Favorite symbols?

<p>What are some of the symbols (and I mean to be pretty vague and wide with that word) that you like to see in photographs?</p>

<p>What are some of the symbols you like to use in photographs?</p>

<p>Extra credit: What is a "symbol", to you? ;)</p>

<p>This is fascinating to me because photography lends itself so well to symbolism ranging from:</p>

<ul>

<li>The most obvious use of unequivocal imagery (for example, nudes presented as nudes for the pure appreciation of nudity as its own aesthetic subset); to</li>

<li>Graphical symbols and icons that are usually immediately recognized as such (such as signs or advertising in humorous or ironic juxtaposition); to</li>

<li>Pop culture references, insider humor and memes, in which seemingly ordinary photos attain meaning only within a limited context by popular consensus (the "ceiling cat" lolcat and more recent UC Boulder "falling bear" photos); to</li>

<li>More obscure semiotics, in which shapes formed by lines and light evoke other imagery to which viewers attach certain meanings, emotions and interpretations, depending on their own personal beliefs, cultures and other factors.</li>

</ul>

<p>From my own personal perspective I find myself almost inexplicably drawn toward photos with strong diagonal lines, regardless of type or genre, and candid photos of people that give the impression -to me, at least - of a theatrical milieu, in which a moment frozen in time seems to confirm the impression that all the world is, indeed, a stage and all the men and women merely players.</p>

<p>Because of that bias, I tend to assign meaning to photos that appeal to my personal sense of aesthetics, even when I know the photo was either the product of serendipity or carefully crafted to emphasize certain aspects. I know that I regard strong diagonals as a type of symbolism and recognize my own bias toward that symbolism, but haven't really explored why I respond that way. But I do tend to lurk in favorite spots where I know there are strong diagonals, either in the physical world or created by light and shadow, looking for opportunities to capture that.</p>

<p>At another extreme - the choice to incorporate specific symbols - this year I'm intrigued by <a href="http://www.rogerballen.com/">Roger Ballen</a>'s use of harsh objects and crude personal symbols or graffiti in his various themed projects over the years, both in photography and installations. There's a sort of tribal, cave drawing feel to his symbolism. I suppose it's reminiscent - to me - of a favorite local live theater that embraces regional mythology and a primitive aesthetic not only in stage productions but in the entire physical milieu to the extent that the entire grounds of the outdoor theater convey a sense of, as a local critic described it years ago, a treehouse that fell to the ground.</p>

<p>Not necessarily what I "like" to use but one that I have used and seems natural for me to use and seems to garner a lot of attention and revealing, charged, strange, moralistic, and even sometimes juvenile reactions: <strong>the penis</strong>.</p>

<p>Now, there are certainly phallic symbols, which tend to represent the penis. But I've been finding the penis itself symbolic, and sometimes taken to be by viewers as itself offensive (especially in a photograph that may not be demur about it) or otherwise worthy of a whole lot of seemingly-apologetic or at least explanatory and sometimes self-conscious discussion. As often, the discussions are mature and can be quite revealing, both about me and about viewers. I guess the penis symbolizes maleness, sexuality, and in some contexts, particularly my own usage, homosexuality as well as a whole lot of other things, from a positive kind of power or empowerment to a negative kind of force and even to impotence. For some, it's a symbol of immorality or threat. I've had all these reactions to the very same penis in the very same photo. Some viewers take a penis very much in stride, especially when it's a male nude.</p>

<p>A while ago, someone wrote this under one of my nudes, shot from slightly below where the male subject had a semi-erection:</p>

<p><em>"In police work and in eyewitness memory research, there is discussion of something called 'weapon focus.' A witness/victim of an event is distracted by/fixated on the weapon to the exclusion of most other elements in the scene.</em><br /> <br /> <em>For some reason, with this photo, I have 'penis focus.' Perhaps it's the unusual presence of the penis in such form/position, but I keep looking at...the...penis."</em></p>

<p>We often hear guns mentioned as penis substitutes or as being symbolic of penises. It was interesting to hear it the other way around, penis as weapon: That's symbolic alright!</p>

<p>The great thing about symbols is that there are both very universal characteristics and also very palpable individual associations. We share in the symbolism of the cross. We all get the religious and historical "meaning" of it. But, we also each have very personal reactions to them.</p>

<p>I find a great use of symbolism to be when "getting" the symbol isn't necessary to an overall appreciation of what's going on but adds a dimension when grasped. So, when Juliet uses a dagger (phallic) to kill herself and Romeo drinks poison from a cup (yonic), the drama is there whether we "get" or care about the symbols or not. But there's a nice sexual twist to their deaths and the final act of their relationship once the symbols are accessed.</p>

