The image or its meaning?

[dickhilker]

Ansel Adams and Minor White were iconic figures, yet each approached their art

from quite different perspectives. Whereas Adams sought to create the perfect

print, it was a picture of an object or scene that he wanted to depict in his

own certain way.

 

Though similarly devoted to perfection, the more spiritually-oriented White

sought to have his images represent the meaning he saw behind them, rather than

merely glorify the subject.

 

Do you feel you're more apt to follow in White's footsteps or Adams'? How do

you feel about your own work?

[asher]

For me it would depend on what it is about the scene that made me want to make a

photograph. Some subjects will appeal to my desire to express some idea or meaning while

others will appeal more to a pure sense of form and content that I visualize.

[k5083]

This is the exact theme developed by Szarkowski in "Mirrors and Windows." Like you, he picked White as the "mirror" exemplar. For "window" he went with Robert Frank.

 

There is, of course, an element of "mirror" even in Adams and Frank. From Adams' intensely, lovingly crafted landscapes it would not be hard to guess his feelings about the environment. Frank's images leave one in little doubt as to his feelings about Americans.

 

For me the difference between mirror and window is that the purest mirror guys are almost indifferent to the subject. It is nothing but a vehicle for them to tell you about themselves. The window guys are telling you about themselves also, but in relation to the subject.

 

The photos of mine that are my favorites are those that go beyond description and express to others how I feel about the subject. But because of the "about the subject" -- i.e., because I feel no inclination to distort or arrange what is before my lens so that it serves no purpose other than to communicate my emotions -- I guess maybe I am still more toward the window end of the continuum. That is the type of work I most often enjoy viewing, as well. Occasionally I love something that is toward the mirror extreme but mostly it radiates a kind of narcissism to me.

[don_e]

Stipulating to the either/or, Adams. Respect for the subject being a primary concern. Some photographer's manage to be both, Gene Smith, imo.

 

 

--

 

Don E

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Whereas Adams sought to create the perfect print, it was a picture of an object or scene

that he wanted to depict in his own certain way."

 

vs.

 

"Though similarly devoted to perfection, the more spiritually-oriented White sought to

have his images represent the meaning he saw behind them, rather than merely glorify the

subject."

 

Uh, I don't see a difference there. The meaning an image has for an artist is very likely to

be different for anyone else. Or even that artist at a later time. That's the beauty of art.

 

Adam's images most certainly are as loaded with psychological and spiritual intent as his

good friend Minor White's are

[david_schwartz6]

No right answer, of course. Both were masters. I tend toward the Minor White approach -- or rather, the photo is not a representation of a "thing", but a visual expression in its own right, with its own rules and its own effect on the eye and the mind. Don't want to get too didactic here -- but I prefer an image that is visually "interesting", almost irrespective of the subject matter. Don't get me wrong though -- both knew how to take a picture! And if I could take a photo one tenth as wonderful as an Adams image -- well, I would die a happy man.

[beeman458]

I have a tendency to slide around in both worlds.

 

We'll call it the "West Coast School of Grand Equivalents" :)

[jason_carreira]

For me the purpose or idea behind a photograph was always the most important. The aspects of the photograph such as the light, sharpness, composition, etc. were the wrapping that caught the eye and the imagination to pull the viewer in to hopefully experience the artistic intent. Photography is a medium for artwork, much like painting.

 

I also always had a problem with looking at individual photos. Photos, for me, are much more powerful in relation to other photos in a group which, together, express some feeling, idea, etc. Back in school I tended to shoot a LOT, mostly by instinct and feeling, and turn to the intellectual side during editing and selection.

[Brad_]

Totally agree with Claudia - do what jazzes YOU!

[root]

"Nobody is going to be looking at photographs the way they once did. They are irrelevant because of their collective mass."

 

Sure don't agree with that part.

[don_e]

Does "irrelevant" and "collective mass" refer to "nobody" or "photographs"?

 

 

--

 

Don E

[root]

I took it to mean desensitized due to oversaturation (referring to volume, not color.)

[pico]

Indeed, you have chosen almost polar opposites. If we separate Minor White's outlyers, his

gay men pictures, the rest are tightly coupled transcendent images that stand alone; they

ARE their meaning with no words required.

[saskphotog]

There is no image without meaning. It's like trying to decide whether you see coins as primarily heads or mostly tails. What exactly IS the sound of one hand clapping?

[pico]

<b>Larry Cooper</b><br><i>

There is no image without meaning.</i><p>

There are images with zero impact, zero interest and that makes them meaningless, no? Or

are you suggesting that zero influence images' meaning is zero? Seems to me there's plenty

of nonimage 'images' out there. Explain, please.

[cj.mccormack]

I agree with Mr Cooper.

 

There is no image without meaning that image may have meaning only to one person or to many.

 

But all images mean something.

 

just because an image doesn't have impact or "beauty" in the traditional photographic sense does not render it meaningless.

 

The amazing thing about photography is that you can have a shot that breaks all the traditional rules of composition or aesthetics and yet captures the imagination.

 

CJM

[beeman458]

"But all images mean something."

 

Possible trick question.

 

And what about all the images that we dump/erase or don't allow to see the light of day (aren't shown to others) due to their inability to convey our feelings/intent of the moment?

