The material representing the immaterial

<p>We can commiunicate effectively via poetry, fiction and non-fiction our ideas and feelings. Materially, when the person is not in front of us it is done using pencil, paper, word-processor, internet, books, and other material devices. They play a mere supporting role in that communication, which can be of human ideas, perceptions and feelings.. The fact of their material nature is unimportant. When we take a chisel to stone or wood, when we put a brush or spatule to paper, canvas or another surface, when we capture on a silver base emulsion, or on a pixel array of a sensor, and then manipulate and print an image to silver base paper in a darkroom or an inkjet paper, we are also expressing what is on our mind and/or reacting to what we perceive.</p>

<p>The question of doubt about capturing the "essence" of Paris or any other place raised the question of the nature of essence. Some likened the esence to the Eiffel tower, Edith Piaff or a Haussmann boulevard, and the essence may well be in part some of that. Or, it may be reflected as others maintain in its history or how the history has fashioned that city and, perhaps more importantly, the people who live in it. Or, by one defintion of "essence" that I personally feel to be important, it may be reflected by the spiritual and immaterial that is related to its existence.</p>

<p>Ideas of the spiritual or immaterial that are contained in poetry, fiction, philosophy or other nonfiction are readily communicated by the physical instruments of communication that are books, internet, word processors, pencil, pen and paper. Ideas or statements of the immaterial have more difficulty being communicated by the physical devices of photography, painting and sculpture, although no doubt they can be, with some difficulty.</p>

<p>Fast rewind now to the subject of essence, and accept for the moment that essence refers to an immaterial quality that evokes or describes (you may note that I prefer not to use the word define) a place or event. Substitute for essence any other immaterial quality or condition or thesis that you may wish to communicate. Then think of how photography, sculpture or art can describe or evoke those immaterial qualities using a material medium. A simple case. If Paris has all the qualities of the female, whatever than means to you in a social, philosophical, psychological, or even anatomical sense, how can you bring that out using a material medium (two-dimensional, paper, image) that does not relie on the advantage of using a written and spoken language that you have well mastered, and with which you can readily commounicate your thoughts?</p>

<p>Some quite basic immaterial parameters (but not necessarily ideas or essences), like those of angst or sadness or joy can be communicated in portraits, or in scenes, and are among the most accessible conditions for the lens to communicate. They may make use of the photographer's imagination but also (and especially) very much the state of his subject, which is often read in his or her face or behaviour or in the use of composition, shadow and light.</p>

<p><strong>Beyond this</strong>, expressing immaterial concepts, ideas, or essences, is faced with the challenge of using such a physical medium as a paint brush and canvas, or a camera and print on paper or other material vehicle to achieve the result. If it is a language, it is one that does not have the advantage of the recognised writtten and spoken language eof communication.</p>

<p>The attached photo is one in which I attempted, perhaps successfully, perhaps not (whichever is ultimately not of great importance to the problem of the OT, of material representing the immaterial), to communicate the immaterial. The material image is of a gravestone of a long dead soldier. He is dead, but remembered. The shadow is of a person who is apparently alive (we do not see her), yet who is being challenged by the gravestone on which her image is thrust. We are being reminded perhaps of an illusion of existence for which we have no better proof than a shadow without a body.</p>

<p>How can you represent the immaterial by the material constraints of photography, or for that matter, painted or sculpted art? What do you think are the constraints of the medium and its advantages? Can it be done, even by a photographer of ample imagination? Any examples you have may help in establishing the capacity of photography in that regard.</p><div></div>

<p>A start . . .</p>

<p>It doesn't help me to think of feelings, emotions, thought, consciousness, will, intention, memory, etc. as immaterial. They all have a physical basis, though they do feel distinct from bodily <em>sensations</em>.</p>

<p>Making photographs is compelling to me because not only is it physical -- like painting, sculpture, etc. -- but it uses the stuff of the world as its raw materials so it's at least in that way tied to its own physicality.</p>

