Shadow and Darkness (symbols)

* shadows require light

* darkness doesn't

* shadows have form

* darkness doesn't

[black which is neither shadow nor darkness will have form and read as black no matter the light]

shadow:

darkness:

Links to examples of shadow and darkness to follow.

Shadow selfies are everywhere. My favorite is this:

André Kertész Lion and Shadow 1949

Lee Friedlander must have hundreds of shadow selfies. Two that will surely make you laugh are these:

Friedlander shadow selfie #1

Friedlander shadow selfie #2

But Friedlander also does serious, gloriously beautiful shadow selfies:

Friedlander [with Maria, his lovely wife]

This next one titles itself a selfie, but I don't think it is. See if you can figure out why:

Charles Sheeler, Self-Portrait at Easel, 1931-32

One of the most gorgeous photographs ever made has both shadow and darkness [this is a lousy reproduction]:

Manuel Ávarez Bravo Woman Combing Her Hair 1932

Two with darkness by Roy DeCarava:

DeCarava #1

DeCarava #2

The obligatory Atget (we must have at least one in every thread). I think this is darkness. Phil will probably disagree (I hope so):

Eugène Atget La Marne à la Varenne 1925-27

.

Powerlines

In symbolic tradition, shadows are not merely the result of obstructions to the passage of light, but rather dark entities with a nature all their own.

and yet shadows can show us the way, point us in the right direction- see the fine Converging Shadow NW.

or maybe they are leading us astray?

One of the most gorgeous photographs ever made has both shadow and darkness

i always thought shadow and darkness were like grape and grain. i am pleased to have been enlightened.

see the fine Converging Shadow NW.

that should be "see the fine Converging Shadows NW thread."

Converging shadows, lets beat it to death (one more time!)

Steve, thanks, those are good.

The last two, the chair and the curtain (but not the shells), remind me of something I should have mentioned in the OP: in black and white photography, shadows aren't necessarily "shadows." They are simply used as black/gray design content, the meaning of which has nothing to do with "shadow" or "darkness." What that black/gray content means is ... whatever black/gray forms can be used to mean in a black and white design — same as the rest of the black/gray content in the picture.

In Steve's two elegant examples, what do you think that is?

I like the idea of darkness as matrix, the possibility of form, of creation, nurture and substance, healing, binding, soothing, but waiting, anticipating. Light is creative impulse, spiritual, dynamic, revealing, consuming, purifying. Light animates darkness, pure light is just light, direction and in union with all light form, but unsubstantiated form, pure darkness is just dark revealing nothing. It is the penetration of darkness with light that animates the potential in each and creates the world of form, mind, consciousness and spirit. Photographically there is no shapes or definition of space or form with out both light and shadow.

Philosophically it was well said by Jim Morrison's biblical restatement :"The night divides the day, day divides the night, try to run, try to hide, break on through to the other side. . ."

However, there is an old tried and true methodology to capture the quality that approaches full lightness, or full darkness, and that is in the techniques of so called hi-key and low-key photography. I'll try to find some samples of my own.

Steve, thanks, those are good.

 

The last two, the chair and the curtain (but not the shells), remind me of something I should have mentioned in the OP: in black and white photography, shadows aren't necessarily "shadows." They are simply used as black/gray design content, the meaning of which has nothing to do with "shadow" or "darkness." What that black/gray content means is ... whatever black/gray forms can be used to mean in a black and white design — same as the rest of the black/gray content in the picture.

 

In Steve's two elegant examples, what do you think that is?

Shadows can be used as patterns in BW photos, but IMO they still very much maintain their identity as shadows. Also, if they represent patterns in a design, that is also an example of their usage as symbols, hence should be part of the present discussion, isn't it?

Then more of a hi key. Hopefully some of you can find better examples of your own or others that illustrate lightness and/or darkness.

if they represent patterns in a design, that is also an example of their usage as symbols

Is the symbol "shadow"?

Photographically there is no shapes or definition of space or form with out both light and shadow.

Verbally, there can be no sentences without words, no words without sounds. Meaning is not inherent in either the sounds or the words.

there's no form without light and shadow.

There is no painting without paint. Is that what it "is"? Is "paint" what a painting connotes?

If I have a large block of marble, it's ... a large block of marble, with all the connotations of a large block of marble. After Michelangelo makes a David from it, it no longer connotes "large block of marble."

If I make rabbit ears from a shadow, such as that, here by Cole Witt, it is no longer "shadow" even though it is made out of shadow and light. If you make something else (rabbit ears; lines or blocks for design purposes) out of shadow, it no longer carries the symbolic connotations of "shadow."

Seems like, the last one is low key and the previous one high key.

yep you're right just reverse it.

at night

Night is "darkness" not shadow. Different animals, IMO. See OP.

Even in the daytime, a lot of city scenes read as "darkness" to me. For example, this one:

by Bruce Davidson

Or this one (the surround, not the figure):

Daido Moriyama, Memory of Dog 2, 1982

Is the symbol "shadow"?

Sorry, my sentence was malformed. What I wanted to say is, shadows can be used as symbols of pattern or texture over a subject. See these fine examples from the Converging shadows NW. Converging shadows, lets beat it to death (one more time!) and Converging shadows, lets beat it to death (one more time!)

To me, shadows in these examples are like a clothing or covering through which the subject is seen.

Then there are cases, like Steve's chair or my own example below, shadows transcribe the subject, taking away the texture, leaving only the form, albeit distorted. However, they look like separate entities rather than mere shadows due to the solid black in them (texture being replaced by solid black).

Here is shadow used as a pointing element

And this the last one, I promise

Shadow as container of light.

Supriyo, I already said that a shadow that's used to make something else is not a "shadow" anymore. See:

There is no painting without paint. Is that what it "is"? Is "paint" what a painting connotes?

 

If I have a large block of marble, it's ... a large block of marble, with all the connotations of a large block of marble. After Michelangelo makes a David from it, it no longer connotes "large block of marble."

 

If I make rabbit ears from a shadow, such as that, here by Cole Witt, it is no longer "shadow" even though it is made out of shadow and light. If you make something else (rabbit ears; lines or blocks for design purposes) out of shadow, it no longer carries the symbolic connotations of "shadow."