On the subjectivity of photography

<p>After quite a long hiatus from this forum I would like to share some reflections, resuming the concepts of a thread of some time ago on the subjectivity of the relationship with photography.<br>

After having worked a lot on images in this period, I wonder whether the way we</p>

<ol>

<li>create photographs</li>

<li>watch photographs</li>

<li>criticise photographs</li>

<li>categorise photographs</li>

</ol>

<p>is still very closely, if not exclusively related to our subjective perceptions, objectives, vision of the world.<br>

A photographer might want to create a personal imaging style. This imaging style will be very much related to the personal, subjective, preferences on what to picture and how to picture it. Even if the personal imaging style builds on the universal perception of what has been pictured before, the interpretation is still bound to the individual and the subjective perception of the photographer.<br>

Doesn't the same happen to the viewer? The picture exposed to stirs some emotions, some feelings, some associations, which are first of all subjective.<br>

The subjective element in producing and viewing a picture does not exclude that a multitude of different photographers or viewers have similar or the same perceptions or feelings of a picture. Nor that in some way there can be some universally accepted aesthetics: not one single photographic aesthetic, but potentially infinite aesthetics, which nevertheless could be somehow clustered.<br>

The subjectivity element could explain why many photography criticisms include "in my opinion", "as I see it", a subjective "benchmark".<br>

And there are no "universal aesthetics", but probably just several "universally accepted aesthetics", which stem from individual, subjective conceptualisations, even if shared by a few, or many other human beings.</p>

 

<p><em>"The subjective element in producing and viewing a picture does not exclude that a multitude of different photographers or viewers have similar or the same perceptions or feelings of a picture."</em></p>

<p>It seems to me that this is the crux of the matter and it undermines your premise, IMO. What it sounds like you're saying is that the subjective does not exclude the objective. Which raises the point that subjective/objective is a false dichotomy.</p>

<p>"In my opinion", the so-called subjective cannot be separated from the cultural, the biological, the historical, the social and the shared.</p>

<p>A photo, subjective as it may seem to a viewer and as possessive as one may want to be about it, is a gift to the viewer from the photographer. It makes a connection.</p>

<p>One example of many: How could a symbol ever work if photos and art were only or even mostly subjective?</p>

<p>Honestly, Luca, I think of subjectivism as a kind of possessiveness. Isn't a little like the child on the playground insisting "mine, mine, mine"?</p>

Some preliminary remarks:<br>

- I am not thinking of a dichotomy, but more of a primal driver;<br>

- I agree on the necessary unity of the cultural, the biological, the historical, the social and the shared. But isn't the

combination mediated by the self in first instance?<br>

- in terms of empirical observation it seems to me that the self, however complex, remains the term of reference both

producing and watching pictures. Even as the catalyst of every surrounding determinant;<br>

- if we make a kind of judgement, it is always against a self. Also because I am not aware of universal metrics applicable

to photographs;<br>

- I disagree with the possessiveness in first instance: it's more giving the photograph a precise position within one's

universe, rather than owning it;<br>

- the photograph as a connecting gift? Maybe, but not necessarily. It depends on whether there is a match of two

subjectivities.<br>

<br>

The concept of a photograph as a universal symbol is very interesting. But isn't universality a maybe educated

combination of subjective perceptions?

<p>So, is it just coincidence that<em> "different photographers or viewers have similar or the same perceptions or feelings of a picture."</em> How does your self and someone else's self experience so similarly?</p>

<p>Why would there be a primal driver? Is this a search for a kind of god?</p>

<p>What if the self is a prison, constructed to contain experience?</p>

<p>What if experience itself is more "primal" and we are simply using the notion of a self to define a route on the map of that experience?</p>

Probably a coincidence.<br>

No God. Just the self, the interest, the drive.<br>

That depends: I tend to consider the self as a starting point, a basis for further questions, for openings. But I agree that

there are closed selves.<br>

As mentioned, more than a route on the map a starting point. How it then develops depends on how everybody is.<br>

<br>

 

What is the universal in Halsman's jumping Dalì and flying cat? And in Newton's "they are coming". Or in Sobol's

documentary on his Greenlandish experience (Sabine)?

