Photography as a form of communication.

<p>Following on from the "gesture" thread, what would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of photography as a form of communication between people...?</p>

<p>The more nuanced the concept to be communicated, the more the photographer and audience must have in common. There are concepts that - portrayed in a photograph - will be instantly clear to most any human being. There are others that will only make sense to one's immediate family... and possibly only to oneself. I have seen many photographs that could best described as the photographer mumbling incomprehensibly to himself. Hell, I've even made a number of those. </p>

<p>If the image creates emotion in the viewer, you have strenght, it not, weakness.</p>

 

<p>"..strengths and weaknesses of photography as a form of communication between people...?"</p>

<p>That's it.</p>

<p>Photography does show that and more. It also can show the rapport established between subject and maker. If the maker is stressed you'll more than likely will end up with stressed images of the subject(s).</p>

<p>Just my thoughts this eve.</p>

<p>Have a wonderful weekend.</p>

I think a photograph's strenght, to be an instantaneous and immediatily recognizable description of visual signs that make up " the world ",

and to communicate in a way very directly with this can also be it's weakness, in that by this very strenght a perception can persist that a

photograph can never communicate beyond that what it depicts. So when not as sensitive to photography's own inherent language ( for many non

photographers ), and impatient to ' read the photograph ' if necessary, the photographs value can be dismissed too easily by the perception

that it doesn't depict anything worthwhile depicting, resulting in the photograph being ' numb ' to the viewer if the photograph doesn't

immediatily informs or entertains the viewers judgment. It's the paradox of photography.

<p>I don't see the connection you are making to the Gesture thread.</p>

<p>"what would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of photography as a form of communication between people...?"</p>

<p>By "photography" do you mean the photograph?</p>

<p>Without considering the types or subjects photographed, photography in general is a very powerful communicator at best, a banal form of recording or artform at worst.</p>

<p>It is extremely democratic and also impersonal (notwithstanding its great ability to evoke emotional response and other responses in others), the dialogue often occurring between the photographer and an <i>unknown</i> audience. At its best it can persuade and enlighten. The recent 20th century, if we consider it outside of our own experiences, is more <i>"visible"</i> and <i>meaningful </i>to many of us through the presence of powerful photographs than many texts, films, plays, other art, or other records that may have touched us. <i>If this postulate is true (and that may be debatable)</i>, it is undeniable that photography has communicated greatly to communication between people.</p>

<p>The specific type of communication between an artist-photographer and other persons is usually more highly selective and personal. </p>

<p>"form of communication between people"...hmm. </p>

<p>Photography can add spice to communication (as in journalism). And it's a handy topic OF communication, like sports and the weather. </p>

<p>For me photography provides goals and tools, more than it communicates: 1) To get objectively better (like physical fitness, musical or language skill). 2) Recently I've been using portraiture to open and explore relationships with light acquaintances and total strangers...yes, my print will change hands and be a topic of discussion, but the important communication is in the course of quickly establishing a small, genuinely intimate relationship. It can be scary...</p>

<p>Learning to play in "scary" is more important than the photo. I don't like fear: It bothers me to find it in myself, and when I see "candid" photographers failing to recognize and deal with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Since when is photography a form of communication? When is the last time somebody screamed "Where is my camera? I must communicate with my people!"<br>

On the other hand....."I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Show me a picture."<br>

If I show someone my portfolio it creates conversation. If I leave it on a table somewhere and someone picks it up by themselves.........I have no idea what it may be communicating.</p>

<p>Michael, your own photo "Our proud industial base" is I think something along the lines of what Paul is suggesting. Even without your title, the 'communication', even a straightforward and uncomplicated one, is there.</p>

<p>Photo-specific? The Indexicality to a referent.</p>

<p>Can photography communicate emotional regression on behalf of the photographer?</p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>You might want to look at the posts on another thread:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00Qn48">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00Qn48</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>You might want to look at the posts on another thread:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00Qn48">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00Qn48</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photography, like other visual art forms can do more than simply show a pretty picture, it can enlighten, critize and help define something.<br>

Photos we remember are those that communicate more than words can. They can help define an era, crystalize an emotion, or simply make us laugh or cry.</p>