<p>I think symbols are often not intended to be symbols (though they often are) but just sort of happen like vocabulary happens. They can reveal as much about their author/photographer as the author/photographer reveals about them.</p>

<p>I don't have a particularly strong definition of "symbol" myself, but I definitely agree that, whatever they are, sometimes they are present without the viewer really responding to them, and conversely that sometimes the viewer responds to a symbol that is present without the photographer knowing it!</p>

<p>Whatever a symbol is, it's surely something deeply connected to society and culture. Each viewer will have a slightly different set of symbols they are connected with, and each viewer will respond to each of those symbols in a different way.</p>

<p>I include such things as "lizard on a rock" symbolizing "hot and dry" as well as more literary things like crosses and daggers. One could argue that a lizard on a rock is more of a trope thana symbol, I guess, but at that point we're quibbling.</p>

 

 

<p><strong>Andrew M. - "</strong>What are some of the symbols (and I mean to be pretty vague and wide with that word) that you like to see in photographs?"</p>

<p>Ones that work. I favor those that are not blunt, though a conscious reworking of the nature of symbols is fair game.</p>

<p><strong>Andrew M. - "</strong>What are some of the symbols you like to use in photographs?"</p>

<p>Effective ones. I have no favorite symbol any more than I have a favorite word. </p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Well, Luis, which ones have you seen recently that worked?</p>

<p>Quick - where is my Alvin Langdon Coburn book? It’s a good topic and fits well with some of the stuff we've recently been thinking about. <br /> Following on Lex's post that neatly summarizes things (I'm still working on getting Ballen):<br /> There still must be mystical, spirit-enhancing and, moralistic, hidden or public, symbolism of the ALC type happening somewhere in photography. The possibility of enduring universal symbols may decrease substantially or disappear altogether in the white noise of cultural diversity clamoring with memes. <br /> Personal symbols (with footnotes!) may be all that is possible beyond small clusters of viewers. I use personal symbols, iconography, and metaphors. Their subtlety and accessibility varies. I'm not ashamed to use a one-to-one, ironic juxtaposition, or equivalency - standard photographic goods. Or are those just puns? Having a supply of personal symbolic <em>ready-mades</em> facilitates creativity. Artists are usually delighted to reveal how things in their work aren't always as they seem.</p>

<p><<<<em>I'm not ashamed to use a one-to-one, ironic juxtaposition, or equivalency - standard photographic goods. Or are those just puns?</em>>>></p>

<p>It would obviously depend on the usage, the context, and even the body of work to some extent. Sometimes a body of work helps elevate something and sometimes it cheapens it, depending on the depth of the body of work as a whole and how the ironic juxtaposition fits in.</p>

<p>Most often, I see these ironic juxtapositions in bad street work: the guy smoking a cigarette in front of a NO SMOKING sign, the woman crossing the street with a DON'T WALK sign in view, the old geezer simply walking under the billboard of the hot woman, with no attention to action, expression, composition, the sense of the street, etc. When those kinds of juxtapositions are accompanied, perhaps, by other layers, even a visually conveyed recognition of the cliché possibilities, they can work, but I find they rarely are. They are often simply too obvious and superficial and the only thing going for the photo, so I often don't care much. They can definitely serve, as you say, as bad puns. But I will certainly accept some on a case-by-case basis.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"They are often simply too obvious and superficial and the only thing going for the photo, so I often don't care much."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely my own view (and I am glad on occasion to agree with Fred) as well. Very evident symbols are for me often overdone and lose their power. Whether it is sexuality or some aspect of human life that is portrayed by a sexual symbol (penis, vagina, breast, navel) or another obvious symbol, it's often the symbol that becomes more important than the image. I divorce that of course from their non symbol use which can just be the facination with our own bodies (starting the baby discovering light and color and objects when he sees eveything as just obscure circular patters, then the young pre scool child who is fascinated by his navel, then a bit later the fascination with the sexual organs). Some other symbols, geometric or chromatic or form-based can also be too evident to make good partners with subject matter in many photographs, which I think should require somne analysis from the viewer than being too evident or repetitive of idea. </p>

<p>When a symbol is used more subtely or is by its nature more layered or slightly obscure, I think it can often provide more power to the composition or even an emotional effect and better supports the long term appreciation of an image. Some very direct symbols have been overexposed in photography and tend to lose their impact as they are too readily identifiable and overworked. I am rarely unimpressed however by what I consider to be a beautiful or sensual human body, but that is not a question of symbolism, simply an aesthetic response or evocative of human biological response, which is part of our bagage. </p>