<p>I didn't use the word "universal" or make any reference to its application here.</p>

<p>___________________________________________</p>

<p>Seriously? A coincidence?</p>

<p><strong>Coincidence</strong> - <em>a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.</em></p>

<p>You think that similar reactions to a photo don't have a connection and are simply a random concurrence?</p>

<p>____________________________________________</p>

<p>It is actually the "primal-ness" idea that I most object to, whether it's the self or anything else.</p>

<p>Here's Merleau-Ponty, quoted from another recent thread:<br>

<em>"The performer is no longer producing or reproducing the sonata: he feels himself, and the others feel him to be at the service of the sonata; the sonata sings through him or cries out so suddenly that he must 'dash on his bow' to follow it."</em></p>

<p>It's keenly descriptive of something I've felt, a sense of losing the self, but it doesn't tell the complete story, for me. Because I also see the performer (and have felt as a performer) as the <em>maker</em> of the music, and as instigator, even while being in service of the music.</p>

<p>What I try to do is avoid seeing any one thing, aspect, quality, being, or incarnation of being as primal. To me, asserting the primal-ness of self is hierarchical thinking, not to mention egocentric. There's nothing wrong with it as part of an exploration and dialogue (I'm all for the role of ego), but the dialogue sometimes follows the path Ponty points out, where the self is the vehicle, not the engine, and the sonata (or photo, in this case) drives the bus and is more primal. And if not the photo or the sonata itself, the <em>experience</em> giving rise to the photo or the sonata, the experience giving itself to or being there for the self has its own primal-ness.</p>

<p>"Primal" suggests a linear approach, which just doesn't cut it for me. A more holistic approach would suggest more of a dialogue among various movers and more reciprocity among factors that determine how photos are made and viewed. </p>

<p>In any case, Luca, what's the relevance, for you, of the primal nature you see the self as having, regarding photos and photography? How does it affect the making or viewing of photos? What ramifications would it have? Addressing those questions might give the topic a kind of focus that could be of value. Otherwise, we're just talking pretty abstractly. Do you think this idea of subjectivity has an impact on your photos themselves, on how you view photos or what you take away from them?</p>

<p>Hi Luca. : )</p>

<p>I think subjectivity is most apparent (as an observer of others) in the negative: in what people can't, don't, or won't see because they don't know how, lack training, have a different sensibility, or won't shut up long enough to listen/hear/see/learn.</p>

<p>It makes sense to me that creatures with similar brains would have things in common. Brain gives rise to mind, and so it seems reasonable to go on to assert that there would be a potential for a lot of similarity in the way separate individuals understand and react to a common surrounding. In fact, the notion of culture suggests to me that a large number of people can do and understand many things in the same way.</p>

<p>Getting back to Luca, yes many individuals in the same culture could see and understand a photograph in a similar way. I wouldn't expect them all to find the same way to describe their experience, however. Perhaps this leads one to speculate on the limitations of an individual in society? At any rate, if subjective is what you wind up being, then you will have to accept the idea that there are some really good, but subjective (individual) interpretations for objects found in the visuals arts arena. I encourage you to think of this as a part of the richness of living with other people.</p>

<p>What about objectivity and symbols? I like to take something like this to the margins to find a place to begin. The Egyptian hieroglyph looks like a good start. It is literally a symbol that was used to record a living language. Since there are only a handful of people now who can read hieroglyphs, their actual significance is lost on someone like me. For me they are objective only because I can add no meaning or understanding to be able to interpret them as language.<br /> Interpreting symbols is subjective in that it takes an active mind living in someone's head to do the work. Consensus is the agreement among minds needed to make symbols useful. It should be no surprise that people living in the same culture agree on the meaning of many things including those that might appear as subjects in a photograph. If the photographer could not depend on having some common ground with a prospective viewer he would never be able to assess the value of his own work. What's the point of composition if no one can understand what difference it makes?</p>

