Ambiguity

<p>My main question, or at least topic for discussion, is whether ambiguity is an invitation to interpretation. I notice that very often a photo that seems to show something narrative (or even just an event part of which remains unshown or undefined) is often appreciated for the many literal/factual/hypothetical interpretations that can fill in the blanks of the photo. While this may sometimes provide amusement or interest, or even perceptual depth, other than in a forensic or strictly documentary or journalistic photo, can it also be a distraction at times? That is, is literary/verbal storytelling different from photographic/visual storytelling and can the instinct to interpret ambiguities in a photo actually mean missing some of the unique experience that is visual ambiguity?</p>

<p>Mind you, I'm not talking about the practice of <em>analyzing</em> photos critically, especially in a critique setting such as PN has to offer. We may address exposure, composition, perspective, contrast and talk about how it makes us feel or how it affects what a photo is about or what it seems to be communicating. (And I know some people find this distracting to a more aesthetic appreciation of a photo.) But this is not what I'm talking about here. I think that's different from literal <em>interpretation</em>, especially interpretation in the sense of trying to guess what was actually going on when the photo was taken if it's not obvious in the photo itself. A woman dressed in fur and frills, aristocratic in appearance, is looking into a fancy antique shop and we see the shadow of someone inside the shop who she may appear to be talking to. Can we leave it at that or are we moved to guess at who the shadow belongs to so we can piece together a literal story out of what we see?</p>

<p>I'm not saying all of us have to view photos similarly or should follow the same practice regarding interpretation and I'm also not saying any one of us should or would look at every photo with the same degree of guessing or interpretation. I'm questioning to what extent you do this and I'm wondering if it can be or you've ever found that it is a distraction to a less literal way of viewing photos.</p>

<p>If some degree of mystique, ambiguity, or unanswered questions can be a good thing in a photo, do we undermine that when we try to resolve those questions or ambiguities by supplying interpretations that complete what is often an incomplete picture?</p>

<p>Is incompleteness part of the beauty of many photos, which put a frame around an isolated part of the world, often removing information and context? Can a viewer err by trying to put back those missing parts of the photographic world created by the frame?</p>

>>> Can we leave it at that or are we moved to guess at who the shadow belongs to so we can piece

together a literal story out of what we see? … I'm questioning to what extent you do this and I'm

wondering if it can be or you've ever found that it is a distraction to a less literal way of viewing photos.

 

I appreciate photos that have the power to release narrative in my mind. Ambiguity and mystery (among

other attributes) can help pose questions. Photos that are complete and appear to "answer" all questions

are not very interesting to me. And… Not only do I appreciate viewing photos where ambiguity is a major

element, I usually strive to make photos with that in mind, to help suggest a narrative for a

viewer. That can be any narrative, not necessarily one I may have had in mind (sometimes I'll have nothing in mind).

<p>Fred, your post made me ponder... There are many aspects to ambiguity. It's probably a 'feature' in all human communication (to a widely varying degree of course) and it can undoubtedly lead to errors - on both sender's/photographer's and receiver's/viewer's end.<br>

I think, essentially there is no big difference between verbal storytelling and visual storytelling and in all cases, following too quickly an impulse to interpret ambiguity (filling the gaps it opens) means missing some of the experience - 'enduring' the ambiguity may be rewarded by a deeper understanding.<br>

For curiosity I checked the dictionary (to avoid "ambiguity" :-)) - and among others it may describe the situation of a symbol having more than one meaning - which can be very powerful - like in Harry Callahan's <a href="https://www.artsy.net/artwork/harry-callahan-weed-against-sky-detroit">Weed against the Sky</a>.<br>

Yet, you are probably more after another phenomenon: the tension a photo creates when it's subject (what is about) differs from what it actually shows - while the subject ideally escapes an immediate interpretation or understanding (the "mystery"). It may be achieved simply by the incompleteness that comes with the "frame around an isolated part of the world" (I like this a lot, because it's so essential to photography) or by any other means. Like Brad, I also prefer photos (or texts) that have this kind of ambiguity - maybe for two very different reasons: first, they leave the space for own thoughts (instead of just pushing a single narrow message - often pure cliché), second, they seem (i.e. it may not always be the case!) to carry more meaning.</p>