<p>Signs and symbols are key expressive elements.</p>

<p>It's ironic that you've used a tombstone which is, to me, a very physical (and literal) symbol of death. A tombstone is more like the word "death" and less like the feeling of it. So it winds up grounding me more than accessing what you're describing as immaterial. I haven't seen it in a long time but I remember Bergman's <em>The Seventh Seal</em> using the metaphor of chess. That seems to approach this "immaterial" aspect you speak of. This is not to say that I think yours is a bad approach by any means. It's direct and literal. And the material and literal aspect of the tombstone may be closer to how I <em>think about</em> death, which is as an ultimate physical occurrence. I've used the term "awe" (in addition to "grief") to describe the feelings I've had around a loved one's death.</p>

<p>I agree with Fred. I'll be even more explicit. Perception is always primary. Everything originates in perception. There is no material/immaterial divide; everything that we can/do know originates in perception.</p>

<p>Words encompass a tiny subset of those perceptions (we are aware of far more than is available to words). Words don't enrich or endow perceptions with meaning; far from it. To the contrary, perceptions endow and enrich words. Words are secondary to perception. Words manage to (arbitrarity, in my opinion) bracket or encapsulate bits and pieces but, to repeat, words and the mental assignment of them to this or that is secondary to perception.</p>

<p>Perception and meaning are not separable. Meaning is not <em>created</em> by the mind. It's found or assigned or contrived (or distorted) but the perception is and remains what it is; it is not made because or after it is assigned some kind of verbal meaning by the mind. Perception and meaning are not separable.</p>

<p>This is precisely why "essence" is an artificial construct. It's trying to force a perception, plucked from the current flux, to carry the load of a lifetime of memories of previous perceptions. If a viewer will just be quiet and let a perception happen; listen and stop trying to meddle with what is there in perception, he or she may be lucky enough to find some of what is there NOW, nothing more but nothing less.</p>

<p>I've repeatedly used "perception" rather than "pictures" or "the visual" above. Whether or not visual representation can or should get what is perceived via other senses is an open question (and not one that I find terribly interesting).</p>

<p><strong>Fred,</strong></p>

<p>I am very glad that you and Julie have taken the time to post your feelings about the difficult if not impossible subject of using material things like a photograph to express immaterial things - ideas, theories, reflections, and so on. I think it is a very important aspect of the constraints of photography and one that is hardest to achieve.</p>

<p>I disagree that the tombstone is any more ironic than a page one tabloid image of, say, a horribly crashed vehicle, or a person bleeding to death on a Berlin street sometime in the second world war. They are tangible reminders of death. I see the tombstone not as only a death symbol (like the aforementioned examples) but more here as something that is probably the only lasting memory of a young Mr. Langston who left the conscious world in 1824. It's a statement of who he was and what he ultimately did in his short life. It allows us to think of him. However, here it is simply used to assist in the communicatiion of an immaterial idea or statement and serves simply as an astuce for a living shadow, which is (unnaturally) not connected (in the image at least) to a living person. The tombstone is not what is being projected (or attempting to be projected) but a rather a contrast or paradox of sorts, a reflection on what is not just a shadow on a tombstone but something else. It also exemplifies ther difficulty of communicatin something that we do not see You see a tombstone, and a symbol of death, but that is not the unique intent of the image.</p>

<p><strong>Julie,</strong></p>

<p>I disagree with you profoundly that words are unimportant. They may originate in perceptions, in internal reflections of the mind, and other inputs, but they are the most important tool we have to communicate and our history shows us that it is words that communicate the most profound, important and elegant thoughts of man, and we could progress on that basis more confidently than if all that was or is communicated between individuals was simply artwork or photos.</p>

<p>"Whether or not visual representation can or should get what is perceived via other senses is an open question (and not one that I find terribly interesting)." (Julie)</p>

<p>Again, I disagree. In that case we would be left with just pretty pictures or amusing if not aesthetic photographs, which communicate little beyond their "eye candy" quality. But in defense of your position, I think you missed the point that it is not just what is expressed via the senses that is what the OT is referring to, as we have ample portraits and other scenes that do that (Weston's Tina in tears; Munch's "The Scream"), but rather the difficulty of photography and painting to express, like words do so easily, the ideas, reflections of man.</p>

