What has one captured when one has captured a photograph of a kiss?

<p>Feel free to refine the question or to give examples through images if words fail. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<b>Moderator's note:</b> This is <b>not</b> the No Words forum. Do <b>not</b> simply post photos of people kissing. If you wish to post a relevant photo to illustrate a point that you are explaining, you are welcome to do so.

<p>I think that this is known as "pre-emptive moderating," Mike. We know the rules.</p>

<p>Sometimes an image can be used to stimulate commentary, something which is <em>not</em> allowed on the "No<br>

Words" forum.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Back to the topic: the kiss has signified a great deal in both life and photography. I am hardly requesting a disquisition on the ontological status of the kiss, but if anyone wants to do that, I am all for it.</p>

<p>What does the kiss signify, and how effectively and meaningfully can a photo capture that meaning?</p>

<p>There are a lot of spin-off questions, but perhaps these will do for a start.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think this is just a sub-set of "What has one captured with a photograph?" Because any discussion about what a photograph of a particular thing/event/scene/subject "captures" is going to be impossible to rationally discuss without first stipulating what (if anything) <em>all</em> photographs capture. Which is to say that this isn't any more constructive of a question than asking what you've captured when you photograph two people <em>not</em> kissing.<br /><br />What have you captured when you simply <em>see</em> two people kissing?<br /><br />A photograph is simply a form of communication. Without context, and without noting the audience (some of whom might consider the photographic portrayal of a kiss to be incredibly offensive, some of whom might think it insufferably banal, and some of whom may find it to be high art, or charming, and so on), it's a not an especially answerable question. <br /><br />It might be more helpful to ask, "What sorts of things might one be trying to communicate by photographically portraying a kiss?" and "What do you need to know about your audience and about the circumstances of their seeing your photograph in order to improve the odds that your communication will be effective?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which is to say that this isn't any more constructive of a question than asking what you've captured when you photograph two people <em>not</em> kissing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That could be worthy indeed as a counterpoint, Matt. A photo of two adults (or chidren) pouting at each other can be a powerful image indeed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think this is just a sub-set of "What has one captured with a photograph?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it is, Matt, in the same way that chemistry is a subset of physics, or, as one of my physics professors explained it to me in the late sixties, "Chemistry is the branch of physics that smells." It was pointless to point out that it was also the branch that dealt with the electron shell rather than the nucleus of the atom. He already knew that.</p>

<p>"Photography" is likewise a subset of "art" (or at least some photography is).</p>

<p>Even so, capturing a kiss has its own unique points of interest--and possibly its own internal sources of tension. The photographer is always outside his or her subject, of course, but never more so than when emotion or desire is being manifested in the photo.</p>

<p>Even so, I welcome your restatements of the question. I don't doubt that it could be phrased better.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If two people shake hands....you know pretty much that they know each other....somehow....either previously, or just a first time meeting....</p>

<p>....but, the kiss......you don't know if they are lovers, really good friends, relatives....or, maybe the all elusive, love at first sight. The viewer can imagine any of these they want. You don't know the level of the relationship between the two....usually.....and perhaps the photographer is detached from the two people at the time of shutter pressing, once it is in the editor...or viewing....mode, all these thoughts tend to surface. For the viewer (ie not the photographer themselves) there are all these questions and more.</p>

<p>So, to me, the kiss, is perhaps the photograph most left open to interpretation by the viewer.</p>

<p>Would depend on who's kissing who. Like Judas kissing Jesus or Romeo kissing Juliet... </p>

<p>And, Phylo: how would you necessarily know that (or similar contextual things) from looking at a photograph? As Thomas points out, most of that back story isn't there without considerable supporting material/circumstances or some other familiarity with the subjects that are kissing.<br /><br />Lannie: throw us a bone, here. At least bound your question <em>somewhat</em> by suggesting what you're really getting at, or in what sitution you imagine the question having some purpose. Otherwise it's pointless, and you can only get back a laundry list or matrix of "if you Lannie means <em>this</em> ... then perhaps such a photograph would mean <em>that</em>" responses to your question.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie: throw us a bone, here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Matt and others, I don't have a set agenda on open-ended questions like this--and I deliberately phrased the question rather cryptically at the outset.<br>