<p>I've got difficulties seeing ambiguity apart from interpretation: I don't think one exists without the other, really. In photos, ambiguity is often a play with expectations or visual language(s) (or maybe better: dialects), playing with culturally ingrained reactions, such as symbols and so on. A planned ambiguity to me seems done purely with the audience in mind.<br /> But even whether or not the photographer planned the ambiguity, it still will need interpretation, else it's just a misunderstood gesture, or a gap, quirk or oddity. I think there is a firm parallel with language here: nearly every dialect has its own way of not saying something, and be understood. Be it gestures, facial expressions or a specific phrase. To those who speak the language, 'nuff said. To those who don't: ambigious and clear as mud.<br /> But imagine learning a language, you do want to get into that slang, understand what that missing part is about - so you go and learn, try to fill the gap and make the story complete. Not unlike what happens with an image.</p>

<p>It is what I like about ambiguous photos: they tease me, make me work on them rather than spoon-feed me a story. I love the incompleteness, involving the viewer to become an active part of the experience. For me, it's certainly part of the beauty of a great deal of photos. It is not mandatory - there are brilliant non-ambiguous photos - the storytelling ones...<br /> Ambiguous photos make me the storyteller, as a viewer; what is commonly perceived as storytelling photos the photographer tells the story, and I absorb. I might extrapolate at the edges, but the core of the story isn't product of my fantasy/analysis/interpretation. Salgado jumps back to mind, though we discussed his work enough for now.<br /> I guess putting a number of ambiguous photos in a series is like the slow discovery of the story, but in a collaboration between artist and viewer, step-by-step filling gaps and find the story. A number of not-that-ambiguous photos in a series.. a documentary. The photographer takes me from A to B.</p>

<p>Neither is wrong, I like both, but ambiguity involves me more, and makes me revisit a photo to rediscover, re-interpret and re-think. I do find that more satisfying.</p>

<p>Most of the advertising images I see, which are omnipresent in our daily newspaper or Internet reads are freest I know of a presence of ambiguity, even if they purport in some cases to raise a question. The answer is clear. They represent an ultimate mastery of the use of the medium of still photography in the sense they overcome its constraints.</p>

<p>Quite apart from designing in or perceiving of an incompleteness in a subject matter being photographed, the nature of the photograph imposes its own spatial and temporal limits on the image. What is going on or what exists outside the specific limits of the frame? What does the instantaneous image represent or not in the chosen split second (or even multiple seconds) of capture and what information is lost by not having chosen a different moment of exposure? What exists in the blurred foreground or background?</p>

<p>Notwithstanding these physical limitations on the completeness of subject rendition, the photographer can, if he or she wishes to, provide a fairly complete representation. In the field of art, landscape, or human photography, to mention only three, such completeness can often be too expected, leading to a reaction from the viewer of either disinterest or "yes, it's pretty, but what more does it say".</p>

<p>Incompleteness, enigma, obscuring of details, multiple possibilites of perception or interpretation (ambiguity), originality of point of view, surprise, and other such qualities are part of my love of the art of photography. They do not undermine the power or quality of an image, but just the opposite. They are part of why I photograph. They are also difficult to create without the gest of the photographer coming across as being too banal, too clever or devoid of tangible meaning to most viewers. Scientific photography is the opposite. The latitude for incompleteness and enigma is much smaller.</p>

 

<p>Everyone to some extent is going to try and interpret a photograph. Our human brains are wired for purposes such as this. The extent of this and the conclusions they arrive at is entirely based on that individuals culture, life experience, and so fourth. When I look at a photograph it really comes down to "I like it" or "I don't like it" or mostly, "I'm not sure about it." We all have our first gut reactions to a photograph or any other work of art but really, one needs to spend time with the object in question because the way the work gets to us often occurs very gradually. </p>

<p>Just to be clear, I was not saying that ambiguity or incompleteness undermine the power of an image. I was saying that when ambiguity leads to very literal interpretations to fill in the blanks, that can, for me, undermine the specialness of the ambiguity and of the visual art itself.</p>