<p>Subjective? I challenge you to find another way to do it if you can.</p>

<p> </p>

Universal: it's me using it.<br>

I think we (I) need to define terms and concepts better.<br>

<br>

Provided that I do not see a dichotomy between the terms, I am prepared to switch from subjective/objective to

individual/universal.<br>

<br>

"Coincidence" in the sense of matching of factors. Elements of different weight and different nature and origins combine,

come together, unite.<br>

I do not see coincidence in connection to random. It's not a chaotic clash of elements, but a differentiated, non linear

combination of factors.<br>

"Primal" in the sense of driving factor, in Latin "movens", what makes me do something: love, curiosity, rage, need for

justice, whatever makes you do something. Probably "initial" is a better term, which allows to leave out the connotations

the term "primal" has.<br>

<br><br>

Let's take it the other way around:<br>

The photographer decides to take pictures of flowers, in brilliant colours. It's the initial decision. It is not painting flowers,

not making stencils of flowers, not forming terracotta flowers, not composing floral music.<br>

It's photographing flowers.<br>

The photographer will look for flowers, seek flower photographs, get suitable equipment to picture flowers. Important or

less prominent flower photographers will attract the attention and focus the study. The photographer will fine-tune the

whole photographic workflow: from finding flowers near and in far lands, understanding the right light, setting up the right

lighting, doing the right processing, post-processing and printing. The photographer will have an initial idea of what it

means to photograph flowers and while practising the process will be refined and refined to achieve the expected result of

"photographing flowers".<br>

The photographer will share the flower pictures to other photographers to know what they think of these.<br>

If the photographer will show the flower pictures to me, even if I will be able to appreciate their technical quality, I will say:

"I can very well see that you are a very able flower photographer, the light is right, the colours are right, but they do not

punch me because I am simply not interested in flower photographs, I am not moved by them, sorry." This because I tend

to be polite. Otherwise I might say "what shall I do with your hundreds of silly flower photographs, don't bother me with

them". In either case the flower photographer will have to use the self-esteem, the interest and drive to continue

photographing the beloved flowers.<br>

<br>

That is what I mean: photographing stems from a personal preference/personal culture/personal growth path, how it is

done is a matter of personal preference/personal culture/personal growth path, whether the beholder is touched by the

flower photograph is a matter of personal preference/personal culture/personal growth path. If these personal (...

Elements) do not match, the communication between the flower photographer and the flower photography beholder will

not come to being.<br>

I see it as a matching of personal (...) which have a subjective origin, which is essential also for the elaboration and

synthesis of all the continuously evolving elements which shape the personal preferences/personal culture/personal

growth path. Not in an ivory tower, not in isolation, but mediated by the personal elements which make it ... Personal. The

photographic style and also the viewing preferences.<br>

Universality deals with the ability of a photograph to communicate universally, I.e.: with the majority of the beholders

seeing it. Creating universally communicating photos, is that possible, with all of that "personal" elements playing a role?

<br>

Must be pretty confusing, but what I am trying to say is that, rather than looking for an universal aesthetics, it is probably

better to find one's own aesthetic, built on the personal preferences/personal culture/personal growth path, and trying to

make it correspond as well as possible to the goal we set ourselves.<br>

We also need to be careful about our audience: unconditional flower lovers will praise our work, but we will not be

criticised and be unable to grow upon criticism. Unconditional flower haters will turn our work down and be unhelpful as

well.<br>

Given the multitude of personal preferences and elements, better see for ourselves and try to develop, rather than running the risk of clashing with unlike-minded beholders.

Hi Julie, ;-)<br>

I am trying to develop a "subjectivity" concept which is not negative. Even if I recognise what you mean (<I>people can't,

don't, or won't see because they don't know how, lack training, have a different sensibility, or won't shut up long enough to

listen/hear/see/learn</I>), I would like to consider it a foundation to develop, with open eyes, ears, and mind.