<p>Whether attainable or not, I do find that idea terribly interesting. And also the fact that it seems to be controversial.</p>

<p><em>"I think it is a very important aspect of the constraints of photography"</em> <strong>--Arthur</strong></p>

<p>Constraints of photography or the constraints a photographer or viewer puts on himself?</p>

<p>I hope you can clarify your position on Weston and Munch because I'm not clear on what you're getting at. They express only what's expressed through the senses? That implies a difference between them and others, who supposedly express via other means? What other means do other photographers/painters use to express? Doesn't a visual work imply expressing via a visual sense? Does capturing a tear, which means taking a stand on grief or sadness (perhaps tears of joy depending on context) not ALSO mean capturing the "ideas and reflections of man"?</p>

<p>Reading your recent posts, in this thread and elsewhere, Arthur, I feel you're setting up impossible tasks for photographs and then expressing disappointment in photographs not being able to accomplish the impossible tasks you've imposed on them. It's a little like being disappointed when you can't see the face or hear the voice of God.</p>

<p>A photograph is not going to be your wife, your child, your boss, your psychiatrist, or your Savior. It is a photograph. It will touch you as you allow it and your photographs will touch others to the extent you allow yourself whatever freedom (not the restrictions you seem to be imposing on yourself) you can embrace. As several of us said in the other thread, these "immaterial" and/or "essential" qualities you seek can come in any place, with any subject, at any time.</p>

<p>Though I don't see them as immaterial or essential (in the way they've been used sometimes in these threads), these things you are talking about are significant, as long as they are not so idealized that they become beyond reach and then, at least to me, insignificant. I'd say it's the idealization that puts them beyond reach, not the act or process of photographing.</p>

<p>Also, Arthur, I thought you were getting at the <em>feeling</em> of death, the non-coproreal quality of it, not just a statement of it. I agree, the tombstone is very similar to the front-page images you mention. Those, by overtly representing something, may make me feel a certain way but they usually don't <em>express</em> those feelings themselves. You are talking about actually <em>expressing</em> the immaterial, which for me, might require more than a tombstone or an image of a dead and bleeding man.</p>

<p>What are the immaterial aspects of death that you may be feeling and how could a photograph/photographer express, signify, or symbolize the actual feelings (of grief, loss, awe, yearning, eternity, etc.)? The tombstone and the front-page pictures represent the material fact of death (and those material facts may stimulate me to feel something, for sure) but they aren't, themselves, an <em>expression</em> of the immaterial qualities I understand you to be talking about.</p>

<p>I tried to delete my previous post just above but was too late. I reread your explanation of the photo of the tombstone and think I understand better what you're going for in that photo, though it honestly doesn't accomplish it for me. </p>

<p>"Doesn't a visual work imply expressing via a visual sense? Does capturing a tear, which means taking a stand on grief or sadness (perhaps tears of joy depending on context) not ALSO mean capturing the "ideas and reflections of man"?" (Fred)</p>

<p>Fred, I think in part, yes. Munch and Weston are expressing via a visual sense and deal with what is accessible to our senses (starting with our ability to see what they are communicating and carrying through our notions of grief or angst or whatever that allows us to comprehend the visual message). We get that right away and we can, as you said in another thread I believe, go on receiving more stimulus from the image and how we interact with it as time goes on. Whether it (the tears of Tina) "ALSO means capturing the "ideas and reflections of man", is to my mind quite another thing.</p>

<p>The photograph is material, just as the scene that was photgraphed is material, although the way the scene was portrayed by the artist to provide a sensation of grief or angst adapts the material to his perception, like the way simple material words can be used together by a writer to create a whole. I am not questioning what Weston or Munch have done, and they may well have gone beyond the expression of human sentiments to the expression of the "ideas and reflections" of man in those images, but that is a point of discussion and a result I am not convinced of.</p>

<p>The thing to differentiate, I believe, is between the communication of sentiments, like I think I mentioned yesterday in your OT on "what don't your photographs communicate", in regard to the portraits of Weston and Munch, and that of the communication of ideas or values, such as those we cabn also obtain and interact with in reading literary works.</p>