<p>I like symbols that I don't understand. I expect that's a contradiction, but there it is. Obvious symbols — one's that I "know" often just irritate me.</p>

<p>By "don't understand," I mean a kind of amygdala-ish disturbance that can't be accounted for by the literal meaning of what I'm looking at. I call it, simply, "weight" when I'm compositing (I am a compositor), because to move stuff around photo-realistically, I have to keep all of the native flavors and manifestations of "weight" in harmony for a successful transplant. Visual stuff is active, it's alive. It "wants" to go, or not go, it's thick/thin or heavy/light, or aggressive/timid, and so on. What or where this comes from, I don't know. I just listen, and watch the little buggers in their native habitat to learn what and where they'll work in my little private circus.</p>

<p>[surely the first symbols in the first B&W photography were/are light and shadow.]</p>

<p>Just to nuance a little what Arthur and I seem to be talking about but, of course, to speak only for myself . . . It's the combination of obviousness and superficiality which can lead to a kind of triteness (or pun-ish-ness, if you will), that may, but doesn't always, bother me. Obviousness can sometimes be effective, blatant, even comical, especially (but not necessarily) if I sense the author is in on the joke. So, for instance, when Hitchcock, after having the two male protagonists meet in <em>Strangers on a Train</em> by tellingly grazing one's shoe against the other's, he pulls back to the train racing into the tunnel. That's a fairly obvious and blatant symbol but it's got that Hitchcock sort of cosmic comic touch. Attitude and context make a difference in how the obvious will or won't work. Hitchcock was a master at blending the subtle and the obvious and knowing when the power of the obvious could provide a chuckle, a fright, a foreboding, or a necessary sexual alert.</p>

<p>One of the things about symbols is that fluency involves not just the rote learning about them, nor consciously applying them, but letting them settle into one's subconscious <em>and getting out of the way </em>so they can emerge on their own while making -- or viewing -- work.<br>

_______________________________________________________</p>

<p>Symbols are like color. Their meaning is not fixed, but relative/mercurial, depending on what else is in the frame (otherwise they'd be signs, I know). Common signifiers can become symbols of convention and more when used in certain ways and contexts. Fluid and relational, it's hard, if not near impossible to make generalizations, or pin them down in a specific work. Plus they can easily function simultaneously in isolation, superpositions, and multiple combinations. I do not think of them as imprecise, though they can be, but more as potentially expansive (though some times they do the opposite). A playful, elusive, often lurking psychic amplifier that often sneaks in on cat's feet, unnoticed, into people's work (paintings, too).<br>

______________________________________________________</p>

<p>I love this photograph:</p>

<p>http://www.jacksonfineart.com/henri-cartierbresson-4330.html</p>

<p>Matisse, the Master/Artist as an old man, holding a white pigeon in his left hand, drawing with a riveting intensity. The other pigeons, having escaped or been allowed out of their cages, looking on, the white bird, a symbol for the soul, the cage, for the body, the trinity of cages surrounding Matisse, the lines on the chair echoing that of the cages, all come together for me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"[surely the first symbols in the first B&W photography were/are light and shadow.]"</p>

<p>They were the symbols of the art of the day, from Daguerre's...</p>

<p>http://www.wired.com/ly/wired/news/images/full/Daguerreotype_Daguerre_Atelier_1837.jpg</p>

<p>...on.</p>

<p>By 1844, this is evident in Talbot's <em>"Open Door".</em> <br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2005.100.498</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Surely the first symbols in the first B&W photography were/are light and shadow."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, I try to think more in those terms, as well as struggling with the nuance Fred has described as "gesture", and Luis' comment about subconscious integration rather than consciously trying to <em>Make A Statement</em>.</p>

<p>While I appreciate the art of using symbolism to make statements or suggest overt and occult meanings, I'm not comfortable using that approach myself, at least not in terms of constructing a tableaux or photographic equivalent to classic egg tempera icon paintings. I tend to prefer the found object approach.</p>

<p>Recently I noticed an unexpectedly negative reaction I had to photos from a certain camera. The high ISO JPEGs just irritated me in an irrational way. When I looked carefully at the 100% JPEGs - not really pixel peeping - I noticed the in-camera processing created odd artifacts that resembled swastikas. Changing the default noise reduction reduced that appearance. After years of hearing other photographers babble and whine about noise, grain, contrast, etc., this was probably the first time I'd ever found myself emotionally irritated by some mundane technical quirk in any photo. But it made me wonder whether other viewers respond unconsciously to accidental symbolism in photographs.</p>

<p>A number of thought provoking comments on this subject so far. Two that resonate most strongly with me from Julie and Luis --</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie: "…a kind of amygdala-ish disturbance that can't be accounted for by the literal meaning of what I'm looking at…</p>

