially profound, of course it is

 

Things have various appearances,

 

Not simultaneously they don't.

 

The picture of the thing should not be mistaken for the thing.

 

Good to know coach.

 

More importantly, only some pictures are pictures of things. Very often, the photo is the thing, not its subject.

 

Sentence 1 contradicts sentence 2, to the extent either is sensible.

 

Thingness is a hangup. It’s certainly not what photography is limited to or all about.

 

I'm sure that made a pleasant sound between your ears when you wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A red chair is a thing. You perceive it and can take a picture of it.

 

“The chair is red” is a fact (if the chair, in fact, is red). While you can take a picture of a red chair, you cannot take a picture of “the chair is red.” I guess you could write “the chair is red” and take a picture of that, but you’d be taking a picture of someone’s writing, not a fact. You can’t take a picture of facts.

 

Facts are consistent with reality, inasmuch as they are known. But that doesn’t mean you can take pictures of them, because you can’t. Facts are about reality. You can take a picture of something real and you can know or state a fact about about something real but you can’t take a picture of the fact.

 

Yes, things have various appearances simultaneously. The same thing can appear one way to you and another way to me at the very same time.

 

Sentence 1 does not contradict Sentence 2. Read them again until you see that. (Note the key words “some” and “often.”)

 

Good pictures are as often about the expression and conveyance of emotion as they are about things/objects. Good pictures are as often metaphorical as they are literal.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...