When does photographic understatement succeed?

<p>I like the subtle photo, not the one that pops--at least that is my typical preference. Not all understated photos succeed, however. </p>

<p>What makes for a successfully understated photographic treatment? Can you post some links to some worthy photos that are both understated and yet still eye-catching? Better yet, post some in-line samples of your own that you think succeed without going over the top. In either case, can you explain why the photo succeeds, if you think that it does?</p>

<p>There is yet a more fundamental question that underlies this question as both a philosophical issue and as a matter of technique: <em>what is there in <strong>the successfully understated photo</strong> that makes it pleasing?</em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>LK> <em>what is there in <strong>the successfully<br /></strong></em><strong> </strong>LK> <strong></strong><em><strong>understated photo</strong> that makes it<br /></em>LK> <em>pleasing?</em><br>

My answer to that would be: the understated photo leaves more scope for the viewer to learn and discover - rather than having emphases served up on a plate, s/he is left free to discover and evaluate them for her/himself.<br>

LK> post some in-line samples of your<br /> LK> own that you think succeed without<br /> LK> going over the top. In either case,<br /> LK> can you explain why the photo<br /> LK> succeeds, if you think that it does?<br>

What is a successful photograph is very subjective ... however, the included image is one of my own <em>which succeeds for me</em>.</p>

<p>It does so because I feel that it supplies enough clues for an exploration of the subject without specifying what is to be done with them. Put another way: it shows to me the qualities of the subject which I sought to portray, but does not insist upon them to another viewer. (I may well be utterly wrong in this assessment!)</p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1650&bih=1015&q=helen+levitt&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=">Helen Levitt</a> comes to mind as exemplary of beautiful understatement in most of her work.</p>

<p>I immediately thought of the concept of minimalism in architecture or other arts or arts and crafts.</p>

<p>I then thought of the Japanese of Chinese use of the word "yugen", a form of understatement which first meant dim, deep or mysterious, or the subtle profundity of things that are only suggested by the art form. It is part of the Japanese traditions to refine things down to their essence. Yugen values the power to evoke rather than to state directly. Impressionist paintings seems to do the same. In photography, I think understatement is a simplicity of vision or approach that can suggest what is not shown, without the need for additional visual references, while awakening in the viewer inner thoughts and feelings.</p>

<p>As for examples of this, other than Japanese art, and specifically which relate to my own photography, I have to think more about it, as what the image evokes for me may not be more universal than a personal opinion. I see a subject's face half hidden behind a fan or veil or shadow as understatement, whereas the same person complete with radsiant smile or strong emotional facial expression as not. But this is only one limited example. I like lanscapes that depict something you cannot easily see in them (again, evoking something).</p>

<p>I like your subject of discussion. I feel that yugen (like in Japanese Haiku poetry), or understatemernt, or minimalism, are very underrated objectives or qualities of art expression, especially in the West.</p>

<p>With all my respect for Julie's example of Helen Levitt (a wonderful street photographer) I don't find the latter's work as understatement, but maybe I am missing something.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, guys. It just occurred to me that understatement can also occur another way, with a sense of mystery--an emphasis on what is <em>not</em> visible (but still intriguing) around the bend in the road, or behind the veil.</p>

<p>This falls under "technique," in one sense: what can one do to provoke a sense of mystery or enhance interest, etc., without shoving that which is imagined in the viewer's face? The photographic imagination comes into play again.</p>

<p>I confess, Arthur, that I like the topic, too, since it allows for an integration of examples and analyses on quite a variety of photographs. I think that we might be surprised by some of the examples that are cited, linked, or posted before this thread plays out. I hope so.</p>

<p>I also belatedly see (upon more careful reading) that you anticipated my own thoughts on this one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see a subject's face half hidden behind a fan or veil or shadow as understatement, whereas the same person complete with radsiant smile or strong emotional facial expression as not. But this is only one limited example. I like lanscapes that depict something you cannot easily see in them (again, evoking something).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Felix, I also like your example. Something else that I like about it is the pensive look on the subject's face, which raises a question in the viewer's mind.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Thanks, Julie. I can get a taste of what you are talking about in these:</p>

