What the eye sees, the mind knows, but cannot express

[ben conover]

Anthony, excellent series of images giving a very interesting view of character in the subject, I hope she liked the photos!

 

I have often thought of making series of photos but alas, I am lazy.

So, that's it, I've seen the benefits, I'm gonna do it!

[john mackay]

<p>I'm thinking of Hegel's conflict of two opposites in that the the sum of two opposites is bigger, if they are connected. I think it's referred to as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect">Kuleshov's Effect</a> in

the film industry?</p>

<p>I acknowledge the birth of this dynamic as originating in filmography but wonder why it has to be two or more unrelated images in montage and why not just two seemingly <i>related</i> elements presented in an unrelated way in a single still image or two seemingly <i>unrelated</i> elements presented in a related way--in a single image as in this photo

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4505874">untitled (girl and swing #4)</a>  [115kb]</p>

<p>However, the idea of a series is intriguing and I have had a crack at it here with some royalty free found photography

<a href="http://www.imageicon.org/galleries/photonet_forums/kuleshov_twist.jpg">

untitled series #1</a> [100kb]</p>

<p>Cheers...John.</p>

[john mackay]

<p><a href="http://www.wildframe.net/images/misc/utz_trigger.jpg">untitled

series #2</a> [71kb]</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wildframe.net/images/misc/mushroom_trigger.jpg">untitled

series #3</a> [80kb]</p>

[mrstubbs]

I think your #3 just sent the thread to another level John. Photographers can add the tool to the skill bag. How much delay in recognition is acceptable in juxtapositional photography.

 

7/7

[don_e]

Trouble with juxtaposition is that once you get it it becomes banal. You cannot get it again. You are done.

 

Once upon a time I had a recording of a solo Japanese flute piece called A Bell Ringing in the Empty Sky. Once in awhile, and effortlessly, my hearing would "float" above the sequence of notes and hear the bells. I'd like to make a photograph like that, but don't know how.

 

--

 

Don E

[ben conover]

Don, glad the flute can do that for you. Perhpas a photo can't do that beccause it's visual, I understand how you feel.

 

John, your use of the Fuji g690bl and 100mm 3.5 is fantastic. I see how the reasoning goes and I think I understand now, thanks.

[ben conover]

John, since you are a self confessed camera gear addict like me I would sugguest you have a look at this site http://artbig.com/ which is by Sebastian, he's very knowledgeable and helpful. He also owns TWO fujica 50mm lenses for the g690bl, they are extremely rare. You might want to ask him to sell one to you. If I still had my Fuji 69's I'd do the same.

 

Anyhow, camera gear addiction leads to film or digital, which leads to a photo, so it's still vaguely on topic. "What the eye sees, the mind knows, but cannot express", the mind only knows what the eye sees, and can express. So we are lucky to use cameras.

 

Cheers.

[don_e]

Ben,

 

It seems the musician playing the wood flute used a 'percussive' fingering and breath technique. If you just follow the sequence of notes it sounds rather harsh or at least difficult to anticipate or follow, however the space between the notes, so to speak, if you get into that 'groove', sounds like a wood bell.

 

I think it is possible to achieve a similar effect in photography. Some of Gene Smith's photos do that for me at least. The 'sequence' and the 'juxtaposition' occurs within a single frame. When (or, if) the mind's eye resolves it. the photo seems transformed.

 

--

 

Don E

[pico_digoliardi]

John - #3! I saw the mushroom cloud before the mushroom.

[john mackay]

<p><b>Anthony Stubbs wrote:</b> <i>"How much delay in recognition is acceptable

in juxtapositional photography."</i></p>

<p>I think that's the art to it I guess. If you have too long a delay then

people will fail to form the image in  their mind and then they are left to

ponder what appear to be unrelated images. The truth is that I missed the first

series and the second series was too obscure (it was supposed to make you think

of Nick Utz's famous photo). The third one I knew was going to be obvious.</p>

<p><b>Don E wrote:</b> "<i>Trouble with juxtaposition is that once you get it it

becomes banal. You cannot get it again. You are done."</i></p>

<p>Yes!! I think there lies the problem in that in order to form the image in

someone's head you have to close the premise so to speak as otherwise people

will not form the image in their mind. In that sense, the technique is ideally

suited to film, advertising or other forms of propaganda where you are trying to

build opinion or rising action or tension etc. where you are trying to lead

people to a conclusion.</p>

<p>The real trick I guess would be in juxtaposing two or more images that formed

opposing images in the minds of different people.</p>

<p><b>Ben Conover wrote:</b> <i>"He also owns TWO fujica 50mm lenses for the

g690bl"</i></p>

<p>Thanks for that Ben, Unfortunately, I just sold mine to get some money

together for a Fujinon-A 240mm for my Large Format camera. I gave up after two

years of trying to find the 50mm and purchased a Plaubel Veriwide 100 instead.

The sickness continues :)</p>

<p><b>Don E wrote:</b>  <i>"however the space between the notes, so to

speak, if you get into that 'groove', sounds like a wood bell."</i></p>

<p>Much like the Japanese concept of "Ma" which Kisho Kurokawa likens to the

space between spoken words a way of reinforcing something through

understatement. In photography I imagine one example might simply be the use of

negative space.</p>

<p><b>Pico diGoliardi wrote:</b> <i>"I saw the mushroom cloud before the

mushroom."</i></p>

<p>Thanks Pico.  I realise now that I may have muddied the waters

juxtaposing the concept of  <i>Kuleshov's Effect</i> as on reflection it is

quite different to what you were proposing.</p>

<p>Cheers...John. </p>

[john mackay]

<p>By the time it hits you it's too late :)</p><div></div>

[hatley]

I started fiddling with something similar recently.<br><br>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4911332-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>

I was also a philo major, btw. I wish I would have studied art history instead, but do still dig some Spinoza. Epistemology may go to the devil =)<br><br>Cheers for stimulating conversation, you gadfly.

[byronlawrence]

would this series of images count ? :)<div></div>

[lightwait]

>>What the eye sees, the mind knows, but cannot express<<

 

Hmm, how about this: Knowing IS knowing more than can be articulated?

 

This is a paraphrase of M. Polanyi. In a famous gestalt experiment (not his), he was able to show how the body can respond to things (in a way that demonstrates knowledge) which the conscious agent of said body could not even justify, let alone articulate.

 

But anyway, in the instance of generating a mystery or phantom resulting image from the viewing of a series; when we experience it, can't we express that we see it?

 

I just don't see how this phenomenon actually fits your subject (What the eye sees, the mind knows, but cannot express). How do we know of such things if we aren't reporting the awareness of the derived image?

 

I think a better example might be the stereoscope. You view two fully articulated subjects (for example, two views of a city scene taken from slightly different points of view -- one for the right eye, one for the left), the thing is, the image you experience isn't either of the articulated images, but a third -- a 3-d integration. Think about it.