<p>Wouter and Wolfgang, I was wondering whether interpretation is necessary and to what extent photos, to be experienced fully, are best put into words or thoughts. If they get translated verbally, how literal do those thoughts have to be? Can the thoughts or words be more like poems or metaphors rather than essays or novels and would that, in many cases, make more sense?</p>

<p>Often when I hear a viewer's very literal interpretation, especially one that is linear or guesses at what was "really" going on at the time, it feels to me like the photo has been boxed in rather than allowed to breathe. It's a little like the way I feel about the dancing hippos in the movie <em>Fantasia</em>. Much as I enjoy that <a href="

of the Hours"</a> ditty, I wouldn't want to go around translating music that way very often as I listen. In other words, I wouldn't want to come to <em>rely</em> too much on responding to most music with a visually specific translation like that. While I think it might be easier <em>not</em> to translate music into literal and linear ideas, I don't always literally translate photos either. <br>

<br>

Yes, ambiguity and mystery can be forced, but of course anything else can be forced as well. Authenticity is the key. I think one can will or purposely create ambiguity in a photo but when it's forced or trite that will often show as well.</p>

<p>I don't think ambiguity is necessarily better than a more direct and straightforward approach. (I also think one can be direct and mysterious or ambiguous at the same time.) There's a lot of directness and straightforwardness in <a href="http://richardnilsendotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/goldin-4-black-eye.jpg">THIS NAN GOLDIN PHOTO</a>, but I think it's a moving, challenging, and effective photo nonetheless. Sure, I guess some would find ambiguity and go on to guess who it was that gave her the black eye and under what specific circumstances she got bruised but we can muse about anything we see or here and get as far away from what we're seeing as possible. We always have the option of turning something fairly direct into something ambiguous by wondering all sorts of things. A direct photo can stimulate our imagination just as much as an ambiguous one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The extent of this and the conclusions they arrive at is entirely based on that individuals culture, life experience, and so fourth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark, sorry, saw your post after I had already posted myself. While this is true, it shouldn't stop us from learning to be better viewers. We shouldn't let our individual life experience and culture mean that whatever way we want to approach a photo is as fulfilling as any other way. Just as we can become better photographers through experience, study, practice, broadening our horizons, changing our ways of thinking, making mistakes, allowing surprises and accidents to sometimes guide us, we can learn to be better viewers. That's what this thread may be about on some levels. <br /> <br /> I do agree that often people respond with "I like it" or "I don't" and that can be a good beginning. And I agree that true appreciation of a photo often comes with time and more slowly.</p>

<p>Fred, can you give an example of a photo in which ambiguity exists and a literal interpretation is the result (at least one that is evident for a large percentage of viewers)? I consider most photographs that are enigmatic or ambiguous as those which pose more questions than answers, so I would like to see some examples of what you mean (My apologies if this point is clear to most and it is my Métis-like (a Canadian half-caste analogy) frequent bridging between two daily languages that robs me of a better comprehension of English)</p>

<p><a href="https://stevemccurry.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ethiopia-10109.jpg">https://stevemccurry.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ethiopia-10109.jpg</a></p>

<p>There's a story in that one from Steve McCurry. But there is also ambiguity when we approach that photo from beyond its simple story of broken buildings and broken body. That photo is from his blog post here: <a href="https://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/beauty-in-imperfection/">https://stevemccurry.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/beauty-in-imperfection/</a> where his approach is an approach to Nature that is much about ambiguity. My sense of wabi sabi isn't just about beauty in imperfection, I interpret wabi sabi as also about the imperfections from which future growth emerges, very ambiguous, full of change, mystery and incompleteness.</p>

<p>Sorry for my laziness in not reading through all of the comments following the OP - just got home from the gym . . . hungry and tired.</p>

<p>Fred, I'd appreciate some unpacking. When you ask "whether ambiguity is an invitation to interpretation," are you asking whether ambiguity is simply an occasional feature of an image leading to interpretation by viewers, whether it is a condition of interpretation, or whether ambiguity is desirable as a signal to a viewer to spend more time looking at an image. Of course you might have thought of something different altogether, which would render my list incomplete. </p>

