Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<ol>

<li>The character of a photograph is an aggregate of qualities that form its individual nature. I said previously that a flute and oboe may each hold the same note for the same period of time and be in the same pitch yet will have different timbres. Their sounds will be of different characters or qualities. Much of the character of my photos seems to center around an (artificially) posed or staged feel within what are evidently real or natural environments and relatively spontaneous setups.<br /><br />Do some/many/all of your photos have a character you are aware of and can describe?<br /><br /><br /></li>

<li>I consider (and even treat) many of the subjects of my photos as if they are (or will be) characters in them. I am drawn to theatricality, both as staged in theaters and as discovered out in the "real" world. I notice everyday people posing all the time (especially while smoking cigarettes and kissing their lovers in public). Theater seems to isolate and exaggerate much that is human, making some things more obvious and accessible than they are when they occur offstage.<br /><br />Even if you don't create portraits or work with people in your photographs, is there some corollary to this use of character in your work. Do some of the "things" in your photos become like characters . . . or perhaps props?<br /><br /><br /></li>

<li>The character of the photograph or photographer can be a moral issue (i.e., a photograph or man of character). I hope my photographs display and address issues of character, those of my subjects, myself, and of some of the themes/topics I address. As I said previously, though I stick mainly to men of my age group (and gay men at that), I don't treat them as mascots or trinkets, I try not to elicit superficial pathos, and I am willing to show discord as well as harmony.<br /><br />Do your own works show anything (morally) about your character as a person or the character of the people or things you photograph? Do your photographs deal with themes or topics that have a moral character?</li>

</ol>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>Do some/many/all of your photos have a character you are aware of and can describe?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, This is a thread about a topic I wondered quite a lot about a couple of years ago. My particular interest at the time was a) do I have a style? and b) if not, how do I create one? To answer the question, I didn't turn to photographers, I turned to artists in other mediums. I asked the question and was told almost everyone develops a style, whether they realize it or not. I asked around for people's opinions of my images, and was told a few things that made me realize I do have a style. The problem for me was that I have done so many types of photography in my lifetime... too many to be pegged by a style, I thought. But after a year or so, I realized I do have a style, and I only recently have begun working on developing it more.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Even if you don't create portraits or work with people in your photographs, is there some corollary to this use of character in your work. Do some of the "things" in your photos become like characters . . . or perhaps props?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of fashion and portrait work (the latter for my personal work), and I also look to theatrical themes in many of them. I am getting better at creating lighting and props. I think I was better at this when I worked at an art museum and had a lot more access to props and locations in a larger city. I find there is something I capture about my subjects that makes no sense to me when I take the image, but is perfectly clear when I've had some opportunity to evaluate it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do your own works show anything (morally) about your character as a person or the character of the people or things you photograph? Do your photographs deal with themes or topics that have a moral character?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think so. I see the good in other people, and often try to capture it. However that can be a bad thing too. It doesn't work for some fashion work. I don't try to subject my portraits to any other filter, but I think it is difficult to leave out something about yourself. Sometimes it is pursuing something further than you or your subject's comfort level allows: a pose, less clothes, more candor, more honesty, more of whatever that person is. In the end, I may inflict more of my own curiosity than obtain truth.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The character of a photograph is an aggregate of qualities that form its individual nature</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would rather say that there's the nature of photographs, and there's the character of a photograph. The character is inevitably bound - driven ? - by its nature.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do some/many/all of your photos have a character you are aware of and can describe?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think they have an introspective character, more than not. Which is not to say that they're made, each and every one of them individually, with introspection.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even if you don't create portraits or work with people in your photographs, is there some corollary to this use of character in your work. Do some of the "things" in your photos become like characters . . . or perhaps props?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe the off-beat window displays and manequin dolls that I somehow cannot <em>not</em> photograph aren't as much characters but they do characterize for me the strangeness of the world. Which is not the nature of things, not *reality*, but a part of it. But I still want to impossibly render *the nature of things*, seen from the eye as much as from the mind, <em>infinite</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do your own works show anything (morally) about your character as a person or the character of the people or things you photograph? Do your photographs deal with themes or topics that have a moral character?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They might, seen as a work as a whole, show some characteristic INFJ ( Introverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging ). I find it difficult though to ascribe a makers's value of morality in ones work.<br /> Ultimately we can only be judged ( good <> bad ) by our actions and much less so by our thoughts. If the work indeed does show something characteristic ( or who knows is made to appear that way ) of its maker, it's more a reflection of thoughts than one of action, even though photographs can't change thoughts but people can.<br /> ----------------<br /> Lastly, in context of <em>character</em> and to borrow a line from "The Wolf" in Pulp Fiction :<em> </em>Just because you <em>are</em> a character, doesn't mean you <em>have</em> character. I suppose that holds up for photographs as well !</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, thanks for including style. It's an important element. I do think there's a difference between style and character, though I'd have to think about that difference more to develop it beyond saying there's a difference. I am more in touch with the difference between style and character relative to people than I am relative to photographs. You mention fashion. I think the clothes we wear, the fashions we prefer, the carriage we adopt are a matter of style. The way we throw a dinner party or entertain people seems also about style. The way we treat ourselves and others, our intentions and many of our actions seem more a matter of character. In the music example, the timbre of the instruments, the way they sound, is a matter of their character. Even with that same sound characteristic, the oboe can be played in very different styles by the same or different oboists. What is comparable to that difference between character and style in a photograph? Perhaps you or others can help me get my footing here, and in the meantime I will think about it more.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, I like your distinction between character and nature. That's good, because I try to consider bodies of work and perhaps the bodies of work have a stronger bit of both, nature and a character. That photographs <em>per se</em> have a nature is a compelling thought, which I will pursue.</p>