<p>Portraying ideas and values may well be beyond the capacity of a photograph, but I like to think not. The communication is perhaps obfuscated by the enigma, the uncertainty and the incompleteness of what is being communicated visually. Therein, I think, lies a constraint but not necessarily a barrier.</p>

<p>Perhaps it is necessary for photography and the photographer to use a series of images, like a writer uses a series of phrases or sentences, to communicate the idea or value he wishes to communicate, that immaterial thing. A series may posibly increase the clarity of what is being communicated in regard to the immaterial.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, I hope my photograph doesn't accomplish perfectly (you vary between partial appreciation, originally, and none, as in your last comment) the communication of ideas to you. If it did, and I didn't claim at the outset that it would, I would probably not have felt the need to pose the question, having already achieved that magic state.</p>

<p>I hope we can avoid discussing particulars of specific images and research how we might attain a communication of ideas and value in our photographs. Perhaps the expression of certain values is more easily attained (like the suggestion of freedom in the famous Iwo Jima flag raising creation, although a Japanese person may think otherwise) than the expression of more involved ideas.</p>

<p>The viewer/audience participates in a work of art by interpreting it for himself. This interpretation opens the way for a person to understand and explain what lies before him. This is the very point that will drive an artist preoccupied with his own efforts to convey "essence" nuts. Thomas Langston died January 1, 1824, but what do we know of him now? Any information you get other than the appearance and location of his tombstone will have to be the result of a research project. The sort of thing a modern descendant might undertake to trace his Genealogy. The point is that on closer approach your effort to be reminded of something related to Mr. Langston will lead you to nothing at all. </p>

<p>The shadow on the tombstone seems to show someone holding their hand up to their head. To shade her eyes from the bright sun perhaps? How do we know that she does not have her back to the tombstone? Perhaps the suggestion here is that she is grounded in the past, the product of her ancestor, Thomas Langston, and now she looks forward into the future. Eventually she too will have a tombstone of her own to lie as a foundation for some yet unknown descendant. In this interpretation we find themes such as the continuity of life and the value and strength of familial bonds.</p>

<p>But is what is really in the photograph? Clearly from the comments already written all of this would be a surprise to the photographer. It's the old business about the tree in the woods. The artist has a clear idea about cutting down a tree and he goes about his work, but it is up to someone else to hear the sound of the tree falling. You can see that when the viewer shows up the artist has to go away to mind his own business. His work is done. </p>

<p>Renaissance artists relied on common well known religious imagery and symbolism to guide viewers to the meaning they put in their works. We have symbols and images to rely on today as well. They're all around us. Look at advertising for example. Essence suggests something less well known. Something personal perhaps. As for the tree in the woods, who can say where is the essence of a tree is anyway? Almost every chop of the axe will pop out a chip of the tree. Is it the chip that tells you something important about the very tree you work so hard to fell? Is the last chip holding the tree up more important than the first bit of bark you knock off? Does the hole you're making in the trunk tell you more about the tree than the chips? Once on the ground, how can you possibly tell which chip is which? I get the feeling that worrying about questions like these even with photography is a bit like chasing your tail...</p>

<p><em>"I hope we can avoid discussing particulars of specific images"</em> <strong>--Arthur</strong></p>

<p>Huh? Then why are you posting images to this forum? If you don't want them discussed, you might consider not posting them. I'm not judging them, nor am I telling you whether I "like" them or not. I don't critique photos here. But if they are posted to illustrate a point, I will feel free to discuss them specifically as they relate to that point. I actually thought that's what you wanted out of these forums. In any case, I didn't vary between partial appreciation and no appreciation. The fact that I think your photo doesn't accomplish what you're talking about doesn't mean I don't appreciate a lot about it.</p>

<p>You asked how we would capture something photographically. I can't just talk about that in the abstract. Talking about the literal aspect of a tombstone and a shadow, the forced nature of their symbolism, and how that doesn't work the kind of magic (for me) that you're talking about seems very relevant. You may well see the photo differently, but I don't see why this kind of discussion of specifics isn't of great value.</p>

