The tyranny of images.

[bruno]

Just an evening rant.

 

I was driving back home and thinking about photography and about how

often I have heard or read the sentence "the photograph should show it

all without needing an explanation" (maybe just a short caption).

 

It is true that if we are here it's because we like photography, but I

wonder if something has not been overdone, taking the power out of

other forms of expression... written and oral in first instance.

 

I was thinking about how many times I was phisically present in a

given situation, that looked like something for a short time, then

it's been something different after some explanations were given.

Probably these kind of misunderstandings happen to ourselves every day.

 

Now, how can a photograph barely reveal the truth or some degree of

completeness when we are not able to grasp it ourselves? At least not

using only our sight.

 

Would a rose look the same if it smelled like rotten eggs? How would

you depict a perfectly good looking rose, smelling of rotten eggs?

 

What if we stopped - for a couple of hours - listening, talking,

smelling, and feeling. Relying only to the eyes? Would that be a

pleasant experience? Interesting? Would it produce some different kind

of perception of the world?

 

I could guess that the last sentence would prove true. But then, why

trying to translate an experience made of such a mixture of different

stimuli in a plain picture?

 

I just feel like we are living in a tyranny of the images, that we can

see everywhere and look for more and more and at some time our

perception of reality will start to adapt.

 

"You have a good eye". Well, at some certain point do our eyes start

to look for smaller and smaller details or maybe for a bigger picture

that could tell us more? Until the frame is perfectly composed. But

does this reveal us something about the truth or are we only producing

a more aesthetic reality?

[eugene_scherba]

I haven't read this yet, though my guess is: Philosophy Forum?

[leslie_cheung]

Been reading Sontag of late?

[Uhooru]

Thanx Leslie, I was going to suggest that if he didn't he should.

[jmack]

I feel a small group of images works better in translating the experience.

[eugene_scherba]

<i>Photographos turannos</i>

[eugene_scherba]

Speaking of rotten roses, check out <a

href="http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0602.htm">this link</a>. It's

a chaotic web page, but it contains language marvels like:

"With the odor of fresh dog feces, the lantern stinkhorn (<i>Lysurus

mokusin</i>) attracts green bottle flies (<i>Phaenicia sericata</i>)

to disperse its spores."

[fjords]

ah, I await the introduction of the "scratch and sniff edition" of a digital Sontag polaroid

aesthetic cumpass.

[joachim voth]

can i suggest barthes' camera lucida? i think you'll find that once you read the classics on the theory of seeing, your own thoughts will chime differently...

[eugene_scherba]

What's up with all these book suggestions? Who needs stupid books? A

person

asked a real question, and you suggest a book to him. It's like

saying: "No, you don't need to concern yourself with it, there's a

book for that." F*cking capitalism. There's always a book for every

glitch, a pill for every itch.

[leslie_cheung]

>>>Who needs stupid books?<<<

 

So reading books is an evil capitalist thing now? Is that why most young anarchists seem

so idiotic these days?

 

>>>A person asked a real question, and you suggest a book to him.<<<

 

Did you actually read what Bruno wrote? It was more a rant/commentary than a question

besides Sontag is really not a selfhelp type author.

 

 

>>>It's like saying: "No, you don't need to concern yourself with it, there's a book forhat."

F*cking capitalism. There's always a book for every glitch, a pill for every itch.<<<

 

What a sweeping generalization and not to mention bad analogy. Reading a book =

taking a pill and it is all evil capitalism's doing? IMHO perhaps YOU should put down the

cam and do some reading.

[arond a.]

I guess that's why captions are handy. Look at those of Phillip Jones Griffiths. Eugene Richards as well. Although words can help clarify and add balance to an experience, the unfortunate reality is that not everyone has the time or interest to read the fine print. I'm in favor of wordiness, myself. When viewing a photo, I often wonder what the circumstances were that led to that moment, how it came about, or what the relationship was between the various actors--photographer included. It just makes it more interesting & meaningful. Words provide a more personal dimension and generally make an otherwise impersonal image easier to relate to.