<p>Yes, in order for a photo to be characterized as introspective, it doesn't have to be made introspectively.</p>

<p>As I see at least some evidence of action on the part of a photographer in a photograph, there are times when I do make judgments about the morality. Perhaps it's not the morality of the photographer him or herself, but at least it is about the morality I may comprehend when I look at the photo. But I must admit I do sometimes consider the morality of the photographer in having made certain choices and in shooting certain subjects and shooting them in certain ways.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Because of something about photography as a personally valued skillset, I don't "document" (ie rip off) homeless or people who are merely good looking. That's something like a morality.</p>

<p>When I've used models they've been essential to commercial messages and have had the acting skills to project relevant personalities...consequently they were expensive adults. On the one occasion I photographed young beauties, they were professional dancers for San Francisco Ballet, hired by Capezio (dance shoe/attire)...not mere models. Their athleticism and dedication made me feel honored, which may also relate to morality.</p>

<p>My prints are almost always cropped, usually dodged/burned. Mostly B&W inkjet currently, they are typically printed to emulate Agfa Portriga Rapid.. extensions of my old analog work, though back then I preferred Agfa Brovira. I suppose those are elements of visual "character."</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"What is comparable to that difference between character and style in a photograph?"- Fred</p>

<p>"they are typically printed to emulate Agfa Portriga Rapid.. extensions of my old analog work, though back then I preferred Agfa Brovira. I suppose those are elements of <strong>visual "character."</strong>" - John</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps the difference is to be found somewhere between the visual and the emotional of a photograph, when it comes to style <>character. While the visual can create character, visual is more of a style, character is more of an emotion.<br>

<br /> I see a lot of old family / friends b&w photographs hanging in old houses, they have character. Unknown memories, alluding to the lives people lived. But do they have character visually or because of my emotional response to them ? Probably a mix of both but it does make wonder how much of a photograph's <em>character</em> ( or a person's ) is inherent and how much a projection of our own.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Addressing the issue of style only at this time:</p>

<p>I have a native style, but I don't use it all the time. Sometimes for a very long time (though it leaks out now and then). I eclectically <em>adopt </em>styles for specific projects, because it is essential to the work that they look a certain way.</p>

<p>I know enough about the many styles in photography to be able to do that. And no, I'm not talking about always using retro styles, let alone mimicking anyone else's. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It seem a stretch to redefine the "visual" as "style" and "character" as "emotional". </p>

<p>Certain styles do (IMO) seem to create emotion (as in the old photos to which Phylo responds, and as in the deliberate techniques of advertising photographers).</p>

<p>I think Fred's dual use of "character" as referring both visual effect and morality was amusing but I don't think we should muddle the two ideas unnecessarily. As well, I don't think emotional response is necessarily related to morality, though most of us may default to that sometimes (eg confusion between distress about 9/11 and a personal morality).</p>