<br /> I do have to take exception to the idea that the photo can tell nothing about the feelings involved. A photo of a real "butt-clutcher" indicates at least a high degree of passion. A photo of a six-year-old kissing another six-year-old may reasonably be thought to imply friendship and affection.<br /> I'm pretty much open to any and all interpretations at this point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At least bound your question <em>somewhat</em> by suggesting what you're really getting at, or in what sitution you imagine the question having some purpose. Otherwise it's pointless, and you can only get back a laundry list or matrix of "if you Lannie means <em>this</em> ... then perhaps such a photograph would mean <em>that</em>" responses to your question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not the opening question in the Socratic method, Matt. I have no idea where it is going. Let's see the laundry list and see what people come up with. I hate to limit the possible sub-topics and interpretations too much up front, since other persons may have a lot more to say than I ever imagined. I would prefer not to rule those out as "worthless" until I have at least had a chance to see and review them.<br /> <br /> I'm certainly not averse to examples drawn from painting or sculpture if they advance the discussion. There must be an enormous body of critical commentary on this and related topics. Maybe even Derrida addressed the kiss, for all I know, and there surely is no way to predict <em>a priori </em>what Derrida or other free spirits might come up with.<br /> <br /> --Lannie</p>

<p>I hope folks will pardone me for putting it bluntly, but in the world of communication there is something called nonsense.</p>

<p>Thank you, Ilia. I have just responded to your comment on John Kelly's thread about beauty. It makes no sense to me, but maybe I am missing something.</p>

<p>As for nonsense here, there is nothing nonsensical in "brainstorming." Let's get the comments flowing before we tear each other apart. At this stage, I am simply trying to get people to toss out ideas, any old ideas. That is not nonsense. That is a time-honored strategy for getting persons to set aside their reserve and let their opinions flow. After the defenses are down and the comments start coming in, other posters can decide which horse to ride, if any, by way of sustained critical discussion.</p>

<p>What does this say to you, Ilia?</p>

<p>

<p>Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>What did Rodin intend with "The Kiss"?</p>

<p>There is more than one interpretation, but the original does not involve lip-to-lip contact, indicating that the lovers were killed before they actually kissed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_%28Rodin_sculpture%29</p>

<p>On the other hand, the same source indicates that Rodin typically wanted to show that the female role in a kiss does not have to be passive.</p>

<p>One sees this in Dan South's photo as well:</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Bridal/Romantic-Light/12171174_saJQ9#866106801_9tyWn-X2-LB</p>

<p>The man is quite wooden. The woman is doing all the kissing, which is not to say that that was Dan's point.</p>

<p>Indeed, what one gets from a photo is often not at all what was expected or intended. I would imagine that a photo of a kiss often betrays a lot more than one might expect.</p>

<p>None of which is to say that I started this thread with the expectation of finding that at all. I had no idea what might be found as we started down the primrose path with that first kiss.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Khm. If it doesn't work, what's the point of calling it magic? In my quarters we think of "brain storming" as a creative, free style, unconditioned projecting on specifically formulated topic usualy made by a group of concerned people. The goal is to create a bank of ideas in order to solve the problem in question.</p>

<p>Old chinese proverb says: "It's difficult to catch a black cat in dark room, especially if it is not there." I would add: " .. even more so if you're trying to do it by irrational, intuitive randomizing of communication"</p>

<p>??</p>

<p>Ilia, here is what I posted at 10:41 a.m. by way of attempting to clarify the original question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What does the kiss signify, and how effectively and meaningfully can a photo capture that meaning?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It can be difficult to catch a dark cat in a dark room even when it is there. The "cat" <em>qua</em> "question" is there.</p>

<p>If the question doe not interest you, why not just walk away from it?</p>

<p>If you are snow blind from all that high altitude mountain photography you mention on your bio, then you are not going to find the cat.</p>

<p>The cat may yet find you.</p>

<p>Maybe a girl will kiss you today, and you might spend the rest of your life trying to figure out what it means or meant. The hidden question might be the one asked above by someone: can one tell from the photo what the kiss means?<br /> <br /> <br /> --Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>can one tell from the photo what the kiss means?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Short answer: No.<br /><br />Longer answer: Not without <em>context</em>, none of which you're describing. So absent that, no.</p>

<p>Landrum. The question you quote can be IMO answered in exceedingly apparent and simple way: It signifys close, intime personal relation of mutual affection. A photo can capture it so meaningful and as effective as it possibly can in every given case as well as in general. Which is as true as it is banal and yet applicable to just about any photo of any situation I can think about RN.</p>

<p>Perhaps, I do not understand the meaning you put in the question. Please, be so kind and give us your own answer or explain otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, Phylo: how would you necessarily know that (or similar contextual things) from looking at a photograph?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I suppose I would know, or would be able to let the viewer know, if the context was part of the photograph : either by discovering or by setting up a ( portrait ) scene. In Lannie's example the context is a wedding, which renders the kiss obviously as an *ideally romantic* kiss. Surely photographs could be made with a different context that involve kissing or a kiss, going beyond <em>a photograph of a kiss</em>.<br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>If the question on the thread does not interest me I do not post, so, let us not deviate from the discurssion. My interest in mountaineering is not relevant here.</p>

<p>I am sorry for posting such a difficult question and for not responding is as timely a fashion as some of you might have wanted, but it has been a busy day here.</p>