[jaybee]

"the photograph should show it all without needing an explanation"

 

While that may be true, it's not always possible. In Friday's Houston Chronicle, there was an article about an iconic picture of Rosa Parks. It's a powerful picture, but the story behind it makes you realize that it's not what it seems.

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/3512613.html

[eugene_scherba]

<p>>Did you actually read what Bruno wrote? It was more a

rant/commentary than a question</p>

<p>Actually, my comment on books was sarcastic. But I think it

discovered exactly what I thought it will discover: You think

Bruno's post was more of a rant than a question. Great, I think so

too. But the difference between us is that I believe we could have

made Bruno (or somebody else) to reformulate the rant into one or

more questions, which we could then attempt to answer. Instead, by

suggesting Bruno a book (and by only suggesting a book), you insist

that the post is just a rant, that there are no questions behind it,

that it would be better if Bruno didn't post it at all. I am not

sure I can agree with that.</p>

 

<p>Now on to capitalism and why reading books is bad. Consider this

illustration:</p>

 

<p>1. Simon is reading Lacan.<br>

2. Reading Lacan causes Simon to develop a long nose.<br>

(Note 1: But Simon is conditioned by capitalist society to perceive

his long nose [actually, a supplement] as a <i>lack</i>.)<br>

(Note 2: What really happens is Simon's body undergoes a process of

redifferentiation of its surface to form new erogenous zones -- a

bodily response to external capitalist automatons trying to attach

themselves to the surface of Simon's body.)<br>

3. Simon decides to supplement his lack with the all-new BREVINASOXX

, which is promised to shorten the nosespan in just two

applications!<br>

4. The process of reencoding is now complete; Simon discovers that

in order to keep reading Lacan he needs to apply BREVINASOXX to his

nose continuously. Simon discovers auto-erotic satisfaction in

applying BREVINASOXX, which increases the stock value of ANAL

PHARMACIES, INC.<br>

(Note: Alternatively, Simon could have perhaps thought that reading

Kristeva instead of Lacan would help shorten his nose by

supplementing the bodily lack in an ungendered fashion. The end

result, though, would not be much different from what was produced

by his taking BREVINASOXX).

</p>

[lara_walsh]

"the photograph should show it all without needing an explanation"

 

This is a complex issue because images can portray emotions and feelings that are beyond words. Perhaps because of the 'natural' aspect of our understanding of images. From birth we are analysing and reading situations around us. Therefore it is natural for us to relate more to a picture capturing a tragedy or joyous moment than it might be to simply read about it.

 

However, context is also essential to grasp the full meaning of a picture ie, the image of Rosa Parks. I think this is becasue, images can be ambiguous. As every person has an individual view on life due to their experiences, it helps for an author to provide some boundaries in which their work is to be appraised. Even titling a piece as 'Untitled' says volumes. Much like the EuroNews reports I watch from time to time will present a video clip with no presenter explainig the event - merely the title 'No Comment' from which to draw your conclusions.

 

However ambiguity is not always a bad thing, I feel. It is what provokes emotion in people, what makes them stay looking at an image. Take the Mona Lisa for example. not a photo I know, but we can't all be perfect ;) Iit is the mischievousness of her smile which has captivated audiences for centuries.

 

I think ambiguity coupled with a little direction is what is necessary to properly examine and explain a topic.

 

But that's just my humble opinion.

[leslie_cheung]

Eugene,

 

I'm glad your comment about books was sarcastic as capitalism has many flaws though reading books isn't really one them imo. I haven't read Kristeva nor Lacan in years and I'm was never really into French psychanalyst as much as crepes and French cinema;D I have a few philosophy major friends yet they probably still dig Godard more than reading a Lacan translation.

[bruno]

What pi**es me off is that you think that I haven't read Sontag, or Barthes, or Guibert, or Krauss, or Calvino, or Eco, or the russian formalists...

 

...now, instead of telling me what books you think I should read, tell me what you think about it... or tell me that you don't care... of course I want to stimulate an answer from you.

