Jump to content

Exaggeration and Authenticity


Recommended Posts

<p>The example I keep coming back to when thinking about this subject is the "stage whisper."</p>

<p>I often exaggerate in order to make a visual point. That can be a literal or non-literal point, often non-literal but still expressive or communicative. I may exaggerate lighting (either on the spot or in post processing) to render what it actually felt like to me. Same with color. The vibrancy I saw and/or experienced may have to be exaggerated in order to make sense within the confines of the photographically "framed" image. That's one way to capture all that is NOT included in the frame that I may want to include. How, for example, does one capture heat (physical and/or emotional)? The exaggeration of light can help.</p>

<p>Talking about exaggeration is a little troubling because it sounds like it assumes that there's a level of reality or accuracy that a photographer is either conscious of or bound by. Exaggeration assumes a baseline, a truth from which exaggeration takes flight. We've talked about differences between, say, photojournalism and fine art photography. And we tend to say that the photographer who is not doing photojournalism, etc. is not bound by the same "rules" as the journalist, documentarian, forensic photographer. I do find myself, however, often binding myself. In my portraits, though I allow myself great freedom of expression and have no "rules of the trade" obligating me, I also want a level of authenticity, both out of respect to my subjects and out of a consciousness of the way I want to use photography. I find that balance and tension between what I find in the "real world" and what I fabricate in my photos endlessly curious and exciting. </p>

<p>It's funny, because I've often said that I'm not attempting to be <em>accurate</em> in my photos, but instead trying to be creative. I'm questioning that at this point. Because I think there is some degree of accuracy I'm seeking. I often do want to accurately (not fully, but in varying degrees) express or convey or even represent what I felt, what I think a subject may be feeling, or what the dynamic is between us. Sometimes it's simply just accurately portraying what someone looks like, which I find can be very significant. While I may be fabricating a lot, by directing poses, gestures, balancing color and light, etc., there's a level of accuracy that I often find myself not wanting to betray. I want to nail something that I feel, think, or see was there.</p>

<p>There's probably a flip side to exaggeration. Understatement? Also a useful tool. </p>

<p>Do you find yourself exaggerating or, let's say, veering from actual accuracy in order to be more accurate in your photographic portrayal of something? What are some different ways you do that, if you do that? If you don't think you do it, why not? What's your alternative to that?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

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

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<p><strong><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole">hyperbole</a></strong> - noun Rhetoric .<br />1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.<br />2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity."</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

Henry Posner

B&H Photo-Video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not all that worried about authenticity, though I respect it, and don't go out of my way to subvert it, unless needed, of course. It just has to be convincing. Believing is seeing. What is just as important as exaggeration to me is modulating everything else. Any part of a photograph can be made more salient by downplaying the others (and that can be done in a multitude of ways).</p>

<p>I have no problem exaggerating.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Authenticity" regarding the depiction of a subject in any art form is a canard, a red herring, a dead end. something made may represent an aspect of something the artist (and all photographers are artists whether they care to admit it or not -- like every other human endeavor there are in the photographic endeavor ones who are lazy, bad, indifferent, passable, okay, good, great, and ones who qualify as geniuses ) sees or recognizes and is able to present to an audience but at best the photograph(s) produced are authentic to their vision of the thing or person in front of their camera, and not to the the subject of the photograph. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Henry, thanks for the definition of hyperbole.</p>

<p>Luis, I appreciate your introduction of modulation. I like it because it has a musical reference as well. Modulation probably covers a bigger picture than exaggeration, as exaggeration is one aspect of the way we can modulate. I just picked exaggeration out of my interest in that particular aspect. I do think, and imagine you do as well (?), that making something salient by downplaying other things is different from exaggerating the thing you may want to make salient.</p>