<p>Luca wrote: "I would like to consider it a foundation to develop, with open eyes, ears, and mind."</p>

<p>Me too! I look forward to the discussion.</p>

If you are seeking "paralysis by analysis" I think you are lose to your goal. What kind of study have you done of the

history of photography?

<p>How does a person get a wide enough perspective to appreciate a universal anything? Is my sense of visual style personal or the embodiment of some universal standard? I don't think you can answer a question like that. I will note that there are disciplines such as Olympic figure skating and gymnastics that require athletes to master required procedures and moves precisely. Some people do this very well, yet there are still individual differences in performances. I believe that it is impossible for a person not to be an individual.</p>

<p>I'm not a great fan of the notion that a person should damn the torpedoes just to go his own way, but there's a case to me made for the idea that no matter what there's nothing else he can do. I don't condone risky or hateful behavior. A person's mind will not allow him to give himself up be another person. This gets complicated beyond the proposition that someone might impersonate another. There really are life changing experiences, and diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer's can destroy mind and personality. All in all, you might say that a person is either subjective or dead! </p>

<p>I really don't know the mechanics behind an artist refining his own work. I think that self-awareness is more likely to be helpful than the comments of strangers trying to evaluate the result - especially if they simply don't like what they see. The opinion of someone I respect makes a difference to me. I'm not sure that I particularly care what the others have to say about my flower picture. I do think that I could do a better job of another one.</p>

<p>Fortunately for me, I have come to see that trial and error is in inescapable in most of my learning. It's all in the doing. Trial and error has taught me that, in order to get things right, you must first get them wrong. It would be impossible for me to accept my own development if I could not see myself as a subjective being.</p>

Ellis Vener , Dec 29, 2013; 06:06 p.m.<br>

If you are seeking "paralysis by analysis" I think you are lose to your goal. What kind of study have you done of the

history of photography?<br>

<br>

LoL<br>

<br>

Fortunately I have learnt to keep musings and photographing completely separated.

Albert<br>

I really don't know the mechanics behind an artist refining his own work. I think that self-awareness is more likely to be

helpful than the comments of strangers trying to evaluate the result - especially if they simply don't like what they see. The

opinion of someone I respect makes a difference to me. I'm not sure that I particularly care what the others have to say

about my flower picture. I do think that I could do a better job of another one.

<br><br>

I could not agree more! ;-)

<p><em>"what I am trying to say is that, rather than looking for an universal aesthetics, it is probably better to find one's own aesthetic"</em></p>

<p>AND</p>

<p><em>"flower lovers will praise our work, but we will not be criticised and be unable to grow upon criticism"</em></p>

<p>How could we be criticized if we're relegated to subjectivity or individuality or whatever we want to call it. If we have our own aesthetic, where does someone else's criticism take hold? How would another empathize or understand us enough to criticize, or care enough? Why would we care what they say? Are we concerned with communication and with something broader than ourselves or aren't we?</p>

<p>Or is there some middle ground? If, as I suspect, there's a middle ground, well then you may have your answer. Individuality makes sense against a collective or community, and community is a bunch of individuals. Both aspects of being in the world are worth considering, honoring, and developing an aesthetic with regard to, though not with obedience to.</p>

<p>Well, 'subjective' is all we got from mother nature though some may try to expand it towards 'objective' by grades. The real choise actually lays between creating specific context of some kind on one side and "whole-take" unlimited perception of fenomena as one faces it on another, - which we still have to balance by reason somehow.</p>

<p>Luca,</p>

<p>First mistake, that it seems to me that you're making is to conceptualize aesthetics as readable by something like (crudely! with apologies for the lack of a more elegant analogy) the thermometer. In the "universal" paradigm it's as if we viewers could all look at something and then all look at the aesthetics thermometer and see its readout, however high or low it might be. In the non-universal, individual paradigm, it's as if each of us have our own thermometer and each read it, however high or low it might be (i.e. it is arbitrary with respect to ourselves), with disagreements arising because of variations in the instruments.</p>