 

Eugene, at the beginning I didn't like your sarcasm, but I'm slowly getting into it and appreciating it! Cheers Mr. Anarchist... your stinking flowers were funny.

[larry_kincaid1]

A picture is worth a thousands words, so they say. But the right word is certainly worth a thousand pictures.

[blowingsky]

Photography is a language of image. Language is a tool of communication. Communication is always two-way, even if the response is simply a matter-of-fact duplication. How literate are you with this language?

 

While an image should speak for itself. That really means "not be incomplete, needing explaination." What fool thinks an understanding of art history would not enhance a museum visit?

 

Think of W.Eugene Smith's portrait of a Japanese woman holding her deformed daughter afloat in a bath. Is the impact of that picture enhanced when you know the story behind it? Of course it is.

[leslie_cheung]

>>>>What pi**es me off is that you think that I haven't read Sontag, or Barthes, or Guibert, or Krauss, or Calvino, or Eco, or the russian formalists...

...now, instead of telling me what books you think I should read, tell me what you think about it... or tell me that you don't care... of course I want to stimulate an answer from you. <<<<

 

 

 

All I commented was "if you were reading Sontag lately?" Then others gave you the books suggestions.

No need to get angry at us for not knowing what YOU have read. Forumers are just suggesting some books that you might find interesting, that's all. No need to get defensive guy, again how are we suppose to know what you have or haven't read?

[bruno]

Sorry Leslie, I was not angry, I only misused the expression "pi** off"... actually laughing when I wrote it, I should remember to use smileys. Anyhow, apologies again.

 

Coming back to Sontag. I found her book very messy and poorly organized. Although there are some interesting takes in there...

 

...but again. I would have liked to have your opinions as street & doc shooters instead of quoting somebody else... one problems with these books is that they are seldom written by photographers.

 

So on one side there is a very deep thought about some aspects of photography. On the other, the emotional level is completely lacking.

 

Again, opinions appreciated and forgive my sometime rude manners.

[klimax]

Bruno,

The majority of photos I see here are taken by skilled photographers. However, judging by the non-titles and

silly titles, they're sure not skilled with words. In

fact, many times I see titles that are nothing more than

silly puns on pop-culture associations.

 

I think you're right about photographers passing up the

opportunity to create images with more impact. Ben S,

for example, does a very nice job of commenting his

portraits and elevating them.

 

Who wrote this rule about images needing to stand on their

own? I see lots of images here that do have a powerful emotional component... including yours. So in practice I think many

images do quite well standing alone.

[vasilis]

Nothing bad with creating a more "aesthetic reality", photography and generally arts are not necessarily for recording the truth. All arts and in the end a lot of other human activities are trying for "completeness" or "truth", but this target is difficult or impossible to achieve. Paintings and photos try by images, music by sounds, novels by using words etc.. the goal always is to let know someone else what you felt at the time (more or less). For my part I think that the most sophisticated tools are not pictures but language and music.

[bruno]

<i>No need to set such unattainable absolutes as benchmarks for photography doesn't exist for any other art form so why should photography be burdened by same?</i>

<p>

In fact, I'm not saying it should be burdened by this, but it looks like:

<ul>

<li>It is what is happening, or viewers expect.

<li>Many photographers are thriving for this

</ul>

Probably it comes from some sort of "overexposure" to images, I don't know. Fact is, if people go into museums they find it quite "normal" to study more in depth a painting.

<p>

Rarely I see people taking the time of even reading the caption of a photograph... just put an image in the rating queue and you'll know what I mean.

<p>

It's not a "rating queue" complaint. It's just a statement about how people view pictures.

[vasilis]

Bruno, you cannot compare a museum to the web. It is normal that something in a museum will get more attention if it is a painting or a photograph. If you put paintings in a rating queue then it will be the same thing. Apart from that I think that you have a point because our age is oversaturated with images ... Paintings and photos apart from that are a parallel process, all the signals come at the same time. Music and novels, for example, are serial and they "require" a certain amount of time and attention.