<p><strong>Albert,</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughtful comments. "Life-cycle", the inevitability of our destiny, and particularly a kind of the surrealism of the "nearness of a tombstone of a long deceased and the "farness" of a living person suggested only by a bodyless shadow was clearly in my mind when I shot the image (yes, her back is against the bench and gravestone), but whether this contributres to any immaterial projection (of ideas or value, etc.) is clearly up to the viewer. I have already achieved my own personal satisfaction with that curiosity, and can happily be remionded of it when I chioose to look back at the image.</p>

<p>Do you really think that the ability of a photo or a series of photos to communicate ideas of man is simply "chasing one's tail?" Perhaps you can clarify that a bit? I can certainly accept that you think so, however. And you may be right. I have not seen any really clear examples to convince me that the immaterial of ideas or equally complex reflections can be effectively communicated by a material subject and a photograph to date. Why do you think that such an objective is impossible (if I understod you correctly)?</p>

<p><strong>Fred,</strong></p>

<p>Thanks also for your comments. I am not critiquing the fact of discussion of particular images (I posted one only to spur other's discussion of their own ideas, photos and experiences that might show that the immaterial of ideas and values is being addressed in photos), which was done in the case of my example. I welcome your comments on my image and what I am trying to do (see my description above to Albert of one aspect of that, the surrealism angle) but I mentioned that I hope we can avoid additional discussion of already discussed specific images simply in order to SUGGEST that we move on from them to attack THE problem of communicating the immaterial and not to cases where you already think the immaterial has not been communicated, as in my photo, or as in my opinion, to my references to the Munch and Weston images that I think do not communicate the immaterial (which I referenced in my appreciation as being of more complex "ideas" than those of individual angst or sorrow). But I am able to accept that I may be wrong and that the Scream of Munch may be a scream against the human condition. We know that Munch's work was being continually rejected by almost every one of his peers and he had immense difficulties in getting his work exhibited. When you go against the habitual you are often very open to attack (When one finds everyone is in agreement one should take that as a warning).</p>

<p>Do you have an image or series that communicates some immaterial "ideas (other than specific states of being, as in the Weston image of Tina)? Or, can you point to the work of others which communicates an idea rather than a material subject and emotion? That is what I meant by moving on to attack THE question of the OT. Is that of interest to you?. I can assure you that I too will try to contribute as much as I can in that positive sense, and definitely welcome others to do so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>can you point to the work of others which communicates an idea rather than a material subject and emotion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Duane+Michals&ni=21&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=106">Duane Michals</a> ( I'm sure there are other examples ), Arthur, communicates a lot of ideas / philosophy's with his work. Of course being a photographer he does rely on the "material" of his subjects, and he also uses ( "needs" ) text with his photos, in order to go beyond. But, which ideas aren't emotions too ?<br /> ------------<br /> Doesn't an unexposed piece of paper become *less material* ( immaterial ) after an image is fixed into it ?<br /> The image itself not being the photograph nor the material photographed after all.</p>

<p>Everything is consciousness but consciousness is not everything.</p>

<p><em>"But, which ideas aren't emotions too ?"</em> <strong>--Phylo</strong></p>

<p>Good question.</p>

<p>As to my own photographs, I'd say each and every one (and pretty much every photograph I've ever looked at) has some aspects of material specificity and some less specific ideas attached. I don't know how I'd describe the less specific ideas without getting too specific, which would negate the exercise. In that sense, I do understand Albert's use of the dog chasing its tail.</p>

<p>Arthur, I don't understand the distinction you're making between immaterial ideas and material ones? Maybe you just mean less distinct ideas and more specific ones. I don't know. I'll take a back seat here and hope to get some clarity as the discussion continues.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"he (Michaels) also uses ("needs") text with his photos, in order to go beyond." (Phylo)</p>

<p><strong>Phylo,</strong></p>

<p>I agree that his work is very thought provoking, text or not. Does he really need text to go into the realm of ideas? I wonder.</p>

