Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by mikemorrell, Nov 29, 2018.
Mostly mates sometimes with a bit of a scowl.
I'm the bloke not to confuse anyone one)
Fred the Shadow is still working on...Love Phil thing.
He will eventually get there in time.
How about "common"?
not for me personally Phil.. The content of the photo I find very leading.
Still the success of that photo is in it's ambiguity imo. So I can understand why there may be many interpretations including sorrow. To suggest that there is a universal at play because of the ambiguity doesn't connect for me.
If you were to suggest viewing the tear in isolation, as in free of context truly making it ambiguous, abstracted then I would have a completely different take. In fact for me as you begin to crop in on the tear there is a point that it reads as a squinting physiological response to the environment (I suspect even more pronounced in 'straight' color) but still there is some context.....
Remove all context, or circumstance (like the birth of a child) an abstract. And if isolated but I still recognized it as a tear I wouldn't attach a specific emotion without the technique taking me there. A tear means sorrow for me only when content driven... for me sorrow requires content. The same way it may mean tears of joy with a smiling face attached. A tear accentuates, intensifies the moment.
Well, first, if I see a teardrop in a photo, my gut response would be shaped by everything that surrounds the teardrop, not just the tear itself. If there’s ambiguity in the context, I would think the photographer has more to show than is revealed and that would motivate me to take a deeper look at the work than reverting back to the original gut response.
Yeah ok. I think it is easily discerned which is being discussed at any given moment.
That was very clear.
My gut response to a tear in an image is more along the lines of empathy sometimes compassion not tear as a token of a single emotion. Tears are much more nuanced in my life experience and as a creative tool. Maybe in part because i am as likely to tear for other reasons as I am for some misfortune.
I do recognize that the most common usage in imagery is to capture someone who is sad and with tears accentuate the depth of their sorrow.
I'll bite. Of course not. Why is that Phil?
I don't speak for the average viewer unless my opinion is solicited. I do ask my average viewer wife for her take on photos of mine and others. I don't think i have a good handle on other viewers opinions. I stick to my own. I was very surprised to hear her answer to the question I posed tonight in this context. Unprompted she said that tears don't symbolize anything for her they just show an deep emotional response. Not what I expected.
We do know each other no deception there... it's come up many times here on PN.
Just remember he is the one that writes much better and would probably gag trying to write like me. I am the one who is less stubborn and competetive I sometimes cringe at what he says in these forums.
Yes we do. but I seldom go there ( try to figure them out) anymore except in very round about ways.
My major counterpoint was this though.
When I read this ...
... I can just as easily read “photographer” as “photograph”, and hopefully that helps avoid any “feelings don’t describe photographs, photographs describe feelings” dilemma.
Supriyo could just as easily have said “if there’s ambiguity in the context, I would think the photograph has more to show than is revealed and that would motivate me to take a deeper look at the work than reverting back to the original gut response.”
In any case, Supriyo’s idea of “taking a deeper look at the work than reverting back to the original gut response” is a quick chance to get back to music for a second. Though a photo is a stilled moment (and so much more than that), it takes TIME to digest a photo. The process Supriyo describes reminds me a little of the classic sonata form employed by the likes of Haydn and Mozart, which begins with an exposition, moves to a development, and ends with a recapitulation, which is an altered restatement of the exposition or the original thematic ideas of the piece. Now, in Supriyo’s or any viewer’s case, the development may or may not lead to a recapitulation, but the point is one’s appreciation and understanding, indeed one’s viewing, of a photo isn’t static. It’s progressive and rhythmic.
Supriyo was talking about his viewing experience and I was responding to that.
IMO, that’s plain wrong. It’s a demand for kitsch and cliche, for easy listening elevator music.
Shadow, you made very elegant parallel between "reading" image and sections of musical composition. I would add that, closer the image to abstract end of the spectrum longer the development.
Thanks, Pavel. Interesting point. I agree there's something to be said for abstraction whether it's in a more abstract photo or even in a more literal, narrative, and representational photo that becomes kind of open-ended and encourages me to linger a while. Abstraction seems to yield question marks that take time to process.
Interestingly, I also notice myself lingering over some pretty concrete photos, maybe thinking of some Gordon Parks or Walker Evans photos. With those, it's my wanting to get intimate with the subject matter. Some of their stuff becomes like a member of the family over time ... not just the people, even the storefronts! Not saying Parks and Evans photos don't have abstraction about them even when they're on the literal side, just that it's sometimes other aspects that will reveal themselves over time.
And the world of photography ended with Gordon Parks and Walker Evans.
Those were the day my friends. Hello, there are equally talented photographers, who are still breathing today.
Just for those folks lost in a never-ending time warp...
The weirdness, and I mean weird, is that never a mention of a photographer who is not pushing up daisies' Perhaps it is me who never read the poster...the Gods are dead and the Gods created photography....silent ashes.. Codgers rule on PN.
In hundred and one posts on this forum only daisy pushers are mentioned.
Just a thought.
Separate names with a comma.