<p>What or where this comes from, I don't know."</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Luis: "…letting them settle into one's subconscious and getting out of the way so they can emerge on their own while making -- or viewing -- work."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"I don't know" is sometimes the most intelligent statement I can make. I like "I don't know". Or perhaps I should call it "I don't know, but I know it's there" because even though I don't know, I've got my arms wrapped around something. I like it, it resonates, there's something there..substance…signifier, call it what you will. I can feel it, but I can't fully explain it. I think this corresponds to Julie's liking a symbol she doesn't understand. And I suspect that it's less an absence of understanding than it is an inability to translate it into words. Those are the best symbols. They emanate or reflect or represent something else beyond our sight and language. </p>

<p>I think symbols are a subconscious part of the editing process for some photographers. Out of 50 or 250 photographs taken, why select this one, or these three? Subject, light, desired focus or lack of focus, contrast, tone, bla bla bla, yes all those things enter into the selection process. But often there is something else, something that causes one to choose a particular image out of a series of similar images. And the reason is not always a matter of light, technical quality, or composition. The reason may be some element which "represents something else" as well as itself. It has an organic -- not forced or artifical -- depth. A symbol, personal or universal. </p>

 

<p>Uncomplicated and non-philosophical symbol: a "V"</p>

<p>

<p>I like these "now that you mention it" moments - things others pick up, as Steve refers to. They're more revealing, learn me more about what I do and do not see, or in case of my own photos what I subconsciously seem to have left there, or what other perceive. Conscious use of symbols can (too) easily lead to the pun-like qualities Fred and Arthur allude to. While I can appreciate those too, too often it does not have a lot of lasting power.</p>

<p>The only things I recall having used consciously myself in symbolic ways are indeed light, and the lack thereof.<br>

(<em>I need to add I regard lines and diagonals more as shapes, not so much symbols. To me, they help order a composition, they can seem subject, but usually it is still the play of light and shadows</em>).</p>

<p>I think some of the most powerful and accessible symbols are simply people. People dressed in certain ways, doing certain things, people in certain contexts, these are incredibly potent symbols. This is largely because of other photographs of people we've seen that are similar, but we ALSO have a rich visual vocabulary drawn from our own lives and the people we have known and met.<br>

People as symbols are unreliable means of communication, since we all have different associations (the guy in the pin-striped suit might mean "Mafia" to you, "Dad" to me, and "that one terrible boss I had" to another viewer) but they're likely to be powerful and evocative, at any rate.</p>

 

<p>I guess that I consider the physical appearance of light and contrast as not symbolic of anything, unless of course they symboloize one medium of photography or way of transferring a three dimensional life subject to the flat canvass or paper. It dawned on me much later, but the first photograph of the 1820's realised by the great Nicephore Niepce symbolised for me something akin to "alltime", continuity or eternity, as the long exposure (8 hours) on bitumen necessarily showed the effect of the variable position of the sun's rays over the full daytime, without an ability to reference a specific hour.</p>

<p>Symbols are often unconsciously a part of the images I make and what I choose to photograph, but more important to me than an application of symbols is a not fully understood ability to show subject matter in a unique or different way and which is related no doubt on how I am wired to perceive, contemplate and re-order or use the subject matter in the realisation of a photograph. This characteristic or ability was likely founded upon a long period of development of my particular approach and the distillation and absorption of what I have learned from other photographers and from studying and viewing art. However, it is more than that and not something that I succeed in bringing to bear on most images I make, only on some, but I recognize it immediately when it happens. I don't mean to vaunt something special in my approach, but it is very important to me and its somewhat fickle presence (that is, a not fully controlled application) is something I cherish above all else in photographic approaches and which keeps me strongly committed to this activity. It has little to do with the number or frequency of photos I make in any time period. It has more to do with my mind being heightened to its possibilities and benefitting from that condition.</p>

<p>Symbols or other astute visual structures take a far back seat in that desirable process.</p>

<p>I'm going to disagree with what Luis said earlier and which Steve picked out: "... but letting them settle into one's subconscious <em>and getting out of the way </em>so they can emerge on their own while making -- or viewing -- work."</p>

<p>I think that "<em>getting out of the way</em>" kills symbols; let me see if I can explain (in the middle of my morning chores, so expect more than the usual incoherence).</p>