<p>I think this is fundamentally wrong. Rather (again, with apologies for inelegance) aesthetics are "judged" by a '<em>thermostat</em>.' We work on the basis of homeostasis -- our own, each his/her own, psychic homeostasis. Our thermostatically controlled aesthetic response depends on whether that which we are viewing is "too hot" or "too cold" relative to our own preferred "temperature" setting.</p>

<p>That of which we are made (and of which we make) is never the same (and, on top of that, life is growth). Quoting Gregory Bateson: "The statement “The acrobat is on the high wire” continues to be true under impact of small breezes and vibrations of the wire. This “stability” is the result of continual changes in descriptions of the acrobat’s posture and the position of his or her balancing pole."" It is necessary to change in order to stay the same; and growth is change while remaining the same. I think of aesthetics as testing the perimeter, as the tip of the green shoot taking warnings, invitations, opportunities in this constant thermostatic balancing act.</p>

<p>Notice all the incredibly, wildly, insanely diverse ways in which life has found to homeostatically maintain itself to the "same" world -- from the species down to the individual.</p>

<p>Here is some more from Bateson that I adds to the above. (I take aesthetics to be integral to 'exploration' and vice versa.) Note, in particular his phrase, '<em>double description'</em>:<br>

.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to puzzle psychologists that the exploring tendencies of a rat cannot be simply extinguished by having the rat encounter boxes containing small electric shocks. From such experiences, the rat will not learn not to put his nose into boxes; he will only learn not to put his nose into the particular boxes that contained electric shocks when he investigated them. In other words, we are here up against a contrast between learning about the particular and learning about the general.</p>

<p>A little empathy will show that from the rat’s point of view, it is not desirable that he learn the general lesson. His experience of a shock upon putting his nose into a box indicates to him that he did <em>well</em> to put his nose into that box in order to gain the information that it contained a shock. In fact, the “purpose” of exploration is, not to discover whether exploration is a good thing, but to discover information about the explored. The larger case is of a totally different nature from that of the particular.</p>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p><em>Learning the contexts of life</em> is a matter that has to be discussed, not internally, but as a matter of the external relationship between two creatures. And <em>relationship is always a product of double description</em>.<br>

[ ... ]</p>

<p>… Let us examine “exploration” to see wherein it is a context for, or a product of, some sort of double description.</p>

<p>First, exploration (and crime and play and all the other words of this class) is a primary description, verbal or nonverbal, of the self: “<em>I</em> explore.” But <em>what</em> is explored is not merely “my outside world,” or “the outside world as <em>I</em> live it.”</p>

<p>Second, exploration is self-validating, whether the outcome is pleasant or unpleasant for the explorer. If you try to teach a rat to not explore by having him poke his nose into boxes containing electric shock, he will, as we saw in the last chapter, go on doing this, presumably needing to know which boxes are safe and which are unsafe. In this sense, exploration is always a success.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.<br>

Finally, this from a blind photographer, "Entre lo invisible y lo tangible, llegando a la homeostasis emocional."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If we have our own aesthetic, where does someone else's criticism take hold?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have my own aesthetic, as I am sure you have too, Fred, but still keep open to build connections with what I'm told, to see if I can take advantage from others' input.<br>

Having a subjectivity, or individuality, doesn't mean being closed, stubbornly leaving everything else out, does it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Individuality makes sense against a collective or community, and community is a bunch of individuals</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. A sort of confrontation of the individuality with the "community"?</p>

<p>How to seperate the personal from the universal? What is subjective, what is objective? Where does one start and the other end? In my view, these aren't seperated items, they co-exist in a sort of continuum. Doesn't the universal define the particolarities of my personal opinions/ideas/visions, and do I not extrapolate the universal from comparison between my personal notions and those of others - finding the common denominator between them? Aren't they just ends to a spectrum?</p>

<p>My initial reaction was much like Julie's, subjectiveness "driving" a close-minded approach. But I think it's all more subtle: arguably there would also be something such as "informed subjective". Knowing the standardised, universal objective reading, and knowingly disagree with it. Horowitz piano-playing: he was often critised for over-dramatising everything, for too loose interpretations of crescendos, rhythm and timing. And yet, the results are fascinating. He knew what he was doing, it wasn't just personal preference at play. Stokowski's directing (and adapting music) - likewise. This is not necessarily result of a closed mind, nor bears any disrepect to the universal, nor exists in an isolated individual instance - it knows the objective, and just decides not to play along.</p>