<p>Ellis, while I understand your lack of interest in authenticity, I can't quite get behind your definitive statement about its inapplicability to art. I definitely get, and have said so myself, that there's a difference between the photograph and its subject. But I think there's an important relationship between them. And authenticity can be one aspect of that relationship, not for everyone, but for some. When friends and relatives of the subject of one of my portraits react a certain way and tell me I've captured or expressed something so true about the subject ("that portrait is sooooo him"), that's at least part of what I mean by its being authentic and/or accurate. I've made enough portraits where I've veiled the subject in order to draw a distinction between those and ones where I've been more true to the subject. I consider the veiled portraits, sometimes, authentic as well, because they express genuine feelings that may not apply to the individual subject but transcend that subject.</p>

<p>I don't see authenticity as <em>necessary</em> to photographs or any kind of art.</p>

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

<p>Fred, I believe its impossible to be truly authentic to the experience of being there. So we exaggerate to attempt to replay what we felt when we looked at the scene in real life. We are limited to 2D in little 8x10's or even larger prints. But in the original experience, we see in 3D, with smells, and cold and heat, and the wind in your face. That cannot be duplicated in a photo.</p>

<p>But we try. We use wide angle lenses in landscapes to cover the wide spans of the vista. Color saturation to express the feelings of deep and beautiful color we felt. Of course none of this really works to copy the original view. I have yet to see a photo of Yosemite that expresses the feeling I first felt when I stepped out on Inspiration Point and viewed that grand spectacle. No one really duplicates the grand vision of the Grand Canyon.</p>

<p>The funny thing is, that of all pictures, snapshots of family and friends probably comes closest to reality and authenticity. When you look at yourself or someone close to you, all the defects in the picture, the rules that were broken, the colors that have faded over time, are not even noticed. You only see the person and fall in love all over again. Alan.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Alan, I understand what you're saying and appreciate that the photo definitely is not the same as the experience. That's definitely not what I'm after. I'm not looking for the photo to substitute for the original experience by any means. And I'm not looking for a copy. But I think there are more and less accurate and authentic portrayals of subjects (as different as they may have to be from their originals). And, as I said, I'm not always going for that. It's just something I've been thinking of a little differently lately. I used to have a bit of disdain for the notion of accuracy. And now I'm questioning that, because I do think there are a variety of uses for accuracy, uses that don't just pertain to documentation and forensics.</p>

<p>I love your last line about snapshots of family and friends. <em>"You only see the person and fall in love all over again."</em> There's something very real about that. </p>

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

<p><strong>Method actors</strong>, in their era, strained to be "authentic"...and their straining was obvious. They sometimes achieved something unique and wonderful that way, an exaggerated sort of <strong>parallel reality</strong>.</p>

<p>Personally, <strong>I like to see actors acting</strong> more than I like to see naturalism. Who needs the theatre to see normal people? Don't we all enjoy the pretense in exaggerated clouds?</p>

<p>Our contemporary actors, who typically like to seem unaffected or "natural," laugh about him, but could any of them be a better <strong>Stanley Kowalski</strong> than <strong>Marlon Brando</strong>?</p>

<p><strong>"Authenticity" seems equivalent to "truthiness." </strong> Neither real nor the truth, but it can be rewarding to suspend disbelief.</p>

<p>Wedding photography works that vein to create a <strong>dreamworld </strong>for the bride. She'll look back at the "authenticity" in a few years and think "where did that go?" Some wedding photographers sell what they call a "photojournalistic" style in order to create a more edgy dreamworld with a megadose of truthiness. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this can be a fine thing to do. Take it a step further, make it even more trendy: <strong> </strong><br /> <br /> http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/japanese-man-wants-to-marry-cartoon-character-14042891.html</p>

<p><strong>A little unreality ("authenticity") can be more fun than its absence. :-)</strong></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I do think, and imagine you do as well (?), that making something salient by downplaying other things is different from exaggerating the thing you may want to make salient."</p>

<p>It does work differently. I agree.</p>

<p><strong>Ellis - </strong>"Authenticity" regarding the depiction of a subject in any art form is a canard, a red herring, a dead end."</p>

<p>I understand what you mean, but can't entirely dismiss the whole thing. With photography there is a referent. I do not mean it in the sense that authenticity is a requirement or intrinsically desirable, and am quite familiar with the thorny issues surrounding this in the digital age.</p>