<p>Symbols, to me, are the picture refusing to submit to your (the viewer's) expectation or intent. They are the picture teaching you; resisting you, denying you, witholding itself from you, refusing to submit to you. So far this may seem like "getting out of the way" might be what's called for, but I think that there has to be tension in this event. The symbolism *is* the tension, the friction, the stuggle of viewer wanting and picture refusing. By NOT "gettting out of the way" picture and viewer generate the heat, arousal, conceptual rearrangement. Symbolism seems to me to require a thwarted expectation; an awareness of a thwarted expectation, not simply a fluid addition of a layer of meaning.</p>

<p>Here's a very mundane example: lawn (mowed) grass is soft, fluffy, comfy stuff that's fun to play or just lie on. But in black and white photographs, lawn (mowed) grass is a bunch of little knives, needles, spears, sharp, harsh, kind of nasty. Its symbolism in black and white photographs is in the friction between what I feel that it "is" and what the picture *is.* If I were to "get out of the way" and just let grass be sharp and pointy and uncomfy, then the symbolism goes away and I end up with just some nasty grass.</p>

<p>I sure hope this makes some sense (I fear it does not; *sigh*). Back to my chores ...</p>

<p>A viewer's relationship to symbols and to a photo isn't necessarily quite so active. Not everyone "gets" Shakespeare's symbols <em>per se</em>. Nevertheless they are part of the overall texture of his work and they can have a very quiet (and unknown) effect. I work on very fine details of my own photos knowing full well that few people would distinctly recognize each refinement or even care about each detail itself. But it becomes part of the fabric of my work and will ultimately have its effect, even though often remaining in the underbrush. </p>

<p>Some symbols may never be recognized as such, and yet they will have all kinds of effects, intentional or not, and with the awareness of the viewer or not.</p>

<p>Here's a neat article that addresses an aspect of symbolism.<br>

<a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/asr/v006/6.4unit03.html">link</a><br>

Up until modern times art WAS messaging, hidden, or otherwise. Look at Bosh and Bruegel for familiar examples. See Umberto's Eco' stuff , or <em>DaVinci Code</em>, etc. The Performing arts were always thoroughly steeped in both sanctioned and subversive political messaging. The "dog whistle" coded message employed by politicians today originated with Og the Upright.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"But in black and white photographs, lawn (mowed) grass is a bunch of little knives, needles, spears, sharp, harsh, kind of nasty."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here I am still trying to grok the nuances of Fred's concept of gesture, and now Julie's got me wondering about the photographic symbolism of <a href="

grass in Aeon Flux</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some symbols may never be recognized as such, and yet they will have all kinds of effects, intentional or not, and with the awareness of the viewer or not</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's very true, and makes for a lot of debate in works of painters, composers etc. as Alan refers to (I must say, I'm not always equally convinced about these post-mortem found hidden messages, though in some cases it is quite clear; Jeroen Bosch is a very nice example, Jan Steen may be even nicer in this context).<br>

As Arthur, I think the interesting aspect of symbols (both in using them and in recognising them) is that it happens on several levels - both conscious and unconscious, both literally and figuratively, both intentional and unintentional, etc. So, as far as I think I got Julie's morning musings, I do not see symbols adding tension, but instead I see it add <em>a fluid addition of a layer of meaning</em>. Making effective use of symbols may help create either a direct communication to the viewer, a layered unfolding message, or a hidden message of those initiated to read it.<br>

__<br>

Andrew, let me have a try at your bonus question too.... a symbol to me is a shape, object, occurance with an assumed implied meaning. That meaning does not have to be universal (rarely are), and can in fact direct a small group of initiated (i.e. the symbols of freemasons). As with many things, the definition has fuzzy edges - a strong use of diagonals in a composition tend to imply movement and direction, and it is usually perceived that way - this already would fit my definition. <br>

You could then even argue if the shape of the frame is already a symbol: rectangle or sqaure. Maybe it does - a circular fisheye photo always gives me the sensation of peeking through a hole, a sense of secretness and distance between me and the subject. Would I ever use a fisheye, I would probably use it this way, and its shape would have a symbolic meaning within my (rather loose) definition.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred said: Some symbols may never be recognized as such, and yet they will have all kinds of effects, intentional or not, and with the awareness of the viewer or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me this is the whole point of symbols. The symbols can be personal or they can be cultural, or even in the Jungian sense of being part of the “collective unconscious.” I believe as Fred has intimated here that we aren’t even aware that we are observing or photographing something symbolic at some levels. And on the viewers side same thing goes. Symbols can represent something that is more complex than conscious thought or reason, and not just the obvious. Lex mentioned being drawn to diagonal lines for instance. I like shiny things. It doesn’t matter what it is. Look at the horizon line and its importance in many photos. I think this is what Julie was referring to as well, that symbols stimulate the brain in some way that makes us all “tingly” even though we don’t exactly know why. </p>