<p>All in all, to me, what you call "personal preference/personal culture/personal growth path" doesn't exist without having a non-personal version of it. Which is actually the same thing. We're intertwined with our cultural background, our raising, our education, shared values, shared ethics - too intertwined to unravel.</p>

I had to give it some thoughts.<br>

It seems to me that the big "universal" misunderstanding I have produced is about trying to find a measure to

photography aesthetics. I do not want to measure anything, actually. Neither did I want to imply any separation, dichotomy

or clear-cut separation between subjectivity/individuality and objectivity/collectivity.<br>

Neither did I want to suggest that photography happens in isolation, in a vacuum, in disconnectedness from others and

the other.<br>

I just wanted to indicate that subjectivity/individualism is the mover.<br>

Why would most remarks on a photo be founded on a "I like/dislike"? Everybody dealing with photographs seems to look

for a term of reference, for a comparison.<br>

And here Julie's homeostatic concept seems to fit well: we all define an "imaging zone" and confront the images we

produce or see with the ones in this zone. Some images we are exposed to might cause a change in the zone. And that would

be the "thermostatic adjustment".

<blockquote>

<p>subjectivity/individualism is the mover</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the sense that photography is a creative personal expression - well, yes, obviously the subjective/individual plays an important part. In the sense that photography as a medium always has a link back to 'reality', the objective/universal - maybe not that much. Maybe the particularity of photography as an expressive activity is exactly that it's not entirely subjective. Unlike nearly all other creative endeavours, it does not start with a blank page, but we're working from things already there and give a subjective, personal interpretation/representation of those.<br>

I'm not arguing your thoughts because I see no merit in them, but I'm very hesitant to declare something the mover, even if that thing is a rather broad concept. Plus, I do not see it as being very specific to photography, but rather something that would be true for any personal expression. Maybe it's the fact that photography, more than any other of those creative expressions, finds its roots back in the objective that may make it more apparently so, though.</p>

<p>Wouter,</p>

<p>The photograph-as-window-to-reality (a position often disagreed with in this forum) leads to (or comes from?) the idea that photographs are facts. Add to that the common misconception that facts provide explanation and you get the connection to objectivity. But facts don't explain; rather, facts themselves <em>require</em> explanation. Facts are speechless -- and if your paradigm of photography is 'photo = fact' then you are creating speechless, <em>expressionless</em> objects.</p>

<p>If you take the view of photograph as thing unto itself, we have to draw back one "layer" to see it on the wall or in the book or on the monitor and give up the idea of photograph-as-fact (the window is closed; there was no window) and include the wall, the book or the monitor + surrounding/current environment in the experience of the picture.</p>

<p>If we take this thread into our conception we have to further withdraw and include the idea of an imaginary viewer viewing the wall, book, monitor with embedded picture.</p>

<p>If you, reading this comment, take me into consideration, you have, over and above all the above, your imagining of me, typing these comments as I imagine you reading and imagining a viewer viewing the wall, book, monitor in which is embedded the photograph.</p>

<p>A certain "contamination" ensues ... or gloriously strange mutation, permutation, flowering, staining, entanglement ...</p>

<p>Luca has cleverly left himself a trapdoor out of this viral viewing by narrowing his OP's aim to be about aesthetics, and not broader perceptual goals or affects.</p>

<p>Photographers can attempt relatively straightforward physical representations or they may desire to imbue subject matter with personally felt values or perceptions that transcend physical reality. Photographers may act like scientists observing reality or they may act like poets abstracting something from reality or inventing a different (their) reality. Subjectivity and objectivity would each seem to be operative in photography and the photographer, with one not excluding the other, as in other creative disciplines. Aesthetics is merely one convention or measure of the value of the product.</p>