<p>Arthur, the idea for this thread came from the current POTW, seen <a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00d44V">HERE</a>. If you look at the photo and read the comments, you'll see an example of an ambiguous photo given some very specific and literal interpretations.<strong>*</strong> I'm not saying it's not a valid way of looking at the photo. I am questioning, though, if that's the extent of the kind of looking that's done, could there be something significant that's missed? It's like there's an ache to escape the ambiguity rather than a desire to wallow in it and enjoy it for what it is. Do we need to settle on a story and do we even need to supply the various literal hypotheticals of what's going on to begin with? Can questions simply remain unanswered or even unanswerable? Can the unseen insides of taxi cabs remain anonymous and mysterious without demanding coherent specifics? Can the bride's being in a lonely back alley be dealt with as the conveying of a visual and emotional cue, reacted to for what it looks like and feels like as is without wondering what she's doing there? Nobody, even she herself, may actually know why she's there. Certainly, a photographer may just have happened upon the scene and felt something for the juxtapositions, the ironies, the tension, the contrasts, the lighting, the symbolism, the story as an unfolding and a mystery rather than a completeness. The literal details needn't be resolved or even guessed at.</p>

<p>________________________________________<br /> <strong>*</strong>It's unimportant whether I like the photo or think it's well done for the purposes of this discussion.</p>

<p>Michael, sorry I was responding while you were posting. Hopefully, you'll find time to read through the comments, unpack the OP yourself, and provide a considered reply of your own. I want to hear your own thoughts, and there are so many ways to think about the OP and directions you can take it in. Much more interesting and constructive for you to take up that challenge than for me to narrow it down for you.</p>

<p>Charles, somehow I missed your post as well. Thanks. When I look at the McCurry picture, I'm struck not so much to wonder what the guy is doing or what he's doing there as much as to feel his almost silhouetted presence in a very kind of located and closed environment. I'm struck by the storybook colors of the structures even in their dilapidated state. Now, the irony is that there may well be an important social and political story that goes along with this photo and that could easily deepen my appreciation of it. So, though I'm not moved by the photo alone to wonder what's "really" going on, if the photographer were to offer some wider context for what's going on, thereby giving it a social documentary way in which to be viewed, I'd happily go along with looking at it more literally as well. I'm certainly thinking that I often adopt both a literal and a more abstract viewpoint toward photos, simultaneously. Part of the tension and beauty of photos is that they are both tied to and severed from the actual events, people, or things that were taking place in front of the lens. I think that puts an interesting spin on the ambiguity part of things. In addition to whatever I'm looking at or feeling that's inside the frame, I am aware that something literally was going on at the time, and those original circumstances will be at play to drastically varying degrees when I'm engaged with a photo.</p>

<p>The POTW <a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00d44V">http://www.photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00d44V</a> </p>

<p>That's a pretty literal photo altogether and its literalness begs for more information; but more information isn't available in the photo. So viewing it ends up being a little frustrating for the viewer because the viewer naturally moves toward making up some kind of story and can't really make one up that isn't just a product of her own active mind, not the mind of the photographer. Although the literal details don't need to be resolved (can't be from the information in the photo) or guessed at (hence frustrating the viewer), the photographer set up that need in the viewer in the first place. If it was intended to be a story telling photo it failed. If it was intended to be ambiguous, its too literal for that.</p>

<p>The McCurry photo works differently. It's literal enough, dilapidated man, dilapidated buildings and a viewer should generally know why, know there are any number of all too familiar stories a viewer may reasonably associate with the subject. And it isn't so literal that it becomes all about a particular person in particular circumstances in a particular place, that is, it isn't a news story picture. So it is non-specific enough, satisfyingly ambiguous and I think that McCurry then asks us in our viewing to say I'm broken like this man, I'm in broken circumstances and with his wabi sabi take on things, McCurry is at rest with that.</p>

 

<p>When a situational literal significance in a story telling fashion is the main product of viewing, the photograph probably has some kind of value, but I much prefer less story telling and more philosophical incitations to interpretation, that is I prefer photos which are enigmatic or ambiguous that avoid situational interpretations (like Fred's POTW example or Curry's broken hamlet-broken man situation, although I prefer Curry's and wish I could read the sign as it may add something) and more philosophical questions. or. in possibly more concrete terms, the presentation of incongruities or symbols of content that we have to deal with in our mind and not just fill in the spaces of a plot. In other words, more interesting stuff, disposed in order to stretch our imaginations.</p>