<p>"But, which ideas aren't emotions too ?" (Phylo)</p>

<p>What about:</p>

<ul>

<li>Liberty, equality, fraternity" (taken as such, without the great emotions of the desire for change related to the French Revolution)</li>

<li>The Canadian Bill of Rights (or other such laws in other countries)</li>

<li>The USA Constitution</li>

<li>Various principles of religuon, of legalprecedents, </li>

<li>and so on</li>

</ul>

<p>"Doesn't an unexposed piece of paper become *less material* ( immaterial ) after an image is fixed into it ? The image itself not being the photograph nor the material photographed after all." (Phylo)</p>

<p>Ah, if you don't think of the image as material, then I think you are thinking of your mental perception of the image and not what is materially presented to you. I could agree with that aspect, but it was not that that I was thinking of as immaterial. Possibly only a very very few images that can evoke the immaterial, in the sense that they can evoke an idea and not just a mental transposition and interpretation of an image to the mind of the viewer.</p>

<p><em>"But, which ideas aren't emotions too ?"</em> <strong>--Phylo</strong><br /> Good question. (Fred)</p>

<p><strong>Fred,</strong></p>

<p>They are of the type that I mentioned in the text bullets above to Phylo. My responses are not by any means very complete, but they are essentially other than the communication of emotions, namely the communication of principles, values, social reflections or ideas, or other ideas.</p>

<p>"I don't understand the distinction you're making between immaterial ideas and material ones?" (Fred)</p>

<p>No, I don't mean anything about less distinct ideas and more specific ones. I guess I am bad at communicating, but I don't think I mentioned "material ideas", just the material (the material presence of a subject, the material known as a photograh) that is the subject or the photograph. The "immaterial" or ideas I refer to are potentially in the meaning of the photograph to the viewer:</p>

<ul>

<li>not simply the emotions communicated by the subject or scene (angst, sorrow, joy, awe, disgust)</li>

<li>but expressed ideas (not restricted to, but can include principles, values, social ideas or reflections)</li>

<li>and can be things not inherent in each element of the components of a photograph but which, like words in a book, can come together and suggest, communicate, an idea, value, etc. (that being the immaterial or "idea").</li>

</ul>

<p>I hope this can clarify the question.</p>

<p>Can you point to the work of others, or your own work, which communicates an "idea" (idea, principle, value, social insight, etc.) rather than a material subject of simply aesthetic interest (outside of immaterial considersation), or rather than such a material subject combined with expression of emotion?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, I remember seeing this photo a long time ago when I perused your portfolio.<br /> <br /> My overriding reaction to the image, then and now, is that it documents an attitude of plain disrespect toward the dead. The implications of the placement of that bench--its spatial and symbolic relation to the stone behind it--are, for me, stronger than any other visual element.<br /> <br /> Apparently some indifferent (or dimwitted) custodian or landscaper saw fit to position a wooden bench immediately in front of Thomas Langston's memorial stone--only a couple of feet removed--in such a manner that people using it will sit with their backsides to his monument, their heads almost touching it, and their bottoms directly over (presumably) his still-buried remains.<br /> <br /> If a bench were to be found, similarly emplaced, over a grave at Arlington National Cemetery, the ensuing public indignation might fuel multiple <em>Washington Post</em> articles and weeks of letters to Congress.<br /> <br /> I can't imagine such obtuse spatial symbolism finding its way into a <em> </em> Bergman film, unless it was deliberately inserted to make a point<em> </em>.<br /> <br /> (Of course, it's possible that the offending spatial relationship was produced by the distorting perspective of a telephoto lens.)</p>

<p>A followup to my last, parenthetical point above, which was added as an afterthought just before the 10-minute "edit" window closed:</p>

<p>After reconsidering in an analytical way the angle and size of shadows on the tombstone, relative to the bench rails and woman that are casting them, I <em>don't</em> think that the bench-to-stone proximity in the photo was an illusion created by telephoto compression.</p>

<p>I think, as I had originally, that it's just an in-your-face statement to Mr. Langston (by the landscaper, not the photographer). An "expressed idea" indeed...if not necessarily the one you had in mind, Arthur.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Ernest,</p>