<p><strong>Alan - </strong>Pictures of people and places we love tend to have more than a touch of the mnemonic fetish in them. Most often they are viewed by people who know the pictured, which helps to ease authenticity gaps. That's one romantic last line... I like it.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Do you find yourself exaggerating or, let's say, <em>veering from actual accuracy in order to be more accurate</em> in your photographic portrayal of something?"</p>

<p>I think I understand what you are getting at in regard to the "something", which may be quite different from the actual subject matter. However, if instead of that you are referring to an accurate representation of the subject matter, I would have to simply say, no, not often. What I do intend by exaggerating in many cases has nothing to do with seeking accuracy or fidelity to what I see as an actual subject, but rather to avoid an attempt at accuracy and to replace it by the process of adding to my subject matter something that modifies or transforms it in a manner that conveys what I feel about it, or how I wish it to act in my image, being something different than an accurate representation of it. I find that approach compelling and creative.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, some degree of accuracy doesn't negate or undermine creativity. It can be a jumping off point. Even if I am adding to my subject or modifying it, I often want to let the subject itself speak somewhat plainly and clearly as well. I usually look at a portrait and say to myself, "How is this picture a likeness and how is it not?" I can make a creative portrait of Gerald that looks like and seems like Gerald. The "looking like" and the "seeming like" has some degree of accuracy, otherwise I would presume no one that knew Gerald could guess it was Gerald.</p>

<p>As for exaggeration, I am currently playing around a lot with it in poses and gestures. I like the way exaggerated poses and gestures can read in photographs. It's hard, though, reaching that level of obviousness that, though posed, feels genuine or has some significance or in some way touches me and the viewer. Artificiality can be, to use Luis's word, unconvincing, in which case it will often fail. But sometimes, going to a bit more extreme level of artificiality can start taking you full circle to where it suggests something very relatable, very human and is, in fact, very convincing.</p>

<p>I wonder if exaggeration is able, sometimes, to bring intention to the surface. Showing and seeing intention can be very powerful, even more so than hearing about it. Exaggeration may be one way to integrate the subject with the photographer's intention toward it. (The photographer <em>obviously</em> wanted this to appear this way. That can be a useful tool in the arsenal at times.)</p>

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

<p>This thread reminds me of J.L. Austin's work, particularly, his statement that one of the fetishes he wanted to play Old Harry with was the true - false fetish. Photography, like language, is not two-dimensional. What goes into a photograph is more than the photographer's attempt to make a statement about the world. I'll stop here, lest I be accused of speaking rubbish. (Apologies, Tom, for my sarcasm.)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, thanks for the quote.</p>

<p>Michael, I agree that there is (I'll add MUCH) more to a photo than an attempt to make a statement about the world. I'm talking about accuracy as ONE aspect (out of many, many, many) that can be considered when making photographs. It is because accuracy/truth/representation is so maligned so often that I'm wanting to take a closer look at it and have found, at least for myself, some usefulness in it, especially because of how photographs are taken and work. I think I gave it short shrift in the past because I saw it as an enemy, rather than a companion, to photographic expression. </p>

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

<p><em>"Exaggeration may be one way to integrate the subject with the photographer's intention toward it." </em></p>

<p>Fred, that is what I was refering to in another manner. It can be used subtly or not so subtly, with varying effect. I see it as not being limited to any one type of subject matter. You choose the example of portraiture, which is relevant, but exaggeration can be a component of the photographer's perception/ response/ intention in regard to virtually any subject he may wish to consider.</p>

<p>We are familiar with the more straightforward exaggerations that may be compositional, such as those involving apparent distortion of perspective, such as the case of my image of a blue chair in my portfolio "Seated or not" or a face rendered with a wide angle lens, or similar warped structures, or the use of extended shadows (in themselves accurately portrayed), extremely dark skies suggesting night rather than day (or the contrary), color exaggerations, and the like. I think that the more enigmatic or subtle exaggerations that are played out in an image, sometimes only detectable on repeated viewing, are more powerful than the geometrical or chromatic ones. But I guess iot depends upon the subject. Most probably remember the tennis game without the ball, and with the sound of the stroke, in the Antonioni film "Blow Up", although that dealt with reality versus non-reality, the theme of that classic film.</p>