<p>Therein for me lies the real challenges of photography, art photography or other, and the value of incompleteness or ambiguity that seek something other than a situational (or other) literal interpretation. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a pretty literal photo altogether and its literalness begs for more information; but more information isn't available in the photo. So viewing it ends up being a little frustrating for the viewer because the viewer naturally moves toward making up some kind of story and can't really make one up that isn't just a product of her own active mind, not the mind of the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, thanks. Really a fascinating take on the photo and makes me think quite a bit about the photo itself and the topic at hand as well as why people reacted as they did. I can certainly see why you say what you say, though the photo's literalness doesn't have to, and doesn't to me, beg for more information. I'm perfectly content with a moment-in-time-suggestive-of-an-unknown-narrative type of picture. I don't find a problem with the balance of literalness and unknowns in the photo, though I do have other problems with it. What I do think is that from the standpoint of critique and from the standpoint of learning and photographers' studying and commenting on another photographer's work, your questions of balance of information, of the play between the literalness and the ambiguity, of storytelling capability and purpose, are more significant than musings about what might hypothetically be going on in the narrative.</p>

<p>Arthur - "In other words, more interesting stuff, disposed in order to stretch our imaginations."</p>

<p>Yes and with McCurry it does seem deliberate, an amplification of the sort of way of seeing he tries to put into practice photographically. Here's an example quote from McCurry's blog:</p>

<p>It is only with age that you acquire the gift to evaluate decay, the epiphany of Wordsworth, <br />the wisdom of wabi-sabi: nothing is perfect, nothing is complete, nothing lasts.<br />– Paul Theroux</p>

<p>McCurry seems to be expounding a design concept with some rigor, rigor I haven't yet found in the POW example.</p>

<p>Wabi sabi design books too? Anyway I don't think the above quote conveys much, is an interpretation that doesn't also express that things don't last because they are in the process of becoming something else. The few times I've heard wabi sabi stories from Japanese people is in say intentionally not cutting up vegetables perfectly, and not cutting up an even number of pieces, or of using a trifold napkin in a place setting.</p>

<p>I don't think the POTW can really be spoken of on the same level as the McCurry photos. I agree there's little "rigor" evidenced in it. I brought it up because of the literal commentary by some of the respondents. </p>

<p>I find simplicity just as capable of stretching my imagination as ambiguity or mystery. Think of so much Japanese design, zen gardens for example, many of which have a very easily-understood and appreciated symbolism, many of which are much more complex.</p>

<p>Feeling can be as present and important as imagination. My imagination isn't necessarily stretched when I look at the work of, for example, Mark Rothko. But it is as if I am immersed in the feeling of his shapes and colors and like I can almost touch his own feelings by being in sympathy with his paintings. There's no particular enigma or mystery I'm confounded by, certainly not one I'd dwell on in a literal way.</p>

<p>While I'm not one to quibble with "philosophical incitations to interpretation" as I love them and am drawn to them, perhaps even TOO drawn to them at times, I'd kill myself if I had to make that my primary artistic inspiration or response. Too heady and, again, I don't shy away from heady. But I need and long for other more instinctual inspirations and reactions and I'm fine when a work leaves me unmoved to interpret and rather in a state just to feel or even just to be with it.</p>

<p>I've dealt with a few close friends and relatives who've been gravely ill or dying recently. Sometimes the dialogue simply has to stop and we just sit with each other, feeling each other's presence. That can be extremely human and life affirming. Same is true for art. Some art is just meant to be with (maybe all art is at some time or another), not to stretch my imagination, not to pique my interpretive interests, not even to be deep or profound. Just to be. A friend. A companion. A love. Sometimes silent.</p>