<p>When I posted this question, I knew that it was by far the most difficult question that I had ever posted to this forum. I also knew that any meaningful answer would require an inductive, not a deductive, way of proceeding. I still had no idea what I was getting into.</p>

<p>I knew that the topic would be enormous, however, and so I made reference to examples in the original post because nothing about the kiss could possibly be discussed apart from specific photos--and it was pretty obvious that there were a lot of types of "kiss photos." (I had no idea how many types--and I still do not.) One could spend days simply cataloging the types of photos that fall into various groups or categories. Only through concrete examples could anything of interest ever be said--and what might be of interest for one photo or type of photo would not necessarily imply anything whatsoever about other types of photos.</p>

<p>What all of this means is that no vast generalization is possible (that I can see) in response to a topic of this sort. Anyone who wants a simple answer to something as complicated as this is not going to find it anywhere, I fear, and certainly not here. There is not one cat to be found, to use Ilia's metaphor. There are millions of cats running around. Some of them take the form of passionate, overtly sexual kisses. Some take the form of mere expressions of affection. Some--as photographs--take the form of abstacts, and other take the form of symbols, etc. I was not prepared for the latter two categories when framing the original question.</p>

<p>I have no general response to any of you, for the simple reason that it does not exist--or at least I do not think that it does. One must first start by looking at some types of photos that invoke the way that the kiss (or even more broadly the <em>concept</em> of a kiss) is used in actual photographic practice.</p>

<p>Here are examples of candid shots of a kiss, the kind that might be found in PJ or street photography:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/3043438</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8302162</p>

<p>Here are examples of staged shots of a rather conventional nature:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00LQXp</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/3746390</p>

<p>Here are some where the labels are conventional but the shots are not:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7010034</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6445704</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7601750</p>

<p>Here are some where the affection expressed are decidedly non-sexual:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8446845</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/2085537</p>

<p>One could likewise try to catalog an enormous variety of staged kisses of all sorts, some of which are not obviously staged but probably are:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5868920</p>

<p>Others are more obviously staged:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7558943</p>

<p>Abstractions are also a possibility, not something that I was thinking about when I posed the question but which were in abundance when I started looking for examples some hours ago:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5942288</p>

<p>Others are perhaps more symbolic or representational of something that the title might or might not give guidance on:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/2240391</p>

<p>After two consecutive browser crashes earlier in the afternoon, I gave up on reproducing what I have finally managed to post above.</p>

<p>In other words, I started by knowing that "the kiss" is an enormous category, but not until I started searching for examples did I have any idea just how enormous a category it is.</p>

<p>Each of these categories (and no doubt others) is going to yield, if at all, to the original question (albeit modified) only by discussions of specific photos. Actual photos are always contextual, of course, as Matt pointed out. I hope that he will forgive me for not providing the context. That is a taller order than I knew at the outset, and I was not at first inclined to try. I still cannot do it on any kind of comprehensive basis. Maybe all of us together we can flesh out the categories a bit--if persons are so inclined to offer specific photos as points of departure.</p>

<p>I am still surprised by the insistence upon gross generalizations and simple answers. This is not the kind of topic for that, I fear.</p>

<p>Therefore I will extend my original invitation one more time, this time I hope with the understanding of the moderator:</p>

<p>"Feel free to refine the question or to give examples through images if words fail. . . ."</p>

<p>I don't expect any of the participants or the moderator to read my mind, of course, but neither do I like to ride heard on a thread in its early stages, preferring to let participants determine the direction as far as may be possible. This has been a remarkably busy day, and I hope that these points of clarification do something to assuage the desire for some degree of simplification, although what seems more and more obvious is that cataloging the possible shots is going to lead to more complexity, not simplification.</p>

<p>I also want to be the first to admit that I had no idea of the extent to which I would have to modify my own understanding of the scope of the analysis required to do justice to the topic.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that I would have started the thread had I known what degree of complexity I would have run into. The original question would have to be modified to fit all categories mentioned, of course. Refining the question is always a standing invitation where I am concerned.</p>

<p>Feel free. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My interest in mountaineering is not relevant here.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it is, Ilia. Of course it is. Surely you have kissed a girl on a mountain. If not, well, you'll just have to try it. It's a top-of-the-world experience. You can even enjoy it while recovering from snow blindness.</p>

<p>Be sure and set up the tripod and use the auto-timer. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>VJ Day kiss<br /> http://www.skylighters.org/veday2004/vjkiss.jpg</p>

<p>The end of the War. Pure joy of the moment.<br>

Probably most famous kiss ever.</p>

<p>I thought a "kiss is just a kiss".</p>

<p>Thank you, Joe. That one came to mind much earlier but I didn't look it up. Thanks for doing so.</p>

<p>I understand that the story behind it is pretty good, too.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thought a "kiss is just a kiss".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes it is, Barry. Sometimes it is:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7306346</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>