<p>Interesting comment, which I fully understand. It is not what you photograph but the respect you have for your subject that I believe is important.</p>

<p>Just a few small corrections, though. The photo as such was not in, and is not presently in, my portfolio. I think you are referring to an old post in which I submitted the complete photo (including the lady) and an image of just the shadow and the tombstone. The placement of the benches in the Savannah, Georgia, cemetery are of course not my doing. It is odd that they would place a bench so close, but the grave is actually on the other side of the tombstone, which itself is a few feet, possibly up to 3 feet, behind the bench, and the bench is along a major pathway that allows access to many of the graves, positioned as close to the walkway as this one. It is quite a beautiful cemetery, and the distance between the graves (both civilian and military) are quite distant from each other and a lot less close than the rows at Arlington or our Canadian military cemeteries. A lot of trees provide a very peaceful atmosphere for a city cemetery. I take a lot of photographs in cemeteries, not because I am inclined to show disrespect but rather because I am fascinate by what they say about our communities and their citizens and because birth and death are our primary physical points of reference in this life. One of the photos in my portfolio shows a local couple of gravestones, which seem to be united together. I encourage you to look at it and comment if you wish</p>

<p>Not sure what you mean by a Bergman film. That was not in my mind when I photographed the tombstone. I have much respect for the dead, especially young military and alksomerchant marine youth who gave their lives for us, and I had no negative intention in creating this image. One good friend in her later years told me recently that she has the intention of being buried in a cemetery overlooking the St. Lawrence River near here. She intends to have a gravestone made in the shape of a stone bench, such that people visiting the site can sit down on it and admire the view. I rather like her way of thinking (for others) and I am most sure that her children would have no objection to people sitting on top of her grave in that manner. They would be after all, her fellow citizens. I guess we can forgive her eccentric attitude. She is an artist.</p>

<p>Anyway, the question of cemetery planning is not part of the thread, although I appreciate your consideration for the deceased and I hope I have shed a little light on what and why I photograph in cemeteries.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but expressed ideas (not restricted to, but can include principles, values, social ideas or reflections)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just about any good documentary or photojournalism expresses - willingly or unwillingly - all of these things, like principles, values, social ideas,.. Or think about Robert Frank's The Americans for example. But these are ideas expressed in series of photographs rather than individual stand alone images, which yes, could be more of an exception in non-conceptual photography ( which photograph isn't conceptual ! ).<br /> Jeff Wall's work maybe is an example of the expression of ideas in a single image but which go beyond the frame / photograph, and subject. Or, <a href="http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0WTefhUlIFM_RcAy9KJzbkF?p=Thomas+Demand&fr=yfp-t-701&ei=utf-8&x=wrt&y=Search">Thomas Demand's</a> photographs of "paper sculpted" replica's of reality.<br /> -------<br /> But actually I think any photograph or series of photographs that are taken with some intent are capable to express " not simply the emotions communicated by the subject or scene (angst, sorrow, joy, awe, disgust) ".<br /> It just depends on your perspective as a viewer. Maybe the question is : how much are you as a viewer and / or photographer willing to let the material represent the immaterial in a photograph ?</p>

<p><a href="http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&ni=21&va=vincent+van+gogh+shoes&fr=yfp-t-701-s&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=1">A pair of shoes.</a></p>

<p>Arthur, somehow this photo did indeed make its way into your portfolio (uploaded 2010-09-01, according to the 'details' tab). A few hours ago, while reading this thread, I saw and recalled it immediately---but I'd first seen it many months ago, and today simply assumed that it was in your portfolio at that earlier time.</p>

<p>I never felt that you'd intended any disrespect in making or presenting this image. What struck me, as I read through this current thread and considered the photo again, was the degree to which your own perception of its symbolism and meaning (as its maker) differed from my response to it, as a viewer.</p>

<p>You wrote, above, that <em>"The shadow is of a person who is apparently alive (we do not see her), yet who is being challenged by the gravestone on which her image is thrust." </em> I perceived no such "challenge" from the dead to the living (and apart from your explanation, still don't). What I saw is a gravestone, carefully carved to honor a man and erected over his remains, that has been fully marginalized by the passage of time--the stone, and the grave itself, now ignored and casually disrespected, in deference to the comfort of passersby, who are invited (by the placement of the bench) to park their bottoms in the dead man's "sacred space".</p>