<p>http://bismarck84.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>Perhaps you have some others in mind as well. I confess that I am not particularly well-acquainted with her work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>These kind of images, from one photographers work, I find alluring to look at again and again for their understatement, meaning, that they are about a suggestiveness, something non definitive that goes beyond the frame. They are muted spaces that speak. I don't find them pleasing to look at, instead they leave me a bit nauseating and feel claustrophobic. That's what makes them work for me.<br /> <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ORgy5r0ZcSU/SfBcUGuHf5I/AAAAAAAADUY/2UE4x02Fidc/s800/dirk+braeckman+001.jpeg">one</a><br /> <a href="http://www.bamart.be/images/530/81.jpg">two</a><br /> <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ORgy5r0ZcSU/SfBcUHNsLNI/AAAAAAAADUQ/O9tLOoN5W48/s800/dirk+braeckman+002.jpeg">three</a><br /> <a href="http://tiesgoos.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/dirk-braeckman-2.jpg">four</a><br /> <a href="http://tiesgoos.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/dirk-braeckman.jpg">five</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you post some links to some worthy photos that are <strong>both understated and yet still eye-catching?</strong> Better yet, post some in-line samples of your own that you think succeed without going over the top. In either case, can you explain why the photo succeeds, if you think that it does?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the understated image has more to do about mind-catching than anything else. I made these, because they caught my mind before they caught my eye.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/11562530<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/11458310<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/11373251</p>

<p>Either way, both understatement and overstatement are...a statement, both specific and pointing towards something visual. The understatement doesn't try to be any more to be less noticed or to be invisible than the overstatement tries to be noticed or pop out.</p>

<p>Those are quite remarkable photos in their own way, Phylo. Of those on this site that you link to, I like all of them, but the one of the chandelier and the web-like shadows on the wall is fascinating.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11373251</p>

<p>Here is one of my own that was in some ways a failed shot: I meant to get back to this spot and shoot this barn in the late afternoon sun. I don't mind how it turned out (shot at dusk), but it is not going to get a lot of attention:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11769352&size=lg</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When does photographic understatement succeed ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps when the photograph doesn't aim to be better - more popping - than the subject photographed.</p>

<p>The banal and obvious ( like the barn in your picture Lannie ), when photographed as an under<em>statement</em>, can often lead to tantalizing images. William Eggleston, even with his vivid use of color, is an example of 'understatement' too I think, in choice of subject matter. But which in turn has become a distinctive statement, almost an overstatement : Egglestonian.</p>

OK Landrum, I will try again. The attached picture was taken in, then, Leningrad during a severe Winter food shortage. It is just of a tired lady carting home some cabbage and bread on a very short, northern latitude, dark and dreary winter day. She had waited most of the day for that. I heard from a woman who had seen this picture on PN who said she and that woman looked alike; aging and tired and it reminded her of her days growing up in that area. I took it on Tri-X. It's not much of a picture according to PN standards but it struck a cord with her. It certainly is understated.<div></div>

The year was 1991

<p>1991! What a year, Dick. It wouldn't be Leningrad long after the events of that year. Thanks for trying again.</p>

<p>It's a great shot. I love it:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>a tired lady carting home some cabbage and bread on a very short, northern latitude, dark and dreary winter day.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The picture says all that, and it says it very well, although your words are certainly well chosen as well.</p>

<p>"Evocative" is the word someone used above. Yes, the image evokes a certain response, even a certain mood. I have known days like that. Although it is sunny and nicely crisp in North Carolina this morning, I can feel that kind of day in my bones just from looking at the photo.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie-<br>

I think your question about being understated, really goes to the individual. What is understated? A picture of a stadium packed full of people may be understated- depending on the intent of the image maker- and the perception of the viewer. </p>

<p> I think understated is a tricky word. Photographs in themselves have a huge canon of thought and process to deal with- so inherently they are NOT understated- but rather hugely rich with information. </p>

<p> This is of course in line with much of my thinking about photography today- not enough thinking going into it. Too simplistic. Too automated. Too removed from the medium. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think your question about being understated, really goes to the individual. What is understated?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Martin, without thinking about it, I guess that I was thinking of post-processing style as much as anything else.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Understatement is sometimes a function of chosen media. In the following two subjects I was presented with a very dramatic gamut of color, blue sky, rich colored vegetation, painted buildings (The Williamsburg building was a strong purplish shade, the Quebec area shed was just whitewashed and grey but its surroundings were richly colored vegetation). Black and white film photography can be minimalist in this sense, understated, with a sort of quieting and partly enigmatic rendition of the subject matter. Perhaps the buildings may evoke other feelings in some viewers, I don't know; they did for the photographer, although not in a dramatic way).</p><div></div>