<p>What I do realize from this OP is that too few of my own images seek to exaggerate that which I observe, but often simply seek to show something that may not be too common. There is much potential in the creative use of exaggeration, as one tool in an artistic approach. I fear though that the ability to achieve it with the photographic medium (other than the too easy use of chromatic exaggeration or distorted subject matter through lens choice) and in a more meaningful or subtle manner is quite a challenge. But I am glad you bring it up.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Exaggeration, up to a point, is disproportionally effective with almost everything. Think revenue estimates, Victoria's Secret, US Congress, everyone's children, Military estimates, budget justifications, etc. It connects with something deep in us. I remember a Keys fishing guide telling my wife when she remarked that a certain fishing fly didn't resemble its namesake crab in the slightest: "It is to a real crab as Dolly Parton is to the average woman...".</p>

<p>It can work, through suspending disbelief and connecting with the viewer, as a kind of short-circuit intimacy. Every con man on the planet knows this. Not that photographers have anything to do with that kind of thing, of course.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@ Fred G.: You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I am very much interested in the authentic and the idea of the authentic. So much so that I wanted to separate the chaff of illusion from the kernel. The finished photograph is an authentic to a photographer's vision of whatever or whoever he or she has photographed- but that is the extent of authenticity in a photograph.<br>

<br /> Rene Magritte recognized this principle as well: a representative work of art is it's own reality, and that holds true for photography as well as painting or sculpture.</p><div>00YFFI-333779684.jpg.a211977c10783a0dbee8ebfae5321571.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ellis, I'm sorry. I understand what you mean by authenticity of vision. And that's important to me as well. Magritte's visual is also very significant, especially accompanied by his words. And I surely do understand that his picture of a pipe is not a pipe just as I understand that my pictures of people are not people. I don't think, however, that's the extent of authenticity in a photograph. Though I don't think a photograph is the pipe of which it is a picture, I do think the two have a relationship. As I said, if there were no relationship between subject and photograph, no one who knows a subject of a portrait would recognize that the portrait is <em>of</em> that person. That's an important "of." So, while I don't think authenticity is identity, I do think there are more and less authentic relationships. I also know that in some cases and on many different levels, the particular person who is the subject of the portrait doesn't matter. Often, all we have is the picture and not the person. And, often, the portrait transcends the person. Yet, again as Luis pointed out, there is usually a referent in a photograph and that sets up a kind of relationship that I think can be special to a photograph. </p>

<p>Here are a couple of definitions that come up for authentic:</p>

<p><em>1. Worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact.</em></p>

<p>Luis mentioned "convincing" as something significant. The above definition seems related. </p>

<p><em>2. Not false or copied.</em></p>

<p>This is a particularly useful one. Because it makes the point that something authentic is not a mere copy. I'm not trying to fool anyone into thinking that the portrait before them is really the person they think of when they look at the portrait. But I am recognizing that most people, when seeing a portrait or seeing a landscape or seeing a chair are, <em>to some extent</em>, transported outside the picture. At the same time, I'm very aware that there is also a whole world inside the picture (of inside the frame) that is discontinuous with that. So there is continuity and discontinuity in the relationship of what's framed in the picture to what's not framed.</p>

<p>Again, I want to make clear that I don't think all photographs or photographers are concerned with this and ones that are are likely not completely concerned with it. I think many photographers, including me sometimes, have no concern with authenticity and are using a particular subject to express a photographic vision relatively unrelated to and unconcerned for the specific subject.</p>

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

<p><em>"It can work, through suspending disbelief and connecting with the viewer, as a kind of short-circuit intimacy. Every con man on the planet knows this. Not that photographers have anything to do with that kind of thing, of course."</em></p>

<p>Love it, Luis. This speaks to a kind of tension/counterpoint I've been exploring for some time now. It was present way back in my "photographs are lies" thread. There is, indeed, a con man aspect to how I think about what I do, perhaps to what many photographers do (?). That's why I love to talk about fakery and artificiality. At the same time, I do look to achieve and realize (the first more sought and active, the second more found and passive) intimacy, hopefully in a very genuine way. That dance, to me, is exhilarating.</p>