 

I went out today, made twenty-five exposures (no erasures) and posted one image which summed up and conveyed the twenty-five exposure of the outing; three different stops, six different scenarios and the conversion of four images with potential. What about the ones I looked at, which to me, failed in my expectations to convey anything except blah?

 

I must say, they sure looked good in the viewfinder but something happened between the viewfinder and bringing the recorded image up onto the screen. Wow! Was I surprised. Oh, and no, I wasn't just thoughtlessly banging away, hoping to get something. Well on two scenarios I took experimentation flyers (let's see how the sensor responds to the hazy, monochromatic lighting) but they weren't taken in a banging off rounds style of "hopeful" photography. I'll revisit these images at a later time so as to see if a settled mind will be more successful at gaining that what I failed to get the first time through.

 

So the question I pose:

 

Do failed images, which to fail to convey (didn't make it through the screening process), still convey meaning or do they get hung in the coffee shops on "Boulevard of Broken Dreams;" Gottfried Helnwein? :)

[toddcurry]

I think this is a brilliant question.

I was speaking to another photographer about this the other day, we were having coffee

and a couple two tables down were having an argument, we saying the best way catching

this moment.

 

He was saying the f64 group was right and you should shoot it with a high speed to catch

them still and with a high f stop to show the background and that he said is telling the

?truth? with the picture.

 

I disagreed, yes you show the ?truth? with that picture but only at very surface level, you

would not show the passion in that situation and that to me was the a greater element, I?m

more in the William Klein school, I would use blur and knock the background out

altogether, showing them passionately in there own little bubble, because that to me was

the greater ?truth?, so who was right?

Both????

[timothy1]

I believe that by stepping out of your own shell, and shooting both objects for objects sake and also shooting for deeper meaning, will make you better at both. As Photographers I believe we have a great opportunity to be able to grow from both. We will see each differently. Whether we display these images is up to us and we choose what we throw out there to represent ourselves. A football coach never tells his team to do drills on the field for game day. Yet they have the conditioning and the benefits of those drills done in practice.

[saskphotog]

Last Christmas my mother-in-law threw together a slide show that contained images covering over 44 years. Most were what would be called "snap shots". Many were badly exposed, out of focus, and badly composed. Subjects would be considered by almost everyone here to be bland, or mundane, or even boring.

 

The result, for our families, was an hour and a half of complete fascination about that old house, the old car, grandpa had hair, look at the weird glasses we wore, neat suit Uncle Bob, I loved that bike, and so on. Time had given a set of slides incredible meaning for the people involved.

 

No image is without meaning. For someone. Sometime. Somewhere.

 

It is, in fact, somewhat arrogant for anyone to suggest that any image of any quality is without importance or meaning. We are entitled to say we don't "get it", but it is our failure to see meaning not the images failure to have meaning that is the problem.

 

Now, some images can have meaning to many people, across long time spans, and even across cultures. Those images are special and deserve the acclaim they may have gathered. They may even be art. As a photographer it is important to understand the power of all images, and not get too absorbed in our fascination with ourselves and our own icons.

[dhgeyer]

This entire thread, with the exception of one post, is concerned with photography as art. Ask yourself this: "How many artistic photographs can you remember from 100 or even 50 years ago? How many photographs can you remember that were taken primarily to document a person, place, event, thing, or so forth?". If you had to eliminate every image you ever took, but could only save 10, would the ten you chose be some artistic still life, nude, or landscape, or would they be snapshots of family, friends, outings, vacations, and so forth?

 

I must agree with claudia that the very ease with which everyone can make endless images, and the way we are bombarded with them constantly in endless publications, billboards, signs, TV, the internet, and now even over our freakin' phones, has cheapened the experinece of any given image. When photography was new, people would contemplate a single image for hours. What's the average time we spend looking at each others' photos (even the best photos) in the photo critique gallery? Seconds only, most of the time I would guess. And we (or at least I) spend hours on an image, knowing that I have only seconds to make any impact on anyone, and that there is about zero chance that anyone other than me will remember or care about what I do ten minutes from now. Of course I do it mostly for my own benefit, unless I'm a real fool!

 

And, if I am honest, I know that the most appreciated pictures I have ever made or will ever make are the ones that I do of and for my family, which will be treasured for a time by my family.

 

Oh, I once had a small book of photographs published. The book was titled "Aurora's Architectural Heritage", and it was a book of photographs mostly about the old houses and buildings in my hometown of East Aurora, New York. It was published in 1973 by the local Historical Society. I was quite surprised to learn last Summer that the book is back in print, and for sale in several local stores and from the Historical Society. I am sure that no one buys the book to see the wonderful photographic technique of David Geyer, even though most of the pictures were done with great care and a 4 by 5 view camera. They buy the book because East Aurora has become quite aware of its past, and some of those houses and buildings are gone now.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you really want to have an impact on people with photography, find a group with something in common, and document what is important to the group. Good documentary photography is just as much of a challenge as the latest craze in "art" photography.

[cj.mccormack]

I must confess that I feel that the prevalence of photography has been the best thing that could possibly have happened. It has created a situation where you really do have to be very good to get noticed.

 

Give *everyone* a camera, that's what I say. The truly great photographs will always stand out from the crowd no matter how big that crowd gets.

 

CJM