<p>It's unusual that a grave is laid rearward from the blank side of the tombstone, instead of extending forward from the engraved side. That factual detail, of course, increases the disparity between the symbolic meaning of the image (to me, that is, as I perceived it) and the reality you photographed.</p>

<p>My reference to Ingmar Bergman was in response to Fred's comment, above:</p>

<p><em>"It's ironic that you've used a tombstone which is, to me, a very physical (and literal) symbol of death. A tombstone is more like the word "death" and less like the feeling of it. . . I haven't seen it in a long time but I remember Bergman's The Seventh Seal using the metaphor of chess. That seems to approach this "immaterial" aspect you speak of."</em></p>

<p>I guess almost any image can serve as a Rohrschach-blot test for its maker and its viewers, this being a case in point.</p>

<p>Arthur, I would stress again that I didn't mean to question or disparage your photographing in cemeteries. I do it too--like many, many others. I made the reference to Arlington and its recent, well-publicized travails, only to reinforce my point about the ill-advised (in my view) placement of that bench.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo,</strong></p>

<p>many thanks for your examples, which are interesting but to me also serve to underrline the problem. Do you respond to the photos of Demand, or to those of Van Gogh's shoes, in the sense of an immaterial message or idea? How would you put one or two of them into words. and possibly even texts, which would elaborate upon what they comminicate to you? I am curious.</p>

<p>The possibilities of photojournalism seem a priori of promise, though. Can you point to any single image or series of photos that contain a strong commiunication of ideas that can or have moved the viewers? How would you yourself approach the task of transferring the material (the subject, photograph and print) into the immaterial, into a viewer perceivable perceived idea? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ernest,</p>

<p>Your perception of my image is entirely yours. I wouldn't go as far as you do in sugesting it is, or in truth anybody else's is, some sort of Rohrshach-blot test for its maker, as that is not my style of critique or of personal comments in commenting the works of others. A question of manner. And when one image is given as an example of a postulate that is proposed in a thread, I would rather not get hung up on just that image or critique it and would rather address the significance or not of the philosophical question or argument of the thread (which appears to be the aim of this forum), especially when a remark was made in the OT that the photo is just an example that may or may not satisfy the thrust of the thread. It is of course easy to critique an image in a negative way and ignore the question posed by the thread, also easy to refrain giving one's own opinion on the question, and easy to discuss whether the Savannah cemetery has properly buried their dead. As for a response to the question at hand, maybe I and the readers should not expect too much, judging from your comments. As for your interest in the question of how they bury their dead in Georgia, you can easily contact the Savannah cemetery or city if that is your main interest.</p>

<p>Although I have not been privileged to have the critique of that image in my portfolio (where you apparently noticed it) by yourself or by Fred Goldsmith (although Fred has graciously commented others of mine, as I have his), some others of have done so in other milieu and without my specific request in the past. Some considered the full image of the tombstone and the person in the chair of sufficient interest to have it included in one unique national retrospective of the anniversary of (Fox-Talbot and Hershel) negative photography (150 years mark) by a Canadian publication. Only a small handfull of non professional photographers (of which only two amateur photographers still living) were chosen among many professional photographers over the period of interest of that publication. I guess they (historian, photo historian, and a provincial museum curator) must have had some minimally compelling reason to do so. Perhaps a photographic Rohrshach-blot test? Heaven, who knows?</p>

<p>Perhaps we can with a little effort turn attention from the perceptions of my photo by yourself and Fred, which you have conveniently aired, and move on to think a bit about the question I posed, provided of course that you are so interested and indeed have ideas about the communication of immaterial ideas in material photographic images of material subjects.</p>

<p>Arthur, the offense you've taken was not intended. </p>

<p>Without question, my perception of the image you posted as an example (and then expounded on, at some length, in subsequent posts in this thread) was entirely mine.</p>

<p>I'll demur from further comment.</p>