<p>I think there is a kind of exaggeration that is a short circuit. I wanted to avoid going here because it likely gets us hung up in the stupid over-saturated landscapes debate, but I can't help mentioning it here. That kind of exaggeration does seem like a short circuit. Many examples of exaggeration are. But I think there are exaggerations (like a good stage whisper, the idea I started the OP off with) that are necessary and, when done with subtlety and finesse, are very effective. It's interesting to talk about a subtlety of exaggeration but I think that's just what can happen.</p>

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

<p>Arthur, I'm so glad you ended with that example from Antonioni. While I was reading your post, I was focusing on the difference between the kinds of exaggerations in gesture and pose I'm working with and the kinds of graphical exaggerations (composition, etc.) you were talking about. (And, of course you are right, exaggeration is not limited to portraits. Portraits are simply where I can get my most familiar and fluent personal examples.) So I was going to ask you if there's something comparable in non-portrait, non-human or animal work to exaggerated gesture or pose, more expressive than compositional. (And that's not to say that composition isn't expressive.) I think the tennis match is a great example. Can you think of others? Maybe the tennis match is more a conceptual exaggeration? I don't remember the scene.</p>

<p>P.S. As I re-read Arthur's post, the example of the handling of skies seems a gestural consideration and others of the examples hint at that as well.</p>

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

<p><strong>Early in this thread I introduced "suspend disbelief" </strong>: Belief suspension is up to the viewer (or audience), not to the photographer (or actor). Failure to recognize the primacy of the viewer comes at a price.</p>

<p>It's well and good to consider what the photographer (or actor) claims to intend, but in the end the responsibility falls to someone else.</p>

<p>If the viewer (or audience) is freely able and willing to suspend disbelief the question of "authenticity" becomes irrelevant. "Authenticity" is mostly an issue for people who are unable or unwilling (probably not the ideal audience).</p>

<p><strong>Nobody has unreal or inauthentic perceptions,</strong> even if they're dreaming or hallucinating: They perceive what they perceive. The photographer's purported intentions become <strong>teats on a bull </strong>if s/he excessively navel-gazes, paying no attention to viewer (audience) responses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I remember one of Jackson Pollock's figurative paintings (after his abstract drip painting period) that appeared a long time ago in I think an Atlantic Monthly number. It showed in its lower 3/4s of the frame a bullseye target. In the upper 1/4 or perhaps 1/5th of the painting was a row of some 4 or 5 wooden or ceramic faces, in horizontally aligned adjoining boxes, side by side and with each face cut off at the top at the upper nose, just before where the eyes would normally show. Pollock was I think exaggerating how we perceive objects. The up front bulls eye, normally seen at a far off distance, was exaggereated in its spatial context by the equally exaggerated faces that without eyes were rendered distant and unlike a more usual perception.</p>

<p>Some scenes, landscape, cityscape or still life, can take on an exaggerated meaning or enigmatic quality if we position within each some object that is out of context with the normally perceived scene. We can also modify the tones of skies or lighting of the ground or objects to exaggerate the mood or their normally perceived and more "authentic" qualities.</p>

<p>In my scene of chairs submerged in water ("Free flight") I have exaggerated the relationship of the chairs to their shadows, which normally would be joined at some point to the chairs, but in the image are unnaturally liberated from each other. The normal positions of the chairs and their now independent shadows are also distorted or exaggerated in respect of their normal angles of perception. I did a number of views of these chairs which may become a series, although this one best shows the exaggerated reationships.</p>

<p>Still life painting and photography has been a field in which enigma and exaggeration have been used to communicate something other than what is there. But the field is wide open for exaggeration in all sorts of types of images. The tools available, from traditional darkroom techniques to air brushing to computer enhancements, are also numerous, although, as Fred has hinted at, their power can be too strong to resist and not always well used. The recent face uplifting software does exaggerate reality, but to what avail? The lack of authenticity and dream world it yields is not always very useful for artistic expression.</p>

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...