<p>and the Williamsburg image.</p><div></div>

<p>I have problems with understanding what we are actually talking about when we use the term "understatement".</p>

<p>If I may take the reference to the impressionists or even more maybe the fauvist who would, I would think, be able to argue that what they tried to achieved was anything but understatement. Their whole project was exactly to overstate what they saw as the basic colors and forms in reality that they saw as understated in traditional, classical and realistic paintings and sculptures. If I'm right in that observation then the concept of "understatement" might be less relevant because what we see in the photos that have been referred to and in the Japanese, chinese traditions mentioned is the overstatement of the transcendent reality and the understatement of the directly seen reality. </p>

<p>Both <em>understatements</em> and <em>overstatements</em> are, in my mind tools in our toolbox for expression our selves. It is our way of mastering such tools that might in case end up with works that can be considered by ourselves and even others as successful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Both <em>understatements</em> and <em>overstatements</em> are, in my mind tools in our toolbox for expression our selves</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, essentially what's left, when the photograph is made and presented, is a <em>statement</em>, be it over or under. The most understatement a photographer could make, is making ( = seeing ) pictures without a camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The most understatement a photographer could make, is making ( = seeing ) pictures without a camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand. Please elaborate, Phylo.</p>

<p>Well, you can take it quite literal. The most understatement is no statement at all : not being in the need to take pictures ( because making them is a statement, under or over, it's all the same ), and when simply seeing them is enough. Sometimes I envy people who don't need a camera to identify themselves in the moment with.</p>

<p>Going back to the original question, maybe <strong>photographic understatement</strong> succeeds the most when it's unintentional at the core, like in a random snapshot, when it's just a record of a moment, and pretends to be nothing else.</p>

<p><em>Photographic </em>suggests an objectivity - a no statement. The camera doesn't take sides, so maybe the understatement is more towards the objective than the subjective, as <em>over</em> and <em>under</em> are always subjective. The examples I gave, weren't objective at all, so maybe they aren't really a good example of understatement either.</p>

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>You conveniently lump together the Impressionists and the Fauvists. I see minimalism or understatement in the techniques (if not always the subjects) of the Impressioinsists, including their elimination of shadows (an understatement), but the Fauvists have hardly the same objective, as they definitely overstate by creative colour and by form, the former being a powerful statement, and the latter heading toward the freedom (and statement) of more abstract modern art trends.</p>

<p>I am puzzled by the logic of your argument, and perhaps you can mention why you put these two movements together.</p>

<p>What must be understood about Yugen and Japanese art is that it is not handicapped by reality, or by showing everything. On the contrary. Understatement and minimalism is the aim, as they allow the viewer to evoke qualities in the painting, poem or photograph that aren't spelled out, or seen.</p>

<p>You, and I believe Phylo, insist so often on the necessity of reality, whereas art does not need to be shackelled by that.</p>

<p>I used a simple example in my images, that of monochrome minimalism. It is not the most profound element to bring to the discussion, but definitely one that understates the reality and, if one can find more than just black and white in an image, adds an unseen dimension to the communication. For me, that is one of the foundations of Yugen, of understatement, and of minimalism in art. What more noble communication than one that incites questions in the mind of the viewer, and leaves him or her the freedom to decide on the meaning.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.charlierose.com/view/clip/9993">http://www.charlierose.com/view/clip/9993</a></p>

<p>Thank you, John. Maybe we can express our souls through our photos. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>http://www.hiltonpond.org/ThisWeek020108.html</p>

<p>I think that there are three photos of broomsedge on the above link. I guess that I have seen broomsedge in all of its moods and fits of display, but I think that I like it most in the dead of winter, when it gives just a hint of color to the sterile landscape.</p>

<p>The last photo is perhaps a bit more faded than it needs to be, but it is an excellent example of understatement, although surely not by any design on the part of the photographer.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>