<p>A photograph's possible "moral character" is one thing, but "technical character" (optics, film, digital, post processed, paper selection etc etc) is another.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Whatever the viewer gets from a photograph is transmitted visually. That's broken down into a multiplicity of channels afterwards, but it is conveyed in one sensory modality (unless scratch and sniff paper for photo use is out and I missed it). In a way, that entangles the visual with everything related to the perception of a photograph, no matter how remote from the original. If you think it is a stretch, close your eyes, bring up a picture on your computer and tell me what you;re getting from it.</p>

<p>Fred's use made perfect sense to me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Type of paper, ink, printing, etc., (which John has addressed) in addition to type of camera used, do seem to give a photo character. These are similar to the timbre of an instrument. Character can come from these very physical and tangible considerations, from the tools and medium. Style, on the other hand, may be more the purview of the performer/user, the musician or the photographer. Character, to follow that thought, is more inherent in the means and style is brought to those means by the performer or creator.</p>

<p>This squares with the character of a person being more about their intentions and motivations and style being more about outward displays and shows.</p>

<p>Since I am mindful of whether photographic techniques utilized seem relevant to subject matter, it leads me to think about whether styles are more effective, expressive, or communicative when they seem to have a significant relationship not only to the character of the medium but to the character of the subject as well.</p>

<p>If I simply apply a style that's fashionable or apply one somewhat randomly in order to appear stylistic or stylized, is that as expressive or intriguing or layered as applying a style because it seems in harmony or counterpoint or intentional discord with the character of the subject?</p>

<p>When I stylized my <a href="../photo/7674229">portrait of Ian</a> with a George Hurrel- Don English-influenced look, I did it because it seemed in keeping with his character. It also seemed to make him a character. Some, but not all, of that is about his physical and visual characteristics, the way he comports himself, the surface traits that seem to lend themselves to such a style/treatment. Some of that stylization was suggested by much deeper considerations, i.e. personality and my own feelings about him as a subject. I can't think of another of my subjects, so far, that has warranted such treatment.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To me, <em>all</em> photographs potentially have character, but it always takes time to know that character. It's very much the same as what is sometimes unkindly said about unfamiliar races of people -- "They all look the same to me." Once one comes to know the people, they no longer "all look the same."</p>

<p>If I think of my photographs as a bug collection (I am the only one who knows where and how to find them), the boxes of species would be sorted by "style." However, the individual bugs all have character. Style is about matching to species or genera. Character just ... is. It's a group of one.</p>

<p>Using style, matching, grouping, I have my beetles, my wasps, my moths, and they all look the same in their grouping but if I look -- for a long enough time -- at one particular beetle or one particular moth, it's always more than a "kind" of beetle or moth, it is "a" being, beyond group, genera or species, or "kind."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Character and style. Not always easy to distinguish between the two, as each speaks to "distinctive qualities". At least to an inanimate object or art form, unless we use style simply to denote some particular aesthetic movement . When we speak of character or style of a person we infer some difference between the two, character often being more related to the values, inherent manners and moral of the person, whereas style often refers to outward mammersims adopted for some purpose.</p>

<p>Character in a photograph. Paper, surface texture, framing, and so on are for me more questions of style and much less of character. Character has to be in what the work communicates, why and for what reason it was made and how it communicates something unique. Yes, unique is important. Two photographers photographing gravestones at the same cemetery may produce anything from a simple post card depiction to an image imbued with mystery, questions or unique perception. The latter would likely have character, the former almost always not.</p>

<p>Although less powerful an effect than the foregoing, the character of an image can also be brought out by its manner of exhibition, where, and how it interacts with other elements in the surrounding space. I have three images from the Georgia seaside in an office of a friend, placed in a close assymetrical pattern and alone on one of the long walls. Together in that space they emit a certain character and uniqueness.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Together in that space they emit a certain character and uniqueness."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Undoubtedly every close observer perceives a certain character and uniqueness...as with their responses to the door knobs, frames, lighting, cooking smells, temperature, and flooring.<br>

<em> </em><br>

Monitors and projectors, as devices emit, as do paperss that glow due to their fluorescent brighteners, but I don't think "images" or photographic prints do.</p>