<p>I guess, for me, there are so many different kinds of art and so many different things art accomplishes and different states it puts me in that I would never limit myself by the need for all art or the best art to be ambiguous or mysterious. I don't find Mozart, for example, to be near as enigmatic as Brahms and yet it's Mozart's simplicity that I will often choose to allow to wash over me, not stirring up deep philosophical interpretations (as Brahms might) but rather bathing me in a kind of musico-logical certainty of sorts that I can be at one with for hours at a time. I'd say Bach and Mozart both seem to answer more questions than they provoke, they lead me precisely where they want me (in my view) and that's fine by me. Brahms is more likely to leave me with unanswered questions and take me to more shadowy places and his music is as significant to me but no more significant than Mozart's and Bach's for it.</p>

<p>Many years ago in Hollywood after a day of shooting I stopped in a mini-mart for a snack to eat on the way home. The young Hispanic girl behind the counter had a black eye. It was already beginning to fade but was still fairly noticeable. I told her I was intrigued by her eye and asked her if she would come out front and allow me to photograph her. She consented and we walked outside where I stood her in front of a white wall and took several pictures. I later brought one back to her. Anyway, when I made the prints in the college darkroom I was using, people asked "Who beat her?" and assumed she was either in a fight or her boyfriend or husband hit her. The truth is that the black eye was the result of a recent car accident. As we walked back to the store she pointed out her car to me - the front bumper was smashed in.</p>

<p>So what I want to say is what we already know: a photograph describes something or someone, but it doesn't reveal any truth except to those people/things in the picture. Everyone else just has to form their own explanations.</p>

<p>Another example is the pay phone picture below. In a street photography forum on Facebook one of the photographers posted a picture of a pay phone, not unlike mine although mine showed a phone with much more grime. Anyway, someone objected to the photo because it was just a pay phone and therefore it wasn't really "street" and taking a picture of the computer he was using as he typed his response would amount to the same thing. So I responded and told the photographer that his picture was not so much about the pay phone but rather the graffiti and the empty liquor bottle on the top of the phone. I posted my picture and explained that we both were seeing the phones with the same mindset - that the other elements gave our pictures depth beyond a mere description of a pay phone. That this totally bypassed the person who objected to the photo just proves what I said in my previous post. People are who they are and how they interpret photos or any other works of art differes greatly.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>but it doesn't reveal any truth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, while I take your point, I think it depends on how you look at it. Take your woman with the black eye. Sure, if we assume she was beaten instead of in an accident, we haven't gotten a truth (or, in this case, an accurate account of what actually took place). But we don't have to go there, to the cause of the black eye. What if we just see a black eye, a symbol that something went awry with her body, a symbol of the body's vulnerability, etc. That's kind of what I'm getting at here. Depending on where we take the interpretation, we could exercise our imaginations and hypothesize about the scenarios we imagine may have occurred, guessing at how she "really " got the black eye. But there's also a case to be made that truth can be found in the picture if we don't project beyond what we see. We see a black eye and we don't see the cause. So, we can always stick to feeling and thinking about the black eye itself, what it means in terms of bodily change and injury and even what it could feel like, and not necessarily think about what caused it. Truth is often relative to the question being asked and answered. A photo can tell a great deal of truth even when we don't have an accurate picture of the situational facts that led to the photo. I think Nan Goldin's photo with the black eye has a lot of truth in it. And the fact of the matter is that we all know that many women get black eyes from being beaten, so if we feel something genuine about women's vulnerability to male attacks when we look at the picture of the woman you describe, we may not be experiencing accuracy to the specific situation, but I'd say we're still experiencing an important truth. </p>

<p>To continue my last thought, the important truth might be that a lot of people have assumed that the black eye was caused by a man's attacking the woman. The fact that that was not the cause in this case, but that so many assumed it was, tells us something very significant. Truth is not only to be found in the matchup between what we think happened and what "really" happened. Truth is often quite a bit deeper than that.</p>

<p>Fair enough, Fred. I'll respond by noting Souter's comment about having difficulty " . . . seeing ambiguity apart from interpretation." Therein lies my answer to the OP. Ambiguity encourages a viewer to interpret a photograph, but not necessarily so. There likely are other elements that may spur a viewer to make an interpretation - color, mood, perspective, etc. But it's also a matter of what a viewer brings to the table. As mentioned in the most recent POTW thread, too much ambiguity may detract from an image in the sense of discouraging interpretation. Some casual viewers in effect may want the image to do all the work. </p>