<p>Every photograph can be characterised as having a certain "style," which may be a synonym for their "character." Description or evaluation of character from a moral or personality point of view is done in one's head, is not resident in print or monitor. "Style" and "character" can be totally bland, accidental, utilitarian.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Character in a photograph. Paper, surface texture, framing, and so on are for me more questions of style and much less of character</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but there's also something like the characteristic of film, or digital, both in the process of photographing and in the photograph, which can translate itself into the character of an image.<br>

All by all the photograph's nature is perhaps bipolar, with style being its objective part and character its subjective part.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"All by all the photograph's nature is perhaps bipolar, with style being its objective part and character its subjective part."</p>

<p>I would put it in perhaps in opposite sense. If character is indeed "distinct quality" it can be an objective parameter. Both style and character can be both subjective and objective, although I think subjective weighs in more often. </p>

 

 

<p>"Description or evaluation of character from a moral or personality point of view is done in one's head, is not resident in print or monitor. "Style" and "character" can be totally bland, accidental, utilitarian."</p>

<p>It's the quality of the print or monitor or whatever media to contain and either induce character (exhibiting values or manners, or their analogous visual symbols), or not. Therefore it is hard to consider that the they are divorced from the manner they are perceived by the viewer ("in his head").</p>

<p>"Undoubtedly every close observer perceives a certain character and uniqueness...as with their responses to the door knobs, frames, lighting, cooking smells, temperature, and flooring."</p>

<p>The character of some prints are definitely portrayed or extended by their placement, the colour of wall, the lighting (forceful or subdued), their immediate print neighbours (think of a series of images), their framing, and other factors of placement. Door knobs rarely add to that. The character of a photograph in which the visual the elements run off of the frame is often better maintained by placing it in a frameless holder, and choosing the wall colour and tone in consequence. The character of individual paintings in a commercial gallery in which the wall has been overly covered with too many paintings, can be diminished by such overblown placement. One of the most successful recent museum hangings I witnessed this year was the Tiffany exhibit in Montreal (at the MMBA). The character of the works gained much from the placements. </p>

<p> </p>

<br />

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Character in photographs.<br>

<br /><br>

Developing a response for this topic was very difficult task for me, and it has required a jumbo serving of processing time because I think it is a very complex subject.<br>

<br /><br>

Characterization within my photographic process that is largely subconscious and subliminal. I would like to clarify that statement by saying there is no implication of it occurring by accident.<br>

<br /><br>

Over the years, I have made an effort to reflexively respond to elements of both conscious and subconscious streams of thought. I like to capture an image before I have time to think about it. The less I think, the more I do.<br>

<br /><br>

My photography has identifiable elements of character which are a design of both my style and preferences. The collective feedback that I have received over the years has described my style as intimate, personal, soft, and as if the image was designed to represent how my personality lends me to see things the way I do.</p>

<p>Some photographers are very gifted in the sense that their conscious efforts to demonstrate character yields an unmistakeable intentional elemental style within their photography that is effectively and easily perceived (and recognized) by the masses. Select images by Robert Mapplethorpe and Annie Leibovitz come to mind.</p>

<p>Other people are gifted in the sense that they have a natural recognition of a character dominant scene, and their images are magical because the moment they release the shutter is within that oh-so-critical time frame which is responsible for some of the worlds most photo-journalistic photographs. Select images by Margaret Bourke-White come to mind.</p>

<p>I am somewhere in between, always trying to capture the fantasy which reality affords me to see. I do believe that the element of character within a photograph is extremely important, as the end result provokes very strong associations and statements.<br>

<br>

The strongest character within my photographs is honesty. It’s what I do by reflex, in the absence of intentions to deceive.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The strongest character within my photographs is honesty. It’s what I do by reflex, in the absence of intentions to deceive</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's honorable - almost from a photojournalists perspective - but isn't it in the <em>nature of photographs</em> to deceive, if ever so slightly, whether or not the photographer meant anything otherwise, or had different intentions.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matthew, thanks for the time and thought you put into this. As for honesty, I appreciate what you've said. Photographs may deceive, but photographers can be honest or not, even about acknowledging that photographs deceive.</p>

<p>Phylo, you've given a great example of where nature is the more appropriate word to be applied to all photographs than character. I want to add that the deception that's in the <em>nature</em> of photographs can stay at the level of deception or transform itself (or be transformed) into truth or honesty. On the ground, this or that photo may deceive. But on another level, it may shed more light on a more significant truth.</p>

<p>John, about five years ago I took an uninteresting cheesecake type picture of a cute shirtless male greeter at the entrance to the downtown San Francisco Abercrombie and Fitch store. Ho-hum. At the time, a photographer friend told me that good-looking young people could be the biggest challenge to photograph well. Old people, infirm people, odd-looking people all had some built-in interest. The challenge would be to do something of photographic interest with the pretty ones. I don't make a habit of shooting good-looking guys anymore. At the same time, I don't turn them away when the opportunity arises. Yesterday, I happened to walk by the flagship Abercrombie and Fitch store on Fifth Avenue in NY. Behold, a bevy of goodlooking, young, white, plaidly-clad, sandal-footed, properly gym-toned, coiffed guys. With their tacit approval, I took some pictures, both "candid" and "posed" and I may actually have a couple I'd have use for in certain contexts. Five years ago, I would have guessed getting beyond, even photographically denying, their good looks would likely be the solution. Yesterday, it seemed like confronting their good looks head on was the way to go. With that confrontation, I was able to include a visual question mark about what I was seeing. That move toward ambiguity, possibly even ambivalence, seemed genuine and seemed like a good hook. I haven't even gotten them out of the camera yet, so don't know whether they'll see the light of day, but even if not, I got some ideas, learned some things, and practiced, all with good-looking young guys who I didn't have to pay. I won't use them if they don't offer something new or at least honest, though I might use them in some more commercial/promotional ways even if they haven't pushed the envelope in the way I'd ultimately prefer.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>On the ground, this or that photo may deceive. But on another level, it may shed more light on a more significant truth. - Fred<br /> Photographs are <em>transformations</em>. They can neither lie nor tell the truth. - Luis</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Or how a photographer / a <em>photograph</em> can place the visible in the service of the invisible. Indeed a transformation is taking place then, but I think without the photograph itself being transformed, still adhering to its nature but not without revealing a deeper "truer" character.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Correction !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the ground, this or that photo may deceive. But on another level, it may shed more light on a more significant truth. - Fred<br />oops. - Luis</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Or how a photographer / a <em>photograph</em> can place the visible in the service of the invisible. Indeed an oops is taking place then, but I think without the photograph itself being oopsed, still adhering to its nature but not without revealing a deeper "truer" character.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Phylo - In a sense, I would have to say, yes it is the nature of a photograph to deceive. Potentially, at the very least. I agree with that statement because a photograph captures one perspective. If an image was holographic, it "may" not be as deceptive.</p>

<p>Fred - In my early twenties/late teens, I was told by a photographer that I needed a scar because I was too pretty, and the scar would serve a purpose by stirring interest. Pretty and good looking is perspective. For all we know, one of the pretty young men at Abercrombie could be construed as ugly or awkward by someone else. If that's the case, is it easier to see them from an interesting perspective if they are perceived to lack beauty? Or did they lack interest because their character was young, or perhaps because the elements of their personality that may be interesting were suppressed by their vanity and conceit? Some of the people that I find very attractive are often very odd or awkward looking. It's the oddness that caused my eye to notice them!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matthew, pretty and good looking may be perspective but Abercrombie and Fitch are in the business of selling and they know what the majority of their audience finds good looking and they exploit that. It's not chance that the conventional good looks of their models helps sell their clothes. Of course, one of those good looking young men might be construed as ugly by some, but A&F counts on the fact, and pretty successfully, that those few who think these guys are ugly are the exceptions.</p>

<p>Not knowing the photographer who said that to you and the context within which he said it, my gut reaction is not that you needed a scar but that he needed an imagination. Of course, there was likely more to your conversation that I'm not privy to. As the photographer, I am the one stirring interest, not some scar on your face.</p>

<p>I'm not quite getting your questions about interest. For me, the guys did not lack interest. Only my photo of five years ago did, because of a lack of imagination on my part. Yesterday, I found I had a lot of interest in them. As for character, they seemed to respond with more enthusiasm to me than to the snapping tourists passing by, but it was going to be up to me to imbue the photographs with some sort of character. I didn't judge any conceit in those few moments. </p>

<p>Attractiveness and oddity may cause me to take note or not to take note of people. What is noteworthy in a photograph may well be a